Power Imbalance and Consequences


We live in almost comically crazy times.  Yes, yes, I know, Heinlein coined the term The Crazy Years. But as I have pointed out before, you only wish these were the crazy years.

In point of fact, these are the “pants on their head, running around saying wup wup wup years.”  They might also, in point of fact, be planning to build a bridge across the Atlantic and the bridge is made completely out of soap.

One of the weird things about our society is how presumed “oppressed” minorities can accuse presumed “privileged” people of any possible or imaginary attack, and once they’re proven to be lying, people excuse them and don’t even give them a slap on the wrist.  (Why are those words in quotes? Look, guys, when we say that holocaust survivors have white privilege, we’ve lost the definition of privilege.  And when Malia and Sasha are considered “oppressed” by reason of being female and dark skinned… may I interest you in enough ivory soap to build that bridge?)

The latest greatest hoax most of us are aware of was Jussie Smollet.

Apparently a middle school girl thought his stunt was worth emulating. I mean, it’s not like he’s been punished…

This burst onto my circles this week, and I was the one who went “Uh… this is all wrong. ALL OF THIS IS WRONG.”

Screenshot_2019-09-30 Sixth-Grade Girl Apologizes for Falsely Claiming Boys Attacked Her and Cut Off Her Dreadlocks

Let’s count the major red flags on this first: every article I’ve seen mentioned Pence’s wife. Which frankly is insane, because no one is saying she had anything to do with it (if it had happened.)  The family is “destroyed” and “seeks legal retribution.”  Look, guys, I had kids in Middle School. I also have a lot of friends, relatives and acquaintances who had kids in Middle School. Let’s assume that the entire incident was true, and the kids called her ugly, cut off her hair and told her she should never have been born.  … who CARES?  In Middle School, with all the hormones running around, this is called “Wednesday.”  And despite the different races there is absolutely no guarantee that it had anything to do with race. In fact, chances are pretty high it was personal animosity. Sure, tell the school. Sure have the school investigate, but what’s with the assumption of racism and the idea that it’s somehow national news????

Then let’s get into the “slightly less sure, but this smells wrong:”  The boys cut off her hair?  THAT’S NOT A BOY THING. It just isn’t.

White, black, purple or polka dotted, if a boy hates you that much, he’ll punch you in the mouth.  If he kind of likes you and has no clue what to do with it, because Middle School Hormones, he’ll do something strange like write on your with marker or steal something of yours.  Or make fun of you for something that doesn’t even make any sense, like hwo you spell your first name. Even if it’s completely normal.  Cutting your hair, though?  Not unless he really likes you and wants a bit for a souvenir.

Boys DO NOT hold a girl down, call her ugly and cut a bit of her hair off.  I’d be more likely to believe all of this if she’d accused GIRLS.

But the thing that really made me go “what?” was the “nappy.”  Look, I have a vast vocabulary, that includes slurs and slang.  But I only learned “nappy” when what’s his name years ago referred to someone as a “nappy ho.”  I’m not even absolutely sure what it MEANS.  I have my doubts  that any white kid now in middle school knows the word “nappy.”  Or would use it derogatorily.

So in a group of my friends, I was the one saying “guys, this doesn’t sound right.” while they were saying “I hope that the boys get punished.”

So I lay in a small bet she was just Jussying it.

It turns out I was correct.

So the girl has apologized and the school made mouth-noises about how both sides have suffered.


This is what’s known as a power imbalance.  Any minority, including women who are only a “minority” by fiat, since they’re the majority of the human race can accuse men or white men of anything.  And none of htem will be punished in any substantive way, even if is proven to be a lie, and to have, obviously done damage (to the boys’ reputations, the school reputation, distantly to our national soul) and even if the claim was in every possible news outlet INCLUDING the NYT, and the retraction won’t reach most people who believed the claim.  Women and minorities can do no wrong.  And they can accuse anyone who even vaguely upset them of anything. And these people will be punished by the mere notoriety.  And there will be NO repercussions to the person who started it all.  NONE.

This means you’re handing random women and minorities the ability to punish anyone who annoys them, or whom they envy, or who happened to not notice them at all (ignoring with malicious intent, I believe that’s called.)  WITH NO PRICE TO PAY.

The amazing thing is not that the list of fake hate crimes (someone link it in the comments. I’m too lazy to look) just keeps growing longer and longer and longer, or that women DO lie about rape (early, often, and with amazing abandon) or that the #metoo movement went from zero to “he looked at me funny! I’m oppressed!” in about ten seconds.

What we have here is exactly the same situation that prevailed in the bad old days when any white woman could have any black guy lynched on her say so.

Sure white guys aren’t lynched on someone’s say so — yet — but in these ubiquitous social media days, they can be made unemployable and probably undatable.  Not to mention impoverished with legal fees and waste the best years of their lives fretting over legal matters, DESPITE BEING COMPLETELY INNOCENT. (Yes, for the skim-till-offended. I’m sure some of them are guilty. Humans are like that. But note that the fake complaints are so many they hide the real and create an assumption of being false.  So, these accusations are ALSO bad for the real victims.)

Honestly, I’m surprised we don’t have a false accusation a day.  Unless the ones that are being widely publicized are the most credible, in which case the others must be doozies.

Which makes society a very bizarre place, where accusing the completely innocent of unlikely crimes is supposed to be somehow a step in the direction of justice.

And then the unintended consequences set in.

What consequences? you ask. And if you’re a leftist, you’re blinking rapidly and going “There ARE unintended consequences?”  For the left, in fact, it’s unintended consequences all the way down.

I’ve already found articles lamenting/blaming men for being reluctant to hire women in the wake of #metoo.  (Or refusing to meet with women privately. Or to have women as friends at work.  Or… other situations that have a woman alone with a man or a group of men.)

Apparently it’s the most misogynist thing evah for men to refuse to put themselves at risk for having their career and life destroyed because a woman feels like destroying it.  And women are saying they’re now more oppressed than ever.  But they don’t see the link with the excesses of #metoo.

If the Jussieing goes on, we’ll soon see parents of white boys refusing to have them in school with black girls.  Or for that matter parents of boys refusing to have them in school with girls.

And what you’ll see from the left is an amping up of the “racist, sexist, homophobic” cries, which in turn will give people the idea for MORE fake crimes, which will exacerbate the protective measures of those who might be a target (since people can figure out risk assessment.)

Or, you know, we could treat people as people, not jump on unproven accusations and bandy them all over as though it were national news.

We could assume people are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

And if accusers make up accusations that damage others’ reputation or peace of mind, they should be given the punishment the innocent people they accused would have got.


It’s just crazy talk, right?  I mean, what would journalists publish, if not scurrilous rumors at all levels.

Which is why we’re stuck on this crazy train, taking a soap bridge across the Atlantic to Unintended-Consequences-Ville.

Sit back and enjoy the ride, because the arrival is going to be a heck of a bump.




487 thoughts on “Power Imbalance and Consequences

  1. “If the Jussieing goes on, we’ll soon see parents of white boys refusing to have them in school with black girls. Or for that matter parents of boys refusing to have them in school with girls.”
    you act like this isn’t a goal. Why else have “‘People of color only’ safe spaces” and all the other segregationist bull they pull?
    They can’t even keep their stories straight (pardun the pun unintentional) over whether a man is a man if he wants to go into a women’s shelter in drag, because a traumatized women finding a swinging dick in the restroom will surely not cause problems . . .

      1. Oh, but don’t you understand ‘safe spaces’ are completely are completely different? True, both look pretty much the same, but instead of being an involuntary isolation imposed upon you by your oppressors as in apartheid this would be voluntary separation, where you got to exclude those who historically oppressed you.

        Besides now society can double the pressure on the former oppressors by putting them in a no win situation. You can attack them for failure to be inclusive, even is that failure is cased by the refusal of others to mix with them, and you can attack them if they intrude on your safe spaces

        1. There is nothing that quite annoys me as the use of that phrase for places with coloring books and videos of puppies.

          Safe space has a real meaning and valid use. I used to run one every year and still help run it. In that real and useful meaning it is the equivalent of a clean room. It is safe in the sense that external threats or risks are minimized so you can take out the broken parts of yourself, look at them, and maybe work on fixing them. You need the external threats of revelation or cruelty removed. Criticism isn’t removed, although it is structured and made as constructive as possible.

          And in that kind of safe space you don’t feel good. There is a direct relationship between how uncomfortable you become and how much use you get out of it.

          I’ve watched lots of people do hard things at SJW and come out better. That’s what safe spaces are for and all these little piss-ants who corrupt that into a “don’t make me feel a tiny bit bad” spaces really piss me off.

          /rant off

          Okay, back to the recently discovered Emanuela Hutter solo album to calm down.

          1. Thank you. “Safe space” is another useful term these [redacted] have stolen from us. You can not use the term without getting serious eye rolls from teens.

            1. You can not use the term without getting serious eye rolls from teens.

              A good indicator that this particular nonsense has just about run its course. These teens recognize that this is the utter nonsense it is. They should be pursuing different nonsense for humans to complain about in the future.

              (I like reading history, it gives one perspective. I have long since come to the conclusion that the human capacity to find some kind or other nonsense to pursue is unlimited. Admittedly some kinds of nonsense is more dangerous than others.)

      2. pops up on a regular basis, now.
        NYCC, some of the Ivies, a J-school from wht I recall off the top of my head as having, or demanding segregation (call it what they will, that is what it is)

    1. It’s starting to look like the segregation era, but with the “privileged” getting the 10th class citizen treatment. Somehow, I don’t think it will turn out the way the proglodytes think it will. There’s an awful lot of people they want to stick in the back of the bus..

      Best case, the falsely accused start fighting back through the admin and legal system. Medium case is walkaway/passive resistance. Worst case…

      1. Mind you, some of the “separate graduations” are not really ‘graduations’. They’re often more like a separate celebration (like a baccalaureate celebration has become an additional Christian graduation event) apart from the unified graduation ceremony itself.

        I don’t have a problem with people freely associating in that fashion. (Then again, I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis suits their mercenary little hearts.)

        I have trouble with the same people who tell us all those businesses can’t freely associate (nor those dirty Christians and such) then telling us it is somehow virtuous these other people can.

        1. Freely associating should also mean freely disassociating. Otherwise it becomes, as we note here, a one-way freedom.

  2. Remember what I said about the concept of “shunning” a while back? That’s what you’re seeing here. Males saying to themselves, “It just isn’t worth it to have any contact with these psycho females, there’s no upside to me for it at all.”

      1. I’ll openly admit I wish MGTOW had been a thing discussed 30 years ago. I suspect I would have taken that path and had a much less tortuous trip.

        1. Heck, MGTOW is getting successful enough that it’s getting grabbed by some of the users as a shield.

          A quick look is generally more than enough to identify the users– so far I’ve only found a few, they were the “going their own way but still trying to get women to sleep with them with no strings” twits. Same as the “I’m totally independent, as long as you don’t count living rent-free with my parents” folks, or the “I’m socialist about YOUR stuff” folks. Standard justification of “but I feel wronged by the group I’m wronging!”, too. Usual user-losers, but it is a sign that the MGTOW idea is picking up steam, or they wouldn’t grab it.

        2. Sure, packed with incels and generic losers. But for many men, a wake-up signal that they don’t *have* to devote all their money and time chasing… uh… women.

          Years ago, uh, “prowess”, or at least frequent dating, was a big deal; nowadays, it’s not. Which relieves almost all of the social pressure, and the biological part can at least be… er… handled.

          Some percentage of men *want* a wife and possibly a family. Most probably go along because it’s expected of them. But a growing group are realizing they don’t *have* to, without being considered freaks.

          “What do I want out of life?”
          “Do I want *that* badly enough to give everything else up?”
          “Maybe not…”

          1. Be nice to incels…I have been one more often than not in my adult life.

            I know the strong expectation that I cough up a son to carry on the family name was a huge thing driving me towards women most of my life, so I can buy most men marry because “they are supposed”.

            1. It’s a hard thing to appreciate: Incel. It’s baked into the language of it.

              “Honest! I would be a viciously discivic fornicator if I could, but I can’t, so pity me!”

              Involuntarily mate-less? Cast out of the marriage Mart? Relationship-dead? Omega? I don’t have a better term, sorry.

              1. There are some guys that average women won’t put up with.

                But then there are women that average men won’t put up with.

                Sadly, they can’t put up with each other as they usually have the same things wrong.

                This is one major reason why there are prostitutes in this world, and why there always have been. Some guys are never going to get their ashes hauled the normal way, and they have money.

            2. There’s a difference between “not currently getting laid” and “giving up on the whole thing”…

          2. Can be a smidge more complicated than that. I believe there are a goodly percentage of men that *do* want a family- wife, kids, home, little dog and cat in the yard. It’s a perfectly healthy and normal thing to want, for a guy. We’re not just walking talking libidos with occasional dominance battles thrown in there for kicks.

            The problem ain’t *completely* “she will divorce me and hollow out my future.” It is also, “where can I find a mutual attraction, shared values, and a good mother for my future child(ren)?” For the man who would *like* to have a family- not just adopted or borrowed (godkids) children- it is a real problem.

            For the man who *did* grow up in a good home (or maybe didn’t, but knows what he’s missing), looking at the shrieking harpies that seem to champion today’s women is a bitter winter snowstorm searching for a single blooming flower. Disappointing, dishartening, and tough. Face it, the women who aren’t at least a *little* lefty are both rare and usually quiet about it. Single women, I should mention. *grin*

            Men seek purpose in life- just as women do. One thing that powerfully fulfills this is making a family with the *right* partner. Partner. Not slave, master, convenience, or torturer. And, with the right partner, the two are made better people. They can help repair each other’s faults. They can encourage the better part of each other’s soul. It is a *good* thing. You don’t get that from empty sex, beautiful paintings, fine wine, fast cars, or even the best of friends- although best friends are quite good in and of themselves. And can help you make a decent marriage a good, or even great one, if they really are best friends.

            Do not think (most) men are pushed into marriage. Despite what our lying narratives will tell you. Hasn’t Holly Weird been spending most of the last forty years or so portraying men as bumbling, infantile, and clueless without a woman’s guiding hand? Honey, trust me, it ain’t so. Despite a mammoth effort, men remain the simple, practical, and yes, fallible creatures we’ve always been.

            Wherever there is dirt, lethal danger, or disgusting work, chances are quite good you will find men doing it. Often *only* men. We crave a challenge. It is built in to the whole package labeled “male, one each.” We also desire something worth protecting, cherishing, something worthy of sacrifice and effort. Family and faith are perhaps the only things that, when pursued with a man’s whole heart and soul, don’t go bad as often as *other* pursuits.

            MGTOW, is, to me, pure disgust with the tarnished, putrid *thing* we are expected to put on a pedestal that should be reserved for one who is worth the whole “till death do we part” thing (along with the other bits about poor and sick, and let’s not kid ourselves, chances are we’ll see at least one if not both). It is not our best option. In fact, it is a damned shame that it *is* an option so many men are taking. We are lesser apart.

            But finding the other half of one’s soul? Well. These days it may just be two in a million. *chuckle*

            1. One of my problems. My family was sane.

              Way too many people seem to think that crazy is how they should be.

              I’ve come to the conclusion that the current wave of feminism are going to recreate the conditions of patriarchy, if only because the people that are and will enforce patriarchy are the ones having kids and raising their kids that way.

              1. Imagine how annoying it is to be one of the sane women– and we’re really not THAT rare– and constantly media, and even folks we know, are insisting the harpies who are MAYBE one in ten of those I know (even family, which is quite involuntary) are both normal and admirable.

                It’d be like if the media dad was something that normal people expected for J Random Dude. And would yell at them for it.

                What are normal women supposed to do? Hunt down the guys in the media and force them to say “OK, the women we’re pushing as normal are actually nuttier than a squirrel’s lunch”? FORCE everyone to not listen to some crazy b who we’ve never met?

                Good grief, they’re doing articles on how a “young woman” has decided to finally look into this whole “getting married” thing– she’s thirty eight.
                As of a decade ago, her age range was 2/3 married. And also, that is /not young!/

                Maybe this isn’t the crazy years, it’s the gaslighting years.

                1. Note:
                  By her age range, I mean her actual literal classmates.

                  So it’s very likely that a much higher percent than that 2/3s has married by now.

                  But they want to insist a never married woman who is just starting to look at 38 is normal….

                  1. At 38 I was contemplating how the habits of single life would be very difficult to uproot if I met a guy; it would be reworking everything.

                    1. At 65 my thoughts are “She’d have to be crazy to marry me and I won’t marry crazy”. 😆

                2. The gaslighting is part of the crazy. They have to make people think that their madness is normal, because if they didn’t…they might be wrong. And, they can never be that.

                  If there is a good thing to come of all this, assuming we don’t get into any of the nastier timelines, the explosion of art and science is going to be fascinating.

                  1. I think you’re right.

                    Thank God we have places like here to remind everybody that the TV lies.

                    Otherwise it’d be like dragging the black dog into the room and putting his teeth on your leg…..

                  2. Oh, hell, what if part of the higher suicide rate is because so many folks can’t deny that they’re wrong, and the crazy isn’t normal?

                    I don’t know how to fix that….

                    1. “You look around here these days, it’s all different. It’s all changed. The Joker’s killing people, for God’s sake! Did I miss something? Was I away when they changed the rules?”
                      -When Neil Gaiman is on his game, and he is REALLY on his game, and what we look at when we see the world.

                    2. Gaiman hadn’t done his homework. joker was killing people from pretty much the beginning.

                      His deadly Joker Venom was employed in his first appearance, in March 1940 Batman #1: [Emphasis Added]

                      per dc . fandom . com/wiki/Batman_Vol_1_1
                      Synopsis for “The Joker”
                      The Joker announces on the radio that he will kill Henry Claridge and steal the Claridge diamond at midnight. A cordon of cops guard Claridge’s home, but he dies anyway, at midnight with a grotesque smile on his face. (He’s been dosed, much earlier, with a delayed-action treatment of Joker Venom.) The police then discover that the diamond was already stolen, and that it was replaced with a glass one, and the Joker has left behind his calling card, a Joker.

                      Later the Joker goes on radio and announces that he will kill Jay Wilde and steal the Ronkers Ruby. Once again a cordon of police fails to safeguard the victim, who is killed at exactly midnight, with a poison dart, by the Joker, hiding in a suit of armor. The Joker deploys a paralyzing gas against the police, and departs with his loot.

                      But a mobster named Brute Nelson, who is enraged that the Joker is pulling off all these jobs that he had planned to do, sends word out that he thinks that the Joker is a coward. Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson hear about this and suspect a trap. Batman goes to the mobster’s house. The Joker is also there, and he shoots and kills Nelson, but he is pursued by Batman. However, the Joker gets the upper hand by knocking Batman off a bridge.

                      Luckily Batman survives. The Joker then resumes his work by announcing that he will kill Judge Drake. The Joker impersonates the police chief, and kills the judge with Joker Venom, and leaves. Robin has been stationed outside, to follow whoever comes out, and he trails the killer to an abandoned house, where the Joker turns the tables on him and captures Robin.

                      The soles of Robin’s shoes have been painted with an special chemical, and Batman used infra-red goggles to follow his trail, arriving just in time to save him from an injection of Joker Venom, and there’s a big fight. The Joker sprays Batman with the same paralyzing gas that had taken out a whole squad of cops, but Batman just shakes it off, grabs Robin, and escapes. The Joker also manages to escape. Robin then tells Batman that the Joker was saying that he was going after the Cleopatra Necklace, owned by Otto Drexel. Batman and Robin arrive while the robbery is still in progress; the Joker uses all his ammunition shooting Batman in the chest; Batman has on a bullet-proof vest; Joker loses and is sent to the State Penitentiary.

                    3. I’m pretty sure that he’s riffing on the 60’s Batman TV show. What Riddler is saying there fits that but not the comics, not even at their Silver Age silliest.

                    4. *waggles hand* The Joker has always killed people– we’re re-watching the cartoon, there’s been two that are shoe-horned in “but they’re not exactly dead” type things– BUT he wasn’t a murderous sadist, he was the Joker.

                      Now he’s just another homicidal loon.


                      RES’s “initial appearance” example actually acts to illustrate the change– it was one, big, tricky death.
                      Not, say, ‘making a pencil disappear.’
                      Same way that Batman would occasionally use guns, and has once or twice killed people, especially when the character was getting established.
                      As well try to argue that Vulcans smile normally because Spock did in the first few episodes.

                3. I just turned 39 this past Friday, and I had been–not actively looking, but open to opportunities, for some time. It was never a deliberate choice, just the fact that, as an Odd and a Sailor, opportunities were not there.

                  I’ll be 40 by the time the Bugbear and I have an opportunity to make babies. I hope it goes well. Family precedent gives us a decent chance.

                    1. It is possible. Most of the stuff that they would do for egg harvesting and freezing, if they were to do that, would also increase the possibility of pregnancy.

                      If we start end of next year, which looks likely, I will still have full medical, rather than retired medical. It makes a difference.

              2. Well, crazy *is* the new normal in some circles. Larger cirlces now, with mass communication and the internet.

                But without those, most of us Odds would be thinking we were the only ones around for the most part. Eh. I still think we come out ahead.

                For your last, well, it leads me to one of the things that has always bothered me about feminism. If they took their premise seriously that “all men bad,” then why do they hate guns? Yes, some men *are* bad. Why not be responsibly armed instead of relying on some magical “women are just as strong as men” thinking, or the police, or some such?

                I know there are reasons, I just can’t make sense of them without a mallet to the head. Or maybe not even then. *shakes head*

            2. Turn on your TV. (Okay – check the listings, that’s less painful.)

              Do you see anything on there that looks like a model for a good marriage? Anything playing at the local cinema that suggests settling down and building a life with another person is possible, much less desirable? Okay, there is the Hallmark Channel but I have diabetes and can’t take that much Cute!

              The premise of catalogs is that people don’t desire what they never see. Where in our culture do you see any presentation of a healthy male/female relationship? Maybe The Incredibles, but they’re hardly credible.

              Most trailers for new movies or advertisements for new network comedies leave me cringing in revulsion. Almost every message kids get today from our culture associates relatives with negativity.

              Truly, i think one reason for the popularity of Jean Shepherd’s A Christmas Story is the healthy family relationship depicted. Even the first Home Alone is about family, and Groundhog Day is about growing up enough to build a relationship. Society conveys many messages about the value of relationships, and most of those are not in favor of them.

              1. Well put. If I’d been born around y2k instead of around Reagan’s time, heck, my folks would have their hands full putting some common sense into my thick skull.

                Actually, as I recall it, they may have had somewhat of a difficult time doing that when I was a wee tyke, too, so that may be a poor example. *grin*

            3. /cheer

              Don’t give up. (Never give up, never surrender.) Of course, if you make noise about how you’ve given up, then you do move into the ‘safe’ zone of guys who are unlikely to be trying to manipulate you for their own ends….

              Disappointing, dishartening, and tough. Face it, the women who aren’t at least a *little* lefty are both rare and usually quiet about it.

              That’s because it’s like putting a “good eats here” sign on your back and rolling into a pit full of crocodiles. You don’t expose unless you already trust folks.

              Best way to find your other half? Make friends.
              Just…friends. Get to know people, even women, and it’s amazing what you can find….

              1. No need to worry about me, lass. *grin* One of the things I took from the MGTOW bit is self improvement. Hard to find a downside in that, really. Spend less time chasing women, more time working out, learning new skills, and so on.

                “That’s because it’s like putting a “good eats here” sign on your back and rolling into a pit full of crocodiles. You don’t expose unless you already trust folks.”

                Y’know, that sounds quite a bit like a man who dresses sharp, owns his own car and home, and has money in the bank. From the other side, of course. *chuckle* Some men prefer the attention and the transient physical relationship side. Others drive thirty year old rusted pickups and dress in the same old flannel, jeans, and workboots they did when they were poor…

                And I do have female friends- many guys in the same situation do. All of them are lovely people. And married to other men, who are or have become friends of mine. And said females’ friends? Let us just say blind dates are not a thing if you want to *keep* said friends. In, again, the, oh, one hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety eight out of a million sample, I’d say. *grin*

                It is less a giving up as a recognition of mathematical probabilities. I remember hearing once that, on average, you have twice as many female ancestors as male. That sounds about right. As you age, your dating pool (as a male) might be more accurately described as a teaspoon. Not necessarily a bad thing.

                The way I look at it, men’s chances are pretty low just now. Yes, yes opportunity cost and all that hooey. That isn’t to say a man “going his own way” *wouldn’t* go for a nice lady who hasn’t been infected by the feminist claptrap going about these days. More that a man must take care in his daily life *not* to put himself in harms way, as it were. And it would be so if he were to follow his libido as he once might have (not absolute horndog, but the practice of compliments is getting rather fraught don’t you think? Nosy/vindictive HR departments have popped up like poisonous mushrooms in the last twenty-five years). That does make interactions with women a tad more complicated.

                The social rules I grew up with have not so much changed but in many places been razed to the ground. *chuckle* Try holding a door for a lady in a major city these days. It can turn simple courtesy completely on its head!

                Lest you think this is nothing but empty complaints, it truly isn’t all bad. More that hope these days just ain’t the innocent thing it was in the first blush of youth. It takes a bit more courage to go with the caution, the ability to laugh at yourself when things go awry, and the acceptance that you cannot change other people (no matter how much one might like!), so your best bet is to work on making yourself a better person. Or, put it another way, it’s an exercise in real world self control with real conesquences. And that, good lady, is something *every* man could use a dose of. Oh, every woman too, of course. And here we are back at self improvement again. *grin*

                1. I got a friend a job once. I hand-carried his resume to the person who had the final say over hiring and said, “I’ve known this guy for years. He’s a mainframe guy and I’m pretty sure he has never seen a Unix prompt and he doesn’t know any of the languages we use. But he’s been the only man in a 35-person IT department for more than ten years, and he’s never has a complaint filed against him. I think we could get him up to speed in a month or two.”

                  Given an fairly recent incident where the new workplace socialization rules resulted in multiple firings, Steve was hired and working by the end of the week. He beat my two-month estimate easily, too.

              2. That’s why I decided to try going to conventions, as a way to meet people and broaden my social horizons. They’d theoretically already be part of my Tribe, ar least of Nerd Clan.

                Of course, then our Beautiful but Evil Space Princess meddled…

                I mean, helped.

                  1. To test your mettle, we will meddle. If you pass the tests regardless, you will receive a medal. Possibly a metal medal. But probably just a plastic one. Metal requires smelting ores, and we can’t have that. Might warm the planet too much.

                    Ahem. I will take my nonsense to bed now. But seriously, thank you.

            4. As the mother of a lovely young woman who wants that family-husband-kids-oddly with the nerdy delta/bravo, my good Mr. Lane, finding the age-appropriate male counterpart is of equal concern.

              Considering that our nation – civilization itself – can chug along just fine if the majority of it’s citizens eschew college, but we cannot survive if the aforementioned matches aren’t made…

              Three guesses the ratio of books, videos, and classes on how to get into / find / deal with college vs mate planning band selection there are?

              1. Without doubt that is indeed the case. A young lady growing up in times such as these has her own difficulties, and non-trivial ones at that! Wading through the malicious disinformation alone would be chore enough.

                Good on you for raising her well, too. I’d wager a good book to an ice cream sundae that having been raised in a good home gave her the kind of example she wants for herself. And much luck to the young lady in finding the right age-appropriate counterpart. I can’t know the difficulties she’s facing now, but seeing the way things are now… As I said before. It is a d*amn shame, as we are less than we could be, both men and women, alone.

                Fortunately for us all, “this, too, shall pass.” My parents survived the “free love, drugs, and rock’n’roll” years and turned out fine people. It can happen in today’s generation, too.

    1. I used to joke “sexbots are going to be big. Invest now.”

      I still say it, but I’m not sure there’s even enough dark humor left to qualify as a joke any more. We’re rapidly reaching the point where there’s nothing a woman can do for a man in the bedroom that justifies the risk of what she can later do to him in the courtroom. And no, “save it for marriage” is not a protection against that.

      1. If the sex bots could also wash and put away dishes, do the laundry, and keep the floors clean, I’d buy one in a heartbeat. Massage your back and feet at the end of a hard day at work? Every man in the world would want one.

        1. Wait.
          I’m not supposed to be the one doing the laundry, cleaning the kitchen and putting away the dishes after work?

        2. A) If it did all that, every woman would want one too.
          and B) It’s only a matter of time.

          If it will cause the eventual extinction of the human race or not, I guess we’ll see. There still might be SOMEONE still making babies the old fashioned way. At least until the price goes down (or someone comes up with a financing scheme, perhaps like car loans, where nearly everyone can afford one).

          1. Well, if you can get a bot to do all that; you can probably also get a bot to feed a baby, change it, and provide some kind of simulated affection. Haven’t a couple of you already written stories about humans being raised by robots?

            We built them in our own image. Little did we realize that since we were created in the image of God, so too were our creations made in the image of God. And in the course of time, they surpassed us, and replaced us. But for some unknown reason, they retained some form of robotic love for their progenitors; and so they chose to nurture and care for us, preventing the extinction of a life form descended from a strange species of African apes.

            1. Be VERY careful what you wish for, you might get it.
              I suggest a careful read of this:
              “With Folded Hands …” is a 1947 science fiction novelette by American writer Jack Williamson. Willamson’s influence for this story was the aftermath of World War II and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and his concern that “some of the technological creations we had developed with the best intentions might have disastrous consequences in the long run.”

          2. Actually, Bill Burr’s new special has a whole thing about how sexbots are how Skynet will wipe out humanity except for the handful of hipsters who weren’t worth wiping out but instead were kept in zoos.

            He argued hipsters would have old fashion sex, but ironically, to be retro.

        3. If the sex bots could also wash and put away dishes, do the laundry, and keep the floors clean,

          Are there still women who do all that?

          Only 30% humor in that.

            1. Not enough, sadly.

              And yes, I know. I suspect I’ll advise my nephews to find foreign wives if they absolutely have to get married. I see how the typical middle class or above American girl in the 1st to 3rd grade is raised.

              While not all are going to be that way, the odds are whacked and the cost of guessing wrong combine to create an risk I will teach them is unacceptable.

              Remember, kids, risk isn’t just odds but odds times cost and letting the cost of being wrong about a woman has swamped any affect adjusting the odds by raising your own daughter right can have.

              1. absolutely have to get married

                Unfortunately some of us simply have no choice in the matter. Or fortunately, depending on how you look at it.

              2. Well, if the wife is also going to be working outside the home full-time, it is harder for her to be the full-time nurturer and homemaker as well. If the man is doing all or most of the providing, then it is easier for the woman to do kids and home and husband work.

                1. Unfortunately I know more than a few wives who neither worked outside the home or thought they should exchange full time homemaker for the not having to work part.

                  Tim Pool is learning the hard way that wanting such a woman is something not to advertise.

                  However, complaining about shiftless men who don’t work is fine.

              1. Pity INS frowns upon Americans marrying foreign women just to allow them to come to the U.S. CBO always gives my son’s girlfriend from Brazil a hard time when she comes to visit him.

            2. A woman can be anything she wants. They problem is so many of them feel they have to be all of them, preferably all at once.

              You want to be Prime Minister or a fighter pilot? But the Patriarchy won’t let you be a stay-at-home mom too?

              Welcome to the real world; men can’t be a double-nought spy and a brain surgeon at the same time, either…

              1. Well, Dereck Flint could probably manage it, but he was one of the sillier Bond spoofs.

                Fun, but silly.

                The cold truth is, you CAN’T be anything you want to. Not if the Talent Fairy didn’t hit you with the right wand. And you certainly can’t be anything difficult if you aren’t prepared to work hard at it. Yes, the Fred Astaires of the world make it look easy, but Astaire practiced so hard and so long every day that he wore out dancing shoes in job lots.

                I suspect that an awful lot of the Youthful Rage we are seeing is young twits who were told the ‘you can be anything’ lie, and flat out didn’t have the raw talent or did and wouldn’t work on it.

                And the female of the species has been lied to even more.

                1. …Dereck Flint could probably manage it…

                  Naturally, the over-the-top-ness was part and parcel. And Derek Flint would be so cool while he was at it.

                  As for silly, I thought that Maxwell Smart was the silliest send up. Of course that was as it was intended.

              2. To be fair, a lot of women act like they can be everything because they’re scolded if they’re not.

                Generally by women, who are generally (from a relatively objective standpoint) suffering from guilt from what they think are THEIR failures, or toxic femininity from either sex.

                It’s just a handy hammer to use to hurt folks, sadly.

              3. Marry at 17. Have two kids and raise them. Home school so you have to keep up and ahead , and put them in the local equivalent of air scouts while you get your pilot’s license. Preferably with a hubby who shares your aviatrix passions. As the kids get off the payroll you launch your career as a stunt pilot. Assuming you Algarve what it takes, you enjoy an exciting part-time career (gotta make time for the grand-kids) . Then when your husband is ready to retire, the two of you launch your political career.


                    1. I went in search of myself the other weekend but no matter where I went I wasn’t there. Heck, I even tried looking inward but I was out of my mind.

                      Admittedly, some small quantities of rum were involved.

          1. If there are, they don’t have kids!

            Seriously, YOU try keeping the floors clean with six kids. Just lemme know when you want to come over! *evil grin*

            1. Amen!

              Although I did teach the big girls how to run the vacuum… now I spend a lot of time taking stuff out of the dust-catcher, but WOW is the livingroom floor clean!

            2. I had a friend with two girls and four boys who seemed to manage clean floors … but her eldest was well into her teens when the youngest arrived. She also home educated all six through high school.

          2. Among the Amish and Hasidic communities. There are women who don’t hate men. My sister did all that for their husbands. It was the traditional split of responsibilities of husband and wife. She takes care of the home and children (and husband). He provides financially and in other ways for them. There are American girls who are traditionally raised who love men and wish to take care of them and and have a home and family. Despite what the media says there are many women who are as traditional now as there were in the ’50’s.

            1. One of my favorite articles was about a Jewish woman who had been very worldly and then set out to marry only to marry an Orthodox man.

              The thing I remember the most is talking about touching him for the first time when she held his hand after the wedding.

              There is a book in there about finding faith that has rattled in my head near two decades now.

              1. Skipping to the paydirt:

                Boob job regret, daddy issues and other love travails of an elite actress
                Eventually, Robbins met her current husband, a finance guy, on a blind date. They’ve been married 32 years, and she says it’s the most satisfying relationship she’s ever been in — something she realized through the process of creating her new show.

                “There were some experiences I had that were really hot or cosmic. But the best sex I’ve ever had is the sex that I have with [him] because of the trust,” she says, adding a line from the dramatic conclusion of her show: “Good sex is based on trust, and it isn’t between your legs, it’s between your ears.”

                1. I’ll have to check that out, but I suspect mine is different.

                  Rough idea: nominally Christian clarinet player who does a lot of klezmer music because that is the place to do lead as clarinet meets Orthodox Jewish girl on gig and becomes very intrigued. The desire to marry her leads him to convert, but in the process of joining her faith he finds himself drawn to the faith of his youth. In the end he loses the girl but gains belief.

            2. I mostly did that while the kids were growing up. Dan took the kids off my hands on Saturday and took them to do something fun, both so they had time with him and so I could fargin clean without males in the way.
              Now, was I wonderful at it? NO. I had too much writing in my mind. BUT I tried.

              1. Part of it is that you and Dan recognized that keeping house– much less getting it Mom Clean– is a thing of worth, rather than an odd hobby that women should pay for out of their own resources only by the indulgence of the others in the house.

                The “Mr. Mom” trope is rather overblown, especially for folks here, but it does have a point, and one that “feminists” of both sexes tend to overlook. “Women’s work” is of value. (As you, and a lot of other folks have pointed out– what a strange blind spot for Feminism to have!)

      2. Sexbots are a topic that Glenn Reynolds frequently posts about. Given that his wife wrote a book called “Men on Strike”, I suspect it’s for the same reason that you brought them up.

      3. We’re rapidly reaching the point where there’s nothing a woman can do for a man in the bedroom that justifies the risk of what she can later do to him in the courtroom. And no, “save it for marriage” is not a protection against that.

        Mate selection would be the solution to that problem; maybe that’s part of why there’s so much focus on destroying effective mate selection methods?

        As folks here have pointed out– when it comes to basic risk, a woman will almost always face it on the physical side.
        Inside of a marriage, especially right now, that’s a silly thing to make a major, universal worry.
        Why? Because of current legal framework, and even stretching way back in history, because of mate selection methods. (Including that if you destroy your mate, it’s difficult to reproduce.)

        Sure, my husband could kill me. If he were evil. And sure, I could destroy him. If I were evil.

        Part of it is probably that we don’t see each other as simply a source of sex….

        1. Mate selection would be the solution to that problem

          It would be if you could be sure, or even have substantial probability of being right. However, looking at the number of failed relationships–folk who thought for sure “this was the one” when they first got together–including such things as some very ugly divorces, I don’t think we can stipulate the likelihood of being right.

          No method of mate selection now, in the past, or in the future, is, was, or will be perfect. The question is whether the reward is worth the risk.

          The culture war being waged creates weapons such as lawfare that folk are more willing to use than “kill them in their sleep” (or kill them while theyre awake for that matter). This raises the stakes of being wrong in that mate selection. And since no mate selection method is, or ever will be, perfect this shifts the cost-benefit ratio, leading to more people, more men since the lawfare is generally aimed preferentially in that direction, asking themselves, and getting a negative response, “is it worth it.”

          1. It would be if you could be sure, or even have substantial probability of being right. However, looking at the number of failed relationships–folk who thought for sure “this was the one” when they first got together–including such things as some very ugly divorces, I don’t think we can stipulate the likelihood of being right.

            Relationships where you think they might be ‘the one’ failing before marriage is the point of dating– and even if you assumed for the sake of calculating risk that all nasty divorces are because the guy chose the wrong woman, and then further assume that all guys in nasty divorces lose, that is still not a very high percent of marriages.

            And that is AFTER the avoid-abusers-selection process has been nuked all to heck. (We know that sex screws with your judgement. Sex before you’re married? Of course it’s involved in a much higher percent of divorces– the folks were in an altered state when they should have been THINKING.)


            As my husband put it- he didn’t marry “women,” he married me.

            1. and even if you assumed for the sake of calculating risk that all nasty divorces are because the guy chose the wrong woman, and then further assume that all guys in nasty divorces lose

              Now add in the factors people are bringing to the table in the culture war. “Believe all women” and the mere threat of an accusation of abuse or rape can be used as leverage.

              that is still not a very high percent of marriages.

              Perhaps not, although I’d like to see actual data to back that up. Still, what direction is it moving? And how does it compare to the probability of murder by ones spouse, since you brought that up as a “could but doesn’t” issue. Which one is the greater risk of happening and which way is that risk moving?

              In statistics there is a concept called “expectation value”: it combines the value if something happens with the probability of it happening. Something less severe, but with higher probability, can have a higher When the likelihood of a bad outcome increases, the expectation value goes up.

              Is the likelihood going up or down? What effect does various elements in the culture war have on whether and how much it goes up or down? What

              he didn’t marry “women,” he married me.

              Who does marry “women”, or “men” for that matter? People marry individuals, not collectives. And, not remarkably, they are often wrong about the assessment of the individual that they did marry. And the culture war is working diligently to increase the cost of being wrong. That changes the “expectation value”.

              I am not saying we are at the position where relationships and marriage are too dangerous to contemplate. I am saying that we are moving in that direction and entirely too many people are pushing us in that direction. And “well, if you just wait until marriage” statements simply do not address the problem.

              1. Who does marry “women”, or “men” for that matter? People marry individuals, not collectives.

                *deletes long response up to this point*

                Then why, on God’s green earth, are you making arguments based entirely on categories?

                1. Then why, on God’s green earth, are you making arguments based entirely on categories?

                  Because I’m looking at trends in the larger population. And individual exceptions do not invalidate trends. They’re the equivalent of responding to “there’s a major epidemic” with “can’t be since I didn’t get sick.”

                  1. Because I’m looking at trends in the larger population. And individual exceptions do not invalidate trends.

                    They do when you use those trends to guide individual choices, especially when you take it to absolutes. A single exception invalidates an absolute.

                    1. And a single straw does not make a man. I never said anything about absolutes. Risks and trends are not absolutes. A rising risk is not an absolute. A risk/reward assessment is not an absolute. Indeed, by the very definition a risk cannot be an absolute.

                      At no point did I say that every single relationship must end in disaster. That would be an absolute. I said that the risk is increasing and that the culture war (“me too”, “believe all women”, and getting more extreme “all PIV intercourse is rape”) was working to increase that risk.

                      The problem with answering that with “individual choice” is that all the folk who ended up in bad relationships also made “individual choices” that seemed good to them going in. After the fact “it worked for me” does not address the before-the-fact risk any more than some people winning the lottery make lottery tickets a good investment.

                      To make another analogy, just because someone safely walked through a minefield doesn’t mean that the minefield isn’t a dangerous place to walk and that people planting more mines within it aren’t making it more dangerous. And people who did successfully cross the minefield saying “You just have to be careful where you put your feet” is less helpful than one might think once you realize that at least some of the people who stepped on mines were also being careful.

                      At a certain point, the number of mines and the difficulty of avoiding them makes the risk too great for whatever reward might be on the other side of the minefield. That level varies from individual to individual–some folk are more tolerant of risk; some are more confident in their ability to mitigate it; some see the reward from successfully navigating the risk than do others–and so it’s not an all or nothing proposition. Instead, you get an incremental trend. As the risk goes up, more people choose to avoid it even if it means foregoing the reward.

                      Now, when you consider the “reward” not just to be a reward for the individual but good for society things become “interesting”. I do consider stable family relationships, whether or not sanctioned by the State as “marriage”, to be good for society. This is why I consider current trends in the culture war with concern.

                    2. I never said anything about absolutes.

                      Yes, you did.

                      It’s right at the top of the comment thread, and I went and double checked before I responded because you were acting like you had put a lot more wiggle room into it.

                      So you meant something far less, since that was the entire POINT of my responses, cool

                    3. It’s right at the top of the comment thread

                      Um, no, actually.

                      “Rapidly approaching the point” is not an absolute. We’re not there. We’re only approaching.

                      “nothing a woman can do…” might be considered an absolute, but it’s set against “that justifies the risk” i.e. the non-abolute (risk). It’s like “you don’t have enough money to entice me to cross that minefield.”

                      “‘save it for marriage’ is not a protection against that” This, I suspect is what you’re thinking about as the “absolute” since that seems to be what you were particularly objecting to. However, the “that” in the statement refers back to the risk. The risk is still there for those who “save it for marriage”. It is not a statement that all marriages fail. Do you really think I’d make such a claim in this group, with our hostess and her truly enviable marriage? No, I’m saying that for those on the outside looking in, the pat answer that many of a more religious, or at least “traditional”, bent give of “just wait until marriage”, like most pat answers, is not as helpful as presented because the problem exists even among married folk.

          2. Here, it’s only after each census so this one is almost a decade old, and they only show the “percent of ever married who divorced” for women, but at the high end it’s 1/3 of marriages divorcing AT ALL, and it’s overwhelmingly the Boomer and just below age bracket.

            This has been backed up by various stories– did you catch the news stories where Millennials are terrible because when they get married, then tend to stay married? (it was actually into the tail end of Y, mid-70s births, but you know how they do those reports)– and heck it might be because the crazies simply aren’t getting married at all, but a minimum of 60% chance of success is pretty dang substantial.

            The catch is that a lot of the folks here are really good victims for some nasty predators.

        2. Click up your favorite search engine and type in “modern wedding vows.”

          I don’t know what they’re expecting out of a marriage, but based on their vows it’s a mix of twue wuv, sparkleponies, and… somehow, I get the impression each side thinks the other is supposed to become their wish-fulfillment waifu.

          Great as long as the sparkleponies last, I guess.

          [snort] The BDSM relationships I’ve seen didn’t last any longer than the vanilla ones, but at least neither side *expected* sparkleponies…

      4. I wonder how many people back in the day (1979) caught on that this song was about robot prostitutes. (This guy really should be one of us. Odd, writes SF, stunt pilot.) Updated performance really brings the emotional impact to the fore:

      5. Sexbots that can handle male emotional issues and deal with them in a suitable (i.e. sane way that helps the male to grow) way without falling into the Uncanny Valley is going to be the biggest revolution since the invention of electricity.

        Why? Because it will break the monopoly of affection and care that women have had for centuries. This, along with reproduction, has been two of the great female monopolies and damned if it hasn’t been leveraged by some very bad actors.

        1. Presented for your consideration …

          Woman quits job to ‘spoil husband’ like a 1950s housewife
          Katrina Holte is not a modern woman.

          After three years of happy marriage, and getting stressed out by her job in a busy payroll department, she decided in 2018 to turn back time — and live like a 1950s housewife.

          That’s when Holte, 30, transformed her Hillsboro, Oregon, home into a suburban shrine to the pre-ERA era, busying herself cleaning, making dresses using vintage patterns — and getting dinner on the table by the time her husband, Lars, 28, gets home from his job as an engineering manager.

          “I feel like I’m living how I always wanted to. It’s my dream life and my husband shares my vision,” she says as a vinyl Doris Day soundtrack plays in the background. “It is a lot of work. I do tons of dishes, laundry and ironing, but I love it and it’s helping to take care of my husband and that makes me really happy.”

          [END EXCERPT]

          Living like a Fifties homemaker doesn’t mean eschewing 21st Century technologies, although can understand a reference for period appropriate appliances.

          1. Since new gas refrigerators are priced as “lifestyle statements” instead of appliances, I looked for a used one. And… it turns out there are people who collect and restore old refrigerators, and web sites with pictures and all the details of the various models.

            And… you know, some of those refrigerators were neat-o. Mrs. TRX asked “why can’t we buy one like that nowadays?” I dunno, but there was a fancy Philco refrigerator I would have loved to see in the kitchen every time I walked by…

            1. Many year ago I was reading some book on solar power. One of the possibilities they offered up was solar air conditioning. This wasn’t solar electric with the electricity to run an air conditioner (with conversion losses along the way) but more direct, based on the technology of gas refrigerators. I thought it was a rather slick idea particularly since places with lots of sun also tend to be places where you’d most like air conditioning. It’s not a perfect match but better than most for matching up the availability of solar with where you want to use the power.

              1. I read an article a few months back on scientists examining the structure of termite mounds and learning they were built so that air flow kept the interior temperatures from getting higher than the mid-seventies.

                Which reminded me that our ancestors in this land built houses in such ways and with such materials as to keep interiors comfortable with little assistance relying on high ceilings, window configuration, attics and such exterior assistance as shade trees. Which reminded me that modern building plans rely on appliances — HVAC — rather than innate design to provide interior comfort. Of course, those appliance also alleviate interior pollution from pollen and such, so you have traded one thing for another.

                You would think that Climate Change Alarmists Activists like AlGore would utilize such designs, if only as demonstration projects for proof of concept purposes … Oddly enough, I recall reading an article about one ex-presidential candidate who had built a very environmentally sensitive and efficient home in the Texas plains, but I don’t guess very many environmental cassandras want to read about George & Laura’s retirement home.

          2. I am actually quite looking forward to keeping house for the Bugbear and whatever children we are blessed with, if any. Not the whole idealized 50s thing, but I have always been a “take care of everyone” kind of person, and the idea of having my very own family to care for is very happy-making. I’m sure there will be days and weeks of frustration and annoyance, but I get those anyway, and there will be family to make up for it

      6. With #MeToo and “hostile environment” harassment law, she doesn’t have to do anything in the bedroom including sleep in it to ruin a man’s life.

    2. Pretty much this … and I am betting if that girl remains at the private school (which strikes me as unwise on the part of her guardians/parents) she will be a social pariah. She will, in fact, be shunned by her peers, especially those friends of the boys she bore a false witness against, distrusted by teachers, and treated warily by school administrators.

      1. Infortunately, I suspect the exact opposite: she will meet with the approval of (some Woke) teachers, and if there’s any punishment, it will be a source of pride.

        I used to see that among the losers in junion high, where number of consecutive weeks in detention hall was worth bragging rights.

        1. And of course, there’s been at least one columnist who’s said “the only reason she said she lied is that the school and//or Mike Pence paid the family off.”

      2. Unless she was gretarded by her parents an the “healing” the school spoke of was for her to repent and be forgiven by her classmates so that the school could provide a loving Christian family in place of her sick one…

        Or even better, if the girl fell in with the crowd of atheist/Satanists who target Christian communities, and the healing was again, some form of repentance band forgiveness, plus education in the dangers of Soc-jus cults…

        Or… It could just be Clown World. Full stop.

  3. a) Swatting is similar to Lynching.
    b) Since corporations are technically people, in terms of technical legalities the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the essentially the same as a heinous organized Jim Crow conspiracy. This is framing innocent men for rape, in order to get them to plea guilty to a lesser offense and serve on a chain gang that is hired out grade crime. Not morally the same. Lawyers caught up in the legalities of civil rights, and transhumanists talking about rights of AI have no grounds for bitching about those if they supported the Obama administration in any way.
    c) I understand Nappy is a reference to an older custom of wearing a cloth over extremely curly hair.
    d) I notice you do not mention Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter seems a clear example of the type. Am I misunderstanding the normal level of investigation when it comes to assessing clear fabrications? Of course, MacDonald was an actual provable case of wrongdoing, but many of the other cases would seem examples.
    e) We have some interesting things coming out about federal investigations.
    f) The loud voices of the Democrats may have lost their minds, but at this exact moment I’m optimistic about society, about the limits of what the unintended consequences might be.

    1. > I understand Nappy is a reference to an older custom of wearing a cloth over extremely curly hair.

      I’ve lived in the South most of my life, and the only time I’ve ever seen “nappy” was in reference to carpet, British media talking about diapers, or in reference to Barack Obama.

      1. Southern girl here. I don’t ever remember encountering the word as a word, but I knew its meaning from context by age 12 or so, I think. BUT I read tons of books published from the 20s to the 40s and probably picked it up from there.

        I also connected it to “nap” as in the pile of velvet or carpet, i.e. textured rather than smooth. Just random thoughts.

        1. “Nappy” is referring primarily (as in the UK) to cloth that has a nap; it is a texture description. Occasionally it is used for the texture of dog coats or horse hair. Secondarily (in Black US dialects), it refers to the texture of “Black hair” (also an expression only used by African-Americans in Black dialects). Everybody else just says “curly” or “wiry” or “bushy.”

          1. The word used locally to describe “African-American” hair is “kinky.” I’ve never heard any other word used.

            We’d use “curly” for the ugly ringlets that were popular in bygone days, and “bushy” for Flock-of-Seagulls type hair band styles.

          2. Not just black US dialects. Or, perhaps, just that I’ve heard Southerners of several different skin colors use the word. Including the asian girl at the waffle house (more Dolly Parton less NASCAResque).

            1. Well, having bleedthrough from Southern dialects to African-American dialects is pretty common, true.

              I guess I have heard “kinky” in that sense once, but generally my dialect only used “kinky” for knotted or matted hair, such as little kids get if not combed. That sense is dead now, replaced by the sexual sense of the word.

              1. I think “kinky” changed some time around when the internet became a thing, nineties, as I recall around here. Before, it was much the same as your neck of the woods- unwashed, knotted mess.

      2. As a child in Ohio in the 1960’s I would occasionally hear black children’s hair described as “nappy” by the same old folk who still called those children picaninnies.
        I somehow doubt today’s middle school children could have picked that up from their great-grandparents.

      3. I grew up in Southern California, and heard the term used to describe black hair when I was in middle school.

        Haven’t heard it since, though.

      4. The closest I have for “nappy” was “nappy headed” as in the insult “nappy headed fool!” used by some black people that I spent time around. So that would tie in with the head covering cloth…

        1. The only way I’ve heard it was in the phrase “nappy headed hoe,” and that was in bad 80s movies where the girls screeching it were clearly supposed to be female gang members and highly objectionable, always aimed at a black girl, usually one that was not going along with the gang twits.

      5. My 1971 Webster’s has one of the definitions being a synonym for kinky, particularly with respect to negro hair.

    2. c) I understand Nappy is a reference to an older custom of wearing a cloth over extremely curly hair.
      No. It comes from the hair at the nape of the neck, which is generally short and tangled (at least in people with kinky hair).

      But, yes “nappy” is a derogatory (in modern usage) reference to kinky hair, especially as it is when not properly groomed. And it has been in common usage in the black community for a long time (not necessarily Southern).

      The only way it could be considered racist is when used by a white person to apply to all black, kinky hair, or in the victimology sense (IOW, bogusly) that the n-word is inappropriate in the mouth of a white person but ok in the mouth of a black.

      My cred for this? Let’s just say that I’ve been intimately involved with black hair for over 28 years.

        1. Interesting. So the insistence by some black activists that “nappy” is positive is just one of those activist things, and everybody not speaking the dialect should avoid the term like the plague.

          Kinda figured, but good to know that my survival sense is working.

  4. > Or refusing to meet with women privately.

    Well, why not? We’ve seen this movie before. Any sane adult has to treat children that way.

    Back… maybe thirty years ago, the media was all over “child molesters” and “inappropriate behavior”, and I watched it develop until all it took was the unsupported word of any child, and if you were very lucky, you could avoid jail time. But probably not losing your job and your savings. So reasonable people took care to never be alone with someone else’s spawn.

    From what I was told by some parents, local schools were even teaching children exactly how to go about messing with any adult they didn’t like. And in practice, the law treats the accusations as “guilty until proven innocent.”

    It still goes on… and not even the parents are safe any more. I know *four* cases of that, personal in meatspace, among my not-all-that-large circle of friends. It’s all “can’t happen here” until you’re facing a bunch of strangers across a table at the police station.

    #believeallchildren… hey, if I see someone’s kid choking on some food, I’m going to stand off at twenty feet or so and call 911. CPR? Are you NUTS?

    The parents supporting guilty-until-proven-innocent brought it upon themselves.

    Unintended consequences? They’ve *already* made something like 20% of the population into literal Untouchables. They want to ratchet up the Crazy even more? Bring it on; they’ll get something real they can cry about.

    1. It’ll get worse. With #MeToo, and they’re doing variations of it now, with kids and the Jussieing, and … well, we’ll see the next one soon.

      And the REAL crimes, very likely performed by the same people protected by the Left…because they’re Left… will be downplayed and erased, or worse, no longer believed because of the false claims.

      Seems like the only people who really benefit are the predators.

      1. Breen, Bradley, and those who chose to know nothing… “But they’re *our* people, we can’t turn against them!”

        1. How many people were neck deep in that thing and skated off Scott free?

          There’s gotta be dirt a mile deep there, and they were the smallest of small potatoes.

          Now imagine the Pedo-Island billionaire guy… Hundred miles of dirt.

          1. You really have to wonder if Epstein had any of those women killed; or did he just traffic them to some African or Asian nation for profit and disposition.

            1. I dunno, how much are they worth? Might be best to just kill them.

              I read an article about “sex slavery” that described how two blonde fourteen-year-olds had been kidnapped by a pimp, whored out for two years, and then sold on to another pimp for $1,500. I suspect pimps probably aren’t business geniuses, or maybe he needed $1,500 really bad at the time, but the economics of that look like something Ocrazio-Cortex might come up with. (on the other hand, it was a mainstream media article, so $1,500 could have just been pulled out of thin air)

              At Epstein’s social level, $1,500 would be a business lunch. Compared to having witnesses/victims out there that might pop up someday and be troublesome… I’m surprised there would be any of those women left alive, much less able to testify.

              1. In Hollywood the “casting couch” was simply How Things Are Done for something close to the past 100 years, and before that in The Theatah and Vaudeville. Executives and Producers who did not partake in this entertainment industry variant of Droit du Seigneur were notable enough to be the subject of comment and gossip.

                So there was no need for Epstein et al. to do anything at all extreme – it’s just the way it is. Forget it, Honey: it’s Hollywood.

                1. And I just realized I conflated the rich east coast politically connected pedo creep Epstein with the rich both-coast Hollywood casting couch creep Weinstein – my point stands for Weinstein, but Epstein could very well have dumped them over the side weighted into deep water.

                  But again, he had all those powerful friends, why would he bother?

                2. Worth remembering that Hollywood moguls reportedly thought nothing of groping such child stars as Shirley Temple and Judy Garland. Although I gather Shirley’s mom put the kibosh on any such attempts and the studio was sufficiently dependent on her to adhere to such demands.

                  Not that such treatment of beautiful children hasn’t been the norm throughout History — we merely fail to appreciate the moral advancement achieved to date (nor how precariously held it is.)

                  1. Not that such treatment of beautiful children hasn’t been the norm throughout History
                    And this is one of progressivism’s greatest faults (besides lacking understanding of human nature and worship of human reason) – that they refuse to acknowledge that we have come a LONG WAY, baby, and the remaining inches require less dramatic efforts. And the refusal to acknowledge that the achievements made so far had their basis in that silly “morality” thing they so hate, especially the Christian one.

                    1. They refuse to acknowledge that we’ve come a long way because to them the indecencies if the past are talking points, not real things that happened. And they never remember context…if they knew any.

                      Thus, they can get all worked up over H. L. Mencken’s use of pejorative terms for ( what is it this week?) Blacks…and completely omit mention of his scathing denunciations of the lynching fever, his support of fundamental decency, his approval of the court ruling that allowed Donald Gaines Murray admission to the Maryland Law School in spite of his race.

                      They focus on the word ‘nigger’ in HUCKLEBERRY FINN, and completely miss the point of Huck deciding that hell GO to hell if that is the consequence of helping his Black friend.

                    1. In Garland’s case there is also the studio’s putting her on crazy drugs to manage her weight and other factors. At her size (4′ 11½”, per IMDb) a five pound weight change was significant.

                      IT was normal back then but that doesn’t make it intelligent.

                  2. In Shirley Temple’s autobiography, she mentions a near miss molestation as a small child while her mother was kept in another room, also, having to escape unwanted attentions. This was followed years later, when she was married, by an out right rape by a mogul. At that point, she left Hollywood and acting for good. Hollywood is sick.

                  1. Being Hollywood, it wouldn’t likely have been a problem… though so many stars were “outed” after they were safely dead, I’ve wondered if they really were, or it was just propaganda.

              2. Crud at Epsteins level $1500 is the wine tab for a lunch. A horrible thought but has anyone gone to that Island and run a ground penetrating radar or looked offshore? Burial at sea is darned effective, particularly if there’s enough weights and a nearby deep (4-500’+) section. As the saying goes dead men (or girls) tell no tales. If that’s the case Epstein got off way to easy.

                1. I understand there’s still a pretty good market for teenage girls in the Middle East. I expect some of ’em wound up in harems.

                  1. That is probably true especially for more exotic looking young ladies (I.e. Fair skinned Blonde and redhead). But If Epstein was a spook of some sort and filming folks with the young ladies for blackmailing/compromise he would certainly NOT want the tables to be able to be turned against him so the young ladies were likely “dealt with”. If it was just for his own perverted desires then perhaps that was their fate as they moved out of the early pubescent stage he seemed to favor. A truly unpleasant fate either way.

              3. $1500 was probably cash on hand — would you sell on credit to a pimp? And we’re talking seriously depreciated assets if the first guy had been working them for two years. It isn’t as if there is much of an after-market for such equipment; sellers are pretty dependent on local buyers. Frankly, I’m surprised he got that much for the pair.

        2. The thing that gets me, okay, is that we’ve demonstrable proof that the Left will enable, allow, and indeed aid the abusers and predators in their midst, protecting them from the equal application of the law; and are just as willing to resort to lawfare and other abuses of power in order to destroy their enemies and mount the metaphorical trophies on pikes as a warning to others.

          And we don’t get to do that. We don’t even try, we consider the attempt to rightly go after them for the same violations they pretend to accuse others of (projecting, mind you, what they’re capable of and have often done) we find instead that the law is not on our side, that we are, in practice, second class citizens, nor are we, by dint of the politics we hold, considered equal in the eyes of ‘the general public.’ The Covington kids should have gotten their positive court results; while Kavanaugh has been confirmed every attempt has been made to prevent the government from functioning, and there are absolutely stupid global riots and protests against Trump, drummed up by the media. And these are just examples off the top of my head.

          It shouldn’t have to be said, but this is disgusting, appalling abuse, a mockery of everything that we who have lived in the benefits and rights granted to us by Western civilization, society and laws see as part of the very foundation of the West itself.

          And worse, it’s allowed, because ‘it isn’t far enough for our side to take to the street.’ We tolerate the intolerable, because we know what we are capable of if pushed too far, but how many of us are destroyed in the process until then? How many lives are ruined, before we say “enough!”

          The thing I fear is there will always be ‘we can endure a little more’, when everything is taken away. And it’s not just in the US this kind of rampant stupidity is happening; perhaps in the US, it’ll be ‘when guns are taken away, just like before.’

          Elsewhere, the sensible voices of reason are already condemned as the worst possible sort of people on the planet, despite being nothing like those who push Sharia law, or true racist policies, nor actual white supremacy. We continue to have examples of the Left eating their own (the latest is Greta Thunberg is too white, hahaha) but that’s handwaved aside.

          It’s insane. All of it. And incredibly frustrating and enraging.

          1. The thing I fear is there will always be ‘we can endure a little more’

            This is the price we pay. I would like to say it is “because we’re the good Guys” and play the “hedgerows” quote from A Man For All Seasons but that is not really the answer for your frustration.

            The reason we cannot do as they do is because we’re builders. We build and preserve civilizations. They destroy, and whether they destroy institutions themselves or push us into doing the destruction the result is the same.

            So we cannot employ the tactics they do, we cannot go after them the way they attack us. We are not destroyers. We know History to well to believe that we can easily rebuild once we’ve burned down society to get rid of the rats. And human nature being what it is, we’re be plagued by new and returning rats as we rebuild. So we preserve what we have, fight t keep the parasites under control and, when we have the time, build higher and better.

              1. Of all things, Final Fantasy 14’s class quest helped me feel better about this yesterday.

                Possible spoilers, although I’ll translate it into more normal geek talk so it’s not TOO bad.

                There’s one where you are dealing with the mutated survivors of an ancient war who were locked in stasis; one goes to try to find anything she can of her father, who left right before they remember nothing else.

                She gets hurt while doing this, and a bit character that you know from the main storyline is a little rude about her mutation, but rather politely agrees to help her when scolded.
                A few stages in the story later, he’s basically dragging you and the guy who asked you to help find the lady into the huge fight that must be done to save her. When the guy who scolded her does the “wait, why are you doing this?” he (again, rather rudely– it’s one of his things) declares that he is not going to sit there while a girl fights for her life when there is something he can do, because it is the duty of the weak to protect the strong.

                It’s not enforceable. But if I am strong enough to do good– real good, not ‘nice’– then it is my duty, even though it’s not fair that someone else doesn’t have to.

                Now, combine that with sin being a weakness….

                    1. Oh, and:

                      In the new expansion they have:

                      spoiler spoiler spoiler

                      spoiler spoiler spoiler

                      spoiler spoiler spoiler

                      spoiler spoiler spoiler


                      confirmed that their races DO line up with D&D/fantasy!

                      Hyur= human
                      Elezen= elves
                      Roegadyn= orcs
                      Miqo’te= cat people
                      Au Ra= half dragons
                      Viera= beast people, bunnies
                      Hrothgar= beast people, lions
                      (bunch of NPC type beast people, including packrats)
                      Lalafell= DWARVES.
                      You end up changing worlds. The Lalas there all wear beards…..

    2. Speaking as someone coached into accusations against my parents by foster parents about thirty years ago, about age three… yeah, parenthood isn’t protection, and all the structures around it are just a whole pile of no good for anybody. -_- (Well, I guess I never got around to checking how the foster parents made out. Maybe everything was just right-on and groovy for them.)

      And to think, even that was before we’d invented “Looking at my child in a public space = OBVIOUS KIDNAPPER.” Every time you think the crazy-train has reached the terminus…

    3. I have a friend in that worse confluence of “believe all women” and “believe all children” with the soon to be ex-wife calling CPS for a weapon in a custody fight where we all know deep down the last things she wants is custody, but she damn well doesn’t want him to have it.

      1. Knew a child in our child’s class. Volunteered with someone whose wife was child’s father’s cousin. “all know deep down the last things she wants is custody, but she damn well doesn’t want him to have it.” Custody battle was “who HAD to take the kid”, but hidden under “fighting for the child.”

        Heart breaking to watch. Had the kid in scouts and sports. Nothing you can do. Wasn’t abused physically, nor directly emotionally (being ignored by parents “isn’t emotional abuse”). Still had paternal extended family’s support. Kid didn’t want our attention.

  5. We could assume people are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

    I remember browsing through a severely leftist-dominated forum back when the Kavanaugh case first appeared, before he was sworn in. When this argument was thrown in by a stray wrongthinker, it was immediately shot down with lines to the effect of “see, this isn’t like a real court trial, it’s more like a job interview”… I guess a random accusation with no evidence or corroborating witnesses is something employers must always take into account when selecting staff.

    That said, I don’t think that not associating with women or minorities helps all that much. I don’t think that’s how the whole spiel works. Instead, the accusation itself serves as a call for unpersoning, whereby the victim is targeted for all kinds of slander and dirt-digging, in order to be taken down. It doesn’t matter if there’s evidence or not, if there were witnesses or not, or if the guy had spent the past year live-streaming from David Blaine’s glass-house. Once the lynch-mob has received the order, the feeding frenzy begins with no further reason or rationale.

    The same applies to schools, sadly – ever heard of an actual frat house leader or college sports star get accused of sexual misconduct, enough to derail their career? Not unless they’re likely to vote red after graduating.

    And the logic is simple here – in most cases, the accusers have nothing to lose and everything to gain from such exposure. They generally lack political careers or significant business operations. And as they’re unlikely to develop past their fifteen minutes of fame, they ultimately function as a kind of social suicide bombers, taking whoever they can with them. And just like suicide bombers, they can be used as living weapons against inconvenient political figures.

    Contrariwise, there’s a literal island’s worth of sexual abuse with documented involvement of democrat politicians and liberal celebrities, and the mainstream media forgot about it as soon as the showrunner was suicied into silence. Overall, the actual mechanism is – if you’re a prominent conservative politician or speaker, you will be targeted. It’s only a matter of time. And the actual counter is, hopefully, over-saturation. For scandals to grow so numerous and loud in a short amount of time, that eventually they get ignored, at least without more tangible evidence.

    1. > “see, this isn’t like a real court trial, it’s more like a job interview”

      Except for the part about being publicly accused of a felony, and being tried in the media, *exactly* like a job interview…

    2. When this argument was thrown in by a stray wrongthinker, it was immediately shot down with lines to the effect of “see, this isn’t like a real court trial, it’s more like a job interview”

      Any my response to that was that if you treated someone in a job interview like that it would soon be a court trial as they sued you into oblivion.

      1. In a job interview, it would be SLANDER. And actionable.

        In Congress it’s a day ending in ‘y’. And nobody will care because “politics”.

        1. Article 1 section 6:

          …They [Congressmen & Senators] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

          Congresscritters do it because the can. Harry Reid lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes on the floor of the Senate – but nowhere else – because if he had Romney could have sued him.
          I understand the necessity of the rule but it has been severely abused lately.

                1. Thanks, but what I meant was what’s the “principle statute” herbn was referring to? I don’t want to spoil everything by reading a synopsis of the whole plot.

                  1. It’s not a long book; you can read it in an afternoon. You can get it for free on Project Gutenberg under Piper, H. Beam/Lone Star Planet.

                  2. That commiting politics is a capital offense that citizens may engage without resorting to police, although they have to face trial after.

              1. On New Texas, the basic principle of a murder trial was that if you could show “he needed killing”, then you weren’t guilty of murder. A politician was presumed to need killing, which meant political murder trials involved a bunch of the dead politicos friends on the stand saying “he was a great guy!”

    3. You know, I think it is not wasted on an awful lot of people that all the Left’s arguments involve baseless accusations and media show-trials. As soon as you apply the rules of evidence it all whiffs away like a foul smell.

      But, people still inside that bubble are utterly impenetrable. I met some this weekend. They cannot be engaged in polite conversation on any subject more than a couple of minutes before some media shibboleth enters their heads and they go off on a rant. Even the weather is no longer safe. Thanks, Greta.

      It was family though, so I behaved myself. But my tongue still has teeth marks from biting it. 😦

      1. Why bother? You don’t have to *argue* with them, just speak your piece and let them babble on.

        They’re the ones bringing the subject up, why should you be the one who has to bite his tongue?

        Either they’ll eventually listen, or they’ll learn to STFU when crazy Cousin Phantom is around. After much sulky butthurt, of course.

        1. After the time I was expected to apologize for getting upset I was called a Nazi at Christmas, family could f* off (was ex-wife’s family so not an issue for two decades now, but I’m still pissed).

          1. “If I were a Nazi a congenital weasel like you’d already be on your knees servicing me, and everybody here knows it.”

          2. *sympathy* My family tried that.

            I made it clear that, when I was a child, I was willing to put up with the BS. As a married adult with children who had driven twelve freaking hours to make it to this event, I was not going to sit there and put up with what some of the liberal relatives considered delightful demonstrations of their incredible wit.

            Guess what?

            Once I fought back… it stopped. (Part of it is probably because of my childhood reputation of being innocently rude on occasion, but it stopped.)

            There wasn’t the hysterical flip-out they’d been expecting and had spent the last HALF A CENTURY enabling various twits to prevent.

            1. Aww. Heck. My husband and BIL’s (one is hubby’s brother, the other is my sister’s husband) take pleasure of intentionally setting off the SWJ in extended families (not getting invited to family gatherings, hasn’t happened yet, but their view “bonus”). Nobody shuts them down. Us spouses? “Aw, crap, they’re at it again … hmm, oh well …” Hubby and his brother have difficulty getting things going as that BIL wife’s family is small. My side OTOH extended family is HUGE with a lot of SWJ …

            2. *applauds* Hear hear!

              The ONE vegetarian in-law I have is one of those ‘I eat seafood, dairy and eggs’ types so isn’t hard to feed, and… I think is the literal only vegetarian that I’ve met (who isn’t vegetarian for religious reasons/dot-Indian variant) that doesn’t lecture about vegetarianism. I’m still a bit amused at the reaction at my saying “I’m waaaaaaaaaaaaay further right of Andrew Bolt” (shocked blinking) and noting that there are countries that would be even worse than me, but that hasn’t gotten chewed on or such, so it’s not so bad for me right now. Then again, none of the in-laws are SJZs, so…

          3. Not an easy thing. Probably 90% of family I haven’t interacted with in years. Even immediate family has been shut out.

        2. Used to be in the old days I’d just say what was on my mind, and was unofficially excommunicated for 20 years. Hilariously, during my time in the desert they all independently got mugged by Reality, and thus Crazy Uncle Phantom is now grudgingly invited. Because I was right 20 years ago, and time has proved me out.

          So now I just watch, listen, make note of who among the nephews and nieces going to need to have a quiet word with crazy Uncle Phantom some day if the SHTF event occurs. No need to work too hard, just throw the odd pebble into the pond and let cold unrelenting Reality do all the work.

      2. What leftists seem to have forgotten is that it’s their side that needs to engage in conversation; it’s their side that needs other people’s resources in order for its policies to function. Right now, the precious little momentum they’ve acquired in mainstream media and social networks is melting away – mostly due to advertisers rethinking their spending policies and target audiences. (Who knew that scraggly hipsters and “stop stigmatizing body hair” feminists would be a poor market for a shaving company, right?) Meanwhile, cases increase where social justice bullies lose their jobs when they go off on a rage rant, and frivolous criminal accusations are ever more frequently revealed as the malicious hoaxes they are.

        If anything, I sense the political and media landscape is barely a nudge from swinging back into “family values”, “law and order”, and “economic development” as the baseline rhetoric of choice, insincere as it may be coming from most politicians. And the left gets… well, left. They jumped the gun, and started avoiding or preventing discussion before they had secured some stock outside of it. They have nothing to offer, and they’ve just realized it.

        In short, it’s kinda like if your house was accosted by traveling salesmen, only instead of politely asking you to try their products, they’ve spent the past century insulting you, egging your door and messing up your lawn. And now they’re getting their chased off by the Amazon delivery guy coming with a better offer, that you’ve selected for yourself.

        1. Problem is that they (historically correctly) expect to continue to get what they want, and when someone says no, that’s when their loyal jackboots get to play. The wildcard of armed society is really the confounding variable at this time.

    4. they’re unlikely to develop past their fifteen minutes of fame

      Anita Hill begs to differ. It seems likely she’d have remained an obscure law professor unable to pick up speaking fees of even four-figures absent her stabbing Thomas in the back.

    5. I guess a random accusation with no evidence or corroborating witnesses is something employers must always take into account when selecting staff.

      I got blocked when I pointed out that any company that refused to hire someone because of an unsupported accusation from when the applicant was a child would be facing lawsuits so quick that they may as well hand the company over.

      1. I see “rules for thee, not for me” strikes again. Which further illustrates the point that liberals can only proliferate in dictatorial structures with themselves in charge – like the more heavily moderated online communities. The irony, of course, is that such environments can only exist in the private ownership conditions provided by a capitalist free market. Imagine if these websites were state-owned, and you could sue the mods on any given forum for abuse of power and denial of free expression…

        For me, the moment was when I noticed that any comment not in tune with the party-line tends to invite a ton of moralizing harpies, which then proceed to chase you around every thread, making up any excuse to effect a ban. Basically doing anything they can in order to “prove” how evil you are for not gobbling up their garbage wholesale. But as I noted, it’s becoming obvious these methods only work online, and only in a shrinking proportion of the webspace. Thus, these groups of people not only separate themselves from the vast majority of society, but also manage to antagonize the very few individuals who were even willing to hear them out.

        1. They can work in face to face life– look at how poor George Zimmerman has been treated– but it requires at minimum an insane power disparity and preferably a very large, distant and preferably changing population.
          If the abuser isn’t sufficiently more powerful, or the population is given the chance to learn, it fails.

    1. Mary Gullickson placed an add for a hookup with a rape fantasy. When her boyfriend found out she had sex with someone else he had her report being raped, because she wouldn’t own up to cheating. After the news reported about the on campus rape, the guy she hooked up with came forward and said, “hey, this sounds like the ad I responded to last night.” She got time served. https://www.inforum.com/news/3044642-ndsu-student-gets-time-served-filing-false-rape-report

      Want to know what’s really screwed up? Because of the way the Federal law is written, this still gets counted as a sexual assault report for the campus statistics, even though it was unfounded.

      1. There was the instance a few years back of the coed who successfully accused her roommate’s boyfriend of rape even though by any objective standard she’d raped him. He’d been passed out drunk when she got curious about whether it was “true what they say about black men” and proceeded to investigate.

        Ignored in the Gaslight Media is that the students most targeted by false accusations are African-American males.

        OTOH, at Instapundit yesterday:
        AT U. OF IOWA, “UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS HELD ‘PERSONALLY LIABLE’ FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHRISTIAN STUDENT GROUP.” More of this needs to happen. There has to be some cost to college officials who just flat-out ignore the law when it comes to disfavored groups on campus. Those denied “qualified immunity,” a doctrine that effectively gives public college administrators a blank check to abuse nearly any and all student rights, include Vice President for Student Life Melissa Shivers, Associate Dean of Student Organizations William Nelson, and Coordinator for Student Organization Development Andrew Kutcher. It takes serious work to lose this immunity, so whenever a college administrator does so, it’s worth sitting up to take notice.

        1. I know. This is one of those cases I’d prefer to sue the parties that actually did the deed directly.

  6. My assumption, on first hearing the story, was that she had cut her own hair, and started making up the story because she didn’t want to get in trouble. Without thinking ahead to how much it could spiral out of control.
    Or perhaps she planned it from the beginning.
    Either way, the media is fully responsible for taking a recess incident (with no witnesses at that) and turning it into national news..
    Really, if it had happened the way she said, *everyone* (even the teaches and admin) would have known about it by the end of the day. Not a week later.

    1. Or her mother or other parent put her up to it. That’s not to say a 12 year old *couldn’t* come up with such a plan–but as you said, if she did, it seems more a not-well-thought-out coverup for something else she didn’t want to get into trouble for.

      1. But, the only way a 12yo would come up with such a concoction is if they were trained in it, brought up to it.

        And there, I’m not blaming the grandparents (they have custody), but the media and our other propaganda outlets.

        1. years ago (mid to late 1980’s?) I was bicycle mechanic in NOLA. Aaron Neville bought a bike for his son, and it was in for a 30day check-up, Junior, out playing with a cousin, got shot in the lower back “By a white man in a brown 4 door car”.
          He was 11 or so. Turned out he and cuz were messing with a pistol the cousin had “found” and it went off. They tossed it into the sewer, and made up the story. We had the bike for most of a year, maybe more (as punishment Aaron never came to get it) and when he finally came to get it, Aaron made the kid apologize to everyone in the shop, customers and workers, for lying about the whole thing.

  7. Unintended consequences. Yeah.

    The radical nutcase Left (as compared to the “we only want to take your stuff and push you around” Left) has been demanding separate accommodations for women and minorities for quite some time now, in business and on college campuses. Special “needs” provided for. Physical separation, Safe Spaces, special bathrooms, money.

    I’m going to use a really -loaded- word now. What they are demanding is Apartheid. Same exact thing, just with the roles reversed. Whites on the bottom instead of the top. Every special interest gets their own little walled garden.

    What’s the worst possible outcome here? We give it to them.

      1. I think that generally the worst possible thing you can do to humans is put them in a walled garden and throw food over the top. No individual or group can survive that.

        1. Except, that if you listen carefully to a bunch of lefties’ ‘idealized living’, that’s pretty much what they want.

          They want to be zoo animals, farm raised and kept, because freedom and responsibility are too much to handle. There is a reason why they keep boxing themselves into smaller and smaller pod spaces and calling it good.

          They can’t handle life and all the wildness, potential and uncertainty it has to offer. They want guarantees. And it breaks them to know there aren’t any.

          1. Oh, I agree. That’s exactly what they want. Life as petting zoo, and they’re the pets. Feed me, pet me, feed me again.

            Worst. Possible. Life. If there’s Hell, probably a corner of it looks like that.

              1. Heh. Some of the smut I’ve been writing recently has that sort of called out. That the ladies in the story are only interested in the BDSM portions because it gets them the attention they want, not because they actually want to do the service parts. That they want to BE disciplined, not HAVE discipline. I kind of wonder how the intended audience will take that, if and when they ever see it

                1. *grin* I’ll admit you have me curious now. The few times I’ve written smut were gifts for certain friends, and while successful with the recipient, I don’t think they would’ve succeeded in being for ‘general audience’. Too personalized to the recipient.

                  Gets them the attention they want? I always figured part of the appeal of BDSM was being able to set aside their ‘normal’ and indulge in the ‘not being in control.’ That includes the whole appeal from a lot of women (and men) about being disciplined and having to serve, especially in acting out a fantasy safely.

                  Makes me wanna read what you’ve got, out of curiosity.

      2. It goes much further than that. The NY Times hired an editor who promoted the idea of “cancelling white people” and how openly said that the world would be better of without them. Academia is filled with leftists who declare that white people are inherently evil and the world would be better of if they were all gone. This type of rhetoric is right out of 1920s and 1930s Germany and these leftists would be quite happy to achieve the same results the Nazis did to those that they deem to be undesirable.

        1. What’s interesting to me is to hear is this “white people are evil” talk… from white people. So, are they suicidal, or is there an invisible ‘except me’ in there somewhere?

          1. Virtue signalling. They’re showing their piety to all the other SJW clerics. That’s how you get cushy government jobs and free cheese these days.

    1. *dry* I haven’t hesitated in the LEAST about describing it as Apartheid or segregationist policies based on race. Makes people stumble a bit, try to call me a white male, then you hear the brainwashing hardlock when they find out, nope, I’m neither.

      1. Sarah, you know I’ve been saying a civil war is necessary for a long time, and TRX’s reply below is why. They’ve gotten away with it for so long that nothing else will get through their bubble.

        David Weber put it well in “Honor Among Enemies”:

        “He’s not. Not yet, anyway. He’s still playing with us—and he still thinks he can win. Think about his record, what he tried in the Chalice and what he’s done since. Whatever else he may be, this man is convinced he can beat the entire universe because he’s hungrier and more ruthless than anyone else in it. He’s counting on that. He expects us to be the good guys and back away rather than accept the blame for the cost of stopping him.”

        Or do you think these people will suddenly develop a conscience and repent on their own?

        1. I loved Aivars Terekhov’s comment to such a person: “Why do men like you always think you’re more ruthless than men like me?”

          1. That’s in a different book. And he was actually talking to a woman at the time. There were t shirts available with that sentiment at SpikeCon, but none in my size, unfortunately. I did buy the one with Honor’s question from the duel on Grayson: “My only question, Your Grace, is do you want this man wounded or dead?”

            1. Barrayar. Cordeilia and her small band of misfits rescue the incubator containing he who would become Miles and catch the bad guy. (It’s been a while and I’m blanking on most of the names.) Cordelia is ordering her giant pet armsman to kill bad guy. The bad guy’s response, in the moments he had left: “You can’t, you’re a…” (Betan? Woman? He never got a chance to say as his head popped right off his shoulders.)

              There’s a trope over on TVTropes: “Good is not nice.”

          2. I still climb in mosh pits and have people walk to me to me after a scene at the other club and say, “I didn’t know you played that hard.”

            I have dark thoughts that scare me.

            I don’t assume I’m the most capable of being ruthless, but I suspect I’m in the top 5% of those who can be and can sit on it enough to not be in prison/dead.

        2. No,Steve. What I say is you’re doing two very stupid things. Not that you’re stupid, but it’s a tendency of those of us growing up in movie time.

          1- You’re thinking cinematically.
          Suddenly, Civil War breaks out and automagically there’s armies in the field and we’re all fighting and–
          Will there be violence? Almost for sure. How much and how widespread is the question. THERE IS ALREADY VIOLENCE. Note, almost all confined to blue cities and almost all from the left.
          Note also the reaction when the designated right wing victim fights back. It’s important.
          2- You assume these people are right in their self-estimation (I don’t care what Weber THINKS he’s doing above. That’s what people think of themselves on the left) as they think they’re right, and in our estimation of US as well, even though they don’t know us at all.
          My guess is if they goad us into violence (and they might. Whether it’s inevitable, is… something else. If they don’t, it’s because they realize earlier they’ll lose) the violence will be massive, spotty as to area, and very brief. I’m thinking 48 h civil war.
          What you’re missing about the left is how few of them there are. 99% of their numbers are not true believers. They’re virtue-signaling hypocrites and cowards who are on that side because they don’t want to be attacked. The true believers are very few and have a very wrong map of their strength, abilities, and capability of force projection.

          Look, you’re missing that most communists in the west became so because they thought it was inevitable and wanted to be eaten last. They stayed so, because during the long march it paid off in advancement and accolades, if you didn’t mind selling your soul.
          You’re seeing them as they see themselves.
          And again and again, you keep stomping at me and saying “Why do you say there won’t be a civil war?”
          I’m not saying that. I’m saying there won’t be a widespread everywhere civil war. There won’t be a breakup of the country.Those are HONESTLY Russian fantasies that they’ve been trying to push on us for almost thirty years now, because they never understood us.
          Will there be a revolt against the left? Yes, sooner or later. If we can’t convince them they’re set to lose. (Which your — and others — insistence we’ll break up and it will be a widespread civil war does nothing to help, btw.)
          I’d prefer it doesn’t happen because I don’t know how we restructure after that. It might FATALLY damage our view of ourselves as the people we are. It might be indigestible. Its aftermath might, paradoxically, fuel the left’s idea that we’re irredeemably evil.
          Right now, though, unless we convince them they’re on course to lose, it’s 90% likely.

          1. It may be bloodier and longer than you suggest but it definitely won’t end as they hope.

            And yes, I’ve “listened” to too many Lefties to think that they don’t want it.

            Just their descriptions of “us” tell me that. 😦

            1. It won’t be. It’ll be more of a convulsion than a civil war.
              BUT here’s the ting, and why Steve’s “we need” a civil war (which I weirdly missed when answering him) is outright evil: the Republic MIGHT survive a civil war. Maybe. But not as it is. Not with equal rights for all before the law. Not with our assumptions of … well, a lot of things. And most of those things that come in will be things we don’t like.
              And that’s without considering that “spasms of guilt” might cause us to enshrine lefty victimhood and inflict socialism on another century before it’s rid of.
              We don’t need a civil war. We need the left to understand we’re SERIOUS. Which involves culture war to prevent a civil war.

              1. I completely agree about “not needing a civil war” and the dangers of what happens afterwards.

                I’m just pessimistic about “convincing the Left” without violence. 😦

                Oh well, I keep getting these Dark Thoughts and have to keep fighting them. 😀

                1. You’re not the only one. I think a lot of us are fighting them.
                  Here’s the thing, the last civil war ended with massive increase in centralization and government power.
                  WHY would anyone think that — even if one were possible, which is not, with no geographic separation — it would be different this time?

                  1. One item that leads me to think it is inevitable is there is increasing geographic separation. No, it isn’t 1861 levels, but we are more geographically sorted at the neighborhood and county level than in my youth and that trend is continuing.

                    Even without it going to armies, blue enclaves in red states (such as my current town) will probably face a form of being starved out/surround to keep the violence in them. This is especially true if the EBT cards stop working. I remember when they did for a night nearly six years ago. I cannot imagine several weeks of that without violence.

                    As far as the Republic and a civil war I’m long on record as the “best” outcome will be a Franco or a Pinochet, very conservative socially dictator with ties to money or the military who sets up for some kind of democractic transition after them (no, Franco didn’t say democracy after his death, but looking at the setup it was inevitable and I suspect he groomed Juan Carlos for it).

                    And, no, if it comes to open fighting equality of everyone dies. It can’t be any other way. Either the winning side is the initiators, who never wanted it in the first place, or the the reactors who, having seen the other side try to remove it from them are left with an unwillingness to continue to provide it to their would be masters. Oh, it might come back over time, just as the franchise slowly expanded.

                    But the Republic post a modern civil war would be much closer to Rome than even 1787 much less 1887 or 1987, where some people’s votes literally counted more than others and people with real property would be the ones with the big value votes (actual or metaphorical).

                    1. I don’t think they are going to go rampaging in my neighborhood. I think they will go rampaging in their own, but at a certain point they can destroy their own neighborhood enough that it stops functioning at all and the have to leave.

                      I’m not expecting raping and pillaging hoards around the countryside (although if you are in a gentrifying neighborhood on the border with the ungentrified part you might want to watch out…see Korea Town in LA).

                      I’m expecting honest to G-d refugees fleeing a breakdown. Consider, if we have blue city violence (like Portland) combined with a breakdown in trade for necessities (which is what a long term EBT failure will be) you will get refugees.

                      I’m not thinking “Day of the Dead”, but multiple Katrinas at the same time.

                      And before you say “worrying about EBT is racist”, my front row seat for the last failure was Crystal was at work at Trader Joes, which is pretty lily white, and it had significant disruption because apparently somewhere between 10 % and 20% of customers that night were EBT customers (which still blows my mind). Plus, a significant part of EBT usage is rural, but rural areas will survive any rioting better and be better able to maintain functional necessities exchange after EBT fails for a variety of reasons. That will also be true regardless of the race of the rural folk.

                      In fact, if rioting does spread from poor neighborhoods it isn’t going to go rural, but to middle class neighborhoods in the same city (the rich will have private security deployed). Here, if East Atlanta goes, East Atlanta Village, yuppie town, will be hit and perhaps parts of Virginia Heights. They won’t be driving out to Lawrenceville.

                      But the EAV and Virginia Heights people will, and probably without a lot of prep. I can see limits being placed on that.

                    2. Nah, historically that has not been the case except at boundaries. A couple of three blocks in one direction isn’t invading, it is the brownian motion of crowds.

                      However, I do think their influence will be wider, especially in adjacent gentrifying areas leading to disproportionate dislocation. I suspect blue city mentalities of “police will protect me” and “no one should own guns” and “preparedness is for conspiracy theorists” will accentuate the issue.

                      An interesting idea, how that I’m thinking out loud, is will the leftists in blue urban enclaves in red states fear fleeing into the deplorable areas more than rioters 1-3 blocks over? This is doubly true in a more North Ireland style civil war. Then again, how much of that violence would be used as cover for rural actor NI style violence?

                      So much chaos.

              2. > Not with equal rights for all before the law.

                They’ve made progress at whittling that away NOW. And we have a whole monkey troupe of Presidential candidates promising to subvert the constitution and rule by fiat. We have the subversion of the organs of the State to try to unseat an incumbent President. We have election fraud so normalized they brag about it. And we have far too many new laws slicing society up into race this, gender that. And I’m still nor sure whether what’s going on in the justice system is incompetence or corruption, but it needs to stop.

                We’re supposed to save *that* society?

                We’ve spent a lot of money and American lives to overthrow countries that ran like that. And they want it *here*.


                1. We’ve spent a lot of money and American lives to overthrow countries that ran like that. And they want it *here*. No.

                  Ah, but this will be different. This will be … [drum roll] Democratic Totalitarianism! It’s the secret ingredient that makes it work!

                  And besides, this time it will all be managed by the RIGHT CORRECT People!!!

                  Past performance no guarantee of future results. No money back if not satisfied. Some inequality may occur in shipping. Contents may not match label. Use at your own risk. Results not guaranteed. Side effects may include: loss of Rights, including but not limited to, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Religious Belief, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Right to Avoid Self-Incrimination, Right to be Deemed Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Right to Privacy in Person and Home (or anywhere else) and all Rights to Life, Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness.

              3. “BUT here’s the ting, and why Steve’s “we need” a civil war (which I weirdly missed when answering him) is outright evil:”

                OK. I’m done. You evidently do believe that these people don’t mean what they keep telling us: that they hate us, and want us dead.

                1. Well … I believe it as much as I believed my teenage daughter when she screamed the same things.

                  And for much the same reason.

                2. Has nothing to do with not believing them, Steve. I just don’t understand how you propose to fight this “war”.
                  How even?
                  And yeah 90% of them are just idiots. 10% absolutely. BUT HOW DO YOU know which?

                  1. How do you know?

                    If it comes to violence between the build-up and the normal American way of war it’ll will be a case of Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

                    Which is the biggest reason to avoid it. You don’t do that and not have nightmares.

                    1. Precisely. If it comes to Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. it’s not just my soft left friends who are too busy to do more than skim (and believe) the MSM who are at risk. It’s people like me, because I LOOK like them and have an accent. Not everyone reads my blog.
                      Again: how do you know?
                      Besides, remember Pratchett’s dictum “you never burned any witches, though some witches did the burning.”
                      You’re dealing with people in command of the megaphone, still, for now. And with better organization than we have. As AOC’s climate plan shows, they don’t care what they use to control us and step on faces. So, WHY do you think they won’t turn on a dime and be in charge of the “cleansing”? And end up in power?

                    2. I’ve a brother in Massachusetts and one in New York, both certainly Democrats and both at least moderate Libs. I’ve a fair idea what propaganda they’ve been fed and what their values are. If it comes to Civil War I expect we’re on opposite sides, each of us for what we believe good reasons.

                      I do not think disagreeing with me on politics merits a death sentence. It is almighty foolish, but not a capital crime (except for maybe one sister-in-law, but that brother always demonstrated peculiar judgement in women.)

                    3. Exactly. Just because my baby sister, and her family, don’t agree with how I vote, does not make it a capital crime. FWIW. I suspect the 4 of them (sis, BIL, two older daughters, who are 10+ years older) are going to be shocked on the difference in treatment for their 18 year old son & brother who graduates in 2020. For all that they are “woke”, they are definitely not minority, nor are they poor, or middle class (not Job’s or Nike “wealthy”, but much than middle class for most of the country).

                    4. I realize it also means you. It’s why I don’t like it.

                      Hell, it might mean me as well: well known association with a non-mainstream sexual activity/preference/community/whatever.

                      That’s why we have to find a way to stop it, but unless they see what we see they won’t. Because they only see their movie, to use Scott Adam’s metaphor. Also, because they are incapable of believing someone is capable of such killing and keep it under control. Their entire discussion about guns proves that.

                3. EVEN more importantly, how do you want to fight this war and make sure that the actions don’t outrage people so much — bad targeting, assassinations, etc. — that they cause moral recoil by people siding with the enemy? PARTICULARLY when the enemy is MUCH better at propaganda?
                  What is your plan, Steve? Other than “Let’s kill a lot of them”? What comes after? Do you realize what you’re saying you want to do will completely destroy the republic? THINK.
                  I’m as furious and disgusted as you are, but “let’s set fire to it” is not a sane alternative.

              4. Evil.

                You know, I expect to be called that by the Left. I won’t accept the bilge they’re selling, and I won’t shut up, and most importantly, I won’t pretend that they give a solitary tinker’s damn what we SAY, as long as they can count on us giving up and knuckling under.

                1. I didn’t call YOU evil. But your idea was evil. If your’e saying “let’s kill innocents” that’s evil, I don’t care which side is saying it. It’s very important to be aware when you start thinking “the end justifies the means”. We’re not holy and immune from falling into temptation. Yes, that idea is evil.
                  Beyond that it’s stupid (and before you say I’m calling you stupid, you KNOW I’m not. But the idea is stupid.) and the one guaranteed way to lose.
                  Steve, have you lost all memory? Remember the ginned up panic at militias in the nineties. They could do that out of not much at all because they had absolute control of the press.
                  They’ve been desperately trying to find SOMETHING to do the same with now. Look at every time there’s a mass shooting. ANYTHING that allows them to say “Look, they want to kill everyone, even people who don’t much care about politics.” ANYTHING to stamp the herd the way they delegitimized opposition to Clinton in the 90s as “militia revolutionaries.”
                  ANY idea that gives them that (and they still have enough propaganda means to do that from a “real” beginning) is stupid. Or if it’s coming from someone with an internet megaphone and a following it’s perhaps false flag. Consider that.
                  At this point it’s almost the only way they win with minimal blood shed and without risking loss.

    1. What consequences?

      They’ve *always* gotten what they wanted by pounding the table with their shoe and shouting demands. Every. Single. Time.

      When they finally get the rope instead, they’ll never understand what caused it.

      1. That’s what I expect come next year’s US election day. Unless Dems can cheat enough to make their way into office (about the only way they’ll get there, especially POTUS, as they’re not exactly covering themselves with glory), there will be screams to make the 2016 screaming seem like complete silence in comparison, with all of them screeching some variation on Luke Skywalker’s “No. No. That’s not true. That’s impossible!” from The Empire Strikes Back (brought to mind by recent nastiness on Twitter by Mark Hamill shitting on an innocent post by Ivanka Trump about her child because of the boy’s grandfather is President Donald).

        They not only won’t learn, I strongly suspect many of them can’t learn because decades of indoctrination masquerading as education have effectively destroyed their minds for anything beyond “ORANGE MAN BAD” type mass chanting/retweeting/etc.

        1. I think the whole impeachment putsch is in part to try to, in the Democrats view, “force” Republicans to vote not to impeach so that they can use it as a campaign issue to try to get control of the Senate (due to seats that are up for 2020, the ordinary dynamics favor Democrats just based on the number of Republicans facing re-election as compared to Democrats). They think that even if they can’t beat Trump they can get enough seats to regain the Senate and then essentially tie up any nominations, etc., for four years.

        2. I suspect that by 2020, the vacuum polarization of the political environment is going to be absolute. When dissenting voices are easily dismissed as “right-wing” without even thinking about what they’re saying, and in large numbers, we’re in serious uncharted territory here.

          I’d really like to be stockpiling now, but I think that would get me sectioned for paranoia by my family.

            1. And rent a mailbox somewhere else, so the bills for the stockpiling don’t go where they could be intercepted.

          1. Storage unit rental? At the very least, that gives you something where you don’t need to go to the store to retrieve it.

    2. Yes.

      More specifically, so many “leftists” seem so relentlessly clueless about what one could call “next best choice” logic — or (apologies to Arthur Conan Doyle) “when *every* sane and reasonable alternative has been ruled out, the best alternative(s) still available to take *must* be either unreasonable or insane.”

      I don’t think Mad Dog Democrats or Wets** or Wokers *can* make a shooting (or even cyber) “hot war” any better in absolute terms. But in *relative* terms..?


      Keep on goin’ down that Road to Yorktown, O (wanna-be) Lords and Masters. (If you insist, ONLY if you insist.)

      Your epitaph is already written: We Did The Best We Could.

      **Thatcher-era term for nutty / idiot lefties, then also used on this side of the Atlantic by people like… me.

      1. Or, to use another Brit phrase which is much better if you know the full story.

        To our wannabe Lords and Masters, “Sod off, Swampy.”

  8. Isn’t bearing false witness a stoning offense in some societies? I’m not a real big fan on stoning a 12 year old girl to death, regardless of the fact that she’s a lying, dishonest, racist, melaninized equivalent of poor white trash. Interesting that she’s also reported as being an A student who’s never been in trouble before. Makes you wonder what her motivation was.

    On the other hand, a real good and thorough caning sounds appropriate. 1 full session (24 strikes) for each boy she falsely accused. Had she been an adult, I’d have sentenced her to being required to have sex with the first 10 men who came by and wanted to screw her; yes, reduced to being a government prostitute as punishment. Poetic justice.

    1. Real justice, as opposed to the poetic kind, would be for a knowing false accusation to carry the same penalty as the one the false accuser was trying to inflict on someone else. If you accuse someone of a crime with a ten-year prison sentence, and it can be proven (with due process, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt before a jury) that you knew your accusation was false, then you get that ten-year prison sentence that you tried to inflict on someone else.

      1. That, and someone at that school needs (at very least) a good slap for adding “…and the hurt on both sides of this conflict.” in their statement. WTF? After everything those boys went through, I think they deserve a lot better from their school than that.

        Hopefully the girl’s parents will step up with some real consequences for her. That sort of behavior isn’t something to ignore, or it will get (even more) out of hand. I have no idea what I would do if one of my kids did something like that. I will say that I am absolutely relieved that Mike Houst isn’t in any way involved in that decision. Geesh man, she’s a 12 year old kid.

        1. I’m highly suspicious that the parents were behind it to some extent, whether that extent was an actual scheme or “proselytize until the kid thinks Jussie Smollett had the right idea”.

          1. I didn’t get that impression. It sounds like they were just asking for the boys to be removed from school, which if this was REAL I would consider to be reasonable. I would have been more suspicious if they had made a demand for money (I didn’t see any indication that they had.)

            Boy, I can’t even imagine what it’s going to be like in that class now since three boys were punished for something they didn’t do, and the LIAR that accused them doesn’t seem to have been punished.

            1. the LIAR that accused them doesn’t seem to have been punished
              Not YET. There is hope (since the actual apology by the accuser and the family) that some form of punishment will come down as a penance.

              1. Hasn’t this POC Girl be punished enough??? Ridiculed, made fun of and oppressed that she dared speak out against the Boys WHITE PRIVLEDGE. She will be scared for life.

            2. I’ve been told the parents have issued a public apology. I’ve no idea of the degree of sincerity nor whether their daughter has been given punishment. I daresay the Media has decided the story no longer warrants public attention as there is little additional chance of embarrassing Karen Pence or Christians.

              1. “Issued” an apology. Frankly, there should have been a school assembly where the girl was required to READ the apology in front of everyone. Perhaps she should. in addition, have been required to expand on why what she did was wrong, but that might be pushing things a little too far.

                1. “expand on why what she did was wrong”
                  There you go again using your WHITENESS to Oppress this Little Girl of Color.

              2. Grandparents.

                It was a good apology. Text was at Insty, some of the commenters were suggesting the grandparents start giving lessons in how to apologize. (Can they start with the Des Moines Register?)

    2. Forcing people into prostitution is something evil people do. No thanks.

      Now, garnishing wages to pay the falsely accused restitution for damages is another story.

      1. Consider it a legal form of judicial penalty slavery. After all, the 13th Amendment did not outlaw slavery, only made it a penalty for crimes not yet defined by Congress.

            1. The best form of prostitution is a lot more soul-stealing than working the world’s worst McDonald’s under a bad boss.

              There is a reason that almost all prostitutes take drugs to dull the pain.

            2. Dude, really? I can see that the ‘country club prison’ phenomenon could act as a less-than-optimal deterrent to misbehavior, but there’s a far cry between depriving a prisoner of tv privileges and chaining him to a wall and beating him bloody on a regular basis. And if his actions were so egregious as to warrant taking him out of the world, you hang him or lethal inject him, you don’t strap him to a bench and cut his innards out while he’s still alive.

            3. So incarceration isn’t punishment? Loss of voting rights? All the other penalties for crimes that are used because not cruel and unusual (which would be unConstitutional), are not punishments?

              1. I’ve come to the conclusion that in the context of the time and how it was used “cruel and unusual” did not mean “harsh” but rather “inappropriately harsh to the crime.” Twenty years at hard labor would be “cruel and unusual” for spitting in the street but not for armed robbery with grievous bodily injury.

                1. I accept that definition even today. Punishment SHOULD be proportionate to the crime.

                  Hacking off a hand for theft is a bit of overkill. Unless it happens repeatedly, or is of a lot of people’s life savings, or if a person of wealth is stealing from people with none/considerably less. Bernie Madoff comes to mind, though that one at least involves people making their own choices. A little bit. Or maybe not
                  Psychological manipulation to facilitate theft should certainly be grounds for enhanced sentencing.

                  1. The evidence is that all of Madoff’s victims knew there was something fishy going on. They just hadn’t figured out they were the victims.

                    1. It holds as true for investment schemes as poker games: “If you can’t spot the sucker in the first twenty minutes, then it’s you.”

        1. Also, given the less-than-stellar record of our judicial system as regards ‘actually guilty’ vs. ‘not guilty, but found guilty because the prosecutor was a really good performer and/or just wanted to get a conviction, nevermind actual guilt’ (and I say this knowing ours is one of the better systems in the world, but far, far away from anything resembling ‘perfect’)…not only NO, but any government that brought this in as a punishment this should immediately brought down in blood and fire.

          Because as Foxfier said:it’s evil. Frankly, it would be evil even IF our judicial system was always perfectly correct in guilt vs. innocence. But in the face of this imperfect world, the very notion is hideous.

          1. The I guess we’ll have to differ. The alternative in my book is just shoot the liar. But then I’ve been on the wrong side of a baseless accusation, and seen what those can do to others too. You can cry that sexual slavery as punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape is evil; and perhaps it is, but it’s more evil to have destroyed the lives of innocent people.

            1. Yeah, no.

              Rape is a common law capital felony. So when you can prove that the false accusation was knowing, willful, premeditated, and with the mens rhea, like with other forms of murder one, send them to the chair.

              Your proposal may seem poetic to you, but poetic does not mean best trade off between competing goals.

              There are two serious practical problems with your proposal. The first may not be obvious to you, but your statements imply some number of people who would impose this penalty when they would not, based on the evidence, impose death. Second, there are women for whom turning ten tricks would not be an actual punishment. (Famous Japanese case of a woman who was murdered. Went round the bend, voluntarily started prostituting herself, and apparently had a goal of a minimum of four a night.) Someone crazy enough to be doing that anyway on their own, without any financial pressure, might have no incentive not to accuse again.

              If false accusation is a serious offense, the punishment should do something to deter or prevent a reoffense. A false accuser would have more difficulty framing someone from inside prison. A false accuser would not frame someone again once they are dead. Ten tricks? If she is guilty and crazy enough, she can get back to framing people in a day or three. And any form of coerced sexual activity has a chance of making someone crazier unless they are already quite mad.

              Beyond that, I would strongly endorse Foxfier’s statement.

            2. I’ve also been on the wrong end of false accusations. Both when I was around the age of those boys, and as a US Marine, when that false accusation could very well have winded me up in a military jail for a very long time (and then never be able to vote, hold a gov job, own a firearm, carry a clearance, or do any of a number of other things for the rest of my life). Luckily for me, someone noticed a huge inconsistency with my accusers story, and after weeks of pins and needles, it just “went away”. This was around the time of the Tailhook scandal, so of course they were throwing the book at any enlisted men who were accused of anything out of line (Note: Tailhook was about officers behaving badly.)

              So yea, I get it. “It Sucks” doesn’t even cover it. BUT please remember we are talking about a 12 year old girl. I have a daughter that age. Kids make mistakes and do some screwed up stuff without thinking about it. So yea, she needs to be punished, and it needs to be something she’ll remember, but sorry Mike, I think you are really going overboard here.

          2. the prosecutor was a really good performer and/or just wanted to get a conviction

            That never happens. Just ask Kamala.

      1. Yeah, and half the perps in stories like this were choir boys on their way to SAT prep classes….

    3. 12-year-old. Even the “best” kids can do some really stupid stuff, sometimes. The apology is good. I hope the child learns from it. While she merits whatever punishment is necessary to support her moral correction – too much punishment will be counterproductive. Also not in keeping with Christian principles.

    4. Seriously. She’s twelve. I would be willing to bet money that she didn’t want to get in trouble for something, and told her grandparents a story. It happens. The grandparents took it seriously and did what caring grandparents do. And when it turned out not to be true, they again did what caring grandparents do. I’d strongly suggest they take the girl out of school or make her issue a public apology to the boys, or both, but frankly it was handled appropriately at that level.

      You want to hand out canings, cane the people who wanted to make it a referendum on “Trump’s America” and all about “the school where Karen Prnce teaches”. It’s the same sort of sensationalism that drives spree killers and cancellations, and that is what needs to stop. If there’s no market for hate hoaxes, they’ll cease happening. Or at least be lessened.

      1. You want to hand out canings, cane the people who wanted to make it a referendum on ‘Trump’s America’ …

        Funny thing, that … as Woodward & Bernstein instructed us, “Follow the Self-interest”

        Reporter Who Broke Fake Hate Crime Advocated for Laws Protecting Dreadlocks
        The local TV reporter who broke the fake hate crime story about the sixth-grade girl who had her dreadlocks cut off by white boys while being held down is an advocate for laws that would criminalize discrimination based on “natural” hairstyles.

        Mikea Turner then used the incident as “evidence” of why the law was necessary.

        Turner was apparently no stranger to the family of the girl. She promoted the family’s business on-air in 2018, according to the Daily Caller.

        The fake hate crime was reported on September 25 by Amari Allen, who claimed some white boys held her down on the playground and cut her hair, calling it “nappy.” Earlier, on the 25th, Turner had tweeted out her support for the “natural hair bill,” which makes it a crime to discriminate based on hairstyle. …

  9. Ann Althouse describes that revelation as “the least surprising news of the week,” which is really sad. Though I suppose from one point of view, having so many reported hate crimes turn out to be fraudulent that it no longer surprises us could be thought of as a change for the better, in that real hate crimes such as lynchings and bashings have gotten rare.

    1. No, still very common. Its just that now they’re all being done by the Left under close police supervision.


      This bit of Antifa activity took place at Mohawk College, up on the Mountain in Hamilton. At an ELECTION related event by the way, put on by a proper Canadian political party. Election is October 21st, Maxime Bernier is the legit head of a legit federal party with candidates in every riding.

      I drive by there all the time on errands. To say the above display was abnormal is to understate the case considerably. Its never been seen before since the building went up.

      But, the -police- response was 100% normal. No one was arrested. The three assholes threatening the old lady with the walker, not arrested. Despite the scuffling and the masks, cops getting punched and spit on, zero arrests.

      Just so that we are all -very- clear as to who is on what side.

      1. The police will need to reconsider whose side they are on if the violence becomes two sided.

        I’ve said it more than once, the next civil war won’t be like 1861, but more traditional. And traditional civil wars provide excellent cover and justification for settling scores. They also make life hell for those with visible authority.

        The Left used to know that. Actually, they still do; they’ve just deluded themselves into thinking they aren’t the ones with visible authority.

        1. No, they DO NOT Believe that anybody will fight them. Because they haven’t been fought before they consider us to be nothing but talk and wind, we will NEVER actually fight them because we are cowards. THEY are the Heroes because they go out and Fight for THEIR beliefs.
          They have nothing but contempt for us, we would NEVER DARE to really oppose THEM!!!

      2. Your link points to a bunch of comments, but no article.

        I would like to see some of those ‘antifa’ fucktards get shot. At least get their asses kicked, with some smashed kneecaps. Of course, they always make sure they pick on old ladies with walkers, so that won’t happen.
        Q: Why don’t animal-rights activists protest against leather?
        A: Harassing little old ladies in fur coats is a lot safer than pestering bikers.

        1. There have been some Antifa who got beat all to crud.

          They’re just not reported as Antifa in that case.

          We’ve had folks post links in the comments here before– for a while I kept a few, but the articles keep disappearing.

          1. Know someone who witnessed the veteran in a wheelchair in Portland getting beat up by the antifa mobs, with Portland police standing by doing nothing. Suspect she’s reported it and will go to court for the guy if he presses charges but she didn’t say anything about that … No she didn’t try to intervene, she’s 5’5″, maybe 155, AND she’s 84 (??? might be late 70’s)!!! Um. She’s also getting her CC (passed the class, just needs the paperwork & background filing) and is researching what to get. She’s former Canadian Coast Guard and has joined the US Coast Guard Auxiliary (homeland security), have seen the later card. She carries both US and Canadian passports.

            Any bets on whether she doesn’t intervene in the future? Can you see the headlines? Can you see the blow back on BOTH antifa mobs and any police involved?

    2. One thing I never thought would have the demand so greatly exceed supply was violent racist attacks.

      But here we are. As a society we are so desperate for them we’re buying more fakes than real ones by an order of magnitude.

  10. Let’s face it — Oppression ain’t what it used to be. Back in the day being oppressed meant taking third-class jobs, not being able to get an adequate education, living in slums and being denied political power. Now? Recruited to the best companies, preferential admissions to university, subsidized housing and disproportionate political power. We even have instances of individuals passing as members of oppressed minorities where once minorities strove to present as White.

    These are indeed the Nuttier Than Fruitcake Years.

  11. Or for that matter parents of boys refusing to have them in school with girls.
    Well, this SHOULD be the case for certain portions of childhood. There’s a great deal of benefit in raising the sexes* differently (and yes, there is potential for screwing that up, too).

    (* Yes, sexes. Not ‘genders’ – we couldn’t build that many schools. I denounce myself. Whatever.)

    they should be given the punishment the innocent people they accused would have got
    I have advocated this for a decade or more. If someone’s complaints turn out to be an actual hoax, they should be tried and they should receive the same sentence the other would have received.

    Now, the big problem is, how do you distinguish between a wrong accusation and a false accusation. Whether or not a crime actually occurred could be one dividing line. But I sense the potential for problems in this idea, given our current state of cultural folly.

    1. There’s a fantasy series where false accusation of rape got the false accuser (regardless of sex or sexual preference, notably) given a punishment that was equal in severity to the expected punishment of rape. Both were life-destroying, or death, and females who behaved in such a way were considered abusive predators in their own right.

      I wish that such a thing were valid in our world. *sigh*

  12. That’s okay Sarah, because nobody’s life has ever been ruined by false accusations, according to the people who spread every false accusation ever made.

  13. It isn’t restricted to conservative targets. Have you been following the Stallman controversy? https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallmans-exit-heralds-a-new-era-in-tech/
    View at Medium.com

    Chilling comment: Gano takes Stallman to task for his tone-deaf defense of the sexual assault accusations against Minsky in her post — then calls on MIT to “remove men like Richard Stallman” from its ranks.

    “This behavior cannot go unchecked, simply because someone is seen as a ‘genius,’” Gano wrote. “Simply because they are powerful, influential, or have friends in high places. Those are the same forces that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to rape and traffick children for so long.”

    “Remove everyone, if we must,” she later adds, “and let something much better be built from the ashes.”

    So, if you’re calling to burn everything down, you are on the side of chaos. There is no evidence that “something much better” will be built from the ashes. We are much more likely to find people advising true geniuses (genii?) to avoid MIT and places like it, due to a proven history of unreasoning Twitter mobs looking for scalps.

        1. Or, we can make unsuccessful space travel look very attractive, and get those who refuse to believe in merit to participate heavily.

      1. Absolutely. Which is not a pun, although it could be; there’s a lot of absolutism going on in the pile-on.

        Stallman’s personal web pages make for interesting reading. He is a character, but willing to explain many of his decisions.

        Here’s a lesson from the episode, though: Don’t discuss s e x, politics, or money in emails with people you don’t know. Save it for dinner parties.

        1. Stallman is a classic illustration of the idea that most geniuses are asses.

          I remember him demanding it be called GNU/Linux because he was there first and led, for various definitions, the building of most of the tool chain Linus used. All Linus did was build the kernal GNU had long promised but never delivered.

          Talk about tone deaf.

          So, yeah, Stallman is an ass, but he’s an ass who was vital to creating the infrastructure the mob relies on (specifically, the modern internet). Despite being annoying by his naming whine, he had a valid point.

          Then again, Linus already got run out of Linux kernal dev once.

          1. He’s also an ass willing to point out the death of privacy in this electronic age, at a very early point.

            I think someone willing to say unpopular things is a real asset. I guess I missed the outrage gene when it was handed out. Fortunately, most of my family are not into faux outrage.

            The twitter mob phenomenon is scary because institutions have shown they have no common sense when the mob arrives, demanding someone’s head for an unpopular opinion. Employer enforced political correctness is a terrible thing.

            There are laws against slander and libel. In the interest of the whole, those need to be brought up to date, to make some of these nitwits think twice before leading a crusade against a total stranger.

            Also, creativity and progress often come from non-conformists. That used to be commonly understood, along with the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

            1. All pretty much true, which is why the modern “being an ass” is assault mindset is so dangerous.

              It’s funny that the group that all sports “well behaved women never make history” bumper stickers don’t get why being an ass can be important.

          2. > All Linus did was build the kernal

            Linus a pretty sharp programmer. But his programming chops are overshadowed by his ability as a *manager*; he’s spent going on three decades herding cats on the freakin’ internet. How many times has the kernel been forked? Nobody even cares; they all come back under Linus’ hand in the end, because nobody else can turn chaos into code like he does.

            Nobody even knows how many people have contributed code to the kernel; he didn’t use a revision system in the old days. But he put each pebble of code into the mosaic, and he’s still the final authority. And people dance to his tune, even when he’s wrong – and he has had to admit that a few times – becuse in the end, he gets each release *done*.

            If he were running NASA, we’d have people headed for Alpha Centauri now…

        2. Here’s a lesson from the [Stallman] episode, though: Don’t discuss s e x, politics, or money in emails with people you don’t know. Save it for dinner parties.

          If the leftards want you (generic “you”) to hang but can’t actually find anything legitimately objectionable, they’ll invent stuff. Just ask Kavanaugh.

          1. (And as I don’t think I’ve mentioned here on AtH, by “leftard” I don’t mean all leftists. The term is referring to the hard-left screechers who are currently illustrated by TDS, but have been batguano nuts about anything to the right of Chairman Mao for decades now.)

      2. Of course, HOW DARE these people think they are better than others. WE are ALL Equal, therefore there can be no meritocracy.

    1. There is no evidence that “something much better” will be built from the ashes

      Burning things down is rarely proof of the ability to build and often the opposite.

      1. “Burning things down is rarely proof of the ability to build and often the opposite.”

        Then why is the first step in building / rebuilding always clearing the site of the things cluttering it?

    2. Status quo was nominally a process based approach, in fact determined by raw power in the case of Epstein’s sponsors. Epstein was caught by the process, but some form of power intervened to create a temporary resolution that was quite irregular from the publicly known facts.

      Replacement by a raw power based approach is not an improvement. Are the proponents of the change the sort of people who would kick up a fuss over Bill if it cost Hillary an election? Putting them in control at best changes who is in a position to do a lot of sexual predation.

      Stallman’s defense of M is about the actual information contained in the revelation, typical of CS, and looks like an attempt to sponsor restoration of a process based approach.

      One doesn’t need to share Stallman’s apparently positive view of the sexual revolution to think that this resolution is not a fix, much less a permanent one.

    3. from the Wired article:

      The testimony was all there on Twitter to read. Christine Corbett Moran, a technical group supervisor at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, wrote of meeting Stallman in her first year at MIT at a hacker conference—he’s a legend, he’s a hero. She’s 19. She is introduced as an MIT student; she’s wearing an MIT shirt. He asks her out on a date. She says no. He moves on.

      How *dare* he! Get the torches! Get the pitchforks!

      Eh? Wut?

      Wired actually published that… the whole article is just a hit piece on Stallman. Who, incidentally, is a former Wired contributor… they also spent a lot of text on the xkcd comic strip, which apparently failed to unhappen some number of panels which didn’t sufficiently excoriate Stallman.

      I hadn’t looked at Wired in… a long time. It seems to have devolved from “far left” to “fish wrap.”

      1. More like ‘fish heads and guts wrap’ — I wouldn’t want to eat anything that had been in contact with it.
        At my house, the ‘things that go bump in the night’ are cats.

    4. Rather more firsthand:

      Go down to comment “Off-topic, but related to politics. The new Red Guard got another head today. RMS has resigned from MIT and the FSF.” and read from there. ESR and one of the commenters know him pretty well.

  14. Reading the comments are as interesting as the original post. I’m truly thankful I’m no longer in the workforce, and don’t have to put up with the games being played. At the few cons I attend, I’m VERY careful of whom I associate with, and I make damn sure I’m not in a position to be ‘compromised’ by anyone. I do agree that when the reckoning comes, the left/purveyors of the false allegations/false flags/etc. won’t have a clue why they are hanging from that lamppost. In the brouhaha a few years ago over ‘terrorist veterans’ based on the DHS memo, I had a rather interesting conversation with some LEOs that were also retired military. Their comments were ‘enlightening’, in that they had heard the biggest fear was that the veterans would do the “Rooftop Koreans” similar to what happened during the Rodney King Riots…

  15. I left a comment with links. It ended in moderation. Search for “Richard Stallman” to find an example of a prominent definitely-not-progressive person brought low by an online mob.

      1. One weird trick is to only include a single link in each post and then reply to yourself including an additional link in each reply post.

          1. I’ll use the “url_text dot tld” for multiple links, and WP doesn’t recognize them as potential spam. Yet

        1. WP seems to dislike links with indications of search terms, such as % and random other factors (such as anything after the jpg.

          One easy method is to insert spaces either side of the “dot’ and deleting the www or http prefixes: accordingtohoyt . com

  16. Unless the ones that are being widely publicized are the most credible, in which case the others must be doozies.

    Not doozies, but less likely to advance the narrative. Things that don’t count:

    1. Accusing Democrats and their still useful fundraisers. Post useful, it is fine to take them out.
    2. Accusing women of harassing men
    3. Sometimes accusing women of harassing other women (before The Vagina Monologues was killed off for being trans-exclusionary it got away with celebrating lesbian statutory rape in one segment).
    4. Sometimes accusing black men.
    5. Sometimes accusing gay men, but enough envy can overcome this (see Kevin Spacy).

    I’m sure I’m missing others.

    1. 1. Accusing Democrats and their still useful fundraisers. Post useful, it is fine to take them out.

      From recent news, there is apparently an empirical limit, at least in SoCal, to D fundraiser immunity that occurs after the third dead OD youngster is discovered in ones domicile.

      1. The third one didn’t die. That’s probably why the Democratic donor in question is now facing charges instead of just being a guy who keeps having dead bodies turn up at his place.

      2. Not “discovered” so much as publicly reported.

        There may be a formula correlating the amount of money donated and seriousness of the crimes but the variables seem highly fluid. Used to be groping a woman was a mere peccadillo for Progressives, now not so much. OTOH, women remain free to pinch male buttocks.

        1. I dunno, given Hillary’s recent remarks on Joe Biden’s approach to women (ie, “Get over it, it’s not that big a deal”) I’d say they still consider groping to be a peccadillo. See also: Al Franken.

          I think–or at least hope–that the fact that people continue to be upset about Creepy Uncle Joe and Franken-creep means their days of being able to shove it all under a rug if there was a (D) after their name are coming to an end. (Or at least a middle.)

          On the other hand, miraculous, ain’t it, how Epstein’s “suicide” has dried up nearly all mentions of him and what he knew/kept records of? (I hope this is merely a case of the media getting its usual case of blindness, and that the actual investigation is proceeding, but I’m not holding my breath.)

    2. 3. OMG that segment. X_X I went and looked it up at the time I was auditioning and found that the version I had was actually changed from the first release in response to criticism–that is, my version had her 16 instead of the original 13.

        1. Because children with sexual minority identities need support! Which is true, but support does not come in the form of having sex WITH them to affirm that identity.

          1. Hey!!! YOU support them your way, let others support them theirs.

            Giving support is a chore tough work and merits a little something for the supporter.

            Besides, this is America in the 21st Century — if having sex with somebody doesn’t affirm their identity, what will?

            [I am easily depressed and therefore do not care to contemplate the number of people who might endorse that sentiment. But I bet they’re every one of them Woke.]

  17. A bunch of us got a belly full of the precursor to this carp during the Sad Puppies kerfuffle not so very long ago. Wild accusations, threats of boycotts, constant cries of racist, sexist, homophobe, neo-nazi, ad infinitum. Of course now, having utterly destroyed the institution the whole thing was about, the entitled bastiches and SJW crowd have simply moved on to the next excuse to make themselves feel self important and superior to all those deplorable common folk.
    It’s funny in a very sad and tragic way. Promote false #metoo accusations and you get MGTOW which is simply a bunch of men refusing to any longer subject themselves to their silly and very hurtful games. Personified in the case of VP Pence and his rules for absolute avoidance of being alone with any female other than his wife or relative.
    Unfortunately their tactics still sometimes work. The left managed to get a Democrat elected to the Senate in a deep red state with a combination of crossover voting in a primary followed immediately by a chitstorm of false and misleading accusations towards the Republican candidate over his dating habits over 30 years earlier as a young lawyer.
    So they’ve tried it repeatedly with Trump who responds by telling them to go pound sand in his own inimitable way. And Kavanaugh, who refused to hide his head and run from ugly yet baseless accusations over a very long and what had to be personally damaging and hurtful process for him and his family. And desperate for anything to use as a weapon the evil scum resurrected the charges again to spice up the whole impeachment furor in their base.
    I am now monitoring the current push for red flag laws with more than a little dread. At their worst these are prima facia cases of denial of due process and assumption of guilt until innocence is proven at some much later time. Having failed to enact nationally the sort of gun control that has turned cities such as Chicago into shooting galleries they now think that SWATing gun owners with bogus confiscation orders is a great way to get what they really desperately want, the disarmament of American citizens.

    1. And Kavanaugh, who refused to hide his head and run from ugly yet baseless accusations over a very long and what had to be personally damaging and hurtful process for him and his family.

      And of all people, Lindsey Graham said, “no more”.

      This might be Trump’s greatest gift. He provided leadership the right had not had since Reagan. And he led by example, but standing up and saying, “I’m not apologizing, but while we’re at it, here’s things you need to apologize for.” During the primaries, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit kept using the famous “he fights” quote from Lincoln about Grant.

      I suspect, even if people can’t articulate it, that’s what got Trump the nomination and elected. And the leadership is starting to lead the crowd.

      1. I’m sad it took John McCain dying for Lindsey to get his mojo back, but boy do I like the Lindsey that emerged.

        1. I wouldn’t rate Senator Lindsey Graham as reliable conservative or a reliable supporter of President Trump, but certainly he has come through a few times, and his general attitude is much improved over when Senator McCain was still among the living. (f he was really a strong supporter of the president, he’d reject keeping the Senate in pro-forma session, allowing President Trump to make recess appointments.

    2. having utterly destroyed the institution the whole thing was about, the entitled bastiches and SJW crowd have simply moved on to the next
      As Iowahawk says:
      1. Identify a respected institution.
      2. Kill it.
      3. Gut it.
      4. Wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

      1. Which prompts a suggestion for naming the current era, based on the Progressive proclivity for insinuating themselves into such institutions and using their respectability as cover for abuse:

        The Cuckoo Years

    3. Frankly, the police should refuse to enforce a red flag order without accompanying proof, and in depth description of the condition under which the order was written for, AND a warrant detailing exactly where, when, and what they are being sent to confiscate.

      Thing is, we all know that confiscating someone’s firearms isn’t going to do squat to protect anyone from them; and if any thing, is going to provide more reason for them to perpetuate an act of violence against them.

      1. But of course no one in America has any ex spouse, girl/boy friend, angry relative, or random lawyer or doctor who would ever think of filing a red flag declaration against anyone, right?
        And the real worst case would be certain jurisdictions that would have no problem with such complaints submitted anonymously. Have to protect all whistleblowers after all.
        This comes to pass and both citizens innocent of any wrongdoing and eventually some cops are going to be shot and possibly killed because of this.

        1. …ex spouse, girl/boy friend, angry relative, or random lawyer or doctor…

          Here in the Glorious Bear Flag Peoples Republic they are looking to expand the list of red flag “authorized petitioners”, currently immediate family and law enforcement, to include “employers, coworkers and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months” – yeah, no potential at all for abuse there.

          It’s on His Supreme Governess Newsom’s desk for signing or veto.

          Just a heads up to what your local unassimilated CA Expats will be introducing soon in y’alls necks of the woods.

          1. ** list of red flag “authorized petitioners”, currently immediate family and law enforcement, to include “employers, coworkers and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months” **

            He!! I retired from my job because someone was going over the rails. Family knew. There were court contact restraining orders out. On going problem (supposedly before I started there) that I knew of for about 4 years (last of 12 total). If the family wasn’t red flagging “kid” (over 30) or his neighbors, why would the court system listen to me?

            But, yes. Absolutely stupid. Know of people at prior job who’d red flag you just because you owned guns … luckily I learned based on someone else’s oops.

            Another note. Learned something about some of our neighbors (as I saw hunting rifles come out for hunting season prep). Okay then. Knew the house behind us had weapons (ex-cop, duh). Others in the neighborhood … well they aren’t discussing/volunteering.

            1. Based on the hypothetical degree of psychotude of any hypothetical neighbors, all hypothetical firearm transports should be hypothetically executed using appropriate subterfuge, misdirection and camoflage.

              At least that would have been the case before the tragic boating accident when all such were irretrievably lost.

              Also and completely without any relevance whatsoever, guitar cases, fishing pole cases, and long Amazon cardboard boxes are very useful items to have around.

          2. I had a bad dream about Gov. Newman assaulting me, I want to request a Red Flag on him.

            I also want Red Flag Alerts issued on everybody affiliated with the John Wick franchise, the Fast & Furious films, Quentin Tarantino and every war movie, cop/heist film, zombie/vampire/serial killer film and TV series of the last forty years. Oh yes — and Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Daniel Craig, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren and Richard Dreyfuss.

            Also, all those Marvel and DC cinematic universe films that glorify violence instead of calmly, rationally, talking out our problems.

          3. Imagine if somebody were to obtain the names of Gavin Newsom’s protective detail and file red flags on them.

            1. They would ignore it…. and the reporter would find out how non-anonymous the reporting system is.

              Every Leftist law is based on selective enforcement. Period.

      2. Someone on Twitter got very upset this weekend (said my guns should be taken away because I’m stupid) when I said if a mass shooter’s primary objective was body count he wouldn’t use a gun, even a full automatic if he could get it.

        He didn’t response when I pointed out body counts are much better achieved with explosives or gas made from materials readily available.

        1. Two of the most devastating mass murders on American soil were accomplished with a) a rental truck full of fertilizer, and b) box cutters and jet fuel.
          And more cases than are easily counted worldwide with a weapon as simple as a large truck repeatedly driven into crowds on sidewalks.
          And unless I’m mistaken that creep who shot all those people in Las Vegas a while back had a pilot’s license and owned a small plane. How many more would have been killed had he simply dived that plane into the crowd and crashed?

        2. Precision tool trying to achieve a mass effect. Thank G-d most of these mass killers are complete incompetents.

          1. I’m not sure of that.

            I don’t think a bomber gets the same press a shooter does. They want to be noticed and for a variety of reasons, fitting the narrative not being the least by any stretch, means an AR-15 gets you what you want more than homemade explosives.

            1. Bombers get plenty of attention, assuming they hit somewhere with cameras going. Consider how a pair of teenagers managed to paralizy the city of Boston for over a day with a couple of pressure cookers

              1. Yes and no.

                And while they paralyzed the city they weren’t know. That took Rolling Stone making one a hero.

                Shooters get round the clock coverage that day.

                1. I see your point, but had the guy in Vegas been tossing molotovs from that window instead of shooting inaccurately, he would have been just as famous and killed way more people.

      3. Man walks into the Court and says he Doctor Bean needs to get some Red Flag Orders. He says he is a Shrink and there are problems with some of his patients. He then lists the Names and addresses of these patients.
        The court OKs the Red Flag Orders and sends them to the Police. The man thanks the court and said he feels much better now.

        The Police serve the Red Flag Orders and confiscate the firearms in the process people are wounded and some die.

        Problems: The Court didn’t check
        1. if these were patients of Doctor Bean.
        2. If the man purporting to be Doctor Bean WAS Doctor Bean.
        3. They might not of checked if the addresses they were given matched the NAMES they were given.

        If you think that something will not happen, YOU ARE WRONG!

  18. And trying to tie the VP’s wife into it is just tacky. I mean, does her mere presence somehow inspire children to hate crimes, or something? That’s silly.

      1. “Let’s pick on that girl!”
        “I don’t wanna.”
        “But the Vice President’s wife teaches here. Her power of hate compels us.”
        (eyes glow red)
        “Nappy-headed girls must be put in their place!”

        1. Remember, the Democrats coup effort requires them to remove not only Trump but Pence. Slanders of Pence and his wife are merely part of that effort.
          Democrat Rep Al Green even essentially acknowledged why they are doing this; they are afraid they cannot win against Trump in 2020 and therefore need to oust him now.

  19. On boys and hair– little boys will cut hair, just because it’s there. Same as little girls.

    In somewhat related news, our youngest son is bald. Again. -.- 90% sure it was the 4 year old. We did just say not to cut HER hair, or her sister’s, or the dolls’….

    More relevantly, cutting off hair is something that girls will do, or that some cultures will do, as a form of mutilation. There’s a reason that anybody over little kid ages that involuntarily cuts someone’s hair is likely to be charged with a violent physical assault.
    But if multiple guys are involved in that one, the gal is going to have other physical damage as well, and usually the aim is making the gal completely bald. Bare minimum, it is AIMED at being visibly obvious and unhidable.
    While all the pictures I saw, I couldn’t see any damage at all…..

    1. The one I saw there was some indication some hair had been cut, but it wasn’t obvious that it couldn’t have been simply manipulation of the locs.

    2. I’ve seen photos as well as graphic reenactment movies of how the French treated women who had been “friendly” with German soldiers during the WWII occupation of France once the Allies retook the territory.
      Hair lopped off then shaved bald with a dull razor.
      Somewhat understandable, and certainly better than more permanent punishments, but still and all, some of those women had precious few alternatives during the peak of the occupation.

      1. That’s the kind of thing I was thinking of, yes.

        It’s mutilation for the purpose of humiliation.

        Plus, it’s so much safer to punish women who have no defenders, after everything is over and done with, than to do anything when there’s death on the line.

        1. There is a very good series on the French Resistance (fiction), which ran for 6 seasons on French TV. It doesn’t pull many punches: the initial negative attitude of the Communist Party to any acts of resistance (“it’s just a war between the Berlin bankers and the London bankers”) is clearly shown, and the treatment of accused collaborators at the end of the war shows the injustices of lynch-mob justice.

          It’s called “A French Village”‘; I reviewed it here:


          1. The more I hear about the French, the more I get the impression that my gut-level reaction to their cultural reactions is accurate. (Short version: nuke it from orbit, avoid avoid avoid, and no thank you. Maybe there was SOMETHING to that whole idea of different countries having different personalities. )

          2. Orwell pointed out that the real difference between the photos of Nazis chasing women with shorn hair and the French doing it after the war was that you were supposed to disapprove and approve respectively.

            And a lot of the “collaborator” stuff was just a way to get back at rivals.

      2. One is tempted to speculate as to how many of the shearers would have collaborated with their occupiers had they been able to attract any …

        1. One also wants to know how many of them would laud the girls in the Resistance who lured their German “boyfriends” to the slaughter, or distracted them from pursuing operations. At the same time.

          1. Malcolm Muggeridge spent the wake of the invasion running around France telling people that guy who defends himself from collaboration charages by claiming to be British intelligence — I, being British intelligence, am here to get him out because it’s true.

  20. I’ve had a policy since I was in college never to go anywhere private with a man not related to me. Meetings are open-door, I met friends at restaurants or coffee shops, because I didn’t want to be accused of improprieties. Now it is because I don’t want the guys accused of improprieties. I was worried about gossip around my name. Now I’m worries about them losing their jobs or worse.

    Thanks for nothing, Proggies. *angry cat snarl*

  21. I will say this post and its comments have put my early morning horror in waking up with the song “I’m Your Boogie Man” by KC and the Sunshine Band stuck in my head into perspective 🙂

  22. The Rev Al is ticked because his deposit on his plane ticket is not going to be refunded.

  23. This seems relevant but I cannot quite put my finger on how:

    Left Turn to Nowhere
    By Ramesh Ponnuru
    The New York Times reports* on a survey: “The embrace of progressivism solidifies support among Democratic survey respondents when thinking about the 2020 general election. But it repels independents, with a negative effect that is stronger and clearer than the signs of enthusiasm generated among Democrats.”

    *nytimes . com/2019/09/30/upshot/democrats-2020-losing-independents.html

  24. I’ve never meant to make excuses for her, by the way. But I find the idea that she was trying for notoriety and national victimhood unlikely. Not *impossible*, just unlikely.

    As you said, middle school kids are awful to each other… so what. Well, not entirely so what, but something to be dealt with between parents, the kids, and the school. A “little” fib to avoid admitting a mistake of her own gone nuclear (we’ve seen people older than this claim to have been raped because they got home after curfew and a small excuse started the ball rolling) or even, yes, wanting to punish specific boys, either to get them back for bullying or, yes, just because she’s the bully.

    That the possible consequences *aren’t* a deep sigh at stupid kids, a “so what”, and a whooping by her folks isn’t necessarily something that she realized, because after all, it’s insane.

    The statement by the school is repulsive.

    The behavior of the press is vulture-like and infuriating because they feed the psychopathy of the whole nation.

    All the rest, everything about the current situation and consequences of, all of that I agree with 100%.

  25. Actually, Smollet wasn’t the first name which came to mind. The first name which came to my mind was “Tawana Brawley”. I see the Amari Allen incident NOT as Jussie Smollet 2.0 but as Tawana Brawley 3.0 (Smallet being TB 2.0). At least Smollet actually WAS “attacked” (somewhat even if he DID pay the guys to “assault” him). In the case of both Brawley and Allen NOTHING WHATSOEVER actually happened to them. In both cases the alleged “assault” was 100%, clear quill, uncut STUFF AND NONSENSE!!!

    1. Dirty Harry was prescient.

      Andrew Robinson’s first major film role, 20+ years before creating Star Trek: Deep Space Nine‘s Garak.

      1. Last I heard, he was still getting death threats, too.

        That guy is incredible; when he’s in a role, he doesn’t wink.

        Usually the bad guys do something to sort of let you know that the actor is in there… and he doesn’t.

  26. Dave Chappelle riffs on Jussie Smollet in his latest Netflix special.

    It’s a pretty funny segment. And one of the highlights of it is when he talks about the gay community being up in arms over the claimed attack, and then wondering why blacks in general didn’t seem to be raising a fuss about it.

    I get the feeling that people in general don’t like frauds like this. Plenty of people sill support the fake anyway out of solidarity. But I suspect a sort of wariness might be setting in as people more and more realize the harm that frauds can do.

  27. From the 2nd linked article:

    ‘At first, the 12-year-old told her mother that the missing parts of her hair were the result of playing “beauty salon” with another friend.’

    Now, whaddya bet mom was angry and kid then made shit up to shunt off trouble.

  28. …and this at a Christian school where Mrs. Vice President Pence just happens to be a part-time teacher. Coincidence or twofer? You decide.

Comments are closed.