Look Into My Eyes!


Look into my eyes. Come on. Look. From now on, you’ll only do exactly what I think is right, and you’ll forswear anything that annoys me.

No, don’t look away.

What do you mean that didn’t work?

I have it on the best authority of the left that this works perfectly well, or at least works perfectly well when used by a member of the same “class” which these cays means same general “widget class.” (You know, you share superficial characteristics, like the same skin tone, or the same general education, or the same sex, or the same general attraction, or the same… etc. etc.)

This is how you come across women saying things like “If men don’t want me to treat them like crap, they shouldn’t do–”  And the list that follows is something that 99% of men wouldn’t do or think of doing.  Say, feeling up a strange woman in public transport; or call out rude things to women, or even the rather innocuous “expect all women to smile.”

Uh…. okay, so, I presume they think that men can psychically control other men. Because if men can’t, then this makes no sense whatsoever.

Men do this too, btw.  “If women don’t want me to treat them like brainless morons, they should stop acting like bubble heads.”  Or “If women don’t want me to treat them like sluts, they should stop being attracted to–”  Or “If women don’t want me to assume they’re all leftist, they shouldn’t act like–”  Uh… Dude. If I had any control over the crazy-ass slut-walkers do you think they’d still be dressing like sluts and demanding you don’t look at them?

And yet, you get this constantly.  You complain about some form of mistreatment and you get told that you personally deserve this because someone like you did something bad.

Now while it goes somewhat the other way, a lot of this is about classes of people the left has decided they don’t like: white people, men, rich people, poor people, women who aren’t leftists… well, pretty much anyone who doesn’t sing from the leftist hymnal.

Inevitably, if you complain about some crazy cakes leftist behavior towards someone, you get as an answer “well, someone like you did this.”

Um… do they think people who look alike/are in similar circumstances share a brain?  Which brings to mind another question “do they share a brain? Is that why they’re extrapolating”  Don’t answer that.

And then there are the even crazier demands. We’ve all heard them:

-It should be safe for women to walk down the street in any neighborhood after dark without being assaulted.

Uh… okay. But how do you plan to enforce that? How is it even possible?  Even if 99.9% of guys were completely decent and chivalrous (what is the rate of criminals per 1000? Specifically criminals who are dangerous to women?  Is it much higher than 1 per 1000? I don’ even know, because of course this is per neighborhood, not per country or even humanity as a whole.) there would be that one man in one thousand.  Can you be sure that one man in one thousand isn’t in that street you’re proposing to walk down right now?

And of course, that one man in one thousand won’t attack just one woman. No, he’ll attack dozens or perhaps hundreds of them until he’s stopped. (BTW this is the craziest ass response to saying women should learn self defense. I will quote: “No, because then the man will just attack another woman who isn’t defended.”  Uh. No he won’t. Because if you’ve effectively defended yourself, you made sure he either can’t or will have serious trouble attacking anyone. Look here, sister, paraplegics rarely become serial rapists. Note I don’t say never. But you can certainly reduce someone’s criminal career.)

So, how are men — and why are men more capable of this than women? Don’t know. But this demand is usually made of “men” in general — supposed to prevent that one man in a thousand from attacking women?

Don’t know. I can’t get crazy women from demanding that they “should be safe to walk down any street.”  I mean, I completely agree with them that they SHOULD. In a perfect world, we should all be safe all the time. But that doesn’t make it imperative, or furnish any mechanism to make that happen.

Because here’s the thing: you can’t get into people’s heads and make them act the way you want them to. Even if the way you want them to act is like decent human beings, and that’s it.  You don’t want them to sing, dance, be able to speak Greek and Latin, or suddenly, overnight, become endowed with the capacity to always be charming and polite. No, all you want to do is keep them from acting like animals, attacking strangers, hurting and stealing from others.  That’s all you want.

But you can’t do it.  There is no method known to anyone of making everyone on the planet act decently. NONE.  There’s always going to be that one person, male or female, who thinks it is great fun to hurt others and take their stuff.  The more subtle of them even disguise it and get away with it longer.  And you can’t stop it, because you can’t get in their heads and make them quit doing it.

Sure, punishment has some effect. Deterrence — via punishment, or just the possibility of a potential victim defending him/herself — has some effect…  Actually those are the only two things that have some effect.  Note I said “some.”

However there is no real way of making a criminal stop committing crimes other than death.  And I’m absolutely serious about that.

Sure, paraplegics have trouble committing sexual assault, but we’re probably going to find out at least one person who somehow managed it.  We know castration, real or chemical doesn’t work to stop sexual assailants.  We know even what we’d consider cruel and unusual punishment, like lopping off hands don’t stop theft. Sure, they deter it, but they don’t stop it.  And we know even the threat of public hangings never stopped murder. Sure, they might make it less likely (this is incredibly difficult measure, of course) but they didn’t stop them completely.

This is because humans are — get this — individuals.  And some individuals will be twisted.  (And no, you can’t fix it with education, early childhood support or tender loving care. Being twisted is part of the human make up.  You know, the heart is wicked and deceitful and all that? Yeah.) And some will not ever realize they should control their desires to do bad things to others.

It doesn’t matter how few those are. They are going to exist. And if they exist, there’s always the possibility of their victimizing someone.

Even the safest societies have crime, and criminals.

So what can you do about it?

You defend yourself. You teach other people to defend themselves. You make it less likely that the criminal, be he one in two or one in a thousand succeed.

Because you’re not psychic. And you don’t have psychic control over everyone else.  And neither does anyone else. No, not even people who look like whatever specific criminal.

I agree with you: no one should be murdered; no woman should be attacked; no child should ever be abused; heck, no pet should ever be abused.  The world should be a safe and happy place, where everyone wakes up with a smile and goes to bed thinking happy thoughts.

Where we disagree is the idea that I — or anyone — can get in the head of someone determined to act against moral or law and make them refrain.

I can’t do that, and I don’t think you can either.

So stop trying to Svengali, and start making like an adult, who ensures his or her own safety.  And who doesn’t cry “but it shouldn’t be that way.”

Because trust me, if anyone could control the way other people behave, you’d have stopped whining long ago.

239 thoughts on “Look Into My Eyes!

  1. How do I make it safe for a woman to walk around after dark?

    She is trained and competent, and armed as she decides. So are the other ladies. The ladies tend to end the nonsense. I would be hard to persuade, in a court of Law, that anything she did was “excessive” under the circumstances.

    When caught, any attacker, not terminated or permanently incapacitated by the would-be victim, has a very bad time of it. Very. Presume I mean “by the proper authorities”, of course. Very bad time. Roman bad time.

    Examples are made. Stories get told. A cultural norm is established and enforced.


    1. Sympathetic to your point of view, and generally agreed – when the actual guilt of the attacker is 100% established.
      Anything less than that, and there’s a probability that someone is labelled “attacker”, and harmed (as in Roman bad time) because someone who identifies as a victim made an accusation for whatever personal reasons that didn’t include an actual, y’know, attack.

      And then there’s the difficulty of getting everyone to agree on what an “attack” is: If he is angered by circumstances and yells at her, is that an attack? If the intemperate yelling includes anything the hearer perceives as a threat (“people who do what you did should be spanked” – yes or no, defend your decision), it starts looking like what the law oft defines as assault.

      Absent a perfect police state with perfect surveillance to provide perfect evidence, you can’t even dump that decision (attacked, or not?) onto a jury. And you wouldn’t want to.

      So, I fear your method of making it safe is only slightly better than “every woman should be safe…” thinking.

      All we can really do is to move the probabilities; i.e. make it safer. Which isn’t as attractive, because you can’t just do something and it’s done; you have to work at it every day of your life. But that’s the cultural norm you want — a vast majority of people (men AND women) making it safer for other people, so that the nominal .1% of bad guys are so infrequently able to act-out successfully that it never becomes a habit for them.

      1. Like this? “We should always believe a woman when she says she was sexually assaulted*.” “Like in the case of Emmett Till?”

        *Note: Probabilities suggest most sexual assault claims are true. But the moment you jump from “most” to “all” you have a problem.

        1. Alas, especially now in the US and some other western countries. In Sweden? Um, in Malmo and a few other places? Yes, 100%. Because society has gotten so disfunctional. For the places where sanity still hangs on by a thread? I need more evidence than “Because I said that he did it you must believe me even if it was 30, 40, 50 years ago.”

        2. Lately people are believing it has occurred even when the “victim” says nothing happened. See Saturday night’s nyt claims against a certain scotus justice.

          1. The accuser (who ought be distinguished from the “victim” as the latter claims no recollection of the event; either it was so traumatic her mind blanked it out or the practice was so common at Yale parties in that era that distinguishing any given practitioner is impossible) claims to have reported it to the FBI … which leads to imagining the scene at FBI headquarters when the Director instructs agents to investigate every drunken party at Yale in the relevant time period. Exactly what evidence could they produce?

            This from the people who defended Bill Clinton.

            1. The damning evidence against Kavanaugh continues to accumulate:

              New Kavanaugh book says seven people back up Deborah Ramirez allegation. Who are they?
              by Byron York
              A much-discussed article by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, authors of the new book The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, revives the story of Deborah Ramirez, the woman who, during last year’s Supreme Court nomination fight, said that a drunken Kavanaugh thrust his penis at her (she was also drunk) at a party at Yale during the 1983-1984 school year.

              Pogrebin and Kelly claim that extensive evidence supports the Ramirez allegation. “At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge,” they write in the article.


              Still, what did those seven people say? Pogrebin and Kelly had the opportunity to describe that at length in their new book. But a look at the book, which will be officially released tomorrow, shows the authors do not offer much there either. The role the seven people played in the Ramirez matter is discussed mostly in two places, pages 64-67 and pages 262-263. Here is a look at who they are and what they said, as described by Pogrebin and Kelly:

              1.) Ramirez’s mother. Pogrebin and Kelly report that Ramirez “does not remember telling anyone about [the alleged incident] at the time.” Later, though, while Ramirez was still in college — meaning in the following two or three years — Ramirez had a talk with her mother, Mary Ann LeBlanc. According to the book, they were in a restaurant, and Ramirez began crying. “[She] confessed through tears, ‘Something happened at Yale,'” the book reports.

              Something happened at Yale. According to Pogrebin and Kelly, that was all Ramirez told her mother at the time, and it was all Ramirez told her mother about the alleged incident for the next 35 years, until Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court.


              2.) Kenneth Appold. A suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale who is now the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, Appold was an original source for the New Yorker story that first reported the Ramirez allegation. … Appold “first heard about the alleged incident … either the night it occurred or a day or two later.” Appold said an eyewitness told him the story and that he believes it is true because what he heard matches Ramirez’s account even though Appold has never spoken to her.


              3.) Michael Wetstone. A Kavanaugh classmate, the authors note that Wetstone “confirmed to the New Yorker that he remembered Appold telling him about the same incident in graduate school.”


              6. & 7.) Chad Ludington and James Roche. Pogrebin and Kelly write that “two other people from Kavanaugh and Ramirez’s Yale class, Chad Ludington and James Roche, vaguely remember hearing about something happening to Ramirez during freshman year.”

              That is the seven. Number 1, Ramirez’s mother, based her account on four very unspecific words from her daughter 35 years ago. Number 2, Appold, based his account on a memory of being told something by a “witness” who could not recall the incident at all. Number 3, Wetstone, heard it from Appold. Number 4, Oh, overheard something from someone he doesn’t remember that did not connect the incident to Kavanaugh. Number 5, Anonymous, is totally unclear. And Number 6 and Number 7, Ludington and Roche, had “vague” memories that also did not connect an unspecified incident to Kavanaugh.

              That is enough for Pogrebin and Kelly, who conclude, “The claims of Deborah Ramirez, while not proven by witnesses, also ring true.” Perhaps that will convince some readers. For others: When anti-Kavanaugh partisans cite “substantial corroboration” for Ramirez’s allegation, it’s good to keep in mind who really said what.

              1. Hearsay legal definition of hearsay – Legal Dictionary
                A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
                It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify.

                In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.

                1. Unless, of course, those statements are made to a LEO and are incriminatory. Thus the infamous FBI ‘302’ forms.

                  Therefore, as Professor Duane reminds us, Don’t Talk to the Police.

              2. So — “some people (but we don’t actually know who) did something” — MAYBE. Are those really the rules you want to live by, Kate, Robin?

                1. Those are the rules they want us to live by. One set for me, a different set for thee.

                  I swear, if drag a hundred-dollar bill through the NY Times news room, you never know what you’ll find.

            2. And pay no attention to the fact that the accuser was on the opposite side of the Whitewater legal brouhaha from the future SCOTUS justice. Doing a favor for Her Highness or revenge, or perhaps both?

        3. And if you don’t have a problem right that minute (and I think you do) you soon will.

          ‘Believe all women’? Anyone who thinks that won’t spawn hundreds, if not thousands, of false accusations is living in a particularly unconvincing dreamworld. And if the false accusations never result in any consequences?

          The Feminists REALLY don’t want to go there. I know they thin’ they do, but they don’t. Because that is the perfect recipe for a backlash of horrible potential.

        1. Yeah, I’ve always thought appropriately perforated and exsanguinated attempted rapists, with no charges and civic commendation to any victims that come forward and no attempt to track down any that don’t, would transmit a clear message and tend to deter all but the most undeterrable rapist-wannabe.

  2. I’d say the main reason leftists like to impose so many rules, yet frown on actual self-defense, is because the former makes them feel powerful, and the latter – powerless.

    For the former, the main thing to notice is that they never go against the most obvious and frequent offenders. Then never comment on gang violence, or sexism and dangers to women in ghettos, never mind the abuses in the up. Instead, they take out their frustrations on the middle-class – the people who both have the most to lose in terms of public image and station, and the least means in terms of legal protection. The left enjoys flexing muscles on precisely the people least likely to show resistance… up until election day, as it turned out a few years ago.

    Meanwhile, actual cases of effective self-defense, with citizens turning the tables on their attackers, tend to shatter the image the left has of the world. Namely, that everyone is either a victim or a villain, so they can feel good about themselves by pretending to be heroes who “just” missed the opportunity to help. As if they’d actually be of help to begin with. For delusional individuals like that, there’s nothing more disempowering than the image of a thug accosting a nice little old lady… who then proceeds to pull a .38 out of her purse and give him an extra nostril.

    And the reason for this is that, in this situation, nobody needs them. Nobody wants their involvement, and to their self-absorbed minds, that’s tantamount to a death sentence.

    1. “Then never comment on gang violence, or sexism and dangers to women in ghettos, never mind the abuses in the upper political and media circles (under penalty of mysterious accidents or sudden suicidal urges, perhaps).”

      Typo fix.

    2. For delusional individuals like that, there’s nothing more disempowering than the image of a thug accosting a nice little old lady… who then proceeds to pull a .38 out of her purse and give him an extra nostril.

      They did a lot of damage to their power when they threw in effort to punishing said little old lady who HAD a pistol because her grandson joined the military after 9/11, and wanted MawMaw to be safe when he was not there to defend her.

      And the gun rights groups got a lot of good will by showing up to help said ladies, which really damaged what those guys from the ghetto “knew” about crazy right-wingers.

      1. And the gun rights groups got a lot of good will by showing up to help said ladies, which really damaged what those guys from the ghetto “knew” about crazy right-wingers.

        It really says something about how far up their nether regions these guys keep their heads when they are shocked that a gun rights group shows up to support the right of a little old lady to own a gun.

        1. Nah, can’t blame it on a personal flaw when the kids had simply never been exposed to the truth, much the ones who were actively lied to. They “knew” that pro-gun groups hate minorities and want to be able to shoot them at will.

          It’s the folks who reject the evidence of their eyes for what they were told should be that have said flaw.

          1. The ones that escape it start the painful process of learning late. For the most unfortunate, they’ve been consistently denies even the tools to discern truth from lies. Deliberately, I do believe.

            It is this more than any other that leads me to label such a pernicious package of pestiferous belief a “cult.”

        2. They’ve never forgiven the NRA for turning up in the South during the Fifties, arming and training Civil Rights activists, making the after dark drive-bys so popular back then far less safe.

          1. I don’t think the vast majority of them even KNOW about that. The Progressive Left has done such a thorough job of eradicating all knowledge of the Democrat Party as the Party of the Confederacy, of Jim Crow, and of the KKK.

            Oh, people like you and I know. People who don’t buy into Teh Narrative. But the average Antifa twit probably has some dim idea that the Confederate States of America were a Republican conspiracy, and that the GOP voted against the Civil Rights bill of 1968 in a body.


            No, what makes them HATE the NRA is a little closer to the present day. They lump ALL gun owners into the NRA, and are HORRIFIED at what happened to thier dreams for Gun Control between, say, Watergate and now.

            In the late 1970’s it was generally assumed that, within a couple of decades at the outside, handguns would be banned almost everywhere. As late as 1986, 40 states issued concealed carry permits solely at the whim of senior law officials. Then that started to change.

            Now, only 8 States still cling to ‘may issue’ laws, and 16 States have ‘Constitutional Carry; no permit required for concealed OR open carry.

            The Progressives are hysterical. And they blame the NRA. In cold fact, the NRA was late to the party, but the Proggies can’t tell the difference.

    3. In other words, the left behaves like a street thug attacking random passersby, and should be dealt with accordingly.

    4. Case in point for the House Red Flag bill. When one of those deplorable GOP congresscritters offered an amendment to have *proven* gangbangers (on the gang watchlist, and corroborated) subject to the RF, the Dems voted it down. (The stories from Chicago where the politicians are quite cozy with the gang members absolutely have nothing to do with it. Has somebody seen my eyeballs? I think they might be under the desk.)

      1. “Has somebody seen my eyeballs? I think they might be under the desk.”

        Oh. Is that the other pair mine are looking at? BTW, when someone picks up yours, will they grab mine for me?

        OTOH. They really expect us to believe what they are spouting?

        1. They really expect us to believe what they are spouting?

          They expect to not be called on their lies. Not exactly the same thing.

      2. “Red Flag” laws…

        It is helpful when the Enemy is so blatantly obvious.

        What, exactly, does a “Red Flag” symbolize in current politics? What sort of show trial does the Red Flag herald?

  3. Oh Sarah, Sarah, Sarah…you’re calling for people to be adults, to take personal responsibility for their own safety, and to understand that the only person’s behavior that they are guaranteed they can change is themselves. This is in direct antithesis to the central tenets of the infantilized leftist religious dogma, which insists that nothing is the fault of any good leftist and that some(nebulous)one else should do something to protect the leftists from anything bad they can imagine. All us normals understand instictively that that is a childish and impossible worldview, but you’ll never convince leftists of it. Well, maybe if they’re actually victims of a crime and realize that they had the capability of preventing it or at least mitigating it and chose not to, they’re eyes may be opened. But that’s not the way to bet.

    1. understand that the only person’s behavior that they are guaranteed they can change is themselves.

      I’ve seen little evidence that Leftists believe anyone can change personal behaviour. If that were true, homosexuals could restrain their sexual urges, “underprivileged” could resist economic forces compelling them to criminality, women could ignore male catcalls …

      1. Oh, I wasn’t suggesting that Leftists are capable of doing any of the things that Sarah was enjoining them to do. I agree with you, they don’t seem capable of understanding pretty much anything about the normal human behavior that is clear and obvious to the rest of us.

        1. Oh I believe the *capability* is there. Or perhaps better said, the potential. But there is no resource so inexhaustible as wasted potential, is there? *chuckle*

          Confronting one’s own deeply held beliefs is hard. That’s why most folk don’t do it. And also why we should.

  4. I offended a guy who was doing the group guilt thing– his was that he now refused to treat any women as ladies until they’d “proven” they were ladies, to his satisfaction, because “they” weren’t polite enough (as a group) for him.

    He was extremely pissed when I pointed out that meant he was not a gentleman, just a rather odd form of thug who might be placated by the right behavior.

    (Manners are a sunk cost. That’s part of why they’re admirable. The other part is related to the Luke 6 “if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is there to you?” thing.)

    1. You’re really talking about the high-trust society, I think. Because it starts with assuming the other person is good (or at least tolerable) until they prove they’re not.
      Yeah, ya get taken advantage of sometimes, that way – but on the whole, life is much more pleasant and efficient.

      1. That phrase is sometimes used to describe part of it, yes, but both the guy I was talking to and myself were speaking in terms of basic manners.

  5. It should be safe for women to walk down the street in any neighborhood after dark without being assaulted.

    Uh… okay. But how do you plan to enforce that? How is it even possible?

    *crazy grin and starts drawing up plans for a gun-studded mecha*

      1. Oddly enough, I just looked up Haganai and Oreimo on wiki today. One of those has a fujoshi with a fetish for mecha on mecha sex.

    1. Fusion powered robot spiders made of guns. And they are lippy.

      10 foot tall Mobile Infantry jump armor with a 30mm rifle on one shoulder, a Y-rack launcher in the middle of the back, and a multi-killowatt plasma gun on the other shoulder.

      Anime version gets a katana too. ~:D

        1. [Big girl voices.]

          As she neared the scuzzy neighborhood her place was in, it began to dawn on Siska that other people were looking at her funny. Open mouthed, staring, pointing. She looked back hard at the old lady nearest her. “What’s the matter, you old bitch?! You never seen a whore before?”

          “She isn’t looking at you. She’s looking at me.” It was the nice voice that had saved her.

          Siska turned around and found the giant spider was there. She reached out a hesitant hand to touch its black hair, to make sure it was real. Sure enough, it felt like hair. It was coarse and harsh, how Siska imagined horse hair would be.

          “What are you doing here?” she asked, mostly for something to say. In her present mood, she didn’t much care what the spider was doing, but she liked its voice and hoped it would talk more.

          “I came along to see what you would do,” said the spider. “Nammu told me to watch you, and this is the best way I could think of.”

          “Who are you?” asked Siska, to keep it talking.

          “I am semi-autonomous ground combat vehicle SAGC-425,” said the spider with evident pride. “Skadi gave me that number because it stands for a Buick Nailhead, and that is a cool engine. George said it was cool, so it must be true.”

          “Okay,” Siska agreed, even though she had no clue what a Buick was, or a Nailhead, or how an engine could be anything other than boring and stupid boy stuff. Horst never shut up about his rally cars, she paid no attention to it. “Ground combat vehicle means you are like a tank? Like the Army?”

          “A tank? Please,” said the spider dismissively. “I can run rings around those things. I have a hyper velocity railgun, a plasma gun and a bunch of little bean-shooter guns in smaller calibers too. I am a Fury!” Then it did a little dance. “Furies are infantry support and screening vehicles for the Valkyries. We are very cool.” It swayed in a circle like Donna Summer at a disco, waving a foreleg to the people watching.

          [There are also lippy scorpions!]

          The lobby was the usual controlled-access arrangement, security desk with bullet-proof glass on one side and entry door beside it. She deactivated the security door lock herself, as the guard was showing no signs of reaching for the buzzer. “Stairs,” she said as she ushered Laura through. At Laura’s look of inquiry, she said “Because there’s a bomb in the elevator.”

          “Somebody doesn’t like you, Laura,” said Kurio shaking her head. “Hey guard lady! Bomb in the elevator! Got it? Clear the building!”

          The guard narrowed piggy eyes at her and didn’t move. She paled a little as the scorpions began crowding through the outer doors and trooping across the lobby, but beyond putting her hand on her pistol again, she still didn’t move.

          Kurio blinked and a scorpion left the crowd to join her next to the security desk. “You asked for it, guard lady,” she said. “This is SAGC-762. She will be looking after you now, since you seem a bit too stubborn to look after yourself.” The scorpion clambered up the open rear counter and winked an eye at the guard. “If you shoot that little Glock at her she’s allowed to taser the hell out of you.” Kurio ran through the security door and off across the tile floor after the departing Athena and Laura, leaving the guard alone with the robot.

          The scorpion batted her big eyelashes at the guard. All eight sets. “Tee-hee!” she giggled, while clicking her pincers. “Hiya! Are you ready to party, cutie?”

          “Shee-it,” mumbled the guard, “that’s a Texas-sized one.” Then it sank in what the robot had said, and she got angry again. “Who you callin’ cutie, bug?! I ain’t gay!”

          “That’s okay,” said the scorpion, batting her eyes some more. “I won’t hold it against you. Do you want to come outside with me now, or should I drag your unconscious body out after I zap you?”

          “Try it, bug! I’ll blow your goddamn head off!” The guard drew her sidearm and pointed it at the scorpion. She was barely trained in using the gun, qualification once a year and nothing more, but figured she didn’t have much to lose at that point. Events were moving far too fast for her to keep up, so she defaulted to bluster just like she had since public school. Once a bully, always a bully.

          The scorpion, being a nanotech construction, was faster than a striking sidewinder. She reached out a pincer and plucked the gun from the guard’s grasp, just as the spider SAGC-425 had disarmed Horst in Amsterdam that morning.

          “HEY!” roared the guard. “Gimme that!” She lost her mind at that point and tried to climb over the counter to get her pistol back. Her heft defeated her though, she couldn’t get a leg over the top. “That there is gubmit property!”

          “Really?” said the scorpion in a deliberately saucy way. “It’s in a shocking condition for an issue weapon, dear. When was the last time you cleaned this thing?” Using her pincers and two front legs in a disturbing demonstration of insect dexterity, she extracted the magazine and racked the slide. “You carry chamber empty?” she exclaimed in surprise. “You and I need to talk, ducky. This is really inexcusable.”

          The scorpion ticky-tacked her way through the little half-door in the counter, eight clawed feet tapping on the hard tiles like a dog’s toenails.
          The guard shank up against the counter as the scorpion came around. A monster on the other side of the counter is bad, but right in there with you is much worse.

          “Relax, I don’t bite,” said SAGC-762. “Here, take this back and holster it.” She handed the guard her pistol, then the magazine. “Stick the mag in your pocket. You’re under my protection now, and I don’t want you shooting some poor human by accident. Now come out, and we’ll go outside where it’s safe.”

          “I ain’t goin’ nowhere!” said the guard, fumbling with her pistol. The fear and anger had set in and her manual dexterity was suffering. She felt like her hands were feet.

          “Try not to be an idiot,” said the scorpion patiently. “There really is a bomb, and if it goes off it will make quite a mess of this lobby. Come on, we’ll just go outside, and put some concrete between us and the bad things. You can keep the tiny Glock loaded if it makes you feel better. Okay?”

          The guard shook her head, trying to get a grip. She had her gun back, the bug wasn’t trying anything sneaky, and all the other guards were already outside. She could see them trotting away from the building with another scorpion. That one’s tail-gun wasn’t pointed at the armed men it was escorting. It was pointed back at the building.

          “Why is there a bomb in the goddamn elevator, bug?” she demanded. Anger was starting to win over fear, and she still had a job to do. “Ain’t nuthin’ important in this here building, just a bunch of paper-pushers!”

          “The paper-pushers made the bomb,” said the scorpion. “They don’t like Laura. They think she’s going to spoil some plan they are pursuing. They used ammonia cleaner and a bunch of other stuff to make an Improvised Explosive Device. Joke is on them, Laura’s armor can withstand that bomb. But you don’t have any armor. You need to leave.”

          “Fine!” said the guard crossly, pushing the scorpion’s pincer aside and hurrying out of the guard office toward the exit door. “Come on, bug! Y’all wanna get blowed up?”

          “Coming!” caroled the scorpion and clattered her way out the door. “What changed your mind?”

          “Them bugs out there is pointing their guns back here,” she said, puffing as she hurried across the sidewalk, away from the door. “I ain’t staying to be a target.”

          “That is an excellent point,” exclaimed the scorpion. “You are much smarter than you look, guard lady.”

          “I know what I look like!” snarled the guard as she hurried, walking fast. “I ain’t no prom queen like them fashion models of yours, smart ass! Ain’t never been.”

          “Is that why you were mean to Laura?” asked the scorpion. Humans were very mysterious.

          “She’s snooty!” said the guard. “Thinks she can get whatever she wants with a snap of her fingers. Any time I can take one of them Washington types down a peg or two, I do it. Whoo! I’m out of breath! I ain’t ran that far in years. Just gimme a second, bug.” She leaned against the concrete, breathing hard. “How come the fashion models is here anyway? Y’all ain’t got men to look out for ya?”

          “Athena is a Valkyrie,” replied the scorpion, scanning the area with all its eyes, looking for trouble. “Kurio is a ninja. Laura is an FAA space lawyer. She’s here to kick some asses in the bureaucracy. We suspect foul play of a particularly disgusting nature.”

          “Valkyrie huh?” wheezed the guard. “That some kinda European thing? German or somethin’?”

          “Something like that,” conceded the scorpion. She was becoming a bit alarmed by the guard’s breathing. “You don’t look well, you know. Should I get us some help? Medical assistance is just around the corner over there.” She waved a pincer.

          “I ain’t gonna have no heart attack, if that’s what you’re saying,” she said harshly. “I smoke too much. Gimme a minute and I’ll be fine.”

          “I was thinking asthma attack,” said the scorpion, putting a forelimb next to the guard’s neck, and another across her back. “Be quiet a second, let me listen.” She kept up her scanning of the street while she listened to the guard’s lungs. “Good news, you’re not going to die right now. Bad news, that’s because you’re going in Athena’s ambulance. There are about forty really bad things wrong with you. What the hell have you been doing to yourself? Drinking battery acid?”

          “Moonshine,” admitted the guard. “Might have a tad bit of battery acid innit.”

          “You’re wrecking your body on purpose? Humans are so weird!” complained the scorpion.

          “Says the giant bug,” wheezed guard, standing up and moving off down the sidewalk again. “You gonna tell me how come giant bugs is running around Sky Harbor airport, gruesome?”

          “Yes I am, right after I get that stomach ulcer fixed and clear all the nasty gunk out of your lungs,” snapped the scorpion. “Is Gruesome my new name, guard lady? Very funny.”

          “Sure is, Gruesome,” agreed the guard, wheezing out a laugh as she labored forward. “I’m Etta. Henrietta really, but the world is full of smart asses that keep calling me Henry. I ain’t no Henry!”

          The rounded the corner of the building, to find Athena’s ambulance. Henrietta was not impressed. “Seriously, bug? A goddamn flying saucer? With pods too! Y’all been watching too much crappy television, ain’t ya?”

          “It’s just a drone, try not to be such a smarty pants,” said the scorpion wearily.

        2. In the online game The Secret World, one of the big Orochi Group combat drones found in Tokyo is a quest giver (the rest shoot on sight). And it has a synthesized little girl’s voice.

    1. Fun fact, last time I could get hold of a credible UN report on violent crimes by nation Great Britain, that bastion of extreme gun control, precisely the sort that many on the left are calling for, had a violent crime rate roughly five times that of the United States.

      1. I recall hearing something about them only counting murders when someone is charged, but I’ve not verified that.

        1. That’s been my understanding, too. Sounds kind of like certain cities (cough) Chicago (cough) who don’t count a shooting as a homicide if the victim makes it to the hospital and lasts a while before turning into an ex-victim.

        2. Sort of legit– they like to publicize their murder rate.

          Which is those instances where the guilty has been tried, convicted, and is out of appeals.

          They’re also counted the year that this happens, not when they were committed.

          The homicide rate is much squishier– and in that case, it’s determined by the can’t-remember-the-term-basically-a-jury saying “yeah, this is a homicide.”
          While we just need someone to go “we’re pretty sure this is a possible homicide, count it.”

          1. Closest analog to Home Office here would be DoJ, but they don’t control exactly the same areas.

  6. The only thing I’d add is that once you are prepared to defend yourself– keep an eye out and defend others, too.

    The goblins only have to be right in target choice once–so make sure they not only have to be right in target choice, but in environment.

    A simple “You alright?” when someone looks uncomfortable in a situation, or — for an example I did just recently– a big grin at the gas station and a “you guys have tie-downs? I have a few spares.*” introduces a witness and involvement, shifts the attitude and can prevent some hot-head from doing something he’ll regret.

    Just trying to make things better in general is a very good defense.

    All the more because it makes the predators obvious.

    *Work crew going across multiple states. The supervisors decided in the crowded gas station was the place to reorganize their load. While they got coffee. The kids had obviously never repacked before, and most of their equipment was low quality, but some perky little ditz jumping out of her car and asking if they needed a tie-down let them loudly announce that they had some, the brace on the other vehicle had just broken and they were repacking to safely move as quickly as possible. I didn’t figure out that was what I’d done until I realized that the folks hanging around weren’t being all huffy anymore.

      1. “Hon” gives me flashbacks of my time Baltimore. But I try not to let it show and take it in the spirit intended.

    1. “The only thing I’d add is that once you are prepared to defend yourself– keep an eye out and defend others, too.”

      Check out the law on force in defense of others…. both what’s on the books and what’s actually enforced in your jurisdiction (subject to change when moving from an American zone to Democrat Party zone), and also civil law as well as criminal. Because lawfare is real.

      The best source I know for that is here, run by Andrew Branca, for basics:


  7. And these utopian moralist will try to force people to fit into their ideologue generated mindset if they get into power. Then when individuals resist such oppression and tyranny, that’s when the gulags, death camps, and hit squads start being used.

    1. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? […] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!” —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

  8. That whole crazy-pants attitude that learning self defense is somehow contributing to the crime/rape culture/causing someone else ‘less defended to be a victim’ is just…I mean, I can’t even grok how insane that is.

    Although I suppose if you look at it from the proper angle–namely, that the people spouting this insanity want to be the ones threatening others and having power over them, and so they do NOT want people willing to protect themselves or others–it’s not so much insane as it is infuriating.

    I suppose what I have a hard time grokking is the useful idiots spouting it. The ones who CLEARLY will not be given any power come the revolution. How can they be THAT stupid?

    1. If hypothetical you were an intelligent predator, and in politics, you most likely would have the skills and habit of collecting a cluster of gaslit prey.

      Obviously thinking so much so much is something the idiots will not do, because it would violate the standards of the group they care about being.

      I’ll grant that most of them are not very skilled at thinking past the level of, say, a ten year old, and you have twenty or thirty years of developing thinking skill beyond that.

    2. I have a theory about that. In short, modern leftist mentalities tend to be strongly affected by pop-culture, particularly film and television. Now, in television (broadcast and basic cable, at least), the main characters exhibit what we can call “BS morality”. That is, a framework that doesn’t really function in practice, even in the universe the respective show takes place in… but is otherwise the least likely to get taken down by the Broadcast Standards enforcers of the respective network.

      For instance, a ton of shows in the 80’s and 90’s had the moral that physically standing up to school bullies is wrong, and people were supposed to “talk things out”. Not because it actually works, but because otherwise the show and network would be flagged as encouraging violence by minors or some such. The shows get around this crap by writing off the bully in various other ways, but the moral/conditioning remains – fighting back is wrong.

      The same goes for adults, sadly. Having the main characters of a sitcom or soap opera get beat up and robbed can be milked for all kinds of dramatic or indeed comedic effect. Having said characters pull a legally owned firearm and defend themselves and their loved ones – that just might earn the ire of some Concerned Citizen™ sending strongly worded letters, or get a few advertisers to pull out of the network… and we can’t have that.

      A pretty good chunk of leftist morality works the same way, really. Stances are supposed to make you look good and feel good, and whether they actually work – well, that’s a conservative talking point.

        1. I was always partial to the solution deployed by El Kabong. The wide-spread availability in pawn shops of inexpensive guitars makes it eminently affordable.

          1. And would reduce, if only slightly, the number of instruments of (alleged) musical torture.

            (A guitar played well is nice, sure. A guitar played poorly, loudly, and often… well, I am considerate enough to not own a sousaphone.

            That said, if need be, I do have access to a steam whistle and an air compressor.)

            1. A badly-played sousaphone (I played one badly back in junior high school, so I know whereof I speak) isn’t nearly as torturous as a badly-played clarinet, or violin.

              1. Obligatory Ian Fleming quote from Live and Let Die: “The clarinet: an ill woodwind that nobody blows good.”

                I proved to myself and the world at large that the trumpet was not my instrument.

                  1. I played both. Badly. For Clarinet for 4 years (starting 4th grade), and Oboe for 2, through 9th. Thankfully in HS Spanish, Science, & Math, blocked out band.

      1. I’m surprised the “Raiders of the Lost Ark” scene with Indiana Jones shooting the sword welder, hasn’t been cut. Doesn’t matter that it is a classic part of the film. AND it is a classic laugh “Idiot, you bought a knife to a gun fight.” Indy and company should have just submitted. I mean really, what were they thinking?

        Trying to think of more recent examples. Don’t go to the movies, so that option is closed. Shows I watch (okay tape) on the big 3 (ABC, CBS, NBC) have people defending themselves but the main characters are in law enforcement, they are suppose to defend themselves, and others (NCIS, all 3 varieties – yea, know they are inaccurate, so?) Others I tape are on FX and so, not politically compliant regarding violence (Killjoys – granted the way they portray the elite stereo type is weird, but hey, you know, they might be leftists … so given Hollyweird … self portrait?). The other one theme is “resisting the man (corporations)” in space, but I think it has been canceled. Otherwise what I’m taping to watch are travel and *HGTV: Pool Hunters, Expedition Unknown, Code of the Wild, Stay or Sell, Property Brothers, etc.

        * Yes. This means I’ve “rearranged” my home’s layout in my mind (but not furniture, nor most the appliances). That and a favorite “someday to build” plan we both like. Neither are happening, ever; without winning the lottery. Neither of us play the lottery … well when it gets huge, hubby’s golf club sometimes pools to get a number of tickets, so it could happen … won’t hold my breath, but …

        1. I’m surprised the “Raiders of the Lost Ark” scene with Indiana Jones shooting the sword welder, hasn’t been cut.

          The swordsman shot first. Or at least he will in the “digitally remastered” edition”, I guess. In all seriousness, the scene was planned as a drawn-out fight, and only altered due to Harrison Ford being ill; and films can get away with things like this depending on their age rating and target audience. Though nowadays, there are even further restrictions since half the films in Hollywood are marketed for China, meaning they need approval from the CCP, a stuck-up bunch of censors to rival the Saudi religious police.

          In general, though, the main drivers of censorship are advertisers. There’s a reason television, comics and social media are the first to dive into politically correct insanity, since they are most dependent on advertising revenue to function, meaning they need to tailor content even for groups outside their target demographics. To contrast, music, books and offline video games – who profit primarily from direct consumer payments, can chase after whichever audience group they fancy, and give the finger to everyone else.

          The good thing is, advertisers themselves are learning to recognize hostile non-consumers, and have begun ignoring them, choosing to sponsor content directly instead of relying on mediators. Youtube creators, for instance, can directly run a sponsored message within their videos, which are otherwise demonetized by the company itself. And if video streaming gets even more decentralized, including for series and feature-length films, you’d see a politically incorrect Renaissance altogether.

          1. Yes. Knew about Harrison Ford being sick and how scene came out the way it did (worked better). Not sure how remastering has the sword welder “firing first”, the guy was welding two large curved swords …

            Yea. Know about the rest. One of the reasons for “many channels” nothing on TV …

          2. Yes, “The swordsman shot first.” By engaging in clearly threatening challenge behaviour display he signaled his intent quite clearly, thus justifying Indy’s act of self-defense. That is why it is entirely legitimate for the State to Red-Flag all potential threats and deal with them summarily.

            The greater concern here is why the swordsman “shot” first. Was it because of the damage Indy had inflicted on the poor-but-honest merchants in the bazaar? Does not Indy’s behaviour symbolically represent Israel‘s actions in the Middle East, dispossessing and destroying the livelihoods of peace-loving indigenous peoples by bringing his foreign quarrel into their midst?

            For that matter, are the film’s Nazis really the bad guys or were they subtly manipulated by Indy’s wiles into a cunning Jewish trap?

            Questions for Representative Omar, I think.

            1. Heh. Reminds me of how people tend to over-analyze Temple of Doom, presenting it as some racist power fantasy with completely unbelievable villains… even though the evil sect in the film is a historical organization, and was apparently even more violent in real life. And also the source of the word “thug”. And now you know.

              (Though of course, they all pale in comparison to the vilest thing to ever grace the series… Cate Blanchett’s Russian accent. Seriously, she was one line away from asking Jones of the whereabouts of a certain Muus and Skvirrel.)

      2. Some examples of kicka$$ defense that immediately come to my mind would be the Charles Bronson Death Wish series and the Sylvester Stallone Rambo movies. All of them very popular and universally decried as low entertainment by the progressive left.

        1. Also the Taken trilogy, the first of which would probably be boycotted now, on account of the end-purchaser of the young ladies–including the protagonist’s daughter–being from the Middle East…

          1. Taken was an over-all thumbs up, but I had a dealio with the abduction premise: These traffickers had an iron-clad MO – lure the young women to a club, drug them, and enslave them there. Why, for our Protagonist’s daughter, did they break custom? Of course we know that it was to give Our Hero a thread to follow, otherwise it would have been a much shorter movie.

            1. I didn’t get that it was an ironclad MO–I got that it was one of many. The guy at the airport was clearly there on a regular basis–Brian found him there as soon as he got enough of the guy’s face to go looking (and knew that someone would be there, because Kim had told him just before her kidnapping that they’d met a guy at the airport). They weren’t clear on the young lady that Brian pulled out of the flophouse, but it was a different guy in that car we saw in her flashbacks, who seemed to have either gotten her at a party, at a club, or at a one-on-one date.

              And Kim they didn’t do the usual routine with for the sole reason that she was a virgin (I’m guessing there was a rough and ready–and likely somewhat traumatizing for the women, if they were conscious–exam shortly after abduction. Virgins would fetch a premium price, and so they did NOT want to get them hooked on hard drugs right off (too high a risk of death–as we saw with her friend who died at the ‘processing center’), though it’s clear they did keep Kim on some kind of drug going by the way she was staggering and struggling to stay upright at the auction, but was somewhat clearer-headed by the time Brian caught up to her on the boat.

              But yeah, it was to give an actual thread for Brian in terms of the plot. And because the writers had imposed that 96-hour time limit as well, things had to start unraveling quickly. 🙂

              1. Although rereading your post, I realize what you were getting at: why did they grab them at the apartment instead of waiting until the party he’d invited them to later.

                Personally, I think it’s because Amanda dropped the information that they had that apartment to themselves. That meant they could, in theory, grab both girls with no witnesses (there would be witnesses, albeit unreliable, at a club party) immediately. I don’t remember if she volunteered that information before or after the invitation–if before, it would have led him to change the usual method on the fly, if after, well, it was merely a social parting and a distraction. 😀

                  1. Yep. It is a movie. Not just a movie but an action movie. Not just an action movie but one made this century.

                    I don’t think Hollywood has produced an action movie with an actual logical plot since Silver Streak.

                    1. In double-checking the date at IMDb I discovered there had been a TV series based on the films. Season 1 ran about ten episodes, so my guess is streaming, not broadcast, but it might have been cable. Conceivably, if shot in the manner of an old-time serial or even 24 it might have some entertainment value, but mostly this is a “roller-Coaster” genre: leave your brain out of it and just ejoy the ride.


        2. I saw “The Born Losers” when I was still young enough to be impressionable. It was full of BadThink like “do the right thing, even if the Authorities roll over and pretend it’s not happening.”

      3. I dunno. Stuff like Karate Kid and Death Wish are the ones that stick out for me most strongly from those days.

        And Bart Simpson beat his bully by getting all the victims to hang up on him.

          1. “Gang up on the Bully” behind the “stadium”. Later might have taken it “off campus”.

            Sounds 1950’s to me … well maybe 1960’s, if you were in middle school. Thing is problem generally solved by the time everyone hit HS. Or so I’m told by someone who was older than 5 by 1960. I’m old, but wasn’t in school until ’62.

            1. I had some trouble with a bully in high school; pissed him off because I wouldn’t fight him but wouldn’t kowtow. My books got dumped a couple-three times. I did have to get a new locker assignment, from Back of Beyond to near the admin offices, but I suspect I built up a tiny bit of street cred because I got along with the greasers in metal shop (much to the despair of my advisor).

              Didn’t hurt that I knew as many dirty jokes as the guys in class; the bully was yet another rich bastard’s kid. Not sure, but sophomore year in HS was interesting.

        1. The Simpsons can be considered an adult-oriented cartoon, usually parodying the family-friendly cliches of the time; a bit like Married With Children. Anything airing on a Saturday morning, however – that’s another story.

          The Karate Kid is a peculiar case, in that the teen protagonist is limited to fighting within a designated tournament, and it’s his teacher that saves him when he’s attacked. Perhaps an elderly martial arts master beating up teen bullies was considered too unrealistic to emulate.

          As for Death Wish… I got nothing. Vigilante films in general slip through the cracks, though not without considerable controversy. Though again, they’re generally lower budget, making a profit from ticket and home video sales, and aren’t marketed toward impressionable children.

    3. Self-defense raises the stakes for criminals.

      Hypothetically, let’s say we have Alice and Betty. Alice carries a handgun in her purse everywhere she goes, and has a rifle and two shotguns in the trunk. She has slight hearing loss from practicing with them every weekend. Betty hates guns. She would never want to touch someone so icky, and she’d probably faint if someone fired one in her presence.

      Suppose you’re a predator. If you see these two women walking down the street, you’d almost certainly want to go after Betty rather than Alice. However, you have to ask yourself one question: are you absolutely SURE you know which one is Betty?

      1. Classic risk reward scenario.
        A credible argument can be made that a contributing reason for the drop in violent crimes (real according to FBI statistics, though you’ll never hear it from the media) can be attributed to the fact that concealed carry is now legal in all fifty states (with varying degrees of difficulty to obtain).

        1. I’ve been studying the gun statistics since the Canadian government made me an instant criminal for something I owned back in 1990/91.

          Two things I’ve learned. First, and most disappointing, scholars lie. All the time. Day in and day out, paper after article after letter in scholarly journals of medicine, public health, criminology, popular magazines, they LIE.

          Second, and most hopefully, in -all- the places that “shall-issue” concealed carry permits were made law, murder rates and violent crime rates dropped by double digits. 15% is about average.

          This of course means that the would-be robbers/murderers did not get shot by a Good Guy. This means that ~15% of them thought they -might- get shot and didn’t do the crime that time.

          Recall also that more than half of all violent crime and murder happens in only a few zipcodes in the USA. 15% is a huge improvement.

          Conversely, despite the many, many liars in the scholarly journals and press, violent crime and murder do not decrease when a new gun law is passed.

          1. There are some Canadians on the various concealed-carry forums. Some US states not only don’t require residency, they will issue carry permits to anyone “lawfully” in the United States. So when they have business south of the border they get their gun from wherever it was stored and carry it.

            Of course, a growing number of states don’t need no steekneeng carry permit… and several Federal courts have held that the Bill of Rights applies even to noncitizens, so, yes, Canadians *do* have Second Amendment rights while they’re visiting the USA. You’re welcome.

            I still think there’s a business opportunity; secure storage lockers near the US side of the border, for travelers needing a place to stash any of the *many* items which would apparently cause the collapse of Canadian society…

          2. IIRC Florida started this trend when the state bureau of tourism discovered that tourists in rental vehicles(rentals had a different coded tag than owner-vehicles) were getting robbed right out of the various airports. So the state senate changed the tag-type AND opened up the CCW laws. Assaults went down something like 30% the first year after the passage of those laws.

      2. I think I just read that story not too long ago, but it wasn’t someone preying on women, but pirates attacking Nicholas van Rijn’s ships. 🙂

        1. Once upon a time it was maritime malpractice to send an unarmed merchant ship across the ocean. No reason every merchant shouldn’t have belt fed machine guns fore, aft, and on each bridge wing.

          1. Your problem now is that while you’d be fine on the “high seas”, almost all ports ban weapons of all types, plus many countries apply their own laws out to their version of the three-mile limit.

            There are areas where there’s a *lot* of piracy; mostly around Africa and Malaysia. It’s great for the pirates since their victims are helpless to resist.

          2. https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/poor_honest_men.html

            “Napoleon’s embargo
            Is laid on all cargo
            Which comfort or aid to King George may intend;
            And since roll, twist and leaf,
            Of all comforts is chief,
            They try for to steal it from poor honest men!
            With no heart for fight,
            We take refuge in flight,
            But fire as we run, our retreat to defend;
            Until our stern-chasers
            Cut up her fore-braces,
            And she flies off the wind from us poor honest men!”

      3. When I was in Flat State, the state was 1. moving from “duty of retreat” to Castle doctrine and 2. considering going to May Carry. A university newspaper editorial bemoaned the idea of CCHL because then no one would know who might be armed. And someone wrote back, asking if any of the guys who had recently mugged students had permits. . .

        1. Some years back, when [my city] passed a CCL ordinance (not to be confused with CCL ordnance, although that would be great!) the local fish wrap editorialized about the probability of “Wild West Shootouts.”

          Proving they knew nothing about the American West than what they’d seen on TV (if that — most shoot-outs in television shows tended to have a: the good guys win b: the bad guys merely wounded, IIRC.)

          Clearly this is an area where serious research is needed and I am willing to accept a $10 million grant to spend the next five years watching DVDs of Gunsmoke, Wyatt Earp, Bonanza, The Big Valley, Cheyenne, Maverick, Sugarfoot, Have Gun, Will Travel, The Rifleman, Wanted, Dead or Alive and many other classics of that genre and era. Obviously, some research assistants will be required and applications will be reviewed for qualifications. Ability to pop corn is essential!

          1. Funny thing, watching the slow methodical progress from a mere handful of concealed carry states to having some form or fashion of it in all fifty, every time a state was prepared to vote on the issue the usual suspects dramatically cried “wild west shootouts, road rage killings!” And a year after passage none of their dire warnings actually came to pass. But that never stopped them from spewing forth the same drivel with the next state to consider similar legislation.
            And another fun fact, Utah has allowed armed teachers in colleges for going on ten years now. And just look at all the unjustified shootings and firearm accidents in Utah schools. (Here’s a hint, that record stands at zero.)

      4. Alice Haddison: “Proper Preparation Prevents Piss-Poor Performance!” [Alice is a big fan of the New York reload.]

        Alice was standing next to the canal in front of the restaurant, doing her final check. She had finished swearing at her suit to kill the gremlins, and was going through her personal equipment in preparation for the coming confrontation.

        “Wallet, phone, keys, gun, gun, knife, knife, knife, baton, cutter, breaching charge, mag, mag, mag, mag, rope, hook, first-aid, backup phone, matches.” She repeated it like a mantra, saying the word and touching each pocket as she did so, to make sure each thing was where it belonged. Then she did it again, because it hadn’t felt right the first time. Halfway through she stuck her hand in a pocket and pulled out a business card. “That’s what it was,” she muttered, happy to have identified the unknown anomaly.

        Siska looked on with mixed feelings of awe, fear, and admiration. “Do you really have all that on you?”

        “Better believe it,” muttered Alice absently, looking at the card. “This is my bare minimum.”

        1. Bare Minimum?

          Let’s not go there.

          Florida woman charged after argument over neighbor nudity ends in fatal shooting
          A Florida woman has been charged with murder after police say she killed her neighbor who became upset that she refused to close her blinds while walking around in her house in the nude.


          The day of the shooting, Washington had been engaged in an argument because she was in clear view of neighborhood children. A police report said the unnamed victim and another adult confronted her at her window and sprayed Washington with dog repellent. Washington, still naked, allegedly responded by grabbing a gun and firing into the victim’s back, killing her.

        2. *snicker*
          I did a scene like that in Luna City 3.1

          “Jess silently handed Joe a small, evil-looking pistol. Before Richard’s horrified gaze, Joe casually hiked up his pants leg and replaced the pistol in an ankle-holster.
          “You don’t need to talk about me as if I’m not here.” Richard demanded. “Are you always armed while attending to your social obligations?”
          “Sure, Ricardo – I’m never really off-duty; Colt in a shoulder harness, Kel-Tec in my sock, Ka-Bar in my other sock, switchblade in one pocket and a multi-tool in the other. And those are just my social-occasion arms. The professional gear is locked in the station gun-safe safe.” “

      5. Sometimes, the Tshirts make it easy:

        “Hell yes, we’ll take your AR-15” — Betty
        “That red dot on your chest means my father is watching” — Alice

      6. I may have told this one before… (also known as memory ain’t what it used to be)

        Friend of a friend back in College Town goes to the ATM. Said FoaF is a nice little old lady, but stout. Carries a rather large handbag wherever she goes. Looks a bit like Goth Grandma (eyes, not so good. Thus the makeup enhancement).

        A plucky young thug, say about twentish, decides today’s they day to make the big time. Armed robbery. It’s what all the cool thugs are doing, and he wants to be a cool thug, too.

        Unfortunately, he flat broke. All he has is a sharpened screwdriver.

        “Your money or your life!” Or something equally empty headed.

        Goth Grandma procedes to beat the ever-lovin’-beJAYZUS outta him with the extra large wrench she keeps in her rather large handbag.

        Fast forward a bit. Courtroom, morning docket. One mummified thug in traction moaning on about how it was an “Unprovoked attack!” et cetera.

        Goth Granny: “You do know them ATM machines gots cameras, right son?”

        I think it took about fifteen minutes for the laughter to die down…

        1. I know I’ve relayed this before, but some stories bear endless retelling:

          In NY, about fifty years ago, two muggers spot easy pickings, a well-dressed seventy-something man out walking late one night. They grab him in a swift pincer movement and when the dust clears they are unconscious on the pavement.

          It seems that while former heavy eight champ Jack Dempsey could no longer go fifteen rounds with anyone, they couldn’t go one-round with him.

          Dempsey talked about it in the 1977 autobiography which he co-wrote with his stepdaughter Barbara (‘Dempsey’, published by Harper & Row).

          He recalled: “Late one night, riding home in a taxi that had stopped at a red light, I saw two young punks running for the cab from both sides.

          “The cabby was frozen with fear as they flung the doors open, so I took care of the situation by swiftly belting one with a right and the other with a left hook, flattening them both.

          “In a way I felt sorry for them, having to hustle what they thought was the perfect victim – a nicely dressed older gentleman who would have forked over his money immediately rather than risk a fight.”

          Dempsey estimated that his attackers were “no more than nineteen or twenty” and added: “These were the kids that boxing would have helped, by rerouting their hostility and aggression until they developed a sensible defensive or offensive skill with pride instead of vengeance.”

          The best estimate is this happened in 1969 when Dempsey was about 75 years old.

        2. As I’m sure LawDog will point out if he sees this, Joe Critter isn’t known for thinking things through……..

          But at least he doesn’t need to feel put upon, because there isn’t a cop in America that has Moriarty for an opponent. 😎

      7. Concealed carry, or even just household weapons ownership, is like unto a vaccine – with the herd immunity being the gain, even with rather low vaccination rates.

    4. The crazy-pants actually makes sense, once you understand the motives involved.

      See, telling men (who by and large are less likely to but into the whole Woke business) that they must change give the Proggies leverage (or they imagine it does).

      Telling young women to defend themselves, on the other hand, fosters independence in a groups the Proggies view as belonging to them. That’s bad, and must be discouraged.

      The Proggies don’t compare and contrast these positions, or evaluate them logically, because their worldview cannot withstand much in the way of self-examination. Each separate impulse makes sense, and their sense of superiority covers the gaps for them.

      We, of course, recognize that their superiority to, say, cherrystone clams is questionable so we look for a CONNECTED logic, and it ain’t there.

      1. Cherrystone clams at least taste good (for those that enjoy clams) I suspect your average SJW/Proggie has a combination bitter and sour grape flavor that would be very unappealing

      2. BUT the Progs are telling women ALL THE TIME that a 110lb woman can beat up a 6′ 4″ 290lb in shape man. They show it ALL THE TIME. What is the poor woman going to do when she hits a man with everything she has and he just smiles????
        I know she pulls a gun and shoots him. But that is NOT what the Progs are telling her. They are telling her she is a PHYSICAL MATCH for the man. That is dangerous and will get women killed.

        1. Funny you should say that . ..

          Ballerina kicked cop in crotch after being told she was too drunk to fly
          That’s not how you audition for “The Nutcracker.”

          Police say a Spanish ballerina did a high kick — right into a cop’s crotch — after being told she was too drunk to get on a plane at London’s Heathrow Airport, according to a recent report.

          Daiana Andreas Rivera, 33, admitted she spun out of control on Tuesday after other travelers reported her for being drunk and disorderly at the Wetherspoon’s Flying Chariot pub in Terminal 2 …

    5. You forget that if you fight back the criminal becomes the victim. So instead of a victim YOU become an OPRESSOR. That is what the Progressives want to insure that YOU poor thing don’t become an OPRESSOR.
      You say “but he is OPRESSING ME”
      Prog “Oh, NO! He is a victim of society that is only fighting back against those who OPRESS HIM.”
      You say ” But I am not OPRESSING HM”
      Prog “You are White aren’t YOU?”.
      You “Alright, I’ll be a victim”

      1. Well, the ER staff is going to have to clean up the mess. OTOH, you’ve provided them some decent entertainment for the evening, so it evens out.

  9. “There’s always going to be that one person, male or female, who thinks it is great fun to hurt others and take their stuff. The more subtle of them even disguise it and get away with it longer.”

    What we have in the so-called ‘progressives’ is an entire sub-culture of people who think it is great fun to hurt others and take their stuff. And they aren’t even being all that subtle about it anymore.

          1. I am against that. Even though I meet rather more humans that seem to be in need of… modulation… than I care to. Still, they are in the minorities (and that is not the same as them being Minorities.)

          2. But the USSR was so very close. They created a society where everyone had their place, each a perfect round hole that fitted seamlessly into the matrix of the whole. Everyone was dependent on those selfless better people who laid out the future in glorious five year plans. And for those troublesome few square pegs who refused to shave off their corners and fit in their proper place? Well, Siberia was only a train ride away and plenty of room there for Gulag “education” camps to form the occupants into perfect Soviet citizens. Or kill them. Win/win for the powers that be.
            And it’s going to take several cups of strong coffee for me to wash the taste of that out of my mouth. But it is precisely the wet dream of every progressive socialist that ever was, and really only contains two fallacies: one, that they would be the ones in power, and two, that such control is impossible with real human beings.

            1. At least that’s the rosy picture painted by the fellow travelers in the USA.
              A rotting, crumbling shambles where nothing really worked- including the workers.

      1. I think you have to understand that a lot of them have no idea that the choice isn’t between the current setup and some imagined utopia, it’s often between the current setup and dire poverty/massive struggle. Seriously, if you have no sense of history or how much work it takes to survive (much of which is offloaded right now), it seems reasonable that the current setup is a baseline instead of a high point.

        Yes, there are lots of places for improvement. But if you try to restructure everything all at once, don’t be surprised when your jury-rigged edifice comes tumbling down under the weight.

  10. Hunh! Sorry – I cannot read this just yet, I keep dozing off at the start. Please keep me apprised of additional commentage while I go cut down a couple of oak trees, strip the branches and limbs then whittle them down for toothpicke to keep my eyes open long enough to get through that first sentence without toppling.

  11. “-It should be safe for women to walk down the street in any neighborhood after dark without being assaulted.”

    -WHY- should it be? If it isn’t now, and clearly it isn’t, then “should” is the wrong word. This is a want, not a normal condition.

    “I WANT it to be safe for women to walk down the street.” Now we’re getting somewhere. Now we are at a place where something can happen.

    Okay, that’s what you want. Me too. What’s your plan? Well, their plan is “teach men not to attack women”. I think that’s a stupid plan. This is North America, men are taught that from the cradle to the grave here. “No Hitting Girls” is a paramount cultural value. Its one of those “Whiteness” things we keep hearing about.

    But when I suggest that self defense is the only practical response when cultural values break down, oh the -screaming- and the gnashing of teeth! “Easy for you, Phantom, you sexist/racist/bigot/homophobe!!!11!

    Case in point, Bonnie McDaniel’s screaming recorded for posterity:


    It isn’t quite fair to pick on poor old Bonnie, because she’s only an example of a very common type. But she’s such a GOOD example, I’m going to go with it.

    Essentially the SJW argument is that they want the government to be responsible for their health and welfare, so they can lie back and relax in the big comfy couch of socialism. Somebody Like Sarah or me comes along and questions the practicality of that arrangement, and they freak the hell out like a 2 year old who’s having their Blankie washed. [Remember washing day? The horror!!!]

    1. Supposedly–although this is both anecdotal and historical anecdotal evidence at best, so take it with a grain of salt–once upon a time in the just-post-American-Revolution era, the Marquis de Lafayette was deeply impressed to note that an American woman could safely walk, alone, from one town to the other without being accosted or molested.

      He put it down to the fact that in the former colonies, being found guilty of rape was an execution offense, and figured that the fact that France no longer executed rapists was why incidents of rape had gone up…

      (Of course, the problem now is that apparently society is willing to define rape as “regretted it later” or “is pissed off at the other party and is looking for payback”, so…probably it wouldn’t work now.)

    2. -WHY- should it be? If it isn’t now, and clearly it isn’t, then “should” is the wrong word. This is a want, not a normal condition.

      Bad assumption– there are many things that ‘should’ be which are not, and normally are not.

      Think of it in terms of a computer functioning. A computer should function. That is the purpose.

      None the less, most of the computers ever built do not function right now.

      This ‘should’ is a statement of ideal, not a roadmap or statement of probability.
      See also, last week’s discussion of “rights.”

    3. Actually, I think “Should be” is one of those big fat lies that people get stuck on. Note: I’m not saying that a woman SHOULDN’T be able to walk wherever they want and be perfectly safe. I’m saying only a Pollyanna who has no understanding of how shitty human beings are/can be would believe that is possible.

      It isn’t victim blaming to suggest that a woman who doesn’t want to get raped shouldn’t go out and make themselves a target by getting drunk and walking (stumbling) through a bad part of town. Yea, in a perfect world she SHOULD be safe, but “perfect world scenarios” like that ignore reality. Hell, I’m a big dude, and people who don’t know me (and some who do) sometimes find me rather intimidating, and I won’t walk around some places all by myself. How can it be victim blaming to suggest someone 1/3 my size not walk around those places unarmed?

      1. I think* believe it should only rain between three and five AM, except in areas where bars remain open all night, in which case rain should be briefly allowed from one-thirty until two-thirty in the afternoon, always ceasing when the kids get out of school.

        *Sorry – obviously no thinking was perpetrated in preparation of this proposal

    4. Not all (or even a majority) of assaults against persons walking alone at night are sexual assaults. Most of them are “normal” violent crimes such as muggings, etc. And the victims of such are more likely to be men. Yet we do not scream that men should be taught not to commit muggings and armed robbery. Are those things not crimes that people should learn not to commit? Do we say men who wish to defend themselves against such an attack are leaving other men to be assaulted?

      Can’t imagine why that us. /sarc

      1. As I understand it, the vast majority of rapes/sexual assaults are committed by men the women know. And cutting out the “We had drunken sex and now I regret it”–which is NOT rape, barring the variety where she is totally unconscious–that says to me a couple of things. One, maybe the culture of ‘casual hookup sex’ has a terrible cost, and Two: these women need to hone their ‘this person is not a good person’ radar as regards their friends.*

        Oh, and Three: while there are many who I am sure would disagree vehemently with me, I feel it is never a good idea to get that drunk, whether you are female OR male. That’s been a bugaboo for bad behavior and bad situations, though, since the invention of alcohol and other mind-altering substances.

        *I think part of this is too many people are equating “nice” with “good person” when this is very frequently not the case. “Nice” is a social act, and can be performed by both good and evil. “Good” (or even “kind”) is deeply rooted in who a person chooses to be.

    5. “…safe for women…” That’s got to be the winning stupid-remark of the week. There’s a crap-load of streets in this country that aren’t safe for MEN to walk down after dark. Hell, there’s several in my town that I wouldn’t go down after dark, and I have a CCW.
      Heck for that matter I wouldn’t want to walk down any street in most commicrat-run cities even in the daytime armed or otherwise.

  12. One of the things I’ve always found remarkable is that people say things about rape and sexual assault and avoiding such that they do not say about any other crime.

    Think about. Nobody calls it “victim-blaming” when you say “if you want to avoid getting robbed, lock your doors and don’t flash your cash.” Nobody says “oh, you’re just setting somebody else up to be burglarized” if you get a security system for your house.

    What gives?

    1. In point of fact, the more honest security experts will tell their clients that it is impossible to totally secure your home. What you’re after is to give the appearance of sufficient safeguards that the potential criminal will pass you by and seek easier prey.
      And on occasion this will backfire by creating the impression that so securely guarded a place must contain valuables worth the extra effort necessary to extract them.

      1. Which is why you want the basic safety features, like not screening the windows from view (tall hedges) and things like that. Yes, we have a security door, but a) it came with the house and b) it’s the best screen door ever in terms of pets. It doesn’t give the appearance of extra security since the window right next to it has no bars.

        1. The Project House got major structural renovation. One of the changes was to replace the 5×5 foot windows with 2×2 foot windows. The bottoms of the windows are more than six feet above ground level, and a couple simple steel bars on the inside are enough to bar entry from someone with a ladder; no elaborate grates needed.

          The entry door jambs are steel-reinforced. Solid-core wood doors are strong enough for me. There are steel “drop bars” on the inside for additional security while we’re home.

          They were easy changes, and they’re practically invisible. “Every little bit helps.”

    2. Well, given that they’re pushing hard to criminalize homeowners who shoot the invaders and/or cops who shoot the invaders in response to the call (ie, “He was a good boy, he would never hurt anybody!” all over the news after such an incident) we are looking at the beginning of victim blaming for homeowners who defend their homes. We’re already there with the cops.

      1. There is a real education to be had in going into the comments on Instapundit when they have video of the lead-up to a goblin being shot.

        There was one where a guy was shot “in his own backyard”…the video showed him running from the cops, going around the house, trying to bust into a neighbor’s house through a window, hopping the fence, then running back around again and yes, he did die next to the house of a relative….while charging around a corner at the cops who’d been chasing him since he fled after the cops showed up to check on a suspicious prowler in an area with a lot of car break-ins.

        Uncut video, started at boring and went through the shooting to boring, with the guy trying to FORCIBLY BREAK IN

    3. Yeah, had the ‘victim blaming’ argument a few years back when we had to put out a statement on campus regarding a rape here. I suggested that ‘always be aware of who you’re with and what your surroundings are, would be a good reminder. But that got shot down, because getting intentionally impaired, and going to another location with people you met 5 minutes ago, is apparently just normal innocent behavior that should incur no consequences these days.

    4. There seems to be a disconnect with some people such that they can’t recognize the following statements are both true.

      (1) Rape is the rapist’s fault. Period. It doesn’t matter how she was dressed, how drunk she was, what part of town she was in, etc., nothing justifies assaulting her.

      (2) If you’re less interested in whose at fault than you are in not being the “her” in that last clause, there are steps you can take to make it less likely.

      Note that “less likely” doesn’t mean impossible, that you can do everything right and still end up a victim, and that you aren’t somehow “asking for it” if you don’t take those steps. But none the less, denying that those precautions exist seems to me a serious disservice to women, especially those at risk.

  13. There’s a nice person who apparently has fallen victim to the Left’s “Brain Washing”.

    I’ve had to stop follow the person’s blog because I doubt that anything I could say to the person would “break the Brain Washing”.

    It’s possible that being extremely nasty might “wake the person up”, but I can’t bring myself to do so. 😦

    1. I’ve had to stop following a few as well. Like most religious converts, they can’t just glory quietly in their new Wokeness, they insist on ramming it down the throats of everyone else as well.

      1. Yes. Not blogs. But not looking forward to having this conversation about democrats running for President’s and their take on gun control and specific relatives. I think that is a conversation we won’t have. Not changing their mind, they aren’t changing mine. So, why?

        1. As my mother is getting considerably older, I discovered that she got rather liberal in her old age (Hey, she *earned* that adjective!). I permanently shut down discussion of politics and Orange Man Bad when she said she was eager to watch Stormy Daniels on 60 minutes, and I brought up Juanita Broaderick and rape accusations against Slick.

          We’re doing weekly phone calls; it’s weather and “I’m doing fine, how are you and $SPOUSE?”

          1. Mom’s fine. It is a sibling. I blame it on Stanford. OTOH based on the classmates I went to HS and graduated with, HS definitely didn’t help (and I thought South and Churchill were in the liberal enclaves). Sib is almost 5 years younger than I am.

            Extended family (our cousins) there are some strong liberals … level poverty to “who do you thing gets to contribute ‘volunteer’ their millions first?” (yep that rich.) Ain’t us, we don’t have anywhere near that, and we aren’t ‘volunteering’. I grew up and moved more right of center, not that I was particularly left of center, but still. There used to be some epic Thanksgiving & Christmas dinner, uh “discussions”, yea that is what we’ll call them, “discussions”.

            No. We don’t discuss politics at family gatherings.

            1. Alas, my Mom has. My daughter blames it all on Mom being devoted to BBC-America, and to NPR.
              And back in the day, Mom was a Nixon Republican. She thought he was the bees’ knees, and viciously destroyed by a cabal of his enemies. Dad was a Limbaugh fan, and a Tea Party sympathizer, though – he might have kept her on the straight and level but he’s been gone for almost eight years now.

              1. sigh. Mom has always been a Minarchist with the weird Portuguese twist that everyone she disagrees with needs MORE government.
                Dad has moved from moderate conservative to more libertarian. I don’t think he knows it. 😉

    2. Sometimes, one just has to sit back and wait for reality to ensue.
      Today’s rabid convert will likely become tomorrow’s disillusioned ex-follower.

  14. Right now, in the wake of Beto’s admitting he wants to confiscate AR-15s, the tactic seems to be, “Well, if you won’t accept THAT, it is incumbent upon you to make a counter proposal “

    So I did. I suggested a National Reciprocity law for concealed carry, wide distribution of the autopsy photos of mass shooters, and public hangings for the few that survive.

    *crickets chirping*

    1. Just the other day, I read a “Fact Check” on the statement that “Democrats want to take our guns” (or something like that, I didn’t keep track where I read it) that rated the statement as completely false, giving the excuse that no Democrat had actually SAID it, even pointing out that “Beto” beat around the bush about it, but hadn’t come right out and said it (I guess that makes the difference). Well, now he HAS said it… You think they’ll revise the fact check? I’m guessing probably not. They’ll probably weasel around saying that he only said AR15s, and not all guns are AR15s (Never mind that the AR15 is the most popular rifle in the US).

    2. Most (though likely not all) here are neither mechanical engineers, automotive engineers, nor mechanics. And thus are unlikely to be able to properly design, build, or repair an automatic transmission. But I suspect pretty much everyone here could tell when an automatic transmission wasn’t working correctly. Thus the “Fine, you try doing it better.” is not entirely to my liking.

      That said, your solution has a problem or two: it’s sensible and would most likely be effective… without giving tyrants an excuse to grab more power.

      1. Mechanical engineers can learn to design transmissions easily enough, but they do have to learn. My guess with road ready commercial automobiles is that regulatory and other requirements are such that ‘proper design’ of an automatic or manual transmission is a bit more difficult of an art to learn.

        There’s a set of problem areas that would be difficult to just study and learn. Transmission mechanisms and mechanical efficiency would be easy enough. Add in configuration changing, mechanical reliability, and design for manufacturability… That becomes less something you can easily and cheaply learn on your own, and more something you might want to learn from an mentor while working on a team in an organization that designs transmissions.

  15. Rape is obviously about a sex act of some sort, but in truth it’s very much more a matter of the aggressor exerting control and dominance over their victims.
    Teach our young men not to rape, got that, been doing it on a regular basis, and in the main it works just fine, especially in a home with an established father figure.
    How about teaching young ladies that it’s not acceptable to ruin a man’s life by bringing false allegations against him? Oh, but that never happens, how dare I victim shame anyone? We must believe all accusers.
    Fine, I accuse you of being a terrorist and a mass murderer. SWAT at your door in 5 4 3 2 …
    A rape attack is legitimate justification for lethal self defense. And I’m given to understand that convicted rapists do not do well at all in prison. But as we’ve seen time and again, some women seem to think they can make baseless uncorroborated charges against public figures for obviously politically motivated reasons and even when proven false get rewarded with media attention and in some cases large sums of cash.

    1. Teach our young men not to rape, got that, been doing it on a regular basis, and in the main it works just fine, especially in a home with an established father figure.

      I would estimate the success rate there as better than anything the UAW has achieved in their car manufacturing or that Silicon Valley’s software achieves.

      Anybody want to debate the failure rate of Christian teaching vs MicroSoft operating systems?

    2. I would suggest we must go further than that, and actually begin teaching young women that regret is not rape, that being “persuaded” (meaning cajoled, not the use of force or emotional blackmail) is not rape, and that giving in because you didn’t want to argue about it, is not rape. Because they have been taught that it is, and really, truly believe it. Which causes its own issues, even apart from deliberate accusations they know to be untrue.

      1. that being “persuaded” (meaning cajoled, not the use of force or emotional blackmail

        To do that, you’d have to teach people how to recognize the most overt forms of emotional blackmail.

        At which point you just knocked at least one leg out of the activists’ stool, maybe two of three.

      2. Seen the recent study saying some preposterous number of girls are raped the first time?

        This is by asserting that if the boyfriend said he’d break up with you if you didn’t put out, you were raped.

  16. On this whole business about gun control, sure there are a few on the left that suffer from hoplophobia, the irrational fear of firearms. But I have long suspected that those in control on the left do not fear guns at all. What they fear is guns in the hands of the public. Guns in the hands of their personal bodyguards, well that’s obviously just fine. I recall during the Obama years someone posted that if BHO was so down on firearms he should as a first step disarm his Secret Service detail. He was of course immediately denounced for wanting the President dead. Classic fine for me but not for thee case.
    Through the many failed attempts by the progressive left, call them communist, socialist, or whatever new buzz term you like, they always fail because they continually run into the incompatibility of their vision against human nature. So obviously the solution (tried everywhere else, but this time they are ever so much smarter and it will really work just trust us) is to assume overwhelming superiority of force against those stubborn uncooperative deplorable citizens. Gun control rhetoric repeatedly mocks the notion of the armed citizen with “sure, you’re going to stand up and challenge tanks and fighter jets.” Which of course ignores the simple fact that the operators of such weapons of war have to eat and sleep and go to the loo so are subject to than infamous asymetrical warfare that has stymied some of the most powerful armies in the world.
    But again, this time they are ever so much smarter, more clever, more woke, and with the right poking prodding and applied force can make us all toe the line and fall into our proper places.
    Personally, I’m hoping for a massive outbreak of burst blood vessels should the current POTUS defy all the odds and win a second term. Better for those poor folks to pass quickly kneeling and screaming to the heavens than to see what replaces their failed and impossible plans for the country and the world.

    1. sure, you’re going to stand up and challenge tanks and fighter jets.

      I admit that Obama’s Drone War demonstrated they were not averse to collateral damage when they cause it, but I wonder whether they’ve given any thought to the problems of using fighter jets against guerrilla resistance? Or even tanks, for that matter. Do they seriously anticipate employing Wehrmacht tactics against an American Résistance?

      “Surrender your AR-15 or we put this entire town to the torch?”

      Just how are they planning to effect that plan? I don’t think Rep. Swalwell’s nuclear “First Use” strategy will work out nearly as well as he imagines.

    2. Personally, I’m hoping for a massive outbreak of burst blood vessels should the current POTUS defy all the odds and win a second term.


      The latest survey by Rasmussen finds that President Trump’s approval rating is 50 percent. 49 percent disapprove. Rasmussen surveyed 1,500 likely voters. …

      It is as if the more the public sees of the Democrat candidates, the more normal Trump seems.

    3. More simply, the Left fears guns that may be pointing the, uh, wrong direction.

      Never once do we see any of ’em giving up their armed guards.

    4. “But I have long suspected that those in control on the left do not fear guns at all. What they fear is guns in the hands of the public.”

      They’re terrified of the public. The great unwashed might some day come to feel that they did not -need- to cooperate with the authorities. Imagine the federal government trying to do to Phoenix Arizona or Huston Texas what’s being done to Hong Kong right now. How would that go?

      I’m of the opinion that what they fear is being found out. Given recent revelations, #MeToo may well be the least of it. Say what you want about Harvey Weinstein, he at least molested -grown- women.

      One wonders what horrors are concealed in Canadian government circles. Possibly worse ones, given that the sentence for constructing an illegal gun is several years longer than for murder.

  17. Not sure if there is anything I can (or should) try to do anything about, but I overheard the fiancé of my oldest daughter (nearly 30) ranting the other day about how Texas just had an active shooter, and now they go and pass laws making it legal to carry in churches, and how the violent pro-gun idiots didn’t understand how much worse they were making the problem.

    I decided it wasn’t worth the shouting match or the headache. The guy is an idiot, if she doesn’t see it, she sure isn’t going to listen to me when I point it out. If someone is criminal or crazy enough to commit murder, a low-level law restricting firearms carry from a particular building isn’t going to stop them. And removing a restriction like that isn’t going to make someone who isn’t inclined to commit murder, suddenly decide it’s a good idea.

    1. Ask if he knows what happened to George Tiller. The man was shot while ushering at his church on Sunday morning.

      Granted, Tiller also made his living performing late-term abortions, so in that case, good riddance to bad rubbish.

      1. Suzanna Hupp watched as both of her parents were executed in the Luby cafeteria mass shooting in Texas in 1991. She had left her legal firearm in her car per then state restrictions on carrying concealed in a public place. She later ran and won for state representative and campaigned to change Texas firearm laws.

      2. Cases like that are exactly the reason I DIDN’T bother saying anything. I’m sure he would take a case like George Tiller as proof that he is right. He really believes that laws banning guns from churches and other places are saving lives.

        1. Because every church will of course pay to install the proper guards and detection devices to ensure TSA levels of security, right?
          Won’t see it in MSM, but alternative news feeds report any number of pastors who both carry themselves and encourage their congregation to do so as well, for the most part discretely.
          The best deterrent to a mass shooting, short of a strip search, is to instill in potential shooters the idea that they cannot possibly know who might be armed and offer armed defense. Gun free zones, absent a guarded wall as secure as what Trump wants on the border, are nothing more than target rich environments for anyone lusting to make a name for themselves through an impressive body count.

    2. “Not sure if there is anything I can (or should) try to do anything about, but I overheard the fiancé of my oldest daughter (nearly 30) ranting the other day…”

      I expect that if she’s your daughter, and you taught her well, that rant-boi will either be singing a different tune pretty soon, or he’ll be the ex-fiance. Kids don’t always do what you say, but they don’t usually -forget- what you say.

      1. It can take a while. Ol’ Dad suddenly got *lots* smarter than I thought he was back then right around the time I got responsible for my own self in any and all ways… And good for me it happened when I was eighteen. I can only imagine how rough it’d be when I was thirty.

        1. I myself have suddenly become a great sage the last few years, having been the family idiot since I was 14. Funny how that happens sometimes. You talk until you’re blue in the face, and nobody listens… until one day comes the Flounder of Cold Reality to the face and they gasp “Oh shit, he was RIGHT!”

  18. Where we disagree is the idea that I — or anyone — can get in the head of someone determined to act against moral or law and make them refrain.

    Welllllll … not all, but some wallabies can do that. The problem’s that

    a) as anyone who’s ever written an multi-variable algorithm well knows, you can never be entirely sure how it will operate and it may turn up some wildly unexpected interpretation, such as “animals are equivalent to humans” or, worse, “humans are equivalent to animals.”


    b) do you have any idea what the inside of a human mind is like? Nasssssty, disgusting places, human minds. Make Gollum’s headspace look like a clean room. Wallabies hate waders and for going into human minds it would require psychic waders up to the ears. Seriously – you guys got ids like the Hulk and super-egos like Ant-Man. Teeny little Super-Ego.

    So it is just not worth it. Much simpler and at least as effective to just watch, wait, and put two shots to the back of the head for the worst.

    1. In a 4-3 decision issued today, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the City of Phoenix could not compel Christian calligraphers and painters Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski to lend their skills and talents toward conveyance of a message with which they fundamentally disagreed.

      Noting that the plaintiffs’ custom wedding calligraphy constituted “pure speech” the Court held

      Each custom invitation created by Duka and Koski contains their hand-drawn words, images, and calligraphy, as well as their hand-painted images and original artwork. Additionally, Duka and Koski are intimately connected with the words and artwork contained in their invitations . . . For each invitation, Duka and Koski spend many hours designing and painting custom paintings, writing words and phrases, and drawing images and calligraphy. Moreover, they insist on retaining artistic control over the ideas and messages contained in the invitations to ensure they are consistent with their religious beliefs.

      comparing the plaintiffs to tattoo artists, individuals who are unquestionably in the business of creating art.

      The fundamental logic seems to be clear: if the plaintiffs were not crafting unique artistic creations, there is no reason to prefer them over other providers of such commodities; if customers insist only plaintiffs can serve their needs, Brush & Nib Studios is engaged in artistic expression, protected by the First Amendment.

      The court quoted the Supreme Court of the United State’s seminal opinion in West Virginia v. Barnette

      As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. . . . . Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

      Emphasis added.

  19. Ignorance of, or wishful thinking against, human nature is a really good way to get your buttuska in a sling. Of course, lot’s of childish types think they know better. There was a point in our not-so-very-distant history when those people either got school right quickly or ended up with said posterior in said sling and were therefore unable to reproduce (had the side benefit of schooling those around them). Alas, such idiocy seems encouraged now.

  20. They say “teach men not to rape”
    They also say “we shouldn’t have borders, and let every refugee in that wants to come in.”
    Problem is, there’s a lot of cultures out there where rape is the accepted mechanism for a man to retaliate a ‘shaming’ by a woman.
    So, what to do? Set up re-education camps? Give those people a pass?

    From the looks of things, “give those people a pass” is the option they will be going with.

      1. My suspicion is that it’s part of the corporate life cycle.
        You start out with a small company run by people who know the product, and know their audience.
        After a while, those people begin to hire people with the Right Degrees from the Right Schools to do all the boring stuff (HR and sundry).
        This is usually when the rot begins to set in.
        And after a while longer, the people who know the product and know their audience retire (or are pushed out). The people with the Right Degrees from the Right Schools go with what they know, and that is the way they were taught.
        And that is when the corporation dies.

        The idea that their core audience is hard core 2a is utterly lost on those people.

    1. And now, VISA.

      On 09/03 VISA’s CEO announced they weren’t going to get involved in gun control or other advocacy. On 09/13 VISA’s PR people announced the company is going to start donating money to gun-control groups.

      I guess “CEO” doesn’t carry the clout I thought it did…

        1. Bear Creek still has their .50 Beowulf uppers on sale for $239. I bought one a couple of weeks ago for the Barbie Gun.

          Well, they’re listed as “12.7×42” since AA still insists on being jerks about “Beowulf”, but it’s the same cartridge. If you don’t reload, the price of ammo has come way down too.

          That’s 400 grains at 1800 feet per second with more than 2,800 foot-pounds of muzzle energy, for when .223 lacks sufficient “up yours.”

    2. Also note: crowd size/sellout rate. The local hasn’t sold out in a couple of years now. More factors than just SJWification, but that’s a part of it. NASCAR fans tend to the redneck side just a teensy bit.

      And by a teensy bit, *cow tipping* is still a thing amongs racefans, just so’s ya know.

      1. And of course, at least a redneck should be able to tell a cow from a bull. Sign on fence at place not far out of town:

        You better be able to cross this field in 9.9 seconds.
        The bull can cross it in 10 seconds flat.

        1. As I quickly explained to some people watching a bull auction by video, “Bulls have heavier shoulders and thicker necks.” I was not about to go into detail with small children standing around listening. And on the TV screen, the front half was easier to see in detail.

  21. There is a brand of thinking that says that if you make a rule banning some behavior, then everyone is protected from that behavior. So, for example, all we have to do is create gun-free zones everywhere, and the gun violence problem will be magically solved. Of course, it doesn’t work that way, but how do you argue against it?

    Several years ago, certain high-profile writers proposed that all conventions should have rules against harassment, and that they would refuse to go to any convention that did not have such. I attempted, without success, to oppose the idea of rewriting the rules for the convention I was part of. I thought that the existing broadly-applicable “play nice” rules were effectively anti-harassment rules, that making the rules more complicated would mean that fewer people would even read them, and that the people who were interested in being jerks to people at conventions don’t care about the rules, anyway. Three quarters of a page of rules in 12-point font was replaced by a page and a half of rules in 10-point font, to no advantage I could see.

    This happened because other committee members said that attendees wouldn’t be safe if we didn’t have an anti-harassment rule. The only problem is, rule books are paper. (They will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.) It is not the rule or the law that is the protection, it is the vigorous enforcement of the rules by a beneficent person that is the protection. The rules, in this sense, are only a tool that can be used for good, not the good itself.

    Sorry about that, I just had to get it off my chest.

    1. Such Rules Gaming is not about preventing the activities ruled against, it is about a) Virtue Signaling (on any multiple choice test about Liberals’ Behaviour, always choose Virtue Signaling) and b) preventing the organization from being sued when the rule(s) get broken (probably a vain hope, but it’s what the lawyers recommend because if you hadn’t explicitly forbidden it how was anybody to know it wasn’t permitted?)

    2. It protects the ComCom from legal risk, at least in part. They can point to the pages and pages of fine print and say “See, we did something! We tried. You can’t sue us.”

  22. Sarah, you assert that physical and chemical castration had no impact on crime rates. I was wondering if you had a source for that?

    1. Um… no. Look, it was decades ago that I studied it. I started out in psychology. But what I understand is that unable to rape with a penis, guys will use a bottle, etc.

    2. I do not have any study data, but the line I recall was the problem existed between the ears, not the legs. Also, people seem unaware that such surgeries (etc.) makes a difference in growth before sexual maturity, but not much after. The “gelded proud” proud stallion doesn’t know he isn’t (supposed to) be male. You won’t get colts, but you will get… er.. satisfied mares.

      1. Yes.


        Very disturbing information to follow.

        Do not read if you don’t need data.

        Really, don’t, like rape isn’t nightmare fuel enough.


        I remember reading about the effects of the various chemical castrations, and some physical, when I was in high school.

        Objects were used. Knives, gun barrels, broken bottles and brooms.

        Similar result to women telling their attackers they were HIV positive.

      2. The problem may exist between the ears, but the hormones are a part of that. If giving testosterone to low T men increases their libido and overall aggressiveness, and giving testosterone to women increases their libido and aggressiveness (I have a friend who appreciates the trans movement for destroying the feminist claim that men and women are completely identical, a fact that any trans person taking opposite gender hormones will deny), then it does seem like destroying a man’s natural ability to create testosterone would decrease his libido and aggressiveness.

        I’ll buy that the castration doesn’t completely destroy their ability to generate testosterone, or that by the time they get through the judicial process to be castrated the aggressively criminal mental patterns are set, so they continue in behaviors that provide them with dopamine rewards. But it does feel like there ought to be at least some reduction in aggression, even if it’s just of the “feeling too lazy to bother” type.

        1. Not trying to troll. I had given some thought to castration vs incarceration as a means of punishment. I was leaning toward the endocrine portion rather than the urinary. Decided blowback would be too harsh to be practical. I agreed with aAmy on what the effect should be. Didn’t have data on what it would be.

  23. Some web searching fails to reveal any believable studies on the effectiveness of “chemical castration”, which mostly seems to be libido-reducing drugs and wishful thinking.

    They must be vetting their prisoners *very* carefully before shooting them up, though. Select for those who kept going after “no” and your procedure would be quite effective. The ones who beat their victims half to death and the intromission is only incidental, the usual drugs aren’t going to change them much unless you’re mixing their dose with zombie juice too.

    It also appears most of the authors of the web sites and papers I just looked at don’t understand that once a male passes puberty,
    castration (surgical or chemical) doesn’t necessarily affect function.

Comments are closed.