Stopping The Fifth Column

 

Trump ordered a strike back against terrorists responsible for the death of Americans and others.  The left lost its mind. Film at eleven.

I had a spectacularly bad night (there’s a uri working itself through the family. Yes, I HAVE had the flu vaccine and I actually urge you to. It’s a poor match to this year’s strain, but it offers SOME protection, and this year’s strain is deadly.) and woke up at four AM and couldn’t go back to sleep, so even the ADD meds are ineffective for getting me to keep my concentration for any length of time.

Which means I sat down to write this post, I — instead — ended up reading news sites, and checking on friends on facebook, because my own thoughts were interrupting me.

Which is how I came across this:

Idiot coward

And she went on:

idiot traitor

Okay, the most common answer to my friend who shared this (making fun of it, mind you) was “WHO is she?” Perhaps because, being people of words, we’re not the most plugged in to well…. media. I actually have a dysfunction of actor-knowledge. Except for very few, rare actors and actresses (come on, in a physical medium it is rock bottom stupid not to make a difference between the sexes. Men and women have different ways of interacting with the world and therefore should have different acting techniques) I have no clue who these people are. I just assume they came into being for the role, and vanish into some nebulous never-never once the movie or play is over. It works for me, particularly because the strange things that come out of their mouths when they mistake themselves for deep thinkers disturb me less.

So why am I giving this chick any importance?  Several reasons actually:

1- because this won’t end her career (any more than it is already,) and she KNOWS it. In fact, it might help her. While someone on twitter admitting she voted for Trump brought out the cancel mobs.

2- because it’s not just brainless actresses. I heard similar sentiments all the time from editors of major publishing houses who thought they were amid liberals and therefore safe.  (And how one kept one’s meals down in such situation was by itself amazing.)

3- While this simply doesn’t raise to the level of treason or sedition — not because it isn’t, but — because we’ve been ignoring its like for so long (like Nancy Prancy going to Syria (?) to show she liked them, unlike that meany-evil Booosh) and you can’t enforce a law you haven’t enforced for fifty years, it is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In fact, across cultures, it is convincing countries that tightly control their “face” to the world the impression that the American people really don’t want to defend themselves and are ripe for plucking.

4- It shows that what I have been saying for decades — based on hearing people say this stuff in private ALL THE TIME when they thought they were safe (they were still keeping the mask on) — that Americans who paint themselves as understanding foreigners so well and being “peaceful” are only doing this stuff because they’re craven cowards who hope the crocodile will eat them last.

5- It shows how much people use leftist dogma as a positional good, (ie to make themselves appear big, or good, or more moral, or smart or whatever) without thinking, (I have yet to see any evidence Rose McGowan, or her ilk (yes, up to and including many editors in traditional presses) CAN think. No, I’m not saying they’re stupid. I’m saying their circles reward unthinking strict adherence to the dogma promulgated by the left. In fact, thinking is dangerous, because you can accidentally step out of the choreographed circle dance and find yourself the target of group aggression. An environment in which conformity is rewarded is one that trains people not to think. (And if you have kids in college, consider, please, that this is what you’re actually paying for.)

This, guys, is the strength of the left and cancel culture. Even people who aren’t CONSCIOUSLY aware of it, know that they will be DESTROYED if they say something that betrays they’re not dancing in the perfect circle, and that they dissent with any point of the left’s program.

So people stay quiet, and the idiot left — which is probably at MOST 20% of the population — gets to terrorize everyone, from big corporations to every field where they’re the majority, up to and including traditional publishing, art, journalism, etc. etc.  Thereby they amplify the sense that they’re the majority and gain some number of adherents.  At least double their number, I’d guess, because HUMANS ARE SOCIAL APES who want to be in with the group. Which BTW accounts for the socialist clown show that are the dem candidates this year, all of which would objectively destroy the economy and with it plunge the world into a depression that would make Obama’s great recession seem like a… well, summer of recovery.

Oh, I get staying quiet. UNDERSTAND please that I get staying quiet. I did, for decades, because I wanted to keep being published, and baby needed shoes. And, as most of you know, I paid the price, career and money, for speaking out. There are people who will never pick up one of my books, because they heard, and therefore “know” I am racist, sexist, homophobic and don’t want to read that. (The fact I’m none of those makes absolutely no difference. You can find anything in any work of more than 20 words, if you want to. Witness how people devoid of genetic knowledge decided that an off beat color in a half-Asian woman’s eyes meant you were racist. I haven’t checked lately, but violet eyes on elves are probably specieist, instead of merely goofy.)

So, I understand. But we were perpetuating the left’s slide into madness and amplifying the most bizarre elements on that side every time we stay quiet.  We are empowering the fifth column.

Now, keep in mind, I don’t think they win. For one, most of these people are too crazy to fight their way out of a wet paper bag, with someone pushing from behind. Their decision not to think might help them stay cozy within the group, but it doesn’t make them very competent.

Also, the fact they silence us means they don’t know the sheer amount of rage under the surface of every day life.  The rage will out. At them. Eventually. The longer it takes, the more explosive it will be. And frankly any of amount of suppressed rage involving a vast majority of the population isn’t a good thing. It is what pushed what would otherwise have been a middle-class revolution in France into the insatiable hunger of madame guillotine, it fed the “sudden and unexpected” downfall of the Ceaușescus.  And if this goes all the way to “rage burst” I expect it will be like a mix of both. And what came after, in both cases was not exactly the platonic ideal of a constitutional republic (or really any form of it.) Which is not what I want for our country.

But Sarah, you’ll say, besides speaking out having a horrible price, they won’t listen. I can’t argue with these people!

Sure, but even arguing does show they don’t have it all their own way. Most people aren’t going to analyze things like the fact that the wokest always go brokest. And corporations are even less likely to do that.

HOWEVER the most important thing isn’t even to rationally discuss this.  Sure, once you get someone — a spectator — who genuinely wants to discuss points, then you engage your logic. BUT UNTIL THEN and more important than it, it behooves you to realize who you’re dealing with.

These people are signaling they’re smart (a characteristic that in the left has long come to mean “has the correct beliefs”) and educated, and totally worthy of being upper class.

They’re not thinking, or reasoning, or in any way being …. rational.

So what is the best way to stop that cr*p? Short of cancel culture, which requires us to act like the left, and try to shut down opposing voices (and why would we do that, when the more they talk the more they reveal themselves as the despicable creatures they are?) something that is not precisely in the right’s playbook because the individualists have trouble organizing?

Well, stuff like this is a good beginning,

talk back

But more importantly, her original tweet is full of comedy gold. For instance, she thinks the US is misogynist…. compared to a nation in which women can go to jail, get raped and executed (they have to get raped first, because Islamic law has problems with killing virgins. Chew on that) for going out of the house with their hair uncovered!

She opposes nationalism…. compared to what? Are other countries not nations? Note that you can’t criticize Mexican DRUG CARTELS without the Mexican president being offended.

Racism? WHAT COLOR DOES SHE THINK IRANIANS ARE?

But more importantly, her assumption that if you cower before someone attacking you, they’ll stop attacking you.  She’s not only not too bright, but why is she denying “little tan people” agency? Does she think they can’t decide to attack even if we don’t? (I guess the crowds of people shouting death to America while Carter — and Obama — were appeasing Iran would blow her mind.)

More importantly, if she is so mad at the “terrorist regime” we should tweet back at her (and I would if I were on twitter) instructions on how to buy a ticket out of the country, followed by instructions on how to renounce citizenship. And make fun of the fact she doesn’t seem to know how to do that.

As hard as it is to mock her basically pledging allegiance to Iran and its flag, because she tweeted it out with the Shah’s flag (LOL) because what she wrote already sounds like a Babylon Bee article, it must be mocked.  One should perhaps — very seriously — endorse her perspective that no flags should be disrespected, which is why we expect she’ll join us in outrage at the kneeling during the anthem and the flying of the American flag.

Mock them. Ridicule them. They’re a target rich environment.

More importantly, necklace the democratic party with those of them who drop the mask. No, seriously. They are, as they are right now, a profoundly anti-American party.

They hide it behind a bunch of things, from concern for the “environment” to “looking after the little people” but all their policies would cripple and destroy the US. Being the rump end of the Soviet agit prop policies of infiltration, they have convinced themselves that America is the enemy, and that ending it will make the world a better place.

Only it won’t. It is America standing tall and opposing the tyrants that makes the world better.  And while we are tired of foreign wars, and sending our young to die on foreign shores, and I completely approve of the president’s policy of limited engagements, we ALSO can’t allow our enemies to hit us impunely. That is to invite more attacks, and ultimately a war of a magnitude that none of us wants to see.  Aggression against us MUST be responded to with maximum force, so that the bullies of the world know we’re not a safe target.  And contrary to what Ms. McGowan’s stupidity conjures up for a world picture, the bullies shall always be with us. Be we ever so kind and pure, we’ll be hated by individuals, religions and nations whose drive for total (and totalitarian) power our mere existence challenges.

More importantly, resisting and defeating attacks against us sometimes has the side effect of freeing other people.

I understand there were Iraqi demonstrations celebrating the death of Al Soleimani.

Will there be repercussions to the death? Undoubtedly. But the question we must ask the fifth column is: WHAT are they going to do to us, beyond killing Americans and encouraging terrorism against us, something they’ve been doing for decades?

And by the way, no, dear lefties, this doesn’t mean they will eat you last. The enemies we face are variously very nationalistic, deeply racist and extremely misogynist.  If you’re a white woman (or an American of any description) who is showing disloyalty to your own people, they’ll eat you FIRST.

And rest assured when that time comes, we’ll show you the deep felt compassion and empathy that Hilary Clinton showed the Benghazi dead.

Because at that time, really, what difference will it make?

Don’t tell us you never saw it coming. You’ve been warned. Leftism is no longer a positional good. And we’ll make sure no one mistakes it for such.

You’re wearing last century’s intellectual fashions, covered in the corpses of the 100 million people massacred in their name, and the millions more who gave blood and life to fight their way out of it.

And it’s not a good look.

 

 

 

415 thoughts on “Stopping The Fifth Column

  1. IIRC (possibly I don’t, as I cannot bring myself to give a damn about such people) McGowan was star of a juvenile TV series a couple decades back and, more recently, was destroying her career (such of it as remained) by pushing the #MeToo agenda.

    She might be a pro-abort activist too, those are a dime a dozen in Hollywood.

    1. She was pushing #metoo at least in part because she was raped by Harvey Weinstein. I don’t know exactly when it occurred, but the speculation I’ve seen is that it happened right before she shaved her head.

      She was apparently forced to sign an NDA as part of the settlement with Weinstein’s company (it was either that, or get sued into oblivion for slander). At the time people knew that something bad had happened to her, but didn’t have the details (because she was legally prevented from saying anything). After the news about Weinstein came out, she made it clear what had happened.

      1. *shudder*
        Yeah, women shaving their head is a traditional form of self-mutilation in response to that kind of trauma.
        Especially if they’re attractive.

      2. I’m rolling my eyes at Ms. McGowan’s comments here, but I can’t help feeling sorry for her based on what she experienced in Hollywood.

        I may be giving her too much credit, but there’s a part of me that wonders if what she’s doing here is trying to get back in good with the crowd who are still angry with her for her part in taking down Weinstein. There’s nothing those guys love more than a “blame America first” rant.

        1. I’m afraid you may be right. Hollywood fame is addictive. Addicts will do most anything to get a fix.

        2. IIRC, she started going berserk immediately after the rape is believed to have taken place. At the time, her ire was largely focused on those she saw as enabling and defending Weinstein (without actually identifying him). Now that Weinstein’s gone, I suspect that she’s trying to get the same internal good feelings that she got while going after his supporters.

            1. Indeed. And storytelling sans redemption is bad art if it’s art at all.

              Cue Raymond Chandler’s definition from The Simple Art of Murder here:
              In everything that can be called art there is a quality of redemption. It may be pure tragedy, if it is high tragedy, and it may be pity and irony, and it may be the raucous laughter of the strong man. But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid.

              More on this (and my own philosophy) at: The Basis of Subcreation

        3. She was also raised in a cult as a child, and escaped (The “Children of God”, also the same group River Phoenix got out of). So much as I’d like to slap her for her recent idiotic comments, she at least has a LOT of crazy going on in her head to explain it.

          I still rolled my eyes so hard at the “we are being held hostage by a terrorist regime” thing that I’m still looking for them. Honey, Iran is an ACTUAL TERRORIST REGIME…

      3. “No, I’m not saying they’re stupid.”

        1. Why go through the motions of pointing out how stupid someone is, only to say “No, I’m not saying they’re stupid.”

        2. How they think, what they say, and what they do are all clear evidence that they are, in fact, stupid. If you knowingly walked out in front of a moving vehicle, you’d would have been stupid. Rose and her ilk are stupid. Obama is stupid. Biden is stupid. Bernie is stupid. Schiff is stupid. AOC is stupid. The list goes on.

        1. You assume facts not in evidence. Stupid is one of those things that does NOT boil down to “stupid is as stupid does.”
          Some of the most stupid acting people I know are certified geniuses in their own domains, or simply afflicted with a case of “things so stupid only the very smart would believe them.”
          Which is why I’m not saying they’re stupid. I DON’T KNOW. I’m sure some of them aren’t. (Shrug.)

          1. Even the brightest people can have blind spots. Or for an example relevant to the Weinstein thing, even the brightest people can believe they are trapped in a bad situation and thus can be led to accept truly monstrous things happening to them because they believe they have no viable options. This I know.

            Some people can, again, be quite bright, but because of trauma, indoctrination (often from a young age), or other causes can have “short circuits” in the thinking process that, if examined rationally, can look ridiculous. But they can’t look at it rationally because this other “programming” (intentional, defense mechanism, or what have you) interrupts all calls to the “think logically” part of the brain to give the canned response. This, too, I know.

        2. 1. Why go through the motions of pointing out how stupid someone is, only to say “No, I’m not saying they’re stupid.”

          Because there’s a difference between doing something stupid, and being stupid.

          #ParentingLessons

    2. She was in Charmed, a half way decent TV fantasy about good witches versus demons in San Francisco. I liked watching it with my daughter. Two of the show’s star have been loud Left-wing-loonies lately.

      1. Side note, the powers that be did a reboot of Charmed a year or two ago, more “diverse” cast and much more woke scripts. I think it’s in its second or third season. Don’t expect it to endure very much longer as such party line shows are very quickly becoming repetitious and boring.

      2. Was Charmed that show with the ghastly stuffed cat (black) supposedly as a familiar? I think I channel surfed through it once, extremely briefly. It would require the Ludovico technique to get me to watch another moment of it.

        The post-program actions of Ms McGowan and Milano do little to make me think the show more attractive. Maybe if they had Adam Baldwin …

          1. Sabrina had a talking black cat. Charmed did not.

            However, I don’t remember the black cat on the live action Sabrina as a bad special effect.

            1. There WAS a cat in Charmed, in the first couple of seasons, and it turned out to be a polymorphed witch, if memory serves.

              1. My recollection is that it made the puppetry on Mr. Rogers’ show look good.

                Happily, I was under no household pressure to watch Sabrina or Charmed, as Daughtorial Unit was a fan of Forensic Files ad its relatives.

          1. Melissa Joan Hart
            somewhat republican, religious Presbyterian, and not a total loon in all things, but is in others, though of the type you might could convince she is wrong, and rather libertarian in many ways.
            really got slammed for endorsing Mitt

          2. Yep. Every episode of that show could be boiled down to “Sabrina attempts to use magic as a short-cut and learns that nothing is ever free.”

            Which still made it more entertaining (and useful) than at least half and possibly as much as three-quarters of the shows on that channel (Disney Family).

  2. Literally just above this in FB was a quote from someone else: “Maybe “Committing an act of war without Congressional authorization” will be the third article of impeachment.”

    Um. Like has been done numerous times in the last ump-teen years? *cough* drone strikes *cough*

    1. Never mind that the authorization following the 9/11 attack explicitly covers the President, as CinC, taking action against terrorists without first consulting Congress.

      What they’re really cheesed off about is that they didn’t get a chance to leak the plans to their contacts among the “America Worst” (vice “America First”, Trump’s position) crowd to try to engineer a second Operation Eagle Claw they can point to as evidence of presidential incompetence.

      1. Yep – Dems are shocked, shocked that the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” (PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002) combined with “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (PUBLIC LAW 107–40—SEPT. 18, 2001), both still extant law, somehow unexpectedly cover the use of military force against a terrorist on the road just outside the Baghdad airport, which for AOC’s information, is in Iraq.

          1. Pretty much. I mean elections and the electoral college is fine if it works in favor of the Dems and anyone else has to ‘abide by the results’ (insert sneering tones here copying them) but MUST be abolished if they work for anyone else, because that’s unfair. e_e Ditto for laws.

            1. Then the Outer Party eventually reciprocates, or it’s going to be even more of whipping boy than it is.
              This can’t help but chip legality away bit by bit. And then legitimacy. The main reason why headcount as a surrogate battle is useful at all is that this resolves a conflict (not unlike e.g. duels) and ensures the result is supported by majority of those who care, so it sticks. But this works only if whatever result an election yields is accepted as the real and final answer. If it’s going to be immediately contested and more time is wasted on accusations, squabbling and recounts instead, what’s even the point?

              1. To explain, ladies and gentlemen, Tbeholder has always “smelled”. Granted, he’s one of the more subtle trolls, but if you look at his comments, there’s a pose of libertarianism that falls apart under a tendency to spread hate of the US and dissension.
                He’s skated on the head of banning for a long time, but tended to disappear for months when given a warning.
                Today his comments about our not finding WMDs — which anyone who had friends on site knows it’s bullshit. The media simply didn’t report it. Now you might or might not believe that’s reason to go in, but WMDs they DID have — got under my nose enough I looked up his IP.
                WOW, he’s not even bouncing it on anything, like others have tried to. No, this is just straight up from Russia. (one of the sets not yet blocked) and has been reported a number of times.
                Normally I’d let it skate, but since there seems to be a disinformazia war going on in blog comments — and by the way, smelling Tbeholder is all through several geek forums — I don’t feel a need to put up with him.
                buh-bye.

                1. , but WMDs they DID have

                  As was mentioned by RES, we posted some exhaustive links very recently.

                  The slight of hand that the Media did was acting like “WMDs” was supposed to only mean fully active nukes, and I am still confused on how the ***** folks ignored the caravans we WATCHED ON THE EVENING NEWS going across the border.

                  Good heavens, some of the guys on my ship got hit by WMDs that they think MAY have been some of those that were supposed to be in inspection points– but weren’t, even when they only let the inspectors in after an illegal wait time.

      2. Especially within the borders of Iraq. The stuff I’m seeing, 75% of these people think all of this went down inside Iran itself.

    2. You are overlooking the part of the Constitution which declares, “It’s different when Democrats do it.”

      It is in the shadows of the penumbra of the emanations of the Fifteenth Amendment. It is what enabled the Jim Crow laws, Wilson’s suspensions of civil rights, FDR’s usurpation of Congressional Authority and an exclusive privilege of using drones for assassination of Democrats’ enemies as exercised by Clinton and Obama.

    3. Well they can try. But they’d have to introduce a law that requires the President to get permission first, pass it in the house, senate (doubt it), & have the president sign it (VETO!!!), which then requires super majority override, which I don’t believe they can get.

      Otherwise they are just whistling Dixie into the wind. Of coarse they are on the other two, and any other articles they can pull out of their asses.

      Really don’t want the year to go fast, but I can’t wait for November 2020, where I pray for President Trump’s reelection, Senate & House get Republican super majorities. At least for 2 years. Then can go back to simple majority for each for 2 years, until 2024. Need to get some things passed & into law that the next wishy-washy democratic president can’t just pen strike through and eliminate; ignore maybe, but not eliminate.

      1. The War Powers Act states this, IIRC. However, it’s questionable whether the act is constitutionally legal, no administration from either political party has ever accepted it as legal, and neither the executive nor the legislative branch really wants to ask the judicial branch to rule on it.

        1. War Powers Act

          To declare war. But police actions? Waves hands.

          Yes. It would take the demo-rats to be that stupid to push the issue & have it settled one way or the other … I’m guessing if they choose this incident they’ll get their hands slapped & backsides spanked, hard (or one would hope).

          1. As I noted above, the dubious War Powers Act does not even come into it – blowing up terrorists who happen to be physically located in Iraq is covered by two separate existing authorizations by Congress which were never repealed or superseded, even when the Dems held the WH as well as comfortable majorities in both houses.

            1. Even if the AUMFs didn’t apply, the War Powers Act doesn’t require the President to inform Congress before the event. He has 90(?) days to inform Congress after ordering military action.

              1. Yes. That’s the one that Obama violated by never officially informing Congress of his strikes against Libya and Khaddafi. Speaking of grounds for impeachment …

                1. Yes. Especially after Khaddafi had coughed up his nuclear development program and stopped supporting terrorism. He sued for peace, was granted terms by Bush the Younger…and Obama/Clinton went back on the deal.

                  So there are now slave markets in Libya.

                  1. We did it at the urging of our European allies.

                    I suspect that Khaddafi annoyed someone powerful in one of those countries by turning down a bribe (presumably because it was insufficient) in exchange for some of his country’s natural resources.

                    1. We did it at the urging of our European allies.

                      Yeah, and how’s that working out for them now? Italy liking the seaborn refugee flow much?

                      IIRC, Muammar was in a minor tiff with some of the Europeans about oil refinery ownership or operating rights or somesuch around when the Eurps decided to encourage one of his generals to try a coup, and that kicked off the avalanche.

                      Similar to how Syria became such a mess – outside encouragement (not from the US, but not really discouraged by The Might Barry either) to try and get rid of The Dentist, which in that case failed to do so.

                      So pretty much all of the “migrant crisis” for the EU is basically an own-goal.

                    2. I suspect the topic of our helping and helpful European allies is a subject for a whole other blog post, so I will simply note that, — even with Trump’s pressing them to pony up their committed defense expenditures — the entire dynamic reminds me of a teen boy smitten with the town tramp: decidedly one-sided.

                    3. The refugee crisis in Europe is not entirely due to the Libya thing. There’s a significant percentage arising from the Syrian civil war, too. Those bits are Turkey’s responsibility, and Turkey is trying to push them off on Europe.

            2. There is a UN Resolution that barred Suliemaini from leaving Iran/ Trump was just enforcing it 🙂

      2. Apparently some of the Senators (Sanders and another) HAVE introduced legislation requiring “offensive action against Iran” to have Congrssional approval. The fact that this wasn’t offensive action against Iran has somehow escaped them.

        I am really quite looking forward to November, in some ways.

        1. I believe the “other” senator is Rand Paul. I very much doubt anything will come of this beyond the usual preening bloviation.

          1. A minor correction — Sen. Paul may not be involved, although he has appropriately* protested the sanitization.

            The Jerusalem Post reports:

            Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and California Representative Ro Khanna** introduced legislation on Friday that would prohibit funding “for offensive military force in or against Iran without prior congressional authorization.”

            In their joint statement, they argued that measures to restrict funds for such military activities were passed by a bipartisan, 251-margin vote in the House of Representatives, but were later stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act adopted by Congress in December.

            “I am introducing a bill with Rep. Khanna to stop [President] Donald Trump from illegally taking us to war against Iran,” Sanders tweeted. “It’s working-class kids who will have to fight and die in a disastrous new Middle East conflict – not the children of billionaires.”

            “Today, we are seeing a dangerous escalation that brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East,” Khanna said in a statement. “A war with Iran could cost countless lives and trillions of more dollars – and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, [and] more displacement in that already highly volatile region of the world.

            “Our legislation blocks Pentagon funding for any unilateral actions this president takes to wage war against Iran without Congressional authorization,” he continued. “We must invest in the needs of the American people, not spend trillions more on endless wars.”

            While Sen. Paul has been critical of the action it is not clear whether that criticism has led to his taking action beyond Tweeting.

            *I say “appropriately” because he is being consistent with principles other than the usual politicians principle f “What advances my party’s interests?”

            **Who da fuh?

            1. Ol’ dem socialist twit with the class envy junk again— even though every time they’ve looked, it’s disproportionately wealthy kids who want the dangerous, pointy-end jobs.

              The poor kids are more likely to go in for a hitch or two in something quiet.

      1. I never thought anyone was necessarily brave to speak up about unpopular thoughts or feelings they were having, because we are Americans. Americans, for the most part, will always try and be tolerant and forbearing. Listen first, judge last (if at all.) But all of that has changed in such a big way it leaves me wondering, were we ever what we saw ourselves as? Or are there now those among us who never saw anything special about America and want to tear it down?

        1. Uh. We’ve never been free to talk, not in my field, not in my adult life, not if we wanted to keep working.
          I stayed in the political closet a long time, because baby needed shoes.

    4. act of war? Like attacking a nation’s embassy in a 3rd country? They really have nothing to get him on in this, If we’d retaliated in Tehran, maybe, but this is a military leader operating outside his nation’s borders being attacked by the 2nd nation he just lead an attack against.

      If say, we attacked their embassy ,and for some reason led by the CJCS, in say Cuba, or Venezuela, and they then shot and killed the CJCS at an airport nearby but still in Cuba or Venezuela, as much as it’d PO me, that is a legit target.

      tis a bug squished, is all.

      1. The people screaming about Trump taking out the terrorist cadre in Baghdad are the same ones who denounced Trump for not sending ground troops into Iraq and Syria in order to help the Kurds. They also were silent when Obama used drone attacks on repeated occasions.

        The Iranians committed what is universally recognized as an Act of War by attacking our embassy, and we have every right to retaliate.

        Iran has been demanding “death to America” for 40 years. Meekly standing there and taking their nonsense only encourages more of it. It is about time they got hit back hard.

        It only takes one side to start a war and Iran has been at de facto war with us for 49 years.

        Maybe the Democrats/leftists are scared Iran will use the nukes that Obama helped finance and facilitate.

        1. And the same people who fully supported Obama when his stated reason for going to war with Syria basically amounted to, “Why not?”

        2. Chris Murphy hyperventilated about how dangerous the effects of this could be.

          Two days he was hyperventilating about how the attack on the embassy proved how powerless and unfrightening we were.

        3. The Left, and their hyper-shrill section of social justice zealots do not understand that normal people would view them as the bad guys. Seriously. Case in point made in this Sargon of Akkad video:

          Spoiler to help past the initial ??? = the purple-haired problem-glasses transgender (self-insert) character is supposed to be the protagonist. And New Guy is the ‘bad guy’, according to the artist/author.

      2. It’s not even the CJCS. That’s the thing people really don’t get. There is NO US equivalent to Soleimani. We do not have a parallel structure domestic security apparatus that “guards the Revolution”(against *internal* dissent) the way Iran does.

        This dude was NOT a conventional military officer as most countries of the world would understand it.

        1. True, but I was pullin’ out a high level US mil position and the CJCS isn’t likely to be out in the field where someone is likely to be droning him either.

          1. True. I’m mostly just having to make the point to people over and over that we are not just randomly sending drones after high ranking actual military people in their own country. Which absolutely would be an issue. If it were happening.

    5. Even David French, the savior of the NeverTrumpers at one point, made a lengthy discussion of how the unauthorized argument is BS.

      When you’ve lost David French…

      1. Yeah. Its pretty sad. *snort*

        But Daveyboy was never more than a convenient patsy to them. The ugly kid they let hang around the edges of the cool kids clique for the express purpose of leading him on and then laughing at him as he flailed and failed. That’s NeverTrump in a nutshell.

        They betrayed their hand to the people, betrayed the trust of those who thought they might really be conservative, and now expect the other side to treat with them? It’s not pretty.

        1. Not since 2016….. and I’m with Col Schlicter’s description of Conservative Inc. as bunch of grifters who pretended to be fighting for conservative principles to keep us sending money. YMMV.

          1. I find it interesting that they’re now being financed by an extreme lefty and they’re OKAY with it.
            Honesty I’d prefer to think it was untrue.
            I’ve been disappointed too much by people I trusted in the last few years.

  3. Americans who paint themselves as understanding foreigners so well and being “peaceful” are only doing this stuff because they’re craven cowards who hope the crocodile will eat them last.

    You are being unfair here — many of these people really are just that stupid and ignorant of the world.

      1. And the median IQ of the species ticked up a tiny fraction….

        Seriously; I used to be a big fan of a travel/outdoor adventure writer by the name of Tim Cahill. Then he included in one of his collections a weepy story about some kid who died while rafting down the Amazon.

        And my thought was, “Gee, you’re going to a part of the world full of dangerous animals, with a simmering border war, a lively drug trade, a gold-and-gemstones rush with a history of lethal claims disputes, and several tribes of legitimately grump natives. Hope you kissed your family goodby, because you ain’t coming back.”

        1. After a distant cousin heard some of the tales of my Central American experiences, he declared that he wanted me to accompany him on a driving trip from Minneapolis, MN to Tierra del Fuego. I told him I was game, but after I asked him if his passport and immunizations were up to date, how good his Spanish was, and if he was any good with guns he kind of lost enthusiasm about the project.

          1. An acquaintance of mine wanted to drive from Flat State to Ft. Davis (in the Big Bend of Texas). In her very questionable old car. I said I’d go with her, and bring proper supplies, because that’s not a good part of the world to be a woman on her own, or driving on her own for 20 hours. Each way. She stared at me. “It’s that far?”

            *facepaw* This is the same person who didn’t understand why I was worried about her going to [country name] “because the civil war is at the other end of the country.” You know, the end with the airport? Truly one of the Lord’s holy [or wholly] innocents.

          2. My last major road trip was from Oregon to the Midwest, largely along I-80. Two places had me a bit nervous:1) Lakeview, OR to Winnemucca, NV (no cell service for much, and a service station in Denio Junction, NV. Lots of nuthin’ otherwise), and 2) I-80 east of the Mississippi and west of Gary, IN.

            OTOH, the weirdest was some idjits who thought it’d be fun to destroy the men’s rooms in a few rest areas along I-94 in Michigan. Did a bangup job, there.

            1. the lower third of Michigan ruins an otherwise fairly nice state (if we could rid the mitten of Traverse City as well, a near perfect state)
              But now, for me, it’s home

              1. Can’t disagree too much. We lived in St. Claire Shores in the ’50s, and did the trip across the state many times on US-12. Rural areas, fine, but now, nope.

                An uncle was raised in Paradise, on Whitefish Bay. Remembering snowshoeing eaves-level drifts at his cabin in April one year in the ’60s., but it *was* nicely quiet. Satellite view says no such luck, anymore.

                1. Bet many of the houses in Paradise are empty right now.
                  Not sure about that far east, but west of Grand Marais, not all the roads get plowed this time of year.

                  1. Yeah, Paradise is mostly a summer resort area. I’d be wary of trying the ice, even in Whitefish Bay.

                    In ’64-65 or so, the wintertime population for Paradise was guesstimated at 5; the store owner+family and maybe one or two others. Whitefish Point had a town of sorts (plus a ghost town–Shelldrake, and the abandoned coast guard station, Vermilion, on the lee shore of the Point. Saw it in the early ’60s; weather and the lake had not been kind to the buildings.)

                    At least in the ’60s, they kept the road clear between Paradise and Newberry. I don’t know if Taquamenon State Park is open in the winter; my slightly crazy uncle took us up to the falls in his boat–once the ice broke up enough to navigate. Dad took pictures, but one of my relatives “borrowed” those slides, so I couldn’t scan them a few years back.

                    Back then, they cleared the road between Paradise and Newberry

      2. Thing is, it is a tragedy when non-malicious people die.

        But there does come a point where you have to say “Play stupid games, when stupid prizes.”

    1. There are two types of foreigners in the world: those who will leave you alone and mind their own business if you stay out of their business; and those who want to mind your business whether you want them to or not.

      Currently, the Muslims of the world are at the same stage that Christians were at 1000 years ago: expansionist, colonial, and militant.

      1. Interestingly, Muslims were at that stage 1000 years ago. The main difference is they were more successful then.

        And I’m not sure that’s an accurate reading of Christians circa 1000. Most of Europe, except parts of Scandinavia and Poland were already Christianized. The Slavs had been for centuries. In the Middle East, Christianity was already on the defensive with the Church in captivity in Persia, a minority in India (always has been, in all fairness), and three of the five Patriarchs under Muslim rule (Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria). Spain was Muslim dominated and much of the separation of the Pope from the other four Patriarches was due to issues the Church had faced over the previous five centuries struggling after the Western Empire fell and, depending on how you mark it, would separate from the east in 1056 (the traditional date) or 1098 (Runciman’s date, which I support).

        So, no, circa 1,000 Christianity was not an imperial, expanding faith. It would respond to Muslim expansion in a period called imperial (mixed bag, but not completely unfair) and expansionist (very unfair) starting in 90 years, but not yet.

        1. Christianty exploded around the world with European exploration and colonization in the 15th and 16th centuries.

      2. Beg pardon, but the Christians of the year 1000 were neither expansionist, colonial, nor militant. Except by necessity.

        In the late 600s, the Moslems came boiling out of Arabia with a Koran in one hand and a scimitar in the other. They struck east into India, north into the Byzantine Empire, and west…all the way into Spain and France. The Crusades were a counterattack, not an offensive.

        Left to their own devices, the Christians of the year 1000 sent missionaries. Spread the word of Christ…and useful things like writing (Cyrillic, for example) and what other knowledge they had.

  4. My theory for some time has been that in certain discussions, people need to have warning shots fired across their bows. Not a reasoned argument but just a statement of disagreement. Back in 2012, a group of people I was having dinner with started talking about how good it was that Obama had run, and I said that actually, I would have preferred even Romney to Obama. At that point they knew that they could either get into a big argument or talk about something else—and most of them knew me well enough to know that I don’t back down. But also, it established that we weren’t all part of what Ibsen called “the damned, compact, liberal majority.”

    1. Romney and McCain it turns out would have been worse than Obama. Romney is a squish an McCain was just evil to all us little peoples

      1. BTW, guys, this one bears watching. There’s a number of them by this name, but I presume this is the one claiming to be libertarian, whose grasp on libertarianism is…. shaky, and who uses distinctively Russian syntax, which we all know from TMIAHM. I’m not saying this guy is a moby, I’m saying keep an eye on him. Also note there are 7? new commenters within minutes of each other….

      2. Assertion of facts not in evidence. A presidency is not merely who sits at the Resolute Desk but all the staffing as well. Romney and McCain would have drawn staff from vastly different wells than did Obama, and appointed very different administrators. The regulatory regimes pushed would have been very different, as would the judges and justices appointed. While McCain or Romney might have appointed another Justice Souter it is unlikely we’d have seen anybody like Kagan or Sotomayor.

        It is unlikely either would have gotten away with the abuses of power permitted by Barack ‘Pen’N’Phone” Obama, nor the destruction of Constitutional norms he perpetrated with the willing connivance of the MSM. In a McCain nor Romney administration would an Eric Holder have been allowed to spurn a Congressional subpoena, nor would they have been allowed to deny the Senate’s right to ratify treaties by such a dodge as the JCPOA. It is doubtful they’d have gotten away with shipping pallets of unmarked bills to the tune of #1.7 Billion to Iran, either.

        If you cannot grasp the distinction you are not worthy of voting.

        Fortunately for you, the right to cast a vote is not dependent upon being worthy.

    2. Agreed! I think it is usually also good to add at least one reason–not necessarily the “best” or the “strongest”–for disagreement. (For example, “I’m thankful that President Trump’s policies have helped reduce black unemployment to the lowest level ever.”) This indicates that there is some thought behind the response, and that it’s not merely knee-jerk.

      Depending on the situation, sometimes it’s good to close with, “We can discuss it if you wish, but perhaps this isn’t the time or place.”

      1. Elf and I ended up policing a guild chat channel that we’d all agreed was not going to be political.

        Then someone did the “end of Net Neutrality will kill us all” thing.

        Both of us refuted it, politely, briefly and bluntly, and added that while we were both totally down for a shin-dig we’re pretty sure that it had been agreed no politics.

      2. In some contexts I’ll do that. But these were mostly people who already knew that I’m a libertarian.

      1. Yeah, I know. We’re still in the time when it’s best by far to make them look silly and crazy to the undecided middle. But if we hadn’t let the commiescum take over the schools and media for generations, this nonsense where they pretend to have the moral high ground might not exist.

        -Albert

        1. agreed, but no “we” there. You (and even I) were born into that situation. And the people then did what seemed right to them. There’s nothing we can do about it.

          1. It was happening in the late 1960s when I was in high school. The Long March was well planned, dammit.

            (Part was the push to unionize teachers, while another was getting fresh graduates: education/liberal arts majors, anti-war protest minors into teaching positions. I saw the first wave in, IIRC, 1968.)

            1. I think there’s a fair argument that what really happened out here in the Eternally Glorious Non-Binary Bear Flag Peoples Republic was not a capture of the state bureaucracies by true-believer Socialists, but actually a capture of the bureaucracies by the unions, mostly the government worker and teachers unions but also the Hollywood unions nod their money, acting basically along the lines of organized crime groups albeit with the veneer of Socialism, in order to secure and fortify their members tap into the state treasury.

              Forcing the one-party-rule and so on is basically just building their Maginot Line against any budgetary reforms, right up until the state goes bankrupt and into Federal Receivership (or military occupation after one to many “Sanctuary State” rebellious laws.

              Looking at CA as “The Government Worker Union State” makes a lot of statewide actions make sense.

          2. Well, we can keep beating them at the soapbox and ballot box, while pretending to ignore that the commiescum have been fomenting low-intensity ammo-box against us for quite a while now. Winning the battle of public morale gives us our best chance at overall victory.

            But the Saxon has already begun to hate, even if we’re still some ways off from wide-scale ZFG. Invoking Saint Pinochet wouldn’t be as satisfying otherwise.

            -Albert

  5. I have yet to see any evidence Rose McGowan, or her ilk (yes, up to and including many editors in traditional presses) CAN think. No, I’m not saying they’re stupid.

    “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. It isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. It’s that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is. He confuses it with feeling.” Thomas Sowell.

    This has been deliberately engendered in the populace and embraced by the education-entertainment complex.

      1. Public school has always been about indoctrination, all the way back to its modern beginnings in the late 18th century at the latest. What’s wrong with the public schools now is that we allowed the Left to convince us that this wasn’t so, just as we allowed them to convince us that unbiased reporting was possible. This allowed them to make sure that the indoctrination done was THEIRS, just as with reporting it allowed them to make sure the bias was theirs.

        The answer is not “We have to bring back neutrality”, because neutrality never existed. The answer is, we have to get back control of what bias is presented, to make sure it is one we approve of.

        With the public schools, this means breaking the teachers’ unions and wresting control back to the local level. That may not be possible with the school systems as presently constituted, but a voucher system and wide range of choice would do wonders.

        Which it why School Choice scares the bejabbers out of the Left.

        1. Indoctrination, hrm. I’ve seen more than a bit of late (mostly elsewhere) decrying indoctrination as a bad thing, full stop. By folk that ought by rights to know better. Pardon a tangent, if you please.

          There is some point into inculcating certain ideas and ways of thinking. Some things pretty much everyone gets behind. Stealing is bad, whacking your sister over the head when she picks up your toy will end poorly for you, and indiscriminate screaming in public will earn a swat on the behind and a bit of time out besides.

          Other things, like Judeo-Christian values, used to be part of the package. Do unto others. Charity. Respect, protect, and cherish the women in your life. Care for, prepare for, and watch out for your men. Little things like that.

          I can see good reason for indoctrination. That is, teaching or inculating a doctrine, principle, or ideology with a certain point of view. There is a lot of harm that can be (has been) done by *not* properly “indoctrinating” children. Cute they may be when small, but the littles are most certainly *not* beatific little angels in a state of nature.

          Properly trained, a young person can learn on their own. They will make mistakes, see that they *are* mistakes, and take steps to correct them. Heck, I’m still at that stage. I think most of us are. Point being, the values we learned as children from our parents (we lucky ones) aren’t empty traditions. They’re there for good reasons. Casting them aside and simply creating new ones of whole cloth (and go ahead and tell me the whole “diversity is strength” argument wasn’t) has got us no end of trouble.

          C.S. Lewis said it much better, now I think on it. *chuckle* Isn’t that always the case?

    1. Am reading a great book now “The Well-Educated Mind”. Had the book already, but my interest in it was re-awakened by a discussion on a home-schooling blog site about “classical education”. Which had three areas: grammar, rhetoric, and logic. The Trivium.

      Also, apparently known Biblically as “knowledge, wisdom, and understanding”. Learn a bunch of facts first, then see how they all fit together, then figure out how to use that framework to understand new information. All that logical reasoning and critical thinking that schools say they want to teach but are not.

      The book itself is about reeducating yourself in learning how to think and learn. Definitely planning to use it in my future homeschool planning.

  6. But Sarah, you’ll say, besides speaking out having a horrible price, they won’t listen. I can’t argue with these people!

    They’ve no argument more robust that Ipse Dixit and Ad Hominem, so there’s no point arguing with them …the approach to use is to bind them in their contradictions (e.g., “Do you support Islam’s treatment of women?”, rendering them caught between being Islamophobia and anti-feminism) or, more simply, laughing at them, as in, “Ha-hah, I can’t get over you believing anything so absurd!”

    1. Argument, particularly internet argument, is a spectator sport. The true believer will never be convinced. But they are not as numerous as they would have you believe. The target is those on the sidelines, those who aren’t true believers, those who can be convinced by evidence and reason.

      Secondary purpose is to break the myth of unanimity that these folk and their minions in the entertainment and “news” media would have have folk believe. To let those who are already on your side (even if only partly), or who at the very least are not on those folks’ side, that they are not alone. That there are a lot of us out here that have not bought into the narrative. That we have strength too if we will but rise up and use it.

    2. Right the Tranzi/SJW flavor of argument basically seems to amount to “You’re a poopy head NYAH”. To which I feel the appropriate response is “This is not an argument it is mere contradiction”. Truthfully most of them can’t even get contradiction right as they seem to deny that true and false are opposites and that things (short weird ass quantum states of felines) can’t be simultaneously A and NOT A.

  7. This sum-up is exceptionally good.

  8. 1) Who is she? She’s the chick from Charmed who isn’t Alyssa Milano. I can’t say much else, because I only ever watched certain portions of that show. With the sound off.

    2) It’s always disheartening to hear most actors talk when they’re not speaking lines written by somebody else. Particularly when their characters are so well-known, formidable and intelligent.

    Captain Picard is formidable. Patrick Stewart is not a smart man.

    Same with Mark Ruffalo.

    Captain America is amazing. Chris Evans is a moronic crapstain.

    I try my best not to know anything about these people in their real lives.

    1. She has major #metoo claims against Weinstein and got attacked for refusing to allow a trans-activist to one-up her victimization.

      1. shrug

        Didn’t #metoo till her star had fallen, did she?

        -hits mute button and watches Charmed reruns-

        1. She got raped by Weinstein, and was forced to sign an NDA or be sued into oblivion for slander. She also shaved her head, and there’s speculation that this was a result of the rape.

          In short, Weinstein almost certainly messed her up in the head when he raped her. That’s not to say that she’d be sweetness and light if Weinstein hadn’t done it. But he affected her mental state with his actions.

          1. Are we talking real rape here? Because the term has been expanded.

            I save my sympathy for the children and the rape victims. Actresses who traded sexual favors to get ahead, not so much.

            Never looking into any of the claims, but if it was real rape, I feel bad for her. For whatever that’s worth.

            1. Quite a few of the claims were, as described, real rape and not consensual favors to get ahead. More than coercion and fear for a career, which would still count, and up there with being told something was a “talk” about work and then being physically constrained.

              Apparently all so well known that some men would act as chaperones and move to protect young actresses that they worked with.

              1. Without the physical side (writing is hollywood for ugly people) at least in my case, I know this type of emotional and intellectual extortion all too well. It is poisonous.

              2. There was at least one claim where the woman actually went to the police, who found them credible. The district attorney, Cyrus Vance, declined to prosecute.

                https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/nyregion/cy-vance-defends-weinstein-decision.html

                “Mr. Vance said his office did not have enough evidence to prosecute Mr. Weinstein, despite an audio tape an Italian model made for the police on which the producer apologized when the woman asked him why he had touched her breasts.”

                Mr Vance took campaign donations from two of Weinstein’s lawyers. He should be indicted.

            2. As Whoopi Goldberg would say, all indications are that it was “rape-rape”. We don’t know the full details, and parts of the NDA may still be in place. But it was serious enough that his company readily settled, and there appears to have been a marked shift in her immediately afterwards (the most obvious of which was her decision to shave her head). She also apparently started getting very nasty on Twitter toward certain other actresses that she seems to have viewed as enabling and defending Weinstein (it was known that she’d been attacked; but the details as well as the identity of her assailant wasn’t known at the time).

              1. I’m happier than ever that I don’t follow actors’ various scandals and tweets. Thanks for the summary.

                Like many these days, I’ve come to dislike having my empathy weaponized.

        2. Don’t have a cite immediately handy and I’m off to work shortly, but I recall reading somewhere that she also had shitty parents who whored her out as a child.

          That said, to borrow from the denial of clemency speech for Robert Alton Harris (California, back in the 90s IIRC): Rose McGowan the child had no choice. Rose McGowan the adult did, and she chose to spread her legs.

            1. I had thought that she had slept around other than the very rapey (so to speak) Weinstein episode, but in retrospect I may have been thinking of something else.

              I retract my previous comment on the subject, and apologize for the error.

    2. Between here and Alyssa I have found that I can hardly watch Charmed anymore. If I do manage to sit through an episode, it is from the early season with Shannon.

      1. There are some shows that are good the first time through but tiresome in reruns. That is Charmed for me.

        1. I’ll admit that by the fifth season of Charmed, I found that the best thing about the show was reading the Television Without Pity snarks a couple of days afterwards.

      2. As long as it has been since I watched, well, much of anything, the more I realize how little I miss it. More time to read! And maybe scribble a bit…

    3. After meeting more than a handful of actors and actresses in the flesh in a servile position, the Hollywood Glamour vanished from my eyes. Narcissists. Insane narcissists at that. (I think I can name three, who were nice, and even one of them was still, sadly, BF nutz, and another dropped out of Hollywood as it was “too crazy”.) I shake my head when I hear idolization of actors. They are meat puppets, and sadly the execs do seem to treat them like that, which feeds into the crazy.

  9. *responding to tweet*

    Lady– and I use the term loosely– the most polite response I can give is that declaring yourself to be “conscientious” is that you’re flattering yourself.

    1. The moderns proclaiming themselves conscientious objectors are not of the same sort as those who were conscientious objectors during WWII.

      During WWII, conscientious objectors went to camps and to prisons.

      The materials the moderns claimants are made from are quite different from the materials which made the WWII COs. The WWII COs were from pacifist flavors of Christianity (excepting some of the Japanese-American COs).

      Moderns are socialists, and pure socialists lack even the capacity for internal peace. (Peace within leftist groups, not the inner peace within a person.) No restraint, no strength, no courage.

      1. “Conscientious objectors.” Heh. Personally, for my money Desmond Doss – a fellow Adventist, by the way – set the bar for principled CO so high the likes of Rose McGowan can’t even see it from the ground. The citation for the Medal of Honor Doss was awarded after Okinawa says it all.

        I’m not a pacifist myself, by any means. But there’s no denying the courage of a Desmond Doss. Nor is there any denying the utter brainlessness and pathetic moral posturing of the modern Left as typified by the Rose McGowans of the world.

        1. Doss had the right idea, whether you believe the way he did or not. He kept is principles, had enough courage for ten men, and did what he saw as his duty daily. That’s exampe enough for any man, woman, or child to follow, and strive for.

  10. A useful reminder about Speaker Pelosi’s claim the

    targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran.

    is provided by National Review’s Jim Geraghty:

    The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps was designated a terrorist group in April. This was not a strike in Iran, it was a strike in Iraq. There is no doubt about Soleimani’s connection to attacks on Americans, both recently and going back years. Literally, the Iran-backed militiamen who attacked the U.S. Embassy Baghdad wrote “Soleimani is our leader” on the wall. Under the authorization of military force passed by Congress in 2001, “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    Emphasis in the original.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nancy-pelosi-killing-soleimani-was-provocative-and-disproportionate/

    1. You mean, they object to him doing what Congress authorized and ordered the incumbent President to do?

      “Inconceivable!”

      1. Because he didn’t go to them and say, “Mother may I?” first. CNN’s first headline (that I saw) was “President did not inform Sen. Schumer of pending attack.” My response: Well, duh, OpSec to protect the people involved.

        1. President did not inform Sen. Schumer of pending attack.

          In my fantasy he calls Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff and whatever other back-stabbing quisling Congress-critter is authorized to be informed of such actions into the Situation Room and keeps them there until the launch is complete. He could bring in a couple Girl Scouts to serve fresh-made lemonade and Samoas and discuss the importance of restoring a spirit of entrepreneurship in America’s youth while they wait.

          1. In my fantasy he informs those same folks of a military action 24 hours beforehand. And when details of the “fictitious” action get leaked, the agents tasked with ensuring the safety of those same folks report who was responsible and see that they are charged with treason and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And yes I am fully aware that treason is still a capital offense.

            1. We are not dealing with rational foes who follow the same rules. Though I did chuckle a bit at that, what I most want is a bit of peace and sanity. I would be quite content with Pelosi, AoC, Schumer, et al, having their own little Socialist paradise… so long as they live in it themselves, and no one who does not consent is forced in, either.

              Being left alone sounds absolutely *blissful,* despite the knowledge that bad things could and would still happen. I would even forgo punishments for the deserving, so long as they harm no one else and have to live in the crapholes they themselves design. Okay, I’ll add one more caveat.

              Has to be *downwind.* Permanently. Ain’t nobody wants to smell that. *grin*

              1. They will NEVER do that. And you can’t trust them to do it if they said they would. This ultimately leaves one option.

                Hopefully we’ll do it to them before they do it to us.

            2. Yes, if they are actually leaking these things (there is probably a minuscule chance that something else is going on), I would like to see the same thing. I wonder if they coordinate enough that simply feeding each one different information would not work to tell who was the leak?

            3. Treason has a constitutional requirement – it MUST have either a confession, or at least two direct witnesses to the treason.

              So unfortunately, your leak idea likely wouldn’t qualify without some reworking.

              1. Well I did say it was a fantasy.
                Guess I’ll just settle for watching as their death grip on power slips away and they age off into the dusty pages of history, and save visions of perp walks and orange jump suits for my own imagination.

    2. quick and easy
      Use of force is still on for actions in Iraq.
      Military forces attacked US embassy and our forces in Iraq.
      we killed some, including their leader, who was also in Iraq.
      No force used against Iran within Iran, at any time, just against forces fighting us in Iraq.
      Forces that were not supposed to be in Iraq.
      including one who was not supposed to leave the borders of Iran (he got him a strongly worded letter even!)
      Trump is likely salivating at the prospect the leftoids will try to add this to impeachment.

  11. This really reminds me of Kate’s Con series books. And especially her description of the demons who ran tradition publishing. I hope someday she starts writing again. Anyway, there is so much stupidity here that I can’t even think about it without getting a friggin’ migraine. *sigh

  12. > WHAT COLOR DOES SHE THINK IRANIANS ARE?

    A majority of people seem to be unaware of the origin of the word “Caucasian”, or where the Caucasus mountains are.

    Also the origin of the word “Aryan.”

    Of course, people who know better are often astonished to find out white people live in Africa, or “Hispanic” doesn’t mean “Mexican”, or…

    If Tom Lehrer were still alive, he would have a wealth of material for a new song.

    1. He’s still alive, though 91 is a bit late to unretire from the music business. He retired from math back in 2001.

    2. Tom Lehrer was a twee little Lefty. Much as I still enjoy a lot of his work, there are indications that he would probably be mocking Trump, not the Left.

      1. Considering 15 years ago, his line was “I don’t want to satirize the Bush Administration, I want to vaporize them,” I’m sure you’re right.

        Of course, I do like his line about he wasn’t even preaching to the converted, but titillating the converted. At least he has *some* self awareness.

    3. Always seemed odd to me, or proof that our schools are utter failures at world history, that so very many people cannot seem to comprehend that there is a real difference between Arabs and Persians.

      1. Well, Iran women are much more attractive for one.

        When I read Sarah’s color comment was “all those beautiful Persian women are closer to northern Indian women colorize”. Then again leotards are going to show up and say I’m just fetishizing them and waiting for me to call them exotic.

  13. because this won’t end her career (any more than it is already,) and she KNOWS it. In fact, it might help her. While someone on twitter admitting she voted for Trump brought out the cancel mobs.

    This is her career. Rose McGowan is an actress who succeeded on her looks who is now past 40. The is no more Love Boat/Fantasy Island/Murder She Wrote guest star cycle or game show industry for post-peak work. People like her have to do this because the normal ways of being post celebrity are gone.

    We need to return to the Byzantine view that put actresses one step above prostitutes. This was, in part as Foxifer pointed out when I made that point at Insty, in part because they were or some other kind of sex worker (stripper, erotic dancer, porn star). I’d argue actresses like McGowan, whose only skill is to look pretty and make the right mouth noises at someone else’s direction is only one step above a porn star. That she was clothed, for some value of clothed, on Charmed and made word mouth noises (written by someone else) instead of sex mouth noises, moves her up the scale some, but not a whole lot.

    1. There’s a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in Leftist circles. A lot of the people chewed up and spit out by Leftist institutions can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that fact. The un-hireable PHD with six figures of student loan debt can’t acknowledge that the Higher Ed scam played them like a sucker, and attacks Capitalism instead.
      Likewise, has been actresses used and tossed like toilet paper can’t acknowledge the deep seated misogyny of Hollywood.
      Doing so in either case would involve painful examination of their core identity as “scholar” or “actress”, and that just won’t do.

        1. That’s a wordy way of spelling “evil”.

          Yes, I think much of Hollywood is evil. Looking the other way at Weinstein et al, to the point of making jokes about award nominated actresses not having to pretend to like him, is evil. To paraphrase a great play, “It profits a woman nothing to give his soul for the whole world…bur for an Oscar, Rose?”

          1. Well, there’s “jokes” and then there’s “jokes.” When people don’t speak up about what happened to them because the power disparity is so great that they’d be destroyed, the people who want to help them can’t speak up either. But they can tell jokes.

            And everyone knew. Except perhaps for young things who believed what they were told and didn’t have anyone to help them.

          2. Not just Weinstein. Someone commenting on the Roger Ailes movie a week or two ago observed that *ALL* of the big broadcast news companies had someone on staff along the lines of Matt Lauer (sp?), and Ailes appears to have been the least dangerous of the bunch.

        2. Feminist virtue signaling aside, deep down Hollywood hates and uses women in a way that would make the most ardent MRA MiGTOW say “whoa there, hoss!”.
          The feminist virtue signaling is just a cover.

          1. Thing is, I suspect that sexual predators of a certain type flock to Hollywood for the same reasons that other types go to churches or schools. It’s easy to find prey there.

            In Hollywood’s case, you have a passel-load of attractive people who are desperate for a big break and are oftentimes willing to do most anything to get it, and there are a lot more applicants than jobs. And there is virtually no oversight of your hiring and firing practices, because there just about can’t be. If you were trying to set up an environment conducive to predation you couldn’t do a better job.

            1. Some of it, probably. Show business does have a certain reputation.

              But some of it is simply because they can. Guys like Weinstein are at the point where they’re all but untouchable. Weinstein got away with it for years and years. The authorities refused to go after him even when they had some pretty solid evidence against him. It took Ronan Farrow – who likely has some negative views on this sort of thing owing to Woody Allen – to finally go public with it. And even after Farrow had written up the story that would blow it all wide open, NBC STILL refused to publish it.

              So, yeah, there’s a certain amount of understanding that if you’re in show business, you’ll meet pretty women who will do *anything* for a part. But as bad as that is, it’s still essentially a quid pro quo. The fact is that there are a lot of people who would be sexual predators if given the chance. And power provides exactly that chance. High ups in show business have that power. But they’re hardly the only ones.

              As an example, there was Al Gore and the masseuse, who was encouraged by her friends to keep her mouth shut after Gore asked her to “release his third chakra” because talking about what happened would hurt “the cause”. After the Weinstein story broke, similar reports started circulating about the political scene in California. No names were named, but it was generally understood that people kept their mouths shut about sexual assaults (or worse) that happened to them because it would “damage their side”. A politician was appointed to investigate these happenings… and then she promptly got in trouble when some incidents from her own past came to light.

              IIRC, shortly after the #metoo chatter started, people brought up a specific congressman in DC. And they talked about how it was generally understood that you never let a woman get on the elevator alone with that congressman.

              In short, as the old saying goes, power corrupts. And there are plenty of people who will do just about anything to get access to that power. A sexual favor or twenty is generally seen as a small price to pay for access to someone wielding that power.

              Then when you’ve got power, and you want someone in particular, but that person is just too stubborn to understand what you’re trying to do for them…

        3. It is a town full to the brim with ambitious people who know themselves to be special, who want the world’s attention, eager to use one another (and themselves) transactionally. What in that environment could possibly exacerbate neuroses?

    2. Actually, I don’t agree with you about “just making the right mouth noises”. There’s more to acting than that. Maybe not a lot more, but some. I enter into evidence the 2007 version of HOUSE OF WAX. Paris Hilton could hit her marks and recite her lines, and she was LESS convincing while her character was alive.

      But being a skilled actor does not mean knowing about anything else.

      1. More to good acting. For examples covering several decades, both Hepburns and Scarlet Johanson are beautiful women (okay, even when she was young, Kate was more the handsome broad than sex kitten, but some of us like, even prefer, handsome broads) and all of them can act.

        That is why the first two had careers after their beauty faded. In Kate’s case arguably the best part of it (even by Office Set she was “past her prime” in plain physical beauty.

        It is why ScarJo will have one as she ages. She can act.

        Based on her work in Charmed, Rose McGowan is more of a flash in the pan, cute but not very convincing TV actress who just rounded out the cast with a pretty face. Think Susannze Summers on Three’s Company. Maybe I’m wrong and I’ve missed fine acting on her part.

        Even if I’m right, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a pretty face who can say her line competently just like a good porn star can moan and shudder convincingly (seriously, try faking non-verbal communication of actual sexual ecstasy…people sell good porn starts short*). As with any job or profession, knowing who you are and accepting that and working to move beyond if you desire but not fooling yourself, is the real test IMHO.

        Rose McGowan traded her sexual favors to be a low end TV star. I’m sorry that she suffers from those choices and will cheer her if she works to be something else, but I won’t pretend she’s more than she is.

        * I actually think long term successful porn stars such as Nina Hartley actually just can get into sex at that deep of a level with just about anyone so it’s not acting for them. This is a separate discussion, though.

        1. Thank you for the distinction. Part of the reason I undervalued myself as a young woman was that my “beauty” was of the handsome broad, unnaturally tall for my place and time, with broad square shoulders, NEVER the sex kitten. And Portuguese culture ONLY considers sex-kitten attractive.
          In fact, I realized, looking at Carmen Miranda’s video (And she was also more of a handsome-ish broad, but had sex-kitten gestures and mannerisms and presence) that my mom patterned herself on CM. 😀 I mean, the gestures and all? Too much of a coincidence.

          1. There are *many* more distinctions of feminie attractiveness. *chuckle* It’s not just the look, either. Tomboy, geekfem, athlete, girl next door, cheerleader (yes, there is a look to it, and it’s not just “young+short skirt”), librarian, Southern Lady, office girl, et cetera. Tall and statuesque to short and curvy, believe you me, there’s a man who can appreciate each and every one.

            Though I do wonder about the guys that go for the blue hair and third wave feminist type. Really. About as much as I wonder about the women wo go for the wishy-washy effeminate men, to be honest. And truthfully, a handsome woman who has the passion, the strength of character, and the conveniently complimentary personality? Guys, that’s a keeper right there.

            1. I think a lot of men, not soy boys but men, who get into $COLOR hair feminist types probably started off into baby dykes. That is where a non insignificant fraction of baby dykes who aren’t full lesbians in preference wind up.

          2. You are very welcome.

            Well, if you think about it, handsome broads are arguably the type for certain tastes. Might also explain why some people approach you with them.

            I mean, there are some sex kitten types in that realm, usually doing the ice queen bit, but I can’t buy it. It is a variation on the skinny chick being up five gang bangers.

          3. Miranda was extremely short, even for her era, which is why she wore the platform shoes and vertical hair-treatments/hats. I vaguely recall reading she was quite intelligent, but then, to last any appreciable time in that business one had to be canny — or have a good agent.

            It seems to me that maintaining the level of “looks” valued in Hollywood requires a certain intelligence, but most of it is invested in maintaining one’s beauty, which seems to foster a degree of superficiality.

            Classic Hollywood certainly had no strong preference for womanly beauty, offering up models as varied as West, Harlow, Garbo, Dietrich, Lombard, Bacall, Hepburn, Crawford, Davis and …

            … Stanwyck. Her nose was wrong, her waist insufficiently slim, but she brought a marvelous charisma to the screen.

            I remember a TCM remembrance of Marilyn Monroe, spoken by Robert Mitchum, who noted that her skin liked alive on film, even B&W. That’s a quality that no amount of acting can provide for and is essential to screen appearance.

      1. Cancelled. Rumors are due to liberal butthurt about Sean Spicer doing so well. I am mean, it was at some point a FU to Hollywood.

        And they let it work.

    3. Pretty sure the prostitution comes in during the auditions for parts.

      Or as Seth McFarlane one said of a particular actress (not this one), she finally had enough star power that she didn’t have to pretend to find Harvey Weinstein attractive anymore.

      -Albert

  14. I’m still shaking my head over how mind-blowingly stupid this Rose chick, and some of the other celebutards sounding off on this are. But of course, they wouldn’t know that this Qasem Soleimani was Iran’s chief agent in fomenting all kinds of violence across the Middle East. That he was the one who saw that IEDs were perfected and made much more efficient, especially against our troops (among others.) They have no idea of how many amputees owe their VA disability, and how many widows and widowers owe their SGLI payments because of Soleimani’s pleasant little hobby.

    (My daughter, the two-hitch Marine, says that Soleimani didn’t get what he really deserved, which would have been him screaming in agony for a good few minutes while he bled out in the shredded remains of his vehicle. What he got came too fast. She would have wanted him to suffer.)

    And … we have been at war with Iran’s mullacracy since they took over our Tehran embassy, four damn decades ago – except that we didn’t really act like it until last night, or when Trump ordered our embassy in Baghdad reinforced. I’m relieved, after forty years, to have a president who takes threats to our people and our embassies seriously.

    1. The people spouting stuff against this guy’s death don’t care. They see his actions as justified. They laugh about the US getting its just desserts. The only thing that might cause them to reconsider is if they’re personally affected by the actions of someone like him. But even that doesn’t always do the trick. Wasn’t it Kate Steinle’s parents who were upset that people were using their daughter’s death to draw attention to problems with illegal immigrants?

    2. Perhaps when Trump holds the big address to Congress to advise them of his actions he might fill the stage with American soldiers, sailors and marines who’ve lost limbs to those IEDs, with families who’ve lost sons, brothers, husbands, fathers as well as those who’ve lost daughters, sisters, wives and mothers.

      Perhaps warm-up the joint sessions with a power-point presentation reviewing the career of the deceased. The eulogy might then discuss why that invasion of our sovereign territory embassy was an act of war and a violation of international law hoarier than the Geneva Conventions, first codified by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, with antecedents extending back to 17th Century China’s Qing dynasty and the 14th Century Ottoman Empire

      Heck, he could probably bring i Genghis Khan and Roman practices. I think Trump would love giving them a thorough history lecture.

      1. Oh yeah. If you even INSULTED one of Genghis Khan’s ambassadors–let alone injure/killed him–you had pretty much signed up your city for total annihilation. He didn’t mess around.

        (Granted, if you also refused to surrender and fought back, you had ALSO signed up for total annihilation.)

        1. From memory, this was a very old example of the “our ambassador is basically us”– so they would actually let you become part of the empire if you said OK, but if you played stupid games with their people you were freakin’ dead.

          Expanded into J Random Dude, too, at least in theory– an early example of equality before the law.

          Again, in theory.

          1. Yeah. I mean, in theory there was also religious freedom in the Khan’s Empire–at least while Genghis was alive, and possibly his next heir or two. They had an excellent postal service, and Genghis really liked teachers and priests, and thought education was a great idea. And he tended to put his daughters-in-law, if they seemed smart and competent, in charge of the highly-valuable trade cities along the silk road while he dragged his sons/grandsons (whom he apparently did not really trust) off to war instead.

            I mean, the man was still a butcher of (probably) millions, and certainly the Mongols were brutal barbarians, withal…but he had some interesting early forays into equality. If he’d managed to set up something that DIDN’T rely on the luck of the genetic draw in terms of “who inherits the Empire” it might have become something pretty unique for the time. (Well. It was still pretty unique, overall.)

            1. Possible good summary:

              He was a psychotic bastard who was slightly less a psychotic bastard than was normal at that time and place?

              So, worthy of encouragement, and grade relative to options, but NOT a nice guy.

              1. Yeah, pretty much. I mean, kudos to him wanting to eradicate slave-taking amongst the Mongols…but since they went out and enslaved other people, meh.

                I always found it a little (darkly, I admit) entertaining that his idea for stopping all the tribal warfare going on among his people? Point them at other people with cooler stuff.

                I mean, basically the entire empire was founded first on banditry–but they did jump whole hog on the idea of capitalism after that. I mean, the merchants who used the Silk Road might have grumbled about the taxes/tarriffs–but they liked the khanate being in charge in those years because they made sure things ran smoothly and kept the bandits under control. Because the Mongols were just as happy to buy the cool stuff as to steal it–they just wanted the cool stuff, dangit, and if it was easier to do that by making sure trade ran smoothly…

                But yeah. Bastard, but of a distinctly more interesting bent than most of his time. It’s really a pity his sons were such inveterate alcoholics–though one might wonder if that wasn’t something to do with dad being such a bastard, heh. (Though Genghis really, really loved his primary wife a LOT, I will grant him that.)

                1. Improvement compared to the neighbors is seriously worth recognizing.

                  Also, I’m am kinda freaked out by how much reaction I’ve seen to the Hu– kinda punk rock Mongolia style– that boils down to “but dude born almost a thousand years ago wasn’t a modern Nice Guy!”

                  Whiskey tango? Mongolians get mad points for beating China, in my book….

                  1. I am familiar with the Hu–I consider them Mongolian Metal, myself–and was very sad I was unable to get tickets for my mother and I to go see them this last fall.

                    But wait–people are upset about them??? Because of Genghis Khan? WT actual F?!

                    For one thing, have these people even MET a lot of metal? I mean, generally speaking I’m a fan more of the symphonic metal–which trends heavy on the fantasy rather than super-dark themes–but…if we’re going with people being sung about by metal groups, Genghis Khan would be one of the tamer ones.

                    1. Well, I mean…the Chinese DID build a freaking HUGE wall in a (ultimately failed) effort to keep the Mongols from conquering them. So they have Issues.

                    2. The Chinese were building walls there before the Mongols, and after, too. (It’s been kinda dynamic.)

            2. Honestly, a lot of the advances are “figure out how not to be a complete idiot even when it’s not instantly gratifying.”

              Most of Himself’s rules MAKE SENSE when you follow them for more than ten minutes, I swear!

              1. Right?

                I mean even the on-the-surface-weird dietary restrictions in the Law of Moses? Knowing what we know now about the diseases of pigs and similarly forbidden animals that were endemic at the time? Makes total sense.

                1. Which, related, made me so glad to actually get to talk to some serious Jewish folks and find out there’s a cultural bias that boils down to “Damn it, God said to do it, stop nit-picking!” to explain the negative reaction when you go “oh, gosh, wait, this totally makes awesome sense— it’s not a stupid just do it because I say thing!”

    3. chief agent in fomenting all kinds of violence across the Middle East
      created jobs and industry
      he was the one who saw that IEDs were perfected
      pioneer in the development of engineering

      His defenders are totally just concerned about employment and the development of technology.

    4. I think Blue Oyster Cult summed it up best with their song Divine Wind: “If he thinks we’re the Devil, then let’s send him to hell”

    5. I think my post got eaten. I had posed as reply the following:

      Blue Oyster Cult said it best (it applies to Soleimani as much as Khomeini” If he thinks we’re the devil, then lets send him th h*ll”

    6. The guy was basically the head of State Security in Haven. The IRGC is an *internal* security force. That’s why it’s called the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

      The fact that these pustulent idiots can’t grasp anything about the situation in the region beyond “America is bad and they hate us” is evidence for ignoring anything that comes out of their mouth that isn’t “thank you for not killing me, your munifence.”

    1. LOL. I’d be more likely to send him a note thanking him and telling him by the way I’m a writer, and also this is my blog. And then if he involved me in his twitter stream….
      BUT honestly? I try to keep the politics and the fiction separate, except for my inherent beliefs that come through.

  15. “So what is the best way to stop that cr*p?”

    In a word: Meh.

    That is, indifference. Or even feigned indifference, until the real deal kicks in. The left feeds on drama. The left feeds on tension. The left feeds on attention for the sake of attention. And the left dies from indifference, or, as I’ve mentioned before, from people finding an alternative.

    A week or so ago, an article at Salon described Hallmark movies as “fascist propaganda”. Not that the mainstream meta-media (reviewers, promoters etc.) has ever been kind to the channel’s feel-good family friendly offerings, but this was a new low. But also a new high, as far as the truth is concerned – because in this melodramatic crying wolf, in light of the channel’s otherwise growing viewership, what’s really revealed is the fear of abandonment of the mainstream media. Their fear of obsolescence. Their fear of indifference.

    Because, while leftists eagerly welcome opposition, as it allows them to live out their fantasies of being “duh resistance”, they have no clue about what to do with indifference. Their only retort is to somehow interpret it as evil in itself, to try and still play out the fantasy… which ends up about as ridiculous as storming a windmill on the back of a tired old horse.

    Respectively, I suspect the reason conservative writers, and conservative fiction writers in particular are so disparaged and openly attacked, is because they offer not just an alternative to liberal-oriented fiction, but also pose the threat of reader indifference thereto. Of readers going “Nah, I’m reading MHI right now, I just don’t feel like [Angsty Politically Correct Supernatural Special Snowflake Soap Opera #43] at the moment”. Just as how more and more viewers go “Baby and I are staying home and watching that new Lacey Chabert flick; maybe I’ll see [Affirmative Action Superhero Sequel #27] when it comes out on streaming or something.” Because, to leftists, what that really means is: “Get off my face, pinko; I’m tired of you.” And sometimes, it’s probably even meant that way.

    In short, rather than cancel or actively suppress it, the move right now is to basically repeal and replace liberal media in as many venues of one’s life as possible, and in ways that would make them look ridiculous for trying to fight it. Mock them as well, yes, but mainly so as to underline their making of mountains out of molehills… since it really is just their own little molehill that’s collapsing in the first place.

    1. There HAS to be a way to do a Hallmark Super-Heroic Romance flick. 🙂

      The frightening thought is that decent CGI is getting so cheap that such a film could be made.

      1. Mike M. you haven’t thought this through. It needs to be a Hallmark Super Heroic Christmas Prince Romance flick. And after saying that I think I’ll go bathe I feel rather, well, dirty and not in a good way…

      2. Well, the channel does have a mystery subset of films and series, then there’s the supernatural-but-not-really Good Witch line, so yeah, that’s probably how it’d work. A brave late 20s/mid 30s woman with some mystical-ish but budget-friendly superpower – like a sixth sense or something – investigates small town murders, kidnappings, monster attacks and the like, with the occasional help of a nondescript but reasonably attractive policeman. Still better than half the superhero shows on CW, at least.

        1. Oh geeze — have you not read Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex? It works the same way in reverse, you know. At the moment of climax, when Diana’s interior muscles spasm uncontrollably, what do you think is going to happen to Bruce’s Bat-Mite?

          The management wishes to apologise to one and all for the image just conjured and promises the wallaby will sit in the corner and engage in self-reflection.

          1. I found it mildly clever– the first time– but it couldn’t survive the existing evidence from the source material.

            Things like Clark not destroying anything when he sneezes.

            1. I think the emphasis on Superman being a solar battery of sorts that started with the John Byrne MAN OF STEEL reboot was intended to mitigate some of the issues raised in Man of steel, woman of Kleenex’.

              Of course, when you get right down to it, insisting that a superhero comic follow the known laws of physics is doomed to be a mess.

              1. Growing up and watching the really old cartoons, and reading 60sh-ish comics, it seemed obvious that Superman was able to exercise more strength than a normal human. Not that he’s a normal human with ginormous strength.

                Especially since the characterization was usually similar to any other strong guy who works out and is a little scared he’ll hurt folks by over-doing it.

                1. Thus the genius of this battle between Kal-el and Darkseid.

                  “What we have here is a rare opportunity for me to cut loose and show you just how powerful I really am.”

                  This also offers an explanation for the common practice of super-heroes clobbering foes using inanimate objects, such as boulders and steel beams — things obviously far less harmful than their own fists, which are capable of shattering such substances. It is an effort to mitigate the destruction, the Supers’ equivalent of wearing boxing gloves.

              2. I’m working on a story where all invulnerabilities come with a danger sense to kick on only when needed — so you don’t lose your sense of touch. Of course, the side effect is that to find how if you are invulnerable, they will have to do something that can cause pain if not actual injury.

          2. Which is why the DC movies, starting with Justice League: War, have tended to ship Wonder Woman with Superman.

            The pairing of her with Aquaman in Flashpoint Paradox fits once you realize that to move the way they do underwater at those depths, the Atlanteans have to be equally strong and tough.

            1. That’s part of the fun-and-games with Aquaman as compared to Marvel’s Sub-Mariner.

              The Sub-Mariner was always shown as stronger tougher than human but in plenty of the Aquaman comics he was just a “standard human” who breathed underwater.

              IE Aguaman could be beaten by a standard human on land. The Sub-Mariner could beat any standard human on land.

      3. It wouldn’t surprise me if Harmon weren’t looking at that for the “Wearing the Cape” books.

  16. Dear Ms. McGowan:
    You wrote “We are being held captive by a terrorist nation. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us.”
    Pardon me, but is that how you stood up to Harvey Weinstein about your career? Are you the same woman who wrote a memoir and titled it “Brave”? Or was that some actress who doesn’t quite understand anything outside Hollywood or what the word means there?

    1. Dear Ms. McGowan:

      Your description of the United States as a ‘terrorist Nation’ Indicates that you should hunt down you history teachers abs kick them briskly in the fork.

  17. But Sarah, you’ll say, besides speaking out having a horrible price, they won’t listen. I can’t argue with these people!

    There is no personal issue that cannot be resolved with the judicious application of high explosives.

    Oh, still not allowed yet, is it?

    1. If you can’t use high explosives, then embrace the wisdom of Sir Warren of Zevon and apply Lawyers, Guns and Money.

      I’ll leave the proper ratios to be applied as an exercise for the reader.

        1. Wow, I just saw the RPG as referencing an RPG-7, and supplements as dietary supplements, so…that went to a weird place.

          There are some folks I’d like to prescribe an RPG-7 suppository…
          ———————————
          Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

          1. Or even a RPC-7 suppository. You remember, the infamous Rocket Propelled Chainsaw meme some mad Russian came up with some years ago, before it suddenly became illegal to like Russian memes?

  18. She’s not only not too bright, but why is she denying “little tan people” agency?

    This has long been my principle complaint about leftist diplomatic “thinking”. They act as though the only nation on Earth with agency is the US and everyone else does nothing but react to us.

    People all over the world have plans and ambitions and purse them they best they can. To the degree they react to the US it is in how the US is affecting the path to those goals and most of the time that means not at all.

    Rwanda’s president set a goal a decade ago to become “the Singapore of Africa”. What on God’s green earth did the US do to cause that? Nothing. Yet in Rose’s world there has to be something the US did to cause it (and it probably, somehow, is about exploiting Rwanda).

    1. Rwanda’s president set a goal a decade ago to become “the Singapore of Africa”. What on God’s green earth did the US do to cause that? Nothing. Yet in Rose’s world there has to be something the US did to cause it (and it probably, somehow, is about exploiting Rwanda).

      Not entirely sure what he means by that, but Singapore is pretty successful, no? Wouldn’t Rwanda becoming the “Singapore of Africa” be a good thing for Rwanda and its people?

      1. I think it would be good. My point was that is an ambition completely separate from the US, but listen to lefties and it isn’t possible.

        As for the US influence part, it would probably be something about making money spent on things not needed while the Rwandan people starve. There have been complaints about gov’t spending priorities being wrong due to the project.

        1. There have been complaints about gov’t spending priorities being wrong due to the project.

          IOW SOP for Africa

  19. (I guess the crowds of people shouting death to America while Carter — and Obama — were appeasing Iran would blow her mind.)

    A) “Death to America” for the past 40 years, i.e. the entire time they have been operating under a declared war on the US, falls into the “quaint foreign customs” category that those who fully subscribe to cultural relativism apply: All non-western foreigners have laudatory and superior quaint local customs, but nothing foreigners say is to be taken seriously. Any killings or maiming which foreigners perpetrate are simply the unfortunate result of misunderstandings, caused by something for which we should apologize. And besides, “Death to America” is actually in line with their own goals and values – how else will the inevitable arrow of history be allowed to proceed?

    B) Nothing there to blow.

  20. I’ll go with the usual caveats. This represents an escalation, Iran is pissed, we need to be prepared for their retaliation, and hopefully those in charge have a plan, etc…

    However, right now my thought is that Iran’s big cheese dying a couple of days after he organized an attack on our embassy is perfect timing on our part. Maybe it’s time that we stop worrying about what will happen if we provoke Iran and have Iran (as well as the rest of the world) start worrying about what will happen if they provoke us…

    1. I imagine that there has been actions taken or planned to be taken, they’re just not being discussed in public because unlike Congressional Dems most people in that AO understand the concept of “OpSec” (Operational Security).

    2. Is it an escalation?

      Yeah, in a way. But so was the attack on our embassy. Iran appears to have been trying to provoke a US response for a while now with their recent actions in the Persian Gulf. Well guess what? They finally got one. And I can all but guarantee you that it wasn’t the sort of response that they’d anticipated, or dead guy would have kept a much lower profile.

    3. Well, Suleimani – or his proxies, anyway – was dumb enough to sign his name to his foul work right there on the embassy walls before the Marines ran them off. “Suleimani Is Our Leader” or somesuch. So Trump knew precisely where to send the indictment . . . delivered by Hellfire missile.

      Which must have had something really nasty in the way of warheads, judging by the way Suleimani’s convoy vehicles were turned inside-out and then *melted.*

    4. I remember being in a class that was chastised during a war game/exercise for paying too much attention to what the Soviets could do to us and concentrate on what we could do to them.

      IRC someone posted here about a Cold War CNO telling his commanders that his goal was to make his Soviet counterpart have sleepless nights wondering what we were planning for his fleet.

  21. Personally, I think this was the perfect response. Trump tweeted a threat. Khamenei tweeted back that Trump couldn’t do anything.

    When will they learn that you don’t double dog dare Trump.

  22. First off, I hope you manage to get better, or at least get a handle, one the bug that’s come your way. Like you, I get the shot even though I know it’s a crapshoot.

    As for Ms. Mcgowan, when I read comments like the ones she had posted the first thought that comes to mind is that she is an actor. Her profession is playing make-believe for money. The saddest thing about people like her is how the media treats them like their opinions matter, they don’t.

    She is a person who hooked up for a few years with the likes of another freak known as Marilyn Manson (1998–2001). This alone has demonstrated that her grasp on reality is, at best, suspect.

  23. A headline I saw this morning: “US Gone Rogue, Canada May Be Caught In Crossfire”.

    Obvious bias is obvious.

    1. Well, it’s good to have a rep for going rogue; you know, “Don’t piss them off; they might seriously hurt you!” might be a good scheme for keeping your embassies and expat neighborhoods unharmed…” Not that I am encouraging this method of conducting foreign relations, mind you.
      It just might bear some consideration, is all that I am saying.

        1. No that you mention it, I haven’t liked the way it keeps peering in through my skylight. Such surveillance has to be evidence of being up to something nefarious.

    2. “The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it because they knew that wars don’t just go away, they are only postponed to someone else’s advantage. Therefore, they made war with Philip and Antiochus in Greece, in order not to have to fight them in Italy… They never went by that saying which you constantly hear from the wiseacres of our day, that time heals all things. They trusted rather their own character and prudence — knowing perfectly well that time contains the seeds of all things, good as well as bad.”
      –Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

    3. If the world and the US go separate ways, the world is wrong.

      If Canada sides with the world, than it should be a target, not ‘caught in the crossfire’. And, frankly, I sincerely doubt that y’all would back us.

      Okay, I don’t think the Canadian fighting man is eager to back Iran, North Korea, or Brazil against the United States. But like with Mexico, I figure that there is a reason Canada has not be incorporated as a state. I figure that there are quite profound differences between Canadians and Americans, between Mexicans and Americans. I suspect profound enough that the current states of ‘peace’ are uncertain things.

      1. It’s amazing how much of our news coverage of this boils down to, “Iranian general assassinated, Canada hardest hit”.

        1. Does it feel like the Canadian government is doing battlespace preparation for coming in on an opposing side of the next world war?

          Or is it a matter of the Canadian media establishment being for rent?

            1. Comes to mind that with the little iron curtain falling over Canada, that anything of a ‘look at poor Canada, hard done by the evil US’ variety is useful as a way of justifying the regime, or at least distracting from its failings. Which wouldn’t need to be purchased by foreign influence, and isn’t as much extreme confidence on the government’s part as scenario one would require.

              1. Sooo… the Canadian Left is beating itself over the head, and blaming the U.S. for the lumps. I suppose they also blame us for the failures in their socialized health care, because it would be so much better if only so many Canadians didn’t travel to the U.S. and pay for better treatment than they can get for ‘free’.
                ———————————
                “What’s your secret for living to a hundred?”
                100-year-old man: “Don’t die.”

                  1. Same place some from the US go now … Mexico.

                    Do you know that if you go to Mexico for medical procedures, then come back, and latter have complications, don’t mention to US doctors that you went to Mexico. Minimal treatment to stabilize, if you are lucky. Doesn’t matter how many legal wavers are signed. Or rumor has it … no hasn’t happened to me or anyone I know well. It is first hand knowledge of two instances (husband & wife).

                    1. but now, they can just do a short drive to any hospital just over the border. Up at the Sault the hospital used to have as many Ontario plates as it did Michigan on the cars.
                      Mexico is a gamble.
                      Also, to be honest, I doubt we will go the Canuckistani NHS way. That would likely get killed via the SCOTUS if it was tried.
                      (for those who don’t know, Canada has no private practice, like in the UK, where one can find some private docs and hospitals)
                      I’d be willing to bet the dumbasses in Canada figured they’d be able to rely on us not ruining our care as a back-stop.

        2. But I thought you Canadians were supposed to be the nice folks, unlike us selfish Americans. Shouldn’t you be less concerned with how this affects you and more expressing sympathy for the poor Iranian revolutionary guard in their time of grief?

    4. I’m trying to visualize the logistics on that one. Surely, Canada is out of any reasonable line of fire both physically and metaphorically. I mean, I would think that firing things at the US over the Arctic Circle would not save Iran either time or distance.

      1. Well, there’s the backstory for Caliphate, where their refusing to do anything about RIFs coming into the US from Canada to set up the nukes lead to Canada being invaded under President Buckman (who, as the author takes pains to point out in no uncertain terms, is bugf*ck nuts).

        That still wouldn’t be “in the line of fire”, technically, but infiltrating Canada or Mexico first is one of the more practical methods for them to get into the US.

        1. Which was the book that awakened me to the dangers of Canada.

          I don’t quite remember if Kratman had Buckman in 2016 first, then changed the date to 2020 or vice versa.

          I would probably be running a Buckman 2020 joke campaign if not for Trump. Who may throw things far enough into the unknown enough to avoid both Caliphate and ASoD.

          1. I know it is possible to come in from *Canada & not use the standard entry ports. But those mountains! Yes, I know the middle east has rough high steep cold mountains. Do they have trees & brush so thick that you end up walking on the latter, no matter how steep the slope? Slopes so steep, covered with brush, that technically you aren’t repelling? Do they areas, that standing up, within yards of a road or a trail, you can get lost, even with a compass? Do they have Grizzlies? Do they have deep swift rivers? Do they have lakes that are mistaken for oceans?

            * That is presuming you can get into Canada illegally. Funny none of the “I’m moving to Canada if PDJT wins” crowd has managed it legally or otherwise (not even the ones who came from Canada in the first place).

            1. I have extended family who reside in upstate NY & Vermont.
              Hunting near the (unmarked) border in the woods several have been stopped by border patrol for inadvertently crossing over the line and pointed back to the U.S. side.

              It’s better patrolled than most people think – although I’m sure there are places further west where it would be easier to get across unnoticed.

              1. I was reporting on the more western portion. Western WA/BC border I-5/farm land just east of I-5, is fairly flat & well, farm land (3 crossings), then you hit the North Cascades National Park. Eastern WA/ID/MT, not so much; from the NCNP it is pretty much wilderness mountains. I’ve been over the further most WA crossing, & just even the road is a challenge until you come out into the flat farm land around Okanagon County. ID/MT through to Glacier NP aren’t any better. Further east IDK. Looks like between the port of entry at Glacier & Waterton and further east, using google maps, it is more open and flat. But personally never been further east.

                Then they can always risk coming in by boat. There is a lot of open space along the sound & on the west coast. OTOH not called the graveyard of the pacific for nothing.

                I’ve worked in PNW woods, not walking on trails the conditions I described are exactly what it is like if you are not on trails. Less so on the East side.

                Not saying it isn’t possible. Definitely a different challenge than the southern border.

    1. Saw that one on WeaselZippers this AM. 😀

      I also like the one that has Kahameni on the top saying that, and below it the flaming remains of the car, tagged “OK? Boomer!”

  24. Why do people pay attention to clueless celebrities spouting off on subjects they obviously never took the trouble to learn anything about?

    Why are supposed ‘world leaders’ basing serious economic policy decisions on the whinings of an ignorant child?

    Do they really not have any better sources of information, or ideas? Are they that stupid, or that delusional?
    ———————————
    They say I can’t be a nonconformist because I’m not like the other nonconformists.

    1. The answer to your first question is that most people would rather be told what to think than to actually think for themselves.

      The answer to your second question is because she’s telling them what they want to hear, which is that they must Take Charge of More Things–in other words, give themselves more power.

      1. The fact that there are actually huge swaths of population who would prefer that is why I have the unpopular observation that some folks would be quite happy in a fascist dictatorship – and well, it’s rather obvious which people those are (ex: social justice zealots, modern day feminists, etc.)

      1. Just as Hogg achieved fame because he said the Left thing, and the other children ,who didn’t say it, did not.

        1. ??? I haven’t caught up with the latest adventures of Daniel Leary and Adele Mundy, but I do not recall Hogg ever saying the Left thing.

  25. Off-topic, but a friend of mine (former Bernie Bro, and still leftist, but pro-capitalist and really annoyed at the people who think that being “woke” is doing something) posted a term I think you’ll like: “Gretaslavs.”

  26. Mrs. Hoyt, permit this former Infantryman (long ago) to say, thunderously,

    HOOAH!

    And, I leave this as an add-on:

    Knock knock!

    Who is there?

    Drone.

    Drone who? Oh…

    KABOOM!

  27. The most important thing blogs (and groups) like this one do… is show those terrified of the leftist mobs that there is a safe group they can flee to.

  28. I’m glad I have this blog to hang out on. Most of my family is generally conservative but they hate talking politics. My brother likes to talk politics but is also a complete moonbat.

  29. I wonder, and I’m serious, if this posturing and virtue signaling is due to the general media population discovering that they may not be needed as much as they thought they were.

    Rise of Skywalker probably killed the “Star Wars” franchise for a generation, at least. Short of Disney stuffing all three JJ Abrams movies into the same hole as the “Star Wars Christmas Special,” and making movies closer to Lucas outlines, people are going to enjoy “The Mandelorian” more. Which is not the woke material the Disney execs want…
    We are probably going to see a massive drop in MCU ticket sales, as they are openly stating that they will use the “All New, All Different Marvel” story lines as Phase IV and Phase V materials. “All New, All Different Marvel” brought us some of the worst virtue signaling possible, including Female Thor.
    Star Trek is going to have a new series…and nobody cares. Nobody wants to pay for CBS All Access to see their expectations be subverted.
    And, JJ Abrams is going to Warner Brothers to take over the DCEU. $2 that he’s going to “MYSTERY BOX! everything…

    So, they’re going to do things to get attention. This is just part of it.

    1. Right Mandalorian is effectively a WESTERN with space ships, Armor and an infectiously cute alien. Heck one of the episodes was a Magnificent Seven rip off. And yes I KNOW that Magnificent Seven is a Seven Samurai rip off, but the flavor of Mandalorian is more Spaghetti western and less Samurai. Disney ought to just describe the last trilogy as an alternate universe and see if Timothy Zahn will let them have rights to the Tharwn Trilogy. It is not as embarassing as the prequel trilogy, but that is not a high bar.

        1. I had totally forgotten Lone Wolf and Cub. As a comic addict in the 80’s I’d heard of it (and I think some one translated/reprinted some of it in the 80’s). From what little I remember it certainly sounds like a fit especially with the overall arc of the story.

      1. No, DON’T let Disney get its filthy paws on Thrawn. They’ve totally screwed up the rest of the franchise; why let them finish the job by defiling the *true* sequel trilogy ? Save us, Timmy Zahn; you’re our only hope.

        1. Wes I have to grudgingly say you’re correct. This NOT the trilogy you are looking for Kathleen Kennedy (waves hand). I know I’m a Lensman(L2) not a Jedi but it’s worth a shot. Mentor says a lens can have a strong effect on the weak minded and I think that describes most Hollywood producers…

    2. The Last Jedi is what killed it. I’ve heard that Skywalker’s biggest drawback is that it spends so much time undoing plot points that were introduced in TLJ.

      A link went up on tonight’s evening thread listing the top 11 reasons why Kathleen Kennedy killed Star Wars. And one of the items on the list was a lack of an overarching story arc. Kevin Feige had one for the Marvel movies, and people went in droves to go see the climax in Avengers: Endgame. Kennedy didn’t create one for the new Star Wars trilogy, and both the second and third movies ended up revising plot points established by their predecessors.

      1. Midnight’s Edge ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojtX_Oz4WsU ) did a video on this. The short, TL;DR version is that because of the way Star Trek rights work out, to create the Abrams/Kelvin reboot (which extends into any production made by Bad Robot), they had to create a split timeline, which walled off everything prior to 2005 and allowed Bad Robot to create anything they wanted, as long as it was different by 25%. And, clearly, the 25% seems to be getting away from the genre…

  30. Somewhat off topic on today, but pertinent to an ongoing conversation, it appears there may be some action regarding prophylaxis relative to voter fraud. Usual caveats apply, especially given Judicial Watch’s past instances of claiming more than delivered …

    Judicial Watch Finds Millions of ‘Extra’ Registrants on Voting Rolls – Warns California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia to Clean Up Voting Rolls or Face a Federal Lawsuit
    (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it is continuing its efforts to force states and counties across the nation to comply with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), by sending notice-of-violation letters to 19 large counties in five states that it intends to sue unless the jurisdictions take steps to comply with the law and remove ineligible voter registrations within 90 days. Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act requires jurisdictions to take reasonable efforts to remove ineligible registrations from its rolls.

    Despite successful litigation by Judicial Watch to bring counties and states into compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, voter registration lists across the country remain significantly out of date. According to Judicial Watch’s analysis of data released by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) this year, there are 378 counties nationwide that have more voter registrations than citizens living there and old enough to vote, i.e., counties where registration rates exceed 100%. These 378 counties combined had about 2.5 million registrations over the 100%-registered mark, which is a drop of about one million from Judicial Watch’s previous analysis of voter registration data. Although San Diego County removed 500,000 inactive names from voter rolls following Judicial Watch’s settlement with Los Angeles County, San Diego still has a registration rate of 117% and has one of the highest registration rates in the country.

    In the latest round of warning letters, Judicial Watch explains that implausibly high registration rates raise legal concerns:

    An unusually high registration rate suggests that a jurisdiction is not removing voters who have died or who have moved elsewhere, as required by [federal law].

    Judicial Watch also considers how many registrations were ultimately removed from the voter rolls because a registrant [had moved]. If few or no voters were removed…the jurisdiction is obviously failing to comply . . . States must report the number of such removals to the EAC.

    Judicial Watch found major voting list issues in California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado. The following counties have excessive registration rates or have failed to cancel sufficient numbers of ineligible registrations:

    [END EXCERPT]

      1. a district in Milwaukee has had one election (2008? it was 0bama era) with 110% voter turnout. Not just 110% registration, but an additional 10 percent (in the loosest possible term) in votes.

        1. It’s legally possible, depending on how they count “voters” and the registration laws. There are states that allow voters to register the day that they vote for the first time. If a tally of “voters” only counts those registered prior to the election, then it’s possible if a large number of people (legally) registered to vote that same day.

          I think some states also allow you to provisionally vote outside your home precinct.

          I’d still scrutenize it, though, as “legally possible” does not necessarily mesn “not improbable”.

          1. This place is not noted for large participation in voting, and this vote as also nearly all straight ticket dem vote, and had less Repub votes than it usually does (and it always has a few Repub votes). Even some of the places in Detroit had larger numbers of Republican votes in areas where folks supposedly voted multiple times and known to have lots of fraud.

        1. But we’ll vote our way out because our hearts are pure.

          Folks, one of the best reasons to work with TrueTheVote and Judicial Watch is that they’ll have lists of the officials and organizations who facilitate the fraud. Put the ones in your area at the TOP of your dance cards for the Boogaloo Ball. Discovery is a wonderful thing.

          1. No one is saying we’ll do it because our hearts are pure. We’ll do it because Trump is, among other things, working on the worst fraud. I KNOW. I have friends who have worked on/seen the effects.

  31. Rose is, I think, still trading on her victimhood status of being one of Weinstein’s lasses. What happened to her was wrong then, but what she’s perpetuating now is also wrong. She’s an idiot if she thinks Iran looks at her tweets as anything other than propaganda for them.

    1. I think she’s genuinely mentally ill. And I don’t mean in the “you have to be nuts to believe what the left is pushing!” sort of sense. She reminds me of Cindy Sheehan.

      1. She’s been screwed up since she was a kid (having been raised in a cult that forced it’s members–including supposedly the kids–to have sex with people to “convert” them–she’s just really visibly going off the rails now.

        Rose McGowan I can feel a certain measure of pity for (just as for poor exploited Greta) because she is truly mentally ill.

        But only to a point.

  32. Does anybody else think the House Of Representatives has turned into Room 9-A?

    “No, no, I came here for an argument!”
    “Oh, well, that’s Room 9, next door. This is Room 9-A — ABUSE!!

    1. Imaginos it appears we have both gone to the same place under different circumstances. Who’d have thought that we’d find Monty Python sketches less absurd than actually reality. Next thing you know my hovercraft will be full of eels and the SJW/Tranzis will be wanting to tax thingy.

      1. Oh, they already want to tax your thingy, they’re just trying to figure out how.

        They’re probably working on a way to tax our farts, too.
        ———————————
        Vir: “What do I want? What do I want? I’d like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come at too high a price. I would gaze up into your lifeless eyes and wave, like this.” [grins and waggles fingers of his right hand] “Can your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?”

          1. I mean, say what you like about the Shadows, but when someone actually ANSWERED the “What do you want?” question they did their damndest to deliver on it.

            Vir was one of my favorite characters. Up there with Sheridan, whose preferred solution to bad guys was “blow them up with prejudice”

  33. The nice thing about pushing back is that they immediately show their true colors:

    “Fuck your freedom and shove your #MAGA ass”. Well said, Rose. Now the average person, who might have had a bit of sympathy for her original tweet, can see where she really comes from.

    1. What do they expect those wackanoids to do, worse than what they’ve already done?

      Like I said before, all we did was toss a lit match into a forest fire. Barely noticeable.
      ———————————
      Dukhat: “When someone does a foolish thing, you should say it is a foolish thing. They may still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be.”

    1. No. Your retort is unsupported by evidence. Some really smart people (proven so by things accomplished in unforgiving fields) do some of the most appallingly stupid things.

    2. They’re not stupid. It’s always a mistake, assuming that. Misguided at best, evil at worst. Rose McGowan would be in the misguided camp. The shit heads who have been abusing her, evil.

  34. > Trump ordered a strike back against terrorists responsible for the death of Americans and others.
    Are you sure about it? After 404 WMD Not Found and fake sarin attacks? Exactly why?
    The real problem, however, is that whether or not he had anything to do with embassy or any other incident is completely irrelevant to the legal status of that airstrike.
    I don’t see what sane reasons “rose mcgowan” (whoever and whatever that may be) could possibly have to speak for 52% of Americans.
    I don’t see what sane reasons anyone could possibly have to see an attack on foreign territory without declaration of war as something great, rather than an extremely worrisome case of thug behavior on state level, either.

    Another issue to ponder: if you think it’s acceptable behavior, do you consider
    A. It’s equally acceptable if e.g. Iranians blow up Americans they don’t like without bothering with formalities, when they have an opportunity to do so? Or
    B. Good old “for my neighbor to steals my cows is evil, but for me to steal his cows is righteous” to be the legally and/or ethically correct approach?
    Inquiring minds, etc.

    1. You’ve a very peculiar method of cherry-picking “facts” and a curious manner of interpretation. Rather than fisk your comment I will simply note that your so-called points have been already comprehensively addressed in the various comments posted here and your failure to read and comprehend them is not a lapse I feel compelled to address.

      Just for a sample, your concluding inquiry is based on false equivalencies and wholesale ignorance of underlying facts. I’ve no interest in whether your condition is willful or correctable, and scant willingness to accept yours as an inquiring mind.

          1. Generally my mom holds on to that to use as a numbing agent on cattle– yes, really, you splash it on a cow’s skin and it numbs them enough you can cut the skin and they don’t flinch, plus it’s now disinfected– but in this case, she’d probably supply it.

    2. “I don’t see what sane reasons anyone could possibly have to see an attack on foreign territory without declaration of war as something great, rather than an extremely worrisome case of thug behavior on state level, either.”

      Oh, you mean like when the Iranians attacked the American consulate in -Iraq-? Or do you mean like Obama hitting guys all over the Middle East with drone strikes for eight years?

      “A. It’s equally acceptable if e.g. Iranians blow up Americans they don’t like without bothering with formalities, when they have an opportunity to do so?”

      You mean like they do all the time already? Not to mention what they do to their own people at home all day, every day.

      The facts do not appear to support your assertions, good sir.

      1. Phantom – look at the first 3 words to which you responded. If he does not see it is because he will not see, and nothing anybody here says beyond the causes already cited will open his eyes.

        Insertion of the word “sane” is a dead giveaway that his failure is conceptual and immutable.

        (A note on pronouns: I employ the male pronoun for two reasons. First, as a conservative I am allowed to employ traditional standards of grammatical practice, not bound by the pretensions of contemporary scolds. Second, it is clear that, while TBeholder has no balls, he is a dick.)

        1. Pfffft! An obvious frame-up, misdirection intended to provoke exactly the response that occurred, embroiling their two enemies in a fight injurious to both.

          To the determined fool no facts cannot be explained away.

      1. This tweet — which has not aged well — did not help:

      1. I vaguely remember it was because he was so hard-core at a right angle to objective reality that even hard core lefties were going “wait, what?”

    3. “A. It’s equally acceptable if e.g. Iranians blow up Americans they don’t like without bothering with formalities, when they have an opportunity to do so?”

      You mean like they have been since 1979, you historically ignorant illiterate hack?

      And my neighbor is welcome to try and steal my cows, if he thinks he and his family will survive it. Better not fail.

      1. You mean like they have been since 1979, you historically ignorant illiterate hack?

        +100

        Seriously, when it’s in the last 50 years and even I know it? That’s some hard core ignorance.

  35. Rose McGowan. Poor thing.

    She’s an examplar of the -true- end product of the Hollywood perv mill. Take a pretty girl, introduce her around to the Harvey Weinsteins of the world of whom there are many, add a bit of money and cook for 20 years. A broken woman kept around because she still photographs well. (And if the read-until-offended crowd have a problem with that, they should read her tweets of the last 5 years and come up with an alternative explanation.)

    She’s mentally ill in a carefully cultivated way. Genuinely crazy, but guided by Hollywood society into their notion of socially acceptable “eccentricity.” The “dotty aunt” of Victorian times, 2019 version. A little loud perhaps, but she’s got all the right causes and her Twitter feed is getting lots of hits from the Righteous. Best of all, she hasn’t made a miss-step by questioning the wisdom of trans-“women” participating in women’s sport so she remains acceptable to the Hate Trump! crowd.

    I have some sympathy there because looooong ago I had a girlfriend who looked a bit like Rose. Actress, very pretty, a bit indiscriminate on the boyfriend front, used to getting everything her own way because she was very pretty. But sometimes good looks and a sexy presentation didn’t get it done, and she couldn’t understand why it wasn’t working.

    Add 25 years to that girl plus some heinous sexual assaults, and that’s Rose McGowan. Never a mental giant, also brutalized in horrible ways by the industry in general and certain men in particular, she’s a bit cracked. More than anything else I think its a shame she doesn’t have anyone to look after her. (Cue SJW screaming in 3, 2, 1…)

    I see today she’s walking her comments back a bit, perhaps having been told that apologizing to the Iranians was not a great idea given who they are. She really doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about, she’s just acting out like any other crazy person.

    1. You’ve overlooked a critical element: the going grooming intended to direct such victims away from any source of succor. The atmosphere of Hollywood is redolent with praises of the “Great men” and denunciations of those “narrow-minded, oppressive, judgmental, fanatical, right-wing, reactionary Christian bigots who want to deny women authority over their own persons.”

      As we’ve previously discussed here at A2H, if they’re “the good guys” and are so abusive in their treatment of people, how bad must their foes be?

      And that, children, is how come people remain in destructive cults.

      1. I think its not really an organized thing, RES. Its just repulsive predators taking jobs that put them in positions of power over attractive young women. That’s been a thing since movies started, and Broadway before that. Nauseatingly common place.

        1. There’s not a central organization.

          But there is behavior that self organizes into complexity.

          People whose psychology is bent towards sexual predation go there, because of victim availability. People with that bent spend a lot of time developing psychological manipulation skills, strategies, and other such things. (Many normal folks don’t have as strong a desire not to be preyed upon, so tend not to have as strongly developed counter strategies.)

          People who have a psychological drive towards fame and performance, go there because that is where the fame and audience is. When you consider the removal of those who wise up, and leave, you are left with a residue that has a strong drive (a vulnerability to be exploited via) and weak defenses.

          So, you have entrenched predators, and a constant stream of fresh potential victims. Some of the victims don’t have a lot of prior experience, or were previously preyed upon, so their formative experiences with sexual behavior are an influence shaped by predatory mind games. They may be deeply angry at being preyed upon, but unable to untangle all the elements of the mind game, and hence likely to treat as normal behavior that should be considered a red flag. See McGowan’s entry into the public Weinstein matter from LGBT activism, asserting that the issue was a matter of Hollywood being a boy’s town, and that simply changing the sex of the gatekeepers, etc, would change the degree of the sexual predation. Some of the victims accepted the crime as dues paid for fame, and became willing to help enforce it on others. Some of the victims, preferences perhaps altered by the experience, decided to become predators themselves.

          In that environment, there might be a lot of anger, and it would not surprise that ‘no one is clean’ resonates.

          Yes, there are allegedly people in Hollywood who are fighting the predation. I have so little real information about this that all of it could have been produced by Hollywood’s disinformation skills.

          The paranoid view of the implications of Hollywood storytelling choices would seem supported by the revelation that Joss ‘Strong Women’ Whedon is at least a womanizer.

          1. Shucks, here I was all ready to tell The Phant I hadn’t meant to say it was organized, just that it was an example of spontaneously developing organization of the type libertarians talk about all the time — and you’ve covered it amply and well.

            Like calls to like and Evil strives to conceal its works, declare them “normal” … and drive out any who would say otherwise.

            1. The broader ‘organization’ is probably self organizing of the Libertarian sort.

              But there are elements that the Libertarians are apparently not discussing.

              Look at the Breen/MZB apparent onion layer model, where they collected circles of enablers as part of their search for victims.

              A Weinstein had probably organized a bunch of enablers, procurers, and subordinate predators. I haven’t searched Libertarian writings, but I have not noticed them discussing the case of self-organization of several Weinsteins, and a bunch of freelancers. Which is the nicer possibility for what is going on in Hollywood.

              The Screen Actor’s Guild is another possible vector, with potentially worse implications if true.

    2. I genuinely don’t understand either the Russian trolls or the immature girl in question. Why in the world do the trolls bother? What do they get out of it? Does the Russian government really pay them to blather inane remarks? Who the hell is in charge of that program, some retard whose father has influence in high circles?

      As for this Rose McGowan, how in the world does she manage those mental contortions without physically falling down and twitching uncontrollably? I’m not being sarcastic — really, I want to know. Maybe I’m just tired, but the weirdness lately from the leftists has been mind-boggling. Do they even hear themselves talk? You have to wonder if this phenomenon is attributable to a common genetic defect that has survived and prospered because crazy folks of this specific sort presumably tend to get their way more often than sane folks and therefore have more children. I mean, you know? “I want the pie! Gimme the pie! No, no, the pie is mine — give it to me! You’re mean and bad, so gimme the damn pie!” They want what they want when they want it, period. Sane folks get worn down and start giving up much of the time just to have a moment’s peace. Of course, that peace is short-lived, but hey.

      I’ve also seriously contemplated the possibility that I’m living in a simulation, wired up to a couch while my mind wanders around said simulation, and the controller thereof is purposely making the non-player characters act ever more insane to see how I react. Maybe I’m a criminal in a far-future world who is being punished for having failed to smirk approvingly at the High Priest as he wafted past on his anti-gravity cloud or having deebled the escutcheon or something similarly peculiar that makes sense only in the world of tomorrow. That would explain a lot. -_-

      1. Ah. Because influencing people in blogs like this can spread memes. Like “if you don’t want the government to ban porn, you’re not really on the right” which in turn divide the opposition to the left. And the left would stop fracking, which would save the Russian economy.
        They managed to divide the right very effectively before 2016, and they’ve learned.
        I expect this will get way worse up to the elections.

      2. Does the Russian government really pay them to blather inane remarks?

        Yes, as insane as that sounds.

        It has to do with screwing up the mind-scape; basically, “Confusion to my enemies.”

  36. Sarah, just one quick note. You mention they do this so they get eaten last. Unfortunately, most big lefties live in big cities. Out here is fly over country, we aren’t afraid…and most of us are packing. The terrorists love hitting big cities…especially big lefty cities like NY, Boston, etc. They tried in Dallas and died. So, they want a big body count and the place to get it is in the big, left-oriented, unarmed cities.

    1. Sure. But that’s not how THEY see it. Remember Michael Moore raging after 9/11 that the terrorists had attacked the wrong city?
      They think with sufficient appeasement they can make the terrorists spare them.

      1. Some of them are that cowardly brand of evil.

        Some of them are simply morons who assume that American culture holds more broadly than it actually does. Just because I may have an Americanized neighbor or colleague born overseas does not mean all foreigners are Americanized.

        America works because there are some differences not worth killing over. In the right circumstances, a little forbearance may be needed to prime the pump and get things chugging along smoothly.

Comments are closed.