They Wanna Keep You In Chains


Yes this post is in homage to Bribem’s crazy utterance int he 2012 race, which by itself should disqualify him from the presidency, because he’s either stupid or thinks other people are when he says to black Americans that “The Republicans want to put you back in chains.”

This is so much bullshit it only makes sense from standpoint that the left always accuses their opponents of what they want to do or are actually doing.

Though in fairness to leftists, it is not just American blacks they wish to enslave. It’s all of us. They want us chained to an all powerful centralized government who will decide what we need, what we can say, what we can do, what we can eat and what we can think and how we should spend what lives we have, and when those lives will end. And it’s not even just Americans. They just think the resources they’ll get if they take over America will help them take over the rest of the world, till the seething, purposeless pile of humanity ahs a new purpose: to provide those at the top (and they all think they’ll be at the top, Uncle Joe with some justification, given his life experience) with all their dreams and desires, no matter how crazy or perverse.

Historians will one day be baffled by how the mass education/entertainment/news establishment of 20th century America (and therefore of much of the world) managed to neatly turn two issues in which the left was soundly defeated — slavery and racism — into issues they hung around the neck of their political enemies, who in America are always distinguished by wishing to increase individual freedom.  It’s utterly baffling how young people believe it was Republicans (the party of Lincoln!) who were for slavery and against civil rights for everyone.  All I have to say is that it took a complete lock down on public communications and several movies and book series that put that in, offhandedly as a throw away background.  Without that complete and utter ownership and propagandizing of all storytelling in the society the bizarre and completely disprovable “the parties changed sides” they use to hide the obvious lie when it’s discovered wouldn’t hold for a second.

This will one day be studied along with the Marxist alternate realities created by the same control in several countries (the ones where, say, the rest of the world was starving, and the USSR as bad as it was had the best lifestyle. Or the one from the Nazis where the Jews were responsible for everything bad that had happened to a crazy-imperialist country.)  It is no coincidence that all these lies are created by believers in totalitarian systems.  (Right? Left? Let’s call the whole thing off. They’re statists and totalitarians, and wish to put all of mankind in chains.)

But there is an additional sting in the tail of this insanity. The same people who pretend they were always for the “downtrodden” and claim to themselves the crown of liberators are in fact putting those people in chains, right here, right now.

Not just black people or — puts hand in air and waves it wildly around — people who can tan and might have an accent.  I mean, those are probably their first and easiest victims. By claiming these “minorities” are being kept down and therefore need the left to “liberate them” the left simultaneously undermines any chance these people have at success, and claims they need continuous and permanent help from an ever glutting state.

I don’t understand how other people don’t get the insult implied in this attitude. I did and still do. As an immigrant-of-tan I was told all the time how I couldn’t make it in America unless “liberals” (leftists) defended me and came to my help and made special laws to make sure I got a fair shake.

Look, I even fell for it for a while. (It would be hard not to when some people were stupid enough to convey that a) I was obviously Mexican b) I was both stupid and untrustworthy because of it. I.e. my first boss in the US.) But not for long. Because I saw what it was doing to my friends.

What believing that everyone around is trying to keep you down does to you is give you an excuse never to learn from failure.

And since none of us is perfect, and all of us learn best by failing at whatever we’re trying and then redirecting, what this belief that “everyone is naturally against all minorities” does is destroy people’s ability to self correct, at the same time embittering them, turning them against the freest, best society in the world, AND “putting them in chains” by causing them to support and vote for policies that will reduce both freedom and prosperity.

The smartest minorities get this too. But by the point they’re fully under the boot of the left, they hate the US and everything it stands for and are willing to suffer if it makes us suffer along with them.

If you can envision how horrible that state is, I submit to you that even physical chains — and keep in mind I hate all restriction — would be easier to bear.

When I turned my back on that neat package of propaganda, I turned it know that yes, some people are racist. And even back in the eighties many people believed Latins were another race. And yes, some people hate immigrants. And yes, some people hate women.

In a free society, you can’t get rid of all the assholes. People will think all sorts of strange things. Heck, a lot of people discriminate against me because I’m married and have children.

So what? Unless you are in a profession wholly owned by a mono-culture (not anymore. Thank G-d for indie) in which case, have a plan of escape, you can always find a way to evade and get around the racissss, sexissss, homophobes (the real ones, not the ones our fellows on the left gift with those names.  The real ones, btw, are both on the right and the left, and many times are just plain defective.)  And usually getting around is more rewarding.

The thing is, the lasso that the leftist propaganda has thrown against their “victim minorities” (which now includes not only everyone with same sex attraction, everyone who likes to cross dress — let alone being really transsexual. They’ve completely blurred those lines — but also every female. Since females are in fact a majority, this is some feat) is so strong, that even the rare member of those who fights against the sense of being done wrong, and learns and climbs the ladder can be sabotaged by policies of racial preference (which cause “quotas”) so no matter how meritocratic the system they climbed, no matter how praiseworthy their achievements, at least half the people (who’ve met others raised by fiat) will assume they’re ineffective or dangerous incompetents. (Ask me how I know. Or don’t. You can probably guess.)

These chains are near unbreakable. Because it’s impossible for one of the designated minorities not to have met someone who really does discriminate against them.  And those who are actually strong and capable know how many people treat them like incompetent lay abouts.  And all this reinforces the lie.

In the end the only way to break free from this — and the very real pathologies, both social and mental — it brings, is to set yourself free.

It’s to accept that yes, sometimes you’ll be discriminated against — everyone is. Some just more obviously than others — because in a free society prejudices are allowed and can’t be eradicated. But that this is not worth it, and never will be, putting yourself and others in chains, and destroying freedom and prosperity, while giving power to people who have filled society with lies for the purpose of keeping you under their control and doing their bidding.

A society in which all agree (or pretend to) is a totalitarian society. And none of those — NOT ONE, regardless of what they tell you — was good for minorities, of race or orientation, or really any other, or even for women.  In societies where the the “enforced truth” must be repeated, there’s lots of room for the vilest of tortures, the basest of humiliations under the rug and behind the (iron) curtain. And they always happened, with stomach-churning frequency, to the point that getting to a book on, say, the real history of communism, takes someone with a good stomach a long, long time. You need to pause in between. And sometimes scream and punch something.

The only thing that can break people out of chains is for them to decide to break them. To believe in yourself and others as individuals. To hold yourself both harmless and immune from whatever was done to people in the past who might have looked somewhat like you.  To ignore the bigots and work so hard and be so good at what you do that  most people — sometimes even the bigots — will go “Oh, no, he/she is completely qualified.”

Yes, it’s very hard to do that right now. Yes, the game is rigged against you in ways that people who aren’t you won’t even see.


Do you think other people glide through life on rose beds, while being fanned by obsequious serfs?  If you do, you are wrong. Even leftist privilege doesn’t whisk away every obstacle.

Being human is to fail and to struggle, to fall and to get up again, to be wounded and to heal. None of us is what we really want to be. None of us is born knowing how to achieve what we aspire to.

The trick is to keep trying, to aim high, and to get up one more time than you’re knocked down. That’s all it takes, just one more time.

They can’t put you in chains when you shed them and refuse to wear them, and keep on keeping on.

Because you can’t enslave a free man. You can only kill him  (And yes, the same applies to us with vaginas. Whatever the grammar abusers tell you.)

Get up one more time. Come on. I believe in you.

Freedom is vile and hurts and stinks and you’ll never get as much credit as you deserve.

It is also completely worth it.

Give it a try.


177 thoughts on “They Wanna Keep You In Chains

  1. In improv, one of the base lessons is to get rid of your preconceived notions. When you go into a skit, if you decide ahead of time where it’s going to go—a decision that is only in your head, not all the players’—the skit is going to falter. If you decide to just roll with things, it usually goes much better. Usually. Sometimes we had to throw an imaginary nuclear bomb in to end a scene that was going very poorly.

    Learning to start from where you are, not where you “should be”, allows you much greater freedom of movement, and ability to react in a timely fashion.

  2. Abso-bloody-lutely. As soon as you tell someone they need special consideration and special conditions, you’re telling them “You are not capable of handling the world the rest of us live in. We’ll pat you on the head and say nice things about you, but in the end you will never, ever be as good as us.”

    You don’t tell people of whatever the current euphemism is that they’re disadvantaged and they need special treatment or the raaaaaciss bad will drag them down. You tell them there is a game that is played throughout the country, and the way to get out of a bad situation is to play that game better than everyone else playing it. That means “acting white” better than the white guys, and doing the same jobs better than they do, and looking the part of whatever it is you’re aiming for.

    Something the idiot left has never realized for themselves – the game is purely a cultural thing and has nothing to do with skin color, race, sex, or gender. It’s called “people in a culture expect certain behavior from successful people. Someone who demonstrates that behavior when looking for employment will get better results than someone who does not.” I may be painfully Odd and painfully introverted, but I can manage to fake it enough to get and keep work.

    Schools could handle teaching kids about this – it took me until well into my 20s to figure it out. I might have got it earlier if I’d been smacked in the face with it.

    1. The way to really help people is to keep an eye out for someone stumbling– and give a hand. Weak, strong, whatever.

      Which is a lot of work. And they frequently are either pissed at you because they’re embarrassed, or flustered, so you don’t get any big basking thanks.

      But you do get to do some real good.

      1. Exactly. If some poor sod is suffering the metaphorical equivalent of being trapped in a deep hole, you throw them a rope ladder so they can climb out. If they’re too short to reach something, point them to a stepladder. Doing it for them will lead to the whole “you can’t manage on your own” thing.

        It’s why parents let their toddler kids fall over and sometimes get hurt. If they carried the kid everywhere it would never learn to walk.

  3. Well, so long as they’re fashionable chains, like maybe gold and/or platinum. That chafing just helps build character, don’t you know. The leg chains are important to prevent long-legged people from taking advantage of their Stride Privilege and causing increased inequality. Really, it is all so very important to maintaining social cohesion.

  4. You do get the occassional nonsense like the plaque on a university campus that claimed Lincoln was a Democrat (they claimed the plaque meant a small ‘d’ democrat when confronted). But more often than not the claim is that the Democrats and Republicans “switched” on discrimination. Usually the rationale given is claims about the supposed Southern Strategy, in which the Republicans supposedly embraced racism in order to capture the South.

    Never mind that the first Republican president that the South actually played an important role in electing was George W. Bush.

    For evidence, of course, they point to Strom Thurmond, while excusing Robert Byrd.

    1. Some election year, if my life isn’t too crazy, I’m going to make a poster showing a 1st or 2nd cycle Klan gathering juxtaposed with a picture of Al ‘Crown Heights’ Sharpton (or if he finally passes, whatever Black Quisling replaces him) with the slogan “Democrats; dividing people by race for a century and a half.”

    2. The same kind of people who insist that George Wallace was a Republican. I had that argument with a starry eyed young progressive, who was so delusional that she claimed Wikipedia was WRONGLY labeling him a Democrat. (Not saying Wikipedia can’t be wrong, just saying it isn’t when it correctly calls George Wallace a Democrat).

      1. Did you tell her that it was a Republican president that called out the army to protect the students in Brown v. Board of Education?


        1. The story we got, going to school 15 miles away and 5 years afterward, was that the Governor deployed the Guard to keep the rioters from attacking people torching the school.

          A friend’s son is a teacher there. Next time I see him I’ll ask him what the current Received Word is on the subject…

          “Propaganda? You’re soaking in it!”

  5. LBJ got a head start on putting minorities back in chains with his New Deal. Ever since, the leftist politicians have simply been continuing his efforts like the ‘good girl’ students that they are to their teacher below.


    1. And he even stated very explicitly that was the intended purpose., when he said in connection with his enactment of his Great Society welfare scheme “This will keep the n—-rs (and yes he used that word) voting for us (the Democrats) forever”. His goal was to create dependency with the expectation that dependency would force people to vote for Democrats.

    2. New Deal was Roosevelt the Later; LBJ’s was Great Society.

      Plantation, collective, It’s all still slavery, and I say Phooey.

  6. Historians will one day be baffled by how the mass education/entertainment/news establishment of 20th century America (and therefore of much of the world) managed to neatly turn two issues in which the left was soundly defeated — slavery and racism — into issues they hung around the neck of their political enemies, who in America are always distinguished by wishing to increase individual freedom. It’s utterly baffling how young people believe it was Republicans (the party of Lincoln!) who were for slavery and against civil rights for everyone.

    I can actually see it working pretty well, simply from humans being kinda lazy and young folks being young.

    It’s relatively easy to shift “freedom” away from “free from restraint’ and into ‘enabled in what I want.’

    Because we’re all inside of our bodies– and we know that at least part of what “free” means is that stuff doesn’t stop you. And we get stopped all the time. So not free, right?

    Thus, unless you’re free of consequences, you’re not free.

    And it’s so easy to justify that other folks don’t matter….

    Over on the more mature side, we’ll even have prudential disagreements about the best balance of “Freedom from” vs “freedom to”– exactly how many consequences should be built into the system, to prevent those who aren’t utterly without help from getting a mob behind them and MAKING justice? (Which will not be great for any incorrectly chosen targets– so how many teeth do we pull from the mob, by cutting out their obvious support in strong cases?)

    1. And now I’m thinking about how many of the deep-south lynchings were about sexual assault– and how we were pretty good on that front, until fairly recently, with the #MeToo mobs…which came out of the Left, where they have been defending the kind of psychotic junk for decades, and draft kids from schools, were criminal assaults are covered up.

      1. One reason why the Left embraced PoundMeToo was that they knew they were fluffing each other all the time, and projected that onto the Right with the assumption that it was even worse. Because of course they were the ‘good’ people.

        I suspect, however, that the Left to Right ratio of sexual abuse is close to the Public Educators to Catholic Priest ratio, i.e. at least 100 to 1 and likely higher.


  7. Yeah, tell them that the sainted Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican … and watch their heads explode. Point out that the Republican party backed Civil Rights all the way …

    1. That’s why the Left came up with the Southern Strategy claim. Supposedly the Republicans switched on racial issues in an attempt to get votes in the South. As I joted above (and Foxifier noted below), they point to Strom Thurmond – who switched parties – as evidence to support the claim.

      1. Well, the ‘southern strategy’ myth didn’t come out of thin air. Barry Goldwater’s opposition to some of the civil rights legislation (he argued constitutional overreach) during the presidential campaign of 1964 didn’t help, nor did the fact that Thurmond wasn’t alone in deciding that if the Democrats weren’t with him on race he wasn’t with them on anything else.

        Goldwater, though, had an argument about means, not ends, and it was the Democrats who erased the line keeping Thurmond out of the Republican camp.

  8. Without that complete and utter ownership and propagandizing of all storytelling in the society the bizarre and completely disprovable “the parties changed sides” they use to hide the obvious lie when it’s discovered wouldn’t hold for a second.

    Recently saw where someone used Strom Thurmond as their one, 100%, absolute proof of the switched sides thing.

    1. The thing underlying Sen. Thurmond’s switch and Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” is that once racial oppression was off the table the Democrat party had nothing to offer Southern voters (in the main.) Patriotism, love of G-d & Family, Rule of Law: all these were more aligned to the Republican agenda than the Democrat one. Democrats offered strong unions (aka, bad schools), higher Minimum Wage (aka, fewer jobs), family breakdown and abortion.

      Oh, they also wanted Southerners to stop clinging to their Bibles and guns. As neither party was offering racism (well, the Dems flipped the card and put it back on the menu once they’d had time to cover their backtrail) the only real question is why the South didn’t switch faster.

      1. Exactly, Res. Once the Dems began drifting leftwards, I should think that a great many Southerners looked at what they were offering from the late 1960ies on and said, “Nope.” And there is also the element of former residents of northern states, who were traditionally Republican, moving into the South, and bringing their old voting habits with them.

        1. ….isn’t this roughly the time they started going hard core on the sex, drugs and making people be polite while you’re being incredibly rude tactic?

          1. I was in middle school around then, and have the impression that the sex-and-drugs-and-rock-and-roll element was pretty much apolitical; they hated Johnson with a flaming nuclear passion, but after the Vietnam war ended, everything calmed the heck down. The seventies were kind of dull … save for violent idiots like the Weathermen, (Bill Ayers happy little band) and several of the more violent Black Power types. Looking back, I have the impression that it was pretty much of a muchness between the Dems and Reps; not much to choose between them, really. It wasn’t until Reagan got into the White House that there was increased polarization between the parties.

            1. Well … I remember the McGovern Campaign be ridiculed as “Amnesty, abortion, and acid” following a Robert Novak column quoting a Democrat senator

              Novak quoted the senator as saying “The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion, and legalization of pot. Once middle America — Catholic middle America, in particular — finds this out, he’s dead.” Because of the column McGovern became known as the candidate of “amnesty, abortion, and acid.”

              On July 15, 2007, several months after Eagleton’s death, Novak said on Meet the Press that the unnamed senator was Eagleton. Novak was accused in 1972 of manufacturing the quote, but stated that to rebut the criticism, he took Eagleton to lunch after the campaign and asked whether he could identify him as the source; the senator refused. … Political analyst [and McGovern campaig manager] Bob Shrum says that Eagleton would never have been selected as McGovern’s running mate if it had been known at the time that Eagleton was the source of the quote. “Boy, do I wish he would have let you publish his name. Then he never would have been picked as vice president”, said Shrum. “Because the two things, the two things that happened to George McGovern — two of the things that happened to him — were the label you put on him, number one, and number two, the Eagleton disaster. We had a messy convention, but he could have, I think in the end, carried eight or 10 states, remained politically viable. And Eagleton was one of the great train wrecks of all time.”

              Of course, at the 1984 Republican Convention it was es-Democrat Jeanne Kirkpatrick slamming the Party of Pelosi, saying of them:

              When the San Francisco Democrats treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did, they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich – convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand. … They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do – they didn’t blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians – they blamed the United States instead.

              But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

              When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the “blame America first crowd” didn’t blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.

              But then, they always blame America first.

              When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn’t blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.

              But then, they always blame America first.

              When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don’t blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.

              But then, they always blame America first.

              The American people know better. … With the election of Ronald Reagan, the American people declared to the world that we have the necessary energy and conviction to defend ourselves, and that we have as well a deep commitment to peace.

              And now, the American people, proud of our country, proud of our freedom, proud of ourselves, will reject the San Francisco Democrats and send Ronald Reagan back to the White House.

              Ambassador Kirkpatrick left the Democrat Party and joined the Republicans in 1985, the year following her appearance at the GOP convention.

              1. Ah, fond memories of McGovern standing “1000% behind Tom Eagleton”, just before the dumping. Well, McG didn’t mention the knife he had in his hand…

                (Yes, I voted for him. I plead youth, ignorance and Nixon Derangement Syndrome.)

                1. Meh – he’s the only Democrat presidential candidate for whom I’ve ever voted –but I did so only in supreme confidence he wouldn’t win.

                    1. Ah FlyingMike I made the same youthful indiscretion and voted for Anderson. I unfortunately continued my miscreant behavior until the 2000 election voting D like my Dad. I voted against Gore as I felt he should
                      have turned against Billy Boy. But it was clear Al Gore was some kind of invertebrate as he had no spine and was providing the political equivalent of what Ms. Lewinsky had provided physically for the president.

                    2. Yep, I voted for Anderson, too. Although it was a mail-in ballot from Japan, where I was active duty at the time, so I cannot be certain that my ballot, in this or subsequent elections, was ever really counted at all.

                    3. Sigh. I was pretty much apolitical at time of the 1980 election, and it wasn’t until I found myself on the opposite side of TPTB (gun control then) that I realized just how heavy-handed the left was. That was the last time I voted for Dems, though living in deep blue areas of California, it didn’t make much difference. OTOH, with opened eyes, I got a good look at how they played their corrupt games, both big and little.

                    4. I actually voted for Ronnie in my first Presidential election (also 1980; I’d barely been old enough to do so for a month). I didn’t go off-ticket for over a decade. ‘Andre Marrou in ’92!

      2. I’m not saying you’re wrong, and certainly the Dims like their unions and their bad schools, but can you elaborate on the causal link from unions to bad schools?


        1. With a really strong teacher’s union, there’s virtually no way a bad teacher can be removed. A search on “new york teachers rubber rooms” will give some fine examples of education tax dollars at work under these circumstances.

          Remove the incentives for having good schools, what’s left?

          1. And no way that other, finer distinctions can be made. Larger raises for good teaching, for instance.

            1. What they’ve said. I could elaborate but that’s the gist. Look where schools are unionized and where they aren’t, compare results, compare expenditure per student. Ask yourselves, what value to students do unions provide?

              As FDR said:

              All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

              Face it: if government employees are being oppressed by their employer then they need to find different work.

                1. Some years ago, here in Texas, the unions successfully opposed some basic competence and subject knowledge tests for teachers on the grounds that they just knew black and Hispanic teachers would score lower and shut up, bigot.

      3. Inertia. You have to remember that the Deep South was devastated by the Civil War…and there was no Marshall Plan to rebuild. The economy would not start to recover until the 1960s. And there wasn’t much willingness to forgive the Party of General Sherman.

        1. Well, that, and the decision to deliberately try and keep half the population as poor and ignorant as possible didn’t help with economic development either.

          1. As part of Jim Crow, and post Reconstruction, they institutionalized political fraud and terror in order to prevent competition from Republicans.

            The voters backing that decided that they would accept corruption as the price for opposing the institutions of the tyrant Lincoln and monster Sherman. If a Democrat was spending public monies on cronies, or local judicial decisions were being decided in favor of local power, it was still worse to vote for a Republican, because of how the war and Reconstruction made everyone poor.

            Miss-spent public monies are theft from the taxpayer. Good old boy networks running local courts or local bureaucracies for private profit are organized theft from those who are not connected.

            That level of tolerated public theft would have prevented capital accumulation, punished entrepreneurs, and various other things that create relative poverty. We expect similar results in similarly managed big blue cities.

            Whether you look at the kleptocracy model, or the restricted human capital level, those practices were continuing, and a much more plausible cause of concurrent Southern poverty than Sherman. It is not surprising that Southern poverty levels decreased when the South could no longer carry enforce Segregation with terror.

            There is probably an open question, and legitimate grounds for humanities research in looking at the economy and politics of each southern state, and figuring out from the details whether the answer is one, the other, or both. It is unlikely that the current crop of researchers is up for that. If any could do it, and well, it would likely be hid or discredited by the clouds of bad scholarship.

      4. RES, as someone whose entire family has lived in the South since the 1840s, it boils down to three things:

        1. The Civil War, especially the Reconstruction part.
        2. The Great Depression, especially Roosevelt’s recovery programs.
        3. The death of memory.

        As an example of #1, my Grandfather’s oldest brother, my great uncle, got the nickname “Buttermilk Bill” because there was a Confederate artillery battery under quarantine camp for smallpox at a nearby spring, and as part of the community helping them, 12-year old Bill brought them buttermilk every day. The point being that you had living memories of that war and it’s aftermath for 70+ years.

        As an example of #2, consider that most of the South had never seen electricity, until REA / TVA brought it in; had never seen running water, etc. until the New Deal programs brought these things. The Democrat Party was associated with all of the modern progress, and that was remembered too.

        3. My Grandfather, and both grandmothers, carried those memories, and were respected members of their community and church, people who were listened to. They started getting old and dying and there were fewer and fewer people who remembered old history rather than looking at what was actually being done by Democrats and Republicans, That’s when the switch really took hold.

  9. Another consequence of the Persecuted Minorities theory is that it leads to relaxed standards and requirements for members of the approved “minority” group, which in turn devalues the achievements of any members of that group who actually meet and/or exceed the previous standards and requirements. I’ve seen this operate in my own life, as black students who took no advantage of their minority status, studied hard, and succeeded by any definition were brushed aside as “affirmative action admissions.”

    1. There was reporting about a week ago on a study finding that public schools in Conservative communities had smaller performance gaps between races than the schools in Progressive communities, and for exactly the reasons you state. Apparently telling kids they’re victims reduces agency, making them less likely to work to raise themselves up, while diminishing expectations of what they can achieve also ecourages loth.

      The authors of the study were quite surprised that Conservative policies were more effective.

    2. There was a black conservative politician in California some years ago who led a push to eliminate affirmative action for this very reason. Naturally it went nowhere; but he was absolutely irate at how the perception of being ‘second rate’ actually damaged the supposed beneficiaries of the policy. Can’t remember his name, it was some years ago and I haven’t spent more than three weeks at a time in CA since 1995.

      1. Ward Connerly. He was a UC regent. I live in CA for 30 years growing up through grad school. I remember Prop. 209 and all of the sturm und drang surrounding it.

      2. His ballot proposition actually passed. As a result, the UC schools are not allowed to discriminate in admissions on the basis of race.

        The people who make the admissions decisions instead use other criteria that just happen to match up with what the admissions would look like if affirmative action were involved.

        Connerly went on to get similar ballot initiatives passed in other states.

        1. The last I heard, the Donks were trying to get Prop 209 officially repealed because shut up bigot.

          1. The donks are trying to get a lot of things repealed here in California. Prop 13 (which slows down property tax increases) is another of them. I don’t think 209 is going anywhere yet.

            1. BIL’s house taxes date back to the beginning of the Prop 13 baseline, so they’re rather. OTOH, we think he should get the hell out of there, but financially, he’d have to adjust things, and that doesn’t seem to be something he’d rather do. He’s in an area so blue it’s indigo, and votes R.

              RCPete: ex-Californian since 2003.

                1. Not just rather low, way frigging low, though for now very few: Proposition 13 capped property taxes to 1% of assessed value and also rolled the property tax basis back to 1976 valuation, with a 2% cap on annual inflation adjustment to that basis.

                  When a home sells, it gets reassessed to market value, with an exception for in-family sales where the buying child can get the selling parents’ assessment.

                  For those who either bought from their folks or have some sort of a trust or corporate structure set up for continuous uninterrupted ownership (see the Hearst family), taking into account the cumulative inflation adjustments they are paying tax pretty much on a 1980s valuation basis.

                  But aside from those very few parent-to-child sales or the special setups by the wealthy, all houses get reassessed periodically up to match the market.

                  So the continuous wailing and gnashing of teeth, coming most loudly from the teachers unions, on how Prop 13 has starved California schools of vast oceans of totes deserved money is unsupportable on it’s face – In the hot urban centers like Silicon Valley, most houses turn over in a 10 year timeframe, so on average the tax rolls are collecting at something like a decade lag.

                  The real change from Prop 13 was instead of each county collecting it’s own property tax revenue and spending that, the money had to be sent up to Sacramento and then reallocated back out to the counties, which totally does not get directed to one county over another for political ends. No really. Honest as Betty Wigwam.

                  1. Oregon has it’s Prop 13 too. Difference from CA Prop 13? Values do not reset on resale to new sold value.

                    Also average resold turn around, maybe 10 years. But based on my small sample, the average is a lot, lot higher. (Add “& counting” to most of the list …)

                    * Us – 31 years
                    * Sister 1 – 26 years
                    * Sister 2 – 20 years
                    * Folks – 57 years, well only mom now
                    * Grandparents – 60 years (died).
                    * Aunt & Uncle – 55 years
                    * Grandma – only 25 years in her house 🙂 (died).
                    * most our neighbors – over 31 years. Houses are starting to sell on our street in the last couple of years as their residents have either died or been moved by family into assisted living.

                    Everyone seems to hate packing & moving … That is my excuse & I’m sticking to it …

                    1. Yeah, but those long-term ownerships are balanced off on teh bell curve by the people who move in and then list the place two years later.

                      I don’t get it either, but I’ve seen it in my neighborhood again and again, in good economies and bad, from neighbors grabbing a couple years of capital gain when the market is hot, to the family down teh street that moved out in the middle of the night during the first Obama “summer of recovery”.

                    2. Yes. It would be interesting to see medium, VS average. Our first house we had for 9 years, but only lived in it for just over 5 years. We got forced transferred out of the area.

                      Our short street is one long block. Like I said, lately the long term elderly have been moving out. A third, maybe, of the homes are now on second owners, with less than 10 years ownership. More children on the street than when we moved in, for all that there are two elementary schools within walking distance (two different districts). A couple of exceptions. One across the street is on it’s 5th owner in 31 years. Last owner was in it for almost 20 years. Did not expect that house to ever sell again, given her parents lived in the house to the west of theirs, even after the divorce.

                      OTOH I’ve seen my paternal grandmother’s house on the market 3 or 4 times since dad & his siblings sold it in ’88 (not the family home). My maternal grandparents place has been on the market at three times, with a least 4 or 5 years abandonment between, since mom & her siblings sold it in ’06. In both cases it has been “they want WHAT for the properties?” Grandma’s house in Eugene, has been redone. Small but cute. Grandparents place in Drain needs the house torn down & rebuilt.

                      My sister swore latter should have gone for more when it sold. I was adamant. It was worth the cost of the land with a good/excellent productive deep well with very good clean water, and a good working pump, if old.

                      The house as already stated, needs to be replace. The septic drainage field needed to be fixed/corrected. Septic itself was good, field no. Not to mention the unmarked pet cemetery up the hill behind the house (acreage, they were there for 60 years, all their pets, & more than a few of their children/grandchildren pets). All of which was disclosed. Don’t know what was done about the drainage field. House the flipper stripped everything interior, without moving walls, all but the kitchen cabinets (should have) & put it back together. It was cute. Put another $50k into property over what they bought it for. Flipper did not make a profit. House & property, when last seen, was in very poor condition. Supposedly it has sold again this last year. Haven’t seen it. Not a property that can just be driven by. We might drive to “see” this May, when we are down there again. Don’t know.

                    3. My parents’ last house was newly built in 1962 when they purchased it.

                      When we sold it about five years ago, it needed work and the neighborhood was going down-hill.

                      The reality person wasn’t sure what we (my sister & I) could get for it but did get it sold.

                      Haven’t been by there to see what it is like.

                      Oh, Dad had been gone a few years before we sold it and Mom was in a nursing-home when we started the process to sell it.

                      My sister lived an hour away, I couldn’t have afforded to keep it and Mom would likely never live in it again. (Mom died a couple years after we sold it.)

                    4. Mom has help with her yard work; mom & dad built the house in ’63. Her street went downhill for awhile. A lot of rentals. But the rentals have been refurbished & sold(?). Only one bad house on the street (has to be one); right next door …

                      My BIL’s mother is in a care facility. They haven’t sold her house & won’t until she passes. That way they can say “yes mom” when she talks about going home (is not happening). She doesn’t need the money to pay for the facility & the house will sell for around $800k more than she & her husband bought it for 59 years ago. Second set of grandchildren are “renting” & maintaining it, under her dad’s & aunt’s supervision so it doesn’t sit empty. The first set just bought their own home (for reasons, grandma’s house is in the wrong location of the city to bother waiting to buy it for their own …)

                    5. *waves hand* We’re part of that average jacking, at least nationally. This last move was the first time that we didn’t have to prove we hadn’t made enough money to be taxed on selling our house too fast.

                      It lines up with about the time that folks figure you’re settled in enough they can start *really* screwing with you, about six to nine months after you can figure out an area is very much not what you thought, and it’s also about the time you’ve had time to prove yourself to the employer so they move you elsewhere.

                    6. “It lines up with about the time that folks figure you’re settled in enough they can start *really* screwing with you, about six to nine months after you can figure out an area is very much not what you thought, and it’s also about the time you’ve had time to prove yourself to the employer so they move you elsewhere.”

                      I can see that. First point, we bought about a mile from my folks, where I grew up. It was a “must find now, what is available” purchase, as our long term rental was being sold out from under us (we tried to buy it). With 5 cats, and a German Shepard, we weren’t getting lucky with a rental again. Plus what could we afford since we still had payments on the house up north. We’ve talked about building our dream home. Problem? We know what we want to build, we know where we don’t want build, we don’t know where we want to build. Plus we know, anything we do we will be tripling our property taxes … Ironically we are in agreement on all 4 points.

                      Second point. Employers. Our first home we bought we were in just under 5 years, moved due to forced transfer. Sold it after 9 years. We didn’t pay taxes on it, because we didn’t make anything on it. But if we had, we would have had to pay. Second forced transfer, if we’d actually sold because I wasn’t working, moved, bought, when other half got transferred to Randle, we’d been caught in this trap, as they lost the jobs less than 5 years later, would have been another forced transfer. A few things stopped us. 1) Kid had just started HS, as well as his Eagle project, we weren’t moving him. 2) No way in Heck I was finding a job within 3 hours of Randle (for grins I looked); internet in the area was only dial-up & sketchy. 3) The company was no longer paying the move on forced transfers. They never did pay to help sell a home or buy a new one in the area you were in, nor would they buy the old home if sells were stalled (just a little problem). 4) Housing was expensive, whether buying or renting. Three pesky items: White Pass Skiing, Rainer NP, & St Helen NP. Hubby ended up living in our Travel Trailer. He wasn’t the only one who was forced transferred there who did so. Over all, we’ve been lucky.

          2. They tried to get it declared unconstitutional for imposing burdens on racial groups to get preferences. . . .

  10. I was told all the time how I couldn’t make it in America unless “liberals” (leftists) defended me and came to my help and made special laws to make sure I got a fair shake.

    Well, you know, they’re the same party that tells working men and women that they’re in danger of being exploited by their employer (especially, it seems, if that employer is a government) and can only get a fair shake and their rightful share of production if they join a union and let union bosses negotiate special work rules and benefits to defend and help you make sure you aren’t taken advantage of.

    1. What boggles me is the folks who will scream at me about how dare I object to a poor woman using food stamps to buy soda, or a birthday cake, for her kids….

      Look, dude, my kids don’t GET soda. They only get a bought birthday cake because Costco has them as a loss-leader, and half the time we go the box of mix at home route anyways, because the kid asks for something Costco doesn’t offer.

      But that’s OK, because…I’m using my own money… instead of someone else using my money….

      1. *shrug*

        Food stamps are ALWAYS going to be used for questionable choices. Inevitably. Where I get MY knickers in a twist is when the Anointed start bloating about ‘food deserts’. Stores won’t stock what doesn’t sell. Get. Over. It.

        1. They’ll abuse it isn’t the same as “we should make it so it’s fine,” though.

          And food desert isn’t even stores not stocking what will sell– from all the audits I’ve seen, they bend over backwards to rule out places that DO stock groceries, at a decent price, and what you need…. in favor of places that have at least three islands of “organic” fresh produce.

          1. Around here, grocery stores hose down their vegetables with something that must be a cross between floor wax and Zyklon B. Those aisles are not only no-go zones, so are the couple aisles nearest them.

            1. ???

              From what I know of modern vegetable storage, they don’t usually use any coating at all– they use controlled atmosphere storage, because it’s cheaper and also kills pests. Nitrogen or similar is used to displace at least enough atmosphere that there’s no more than 2% O2 left.

              1. My wife says it’s some kind of wax they spray on them to make them shiny. They certainly are shiny at that, even things that normally aren’t…

          2. Well yes, the wealthy limousine liberals and their loonier college offspring think that any grocery store that isn’t like the one that they, the wealthy white people shop at, is deficient and thus not a real grocery store.

            1. And clearly these folks have NEVER stepped foot in a large WalMart or Target. The basics are there as well as selection that out paces most regular grocery stores. As for the boutique items precisely how much arugula, Stilton Cheese and prosciutto (etc) do they think these people need? Not to say that StuffMart doesn’t have that kind of thing. But heaven forbid you let a big box store with cheap prices in…

        2. Food deserts are a joke. I saw it mentioned about a month ago that a Trader Joes won’t keep a location from being classified as a food desert.

          1. I will take Trader Joes over Whole Foods any day . Decent variety of food, inexpensive, and good quality (TJs that is)

                  1. >> “I’ll serve no kings but Jesus!”

                    What does it say about me that my first reaction to that was to imagine a cookbook entitled “To Serve Messiah?”

                    1. You’re not the first person I’ve inspired that reaction in. Comes from being an irreverent atheist, I suppose. 😛

          2. I believe the club stores don’t rule out food desert, though that might be because Costco charges a membership fee. (I don’t know about Sam’s; last I looked, they avoided Oregon completely.)

        3. “food deserts” happen because the stores closed. The reason they closed, they stopped making money because of the shoplifting. The police keeping a car there all the time because of all the people being taken to jail. The stores work on such a small margin that shoplifting can kill them.

          1. Shoplifting is bad. However things going out the back on the side or to “family” is far worse. There used to be a lovely grocery store in the nearby city that was dumped by parent company as it basically had run at a loss almost since the beginning. This was primarily due to cases of stuff being picked up at the loading dock or never even coming into the store.

      2. That’s part of the trouble with programs like food stamps. Should there be controls on what people can buy? Is telling people what to and what not to buy really appropriate in a free and open society? Who gets to decide what is allowed and what isn’t?

        Yes. People SHOULD buy good healthy food with their food stamps. BUT… Do we really want the Government deciding what that means and enforcing it? In a way, welfare mom using food stamps to buy cake and soda for her toddler really is just one more bit of that “price of freedom”.

        1. If the government is taking my money to do it?

          Yes, yes we do. Barring simply offering food packages.

          I suggest it be limited to the WIC items– that program is designed around pregnant mothers and small children, it’s more than enough for everybody else.

          1. Designed, yes – by government bureaucrat committee. Which means some very stupid things. Some thirty years ago, we were on WIC – as briefly as possible – and could only buy the medium eggs with it, not the large eggs – which happened that week to be cheaper than the medium ones.

            Before that (it may not have been WIC then), my Mother took a couple cases of soy infant formula to my sister every month – she was on it while BIL was in Korea (on the DMZ, he managed to not be sent to Vietnam). They would only pay for the milk-based – and my middle nephew had a severe milk product allergy as an infant.

            I don’t say that these two instances that I know definitely of are the result of corrupt dealing with big food producers – but there is certainly quite a bit of that, too, in the program.

      3. Just think with Food Stamp cards it would be possible to have a report of what has actually been bought with food stamp money. Just imagine the newspapers and media reporting on what was bought with the Food Stamps.

        How long do you think that Food Stamps would continue to exist???

        The other thing I would like to see is some group to start going to school districts and performing audits and placing the information on the web. All the workers and their salaries. The proposed budget and the actual budget. WHO was given the contracts and for how much. Showing where ALL the money went. Then reporting on it. The Web page you could see all the data, who were admin, who were teachers (with how many students), who were other workers.

        You might think the districts could stop you from doing this but they can’t, their books are PUBLIC records anyone can go and look at them.

        Giving the PEOPLE the information of where the money was actually spent and on what would lead to MASSIVE changes. The main one being that all school districts would have to place this information on a State Web site with massive penalties for failure to do so.

        In my dreams if I win the lotto that is what I would do.

        1. Just think with Food Stamp cards it would be possible to have a report of what has actually been bought with food stamp money. Just imagine the newspapers and media reporting on what was bought with the Food Stamps.
          How long do you think that Food Stamps would continue to exist???

          We already have that.

          It’s part of how they broke several food stamp fraud rings– you bring your card in, the tiny store runs it, charges the full amount as beans or something, and hands you half. (or a quarter, depends on the area)

          It’s also how they got started on the whole “how dare you object to a poor woman buying her kids treats” line of attack.

        2. Worked at a place that sold both snacks and staples, albeit at convenience store prices.

          I never saw _anyone_ use foodstamps for milk, bread, eggs, etc., all of which we offered.


        3. “All the workers and their salaries.”

          Covered by the Privacy Act. It may be covered under HIPAA and it’s extension law HITECH, but since it isn’t health data you might be able to prove that one didn’t apply…. unless you were reporting any information related to disabilities. You could report on the position titles, the salary range, and a count of how many people were in each position. Match names with salaries and you will be held criminally and civilly liable. Same thing with putting an individual name with a student count.

          I have to take training on that law every year, both from my company and any govt agency they contract with. It’s an instant firing offense to disclose .

      4. Hrmm.. I think there was only one, maybe two times the birthday cake wasn’t from a mix – and then it was from scratch. More time (though not much of that) than money, and also not the excessively thick layer of frosting of dubious ingredients.

        1. Makes me miss my grandmother – always from scratch, and she had one of those cake design books. I can’t remember what all was in it, I always picked the rocket ship or the space helmet…

          1. Dad made enough money for us to be solidly middle-class when I was growing up, but Mom always preferred to home cook when possible. Our cakes were better than store-bought, and for considerably less.

            Hell, I made some German chocolate cake balls as a birthday present for a friend the other day – he really liked the ones my parents did for Christmas – and I spent maybe a fourth of what it would have cost to buy something similar. (They turned out okay, although I think Mom did hers better.)


            1. I do bake, almost always from a mix for cakes, brownies (cookies are scratch – when I have time &room) I keep getting asked how I get the cakes so moist, etc. ‘I just follow the directions of the box.” gets met with, “So do I, but I don’t get this!” I dunno. Maybe a well-calibrated oven? *shrug*

              1. Do you have a gas oven by any chance? Our gas oven at least is far more humid than the electric oven was, and cookies at least come out softer.

                1. Nope. A fairly new (this century, at least) electric made by… Frigidaire… I have no issue with the electric oven. If the house layout was different and allowed it, I’d love a gas rangetop, but alas, it’s Ohms, Ohms on the Range…

              2. I not only don’t follow the boxed mix directions (I use extra eggs, and mayonnaise instead of veggie oil, and worse I do it by eyeball rather than measuring) — to add insult to injury, I bake ’em in the microwave. Comes out light, fluffy, and moist. So there. 😛

          1. I’ve added all sorts of things to brownies, from various ‘chocolate’-oid chips to a few different peppers, and some (day-after discounted) Halloween candies. I have at least one person worried as I had suggest for 1 April that chopped onion exists…

            1. I make a sort of onion cake that’s thick and heavy like brownies, and depending on the onions can be fairly sweet. It’s basically a sweet red onion chopped up, held together with just enough Bisquik-and-milk-and-egg, baked until done. Sometimes the onion turns bright green. Serve drowned in butter and sprinkled with lemon pepper. Call it onion brownies. Yummy!

    2. They declare the USA to be inherently racist and evil, and cheer on places like Venezuela and Cuba. Yet you never see flotillas of people sailing TO Cuba, nor do you see people trying to cross INTO Venezuela en masse.

  11. Do you think other people glide through life on rose beds, while being fanned by obsequious serfs?

    I endeavor to maintain a low-fat diet and the attentions of oleaginous staff is bad for my health, leading to clogged mental arteries and restless nights spent tossing and turning, wondering what they’re concealing.

    Oh, and rose beds are very bad for attempting to glide through as those thorns tend to be prickly.

    1. There are those few people who do SEEM to just glide through things with ease. Even loping along at a slow pace, yet somehow seeming to do things faster than those moving MUCH more quickly – and watching them shows it’s NOT a simple matter of better efficiency. I have no explanation, but there are times I do wonder if there is some Special Favor somewhere, somehow — and while fraud of some sort might explain some, such does NOT explain all.

      1. Ok Orvan with that and the earlier Ohms one you are clearly on fire. Be careful lest someone extinguish you with the garum blaster 🙂

      1. Blink… Blink… Reviews are on the list for this weekend. (No taxi service, yay!)

        “Mary Poppins” will not be in Sarah’s review. Nor can I quite manage to call Phantom’s “anime harem.” (Actually, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what to call it, other than very, very good.)

  12. Apparently, New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay is saying that Republicans voting against calling witnesses in the Trump Impeachment trial “feels familiar” to America under Jim Crow laws. Let’s unpack that a bit and see if we can understand where she’s coming from.

    Hmmm… Jim Crow laws were created by Democrats for the unambiguous purpose of keeping freed slaves “In their place”. A-hole Democrats LOVED them some Jim Crow laws… until the Republicans stepped in and stopped the madness.

    The Trump Impeachment charade was created by Democrats for the purpose of overturning the 2016 election, and to keep (so called) deplorable Americans “in their place”. A-hole Democrats LOVE them some Trump Impeachment… And wouldn’t you know it, the Republicans are once again stepping in and stopping the madness.

    Yea… similar. I guess.

    1. Sure. *After* some people started defending their civil rights at gunpoint. Athens wasn’t the only place, just the most famous one.

      It’s probably the root of the fanatical Democrat desire for gun control.

    2. My favorite has been Nancy Pelosi claiming that without witnesses being called and testimony being heard in the Senate its not a real trial and thus Trump is guilty if there is no trial; and that his lawyers should be disbarred. This is being echoed by the entire Democratic Party and their media arm.

      Apparently none of them have ever heard of summary judgment motions, motions to dismiss before trial, etc., all of which occur in real cases, criminal and civil, every day, and are a basic staple of legal practice.

      They really think American’s are stupid.

      Meanwhile, apparently Hillary spent a couple of days ducking service of the suit by Tulsi Grabbard, even using her Secret Service detail to run interference for her.

      1. Apologies to lawyers in the group.

        Question: “Where do lawyers, who are not good enough lawyers to practice, get a job?”
        Answer: “They get themselves elected to the peoples federal house of representatives.”

        At least the democrats in the house who aren’t lawyers have an excuse. The main ones? The loud mouth ones? Not so much.

        I’m not a lawyer. Only been in a courtroom once (support for aunt when cousins killer was sentenced). Even I know about summary judgements, or defense resting without calling witnesses because prosecution didn’t prove their case, etc.

      2. They only consider it a “Real Trial” when they get their desired result. Remember, the Democrats are the party of Judge Lynch and always have been.

      3. They really think American’s are stupid.

        It isn’t as if they don’t have good reason to think so. Americans keep electing them, after all. Noted t’other day via Instapundit:

        Trump Supporters Score Higher on Verbal Ability Tests
        And they do better on most science knowledge questions, too.
        … We don’t have great data on the intelligence of Trump supporters, but the best available is in the 2018 General Social Survey. For those unfamiliar with the GSS, it is usually regarded as the leading omnibus academic survey in the US; it usually achieves response rates about 10 to 20 times higher than the typical public opinion poll.

        In 1974, the GSS adopted a 10-question vocabulary test (WORDSUM) that was extracted from a standard, widely used IQ test. The National Science Foundation (NSF), in its 2018 report on science knowledge, refers to this battery of GSS items as a “verbal ability” test.

        In the 2018 GSS, respondents were asked for whom they voted in 2016 (PRES16) or for whom they would have voted if they had voted (IF16WHO): Clinton, Trump, someone else, or no one.

        On the verbal ability test (WORDSUM), not surprisingly the median number of vocabulary questions correct was the same for both Clinton and Trump supporters: 6 out of 10 words correct. The mean verbal ability score for Trump supporters was 6.15 words correct, while the mean verbal ability score for Clinton supporters was 5.69 correct, a difference of nearly a half a question on a 10-question test. This moderate difference is statistically significant at p<.0005.

        Further, Trump supporters score significantly higher on verbal ability (6.15 correct) than the rest of the public combined (5.70 correct), whereas Clinton supporters score significantly lower on verbal ability (5.69 correct) than the rest of the public combined (5.98 correct).


        Testing the hypothesis that Trump supporters have greater science knowledge than those who supported Clinton in 2016, on six questions Trump supporters offer the correct answer significantly more often than Clinton supporters: those about lasers, radioactivity, viruses, the father’s contribution to the biological sex of the child (BOYORGRL), whether “according to astronomers” the universe began with a huge explosion (BIGBANG1), and that the earth goes around the sun and that it takes a year to do so (combined EARTHSUN and SOLARREV). … Indeed, less than half of 2016 Clinton supporters (49.6%) are able to answer correctly both of two related questions: whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth (EARTHSUN) and whether that takes a day, a month, or a year (SOLARREV). Remember these two questions are multiple choice! You would have a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly on the first part: whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa. Sadly, the general public didn’t do hugely better than Clinton supporters, with only 57.1% (compared to 49.6%) knowing that the earth goes around the sun and that it takes a year to do so.


        Don Lemon laughed uncontrollably at his guests insulting the intelligence and knowledge of Trump supporters. The best evidence we have suggests that, compared to the general public, Trump supporters score significantly better than the rest of the public—and Clinton supporters score significantly worse—on a standard verbal ability test. Likewise, Trump supporters score significantly better on most science knowledge questions than Clinton supporters or the general public.

        In this essay, I analyzed the results of over 30 questions from 22 different representative national surveys, involving over 20,000 respondents. Not one of the questions I examined here supports the idea that Trump supporters are significantly less knowledgeable than Clinton supporters, and some of them point to small or moderate differences in the opposite direction. The idea that there are very large differences in intelligence or knowledge here is implausible without strong evidence.

        In short, Don Lemon is a bigot—and like most bigots, he’s an ignorant one as well.


        Emphasis in the original.

        1. > Americans keep electing them, after all.

          That’s a side effect of the Party system; they’re Non-Government Organizations that control who gets to be on the ballot in most states. And they controlled the Parties even before that.

          That’s not even figuring voter fraud, gerrymandering, etc.

        1. The tradition is that a grand jury would even indite a ham sandwich. The house being all out of ham sandwiches (but not hams) indited the President. The Senate (at least the section with two brain cells to rub together) went Whaaaaa? (or WTF?) and is about to do what any reasonable jury would do and kick the case out.

          1. “The Senate (at least the section with two brain cells to rub together) went Whaaaaa? (or WTF?) and is about to do what any reasonable jury would do and kick the case out.”

            With Prejudice, I hope. Otherwise, unless we get lucky (or PDJT gets lucky), we’ll have another 5 years of this crap/BS

            1. Unfortunately, the House doesn’t have to stop playing politics… well, it IS in the job description.

        2. When they passed (then spent a month roosting on) the two articles of impeachment didn’t they assure us the case was solid and the House had no need to develop it further?

          Lost in their complaints is the objection that, even stipulating the Truth of their complaints it would not rise to impeachable offense. Bad Analogy Theatre: They’ve instructed their police to treat theft of anything under $1,000 as not worth prosecuting. They now complain Trump jumped a turnstile and that John Bolton saw him do so; any fair trial MUST have Bolton’s testimony. But even if true it is not a crime worth prosecution for any other perpetrator. And not witnesses nor documents can make it matter

          … it was about four or five hours later that Alice
          (remember Alice? It’s a song about Alice), Alice came by and with a few
          Nasty words to Obie on the side, bailed us out of jail, and we went back
          To the church, had a another thanksgiving dinner that couldn’t be beat,
          And didn’t get up until the next morning, when we all had to go to court.

          We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten
          Colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back
          Of each one, sat down. Man came in said, “All rise.” We all stood up,
          And Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
          Pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he
          Sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the
          Twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows
          And a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog.
          And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles
          And arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,
          ’cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
          Blind justice, and there wasn’t nothing he could do about it, and the
          Judge wasn’t going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
          Pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each
          One explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.
          We was fined $50 and had to pick up the garbage in the snow, but that’s not
          What I came to tell you about.

          Emphasis added.

          1. You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant
            You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant
            Walk right in, it’s around the back
            Just a half a mile from the railroad track
            You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant

  13. Academia has golden handcuffs that we are told are the bestest most beautiful handcuffs ever and everybody else will be jealous of our handcuffs. Cuz they’re gold. Grad school is designed to instill that mindset and it does. It’s taken me 20+ years to break out of that mindset. I’m leaving academia at the end of this semester. I’m giving up a job I can’t be fired from, but one that keeps me going around in a hamster wheel while patting me on the head and telling me I’m doing good. Sarah and all the others here have showed me I can actually write fiction and write the stuff I like. And, yeah, good timing on my part with the growth of indie. And, no nobody at work knows any of this. They won’t until I break the hamster wheel.

    1. Welcome to indy, Becky!
      (I escaped from academia … no, strike that – I never even considered academia, once I took a good long hard think about it) through the military, which offered a small, but livable pension.
      Write! Write like the wind!

    2. Good timing on your part. Academia is overdue for a major shake-up. Instead of tightening their collective belt when the baby boom was past, they did their best to hook in more and more people questionably suited for College, on thinner and thinner pretexts. The whole ‘free college for everybody’ and ‘forgive student debt’ campaign is a desperate effort to stave off a reckoning. And I don’t think it will work, even if they win in 2020, which I consider unlikely.

      My late Father was an academic, but he was a genuine scholar. Too many of the faculty of even good colleges are work-shy parasites, given sinecures because their ‘scholarship’ (HEAVY quotes) props up various Progressive idiocies.

      There is a major train wreck coming to a campus near you. Best to be out of it.

      1. I wonder if the system that “Unspecified Jesuit University” used for their EE Master’s program could be put to use. The instructors for that were a mix of professors and lecturers from industry. The latter; no tenure, but teaching because they got to do what they actually liked doing. I suspect a couple of them got some consulting gigs through satisfied students…

        The program was intended for worker bee engineers from the then-hardware and semiconductor oriented local area, and it didn’t take too much effort for a student to get the classes that actually were useful (modulo a couple; a bit of rent-seeking from one of the full professors…).

        I never went to a football or basketball game at that U, but I got some useful knowledge.

        OTOH, the undergrad situation was overly progressive in the late 1980s, and has descended to full SJW hell. No idea about the current MSEE program, or if it even exists anymore.

        1. I think that when things go, even that will be too old school to really work for the new paradigm.

          If I knew what the new paradigm was, I could create it.

          The pattern of the unfounded assumptions in the status quo… I suspect the new paradigm will not be something which puts a significant weight on ‘x has an EE degree, x can EE’. May depend on how the shift starts.

    3. Welcome to the free world! I had the lousy (blessed?) timing to finish my PhD just as demand for my field plummeted, and the emphasis shifted from research to teaching. I’m glad I never went back. I’d probably spontaneously combust if I set foot on some campi these days.

      1. “lousy (blessed?) timing to finish my PhD just as demand for my field plummeted”

        Um. Ouch. At least my first degree, demand plummeted, a couple of years after finishing my Bachelors.

        Second degree? According to former VP & presidential wanna be Biden, “just learn to code.” (excuse me have to find my eyes, they rolled out, again…)

        There is a reason between “What you have”, “What program you want”, is “A miracle occurs here”. Not saying there aren’t other displaced workers, including those who work in the mines, can’t learn to code. But it definitely takes a specific mind set to not go bonkers. Plus, even kids who grow up programming, have difficulty getting through the BS (not degree type) that gets one into actual programs in their senor year of college. I did not get in traditional route. Stars aligned right (plus lot of work).

        1. I got into professional programming (as part of my job) kind of sideways. Had CS101 at U of R, which entailed Fortran IV and enough PL1 to hate it with a burning passion. Another class had a longish project requiring use of the Fortran II (!) computer.

          First job(s) at Awful Semiconductor Inc started in the process line, but to escape layoff, I went back to the EE stuff. After a couple years, I said fuggit and went to Slightly Less Awful Semiconductor Co. That got me started in test engineering, on a PDP 8. This evolved to about half my job as test engineering.

          Got an offer from HP in a semiconductor division (the names changed about every 4 years). Some test, some pure product development, then in the last 8 years or so, it was mostly test engineering, lots of coding and using *nix tools to help.

          Could not get a course in C for my masters; got stuck with Pascal, one of the BDSM family of languages. Later I had a short course in C and a boatload of on the job experience.

          After layoff, I got a test development gig until the customer went under.

          Bottom line, I had one semester and two quarters worth of pure programming instruction, and a bookshelf full of useful programming books. O’Reilly and Associates got me a whole lot of what I needed to know.

          1. “pure programming instruction, and a bookshelf full of useful programming books. O’Reilly and Associates”

            Think I’ve mentioned it before.

            Forestry degree required one computer class. I’m young enough that I got to program using a Teletype (hubby’s class used cards). I hated it. Despised it. Couldn’t build a flowchart if my life depended on it. OTOH accounting, whipped through that required class. Not that I’d planned on doing much accounting …

            Fast forward 8 or so years, spotted owl has eliminated both of us working in timber industry. So, lets go back to school. Figured can’t do what I want to do, do what is easy … Academic councilor said “hey, you’d do good with programming!” (me: “uh, no?”) Councilor said: “No worries. You have to take the basic accounting sequence & an introduction to computers & programming to start. Let me know what you want to do at the end of the summer.”

            Hmmm. Software Design & Programming for 35 years. Which one did I choose? Got the AA in programming. Went to work for a small firm, who believed in “the paper” (i.e. 4 year degree). So they paid for me to get the 4 year in Computer Science (well until they left town. By then I was so close, why not?) I had to take as many math classes as I did computer science classes … one class a term, while I worked full time … finished ’89.

    4. What stopped me from climbing on the hamster wheel of academia was a disease. At the time I wasn’t grateful. Now I wonder if it was a good thing because it really changed the trajectory of my life. For some reason I get hit with a course correction about every decade.

      1. Thing is, until fairly recently, Academia was only a hamster wheel for the people who didn’t do the work; research, writer up, publish, teach. If you published fairly regularly, and were ready to take on the combined section survey courses, you were pretty fireproof. Or, that’s how it looked to me, watching from the sidelines and listening to my Father talk. You had to like your subject, and be willing to write.

        And a lot didn’t (really) and weren’t. My Father spoke volubly about faculty who were loudly frustrated that they weren’t getting promotion, or tenure, or what-have-you, and DIDN’T PUBLISH. Didn’t ever TRY. They would do the field work, dig up reams of stuff nobody had seen in decades, and then couldn’t set down at a typewriter and make it useful to other people by WRITING IT UP.

  14. Hmm.

    Indian researchers are apparently saying that this version of the Corona virus looks artificially modified.

    Bets that this is or is not something the Chicom weaponeers let loose?

    Bets that this is or is not an information warfare scheme on the Indians’ part?

    I’m a bit puzzled what external power would hate the Chinese enough to play around that way. Maybe the Islamic terrorists?

    I think the current regime in China makes naturally occurring problems of this sort bound to happen sooner or later. Totalitarian regimes over so many potential vectors, through transportation in such proximity to so much of the rest of the world, are bad news waiting to happen. Even without hubris in biomedical research and geopolitical ambition.

    Now, my usual tact is ‘and that is why we should kill them all’, but we may have the option of long term productive plan. See Trump’s awesome trolling with Palestinians. The old establishment is bankrupt, we are in uncharted territory, and it is not clear what is possible and impossible.

      1. Cue…… The Stand:

        Seriously, waiting to see how long news media references the Book/Miniseries. Meanwhile, the number of infected when you consider it as a percentage of the population, doesn’t seem to be any worse than some of the years with big flu outbreaks (not counting pandemics the last of which was the early 1900s), and the death toll as compared to total infected seems to be lower than some strains of the flu.

        While certainly something that needs to be addressed, I think that there has been a lot of panic that has been stirred up with no apparent basis..unless of course governments have been given a heads up or have reason to believe that it is much worse than what is publicly reported (i.e. much higher infection rates-death tolls, etc).

      2. It was early on noted that the locus of the outbreak is in the near vicinity of two Chinese biological warfare plants, but only the extremely suspicious would blame this on anything other than Chinese incompetence, food handling deficiencies and indifference to human life.

      3. I also noticed that the outbreak happened near a biological Chinese lab like RES. I still am not sure if it was an accidental breach or a purposeful test. I’m waiting for more news. We may never know because … China.

          1. I’d expect the Wuhan situation to satisfy Chinese Communist Party nuclear release criteria for a nuclear public health detonation in Wuhan first.

            And that said, I expect that cat is already out of the bag, given the long infectious-but-asymptomatic period, and I also expect the Party knows that other regions in China are well and truly infected already, so all they can do is the same lockdown-blackout strategy they’ve been using so far.

            With no vaccine on teh horizon and an R-naught at something like 4 (see for a paper completely produced outside of Chin which comes up with R-naught of 3.8 with a 95% confidence interval of 3.6 to 4.0), containment is the only way to go.

            What we really need to do is what Insty’s been pushing, work on rapid vaccine development and volume production.

            1. What we really need to do is what Insty’s been pushing, work on rapid vaccine development and volume production.

              Wouldn’t that risk unconscionable profits for Big Pharma?

      4. Look, it’s a good rule of thumb, though not ALWAYS correct that if ZeroHedge thinks it’s true, it’s a bit insane and not true in this universe. Remember they predicted 100 out of the last 0 market crashes, epidemics and apocalypses. #1son calls it the blog equivalent of running a nice bath, lying down in it and pulling the plugged-in toaster after you.

        1. When I’m mildly depressed about the state of the world, I read the Babylon Bee. Pointing and laughing cheers me up.

          When severely depressed, I read ZeroHedge. Thinking of all the disasters that aren’t going to happen makes it easier to deal with those that are possible.

        2. Thing is, I don’t see stuff from ZeroHedge enough to make use of that metric. I can’t remember the last time I’ve read something from them. I think there is a good chance I’ve read at least half a dozen.

          I basically read here, twitter, and Redstate for news. I’m vaguely trying to cut back on Redstate and twitter.

          I’m a bit bored by natural disease, so I’ve not been paying this close attention.

          It hasn’t been clear to me that it will spread in a country whose medical situation is only as screwed up as America’s is, so the main interest is as relates to PRC regime weakness. And I’m trying not to to spend too much time and energy on that.

  15. Oddly enough there’s a kind of ‘inverse effect’ in the East African countries where I’ve spent time on business, particularly Tanzania. I think it’s because I bothered to try to learn their own language, unlike many long-time setters there. Once I opened my mouth and they realised that I wasn’t the prototypical ‘great white bwana’ but could mangle Kiswahili and even ask what the correct words were when I made mistakes, I became a kind of honorary African to those I met and they couldn’t be more helpful. I found the same on short holidays in France – using the local language (and customs) opens doors even in the most nationalistic societies.

    1. No direct experience, but I think giving it an honest try and not being an ass go a long way everywhere but France.

      1. It’s my understand that outside of Paris, the French are nice people.

        Oh, few Frenchmen like Parisians. 😈

          1. I really enjoyed the Dordogne and Normandy (but running around Normandy with WWII paratroopers tends to open doors, at least if they are American/British/Canadian.) Paris? I saw the museums I wanted to see. I don’t ever need to go back to Paris.

  16. [Cocaine Snorting Exotic Dancer Impregnator’s Dad Joe is] either stupid or thinks other people are

    Embrace the power of AND.

    Slow Joe is obviously very much on the slow side of the bell curve, but he is convinced he beats 90% of the population in intelligence, so as unintelligent as he is, he thinks he’s got the jump on anyone he talks to, and can outthink the media whenever he wants.

    This also explains the visceral anger that pops up when he’s verbally outmatched on the campaign trail, as that violates his basic assumptions about himself.

    Plus I think Slow Joe is also slowing down with age, and there’s only so much the handlers can do to cover that.

  17. not only do they want to keep is in chains. one of them thinks he can spread his poisonous beliefs to places that are not like his own simply by buying the elections.

        1. Only if it’s donations. Spending your own money doesn’t have the same effect.

          It’s as if people gave to as well as voted for candidates they want.

          1. Most of the donations come from special interest groups, political action groups, and unions. All of which expect to get favors, after the election.

          2. Oops, I forgot to mention the rich elites, such as Bloomberg buying most of the Virginia government.

  18. For the Left’s purposes, we are all oppressed victims, and those who believe this are already enslaved.
    I like your point about how believing in their own victimhood will keep a person from the introspection and self-improvement needed to succeed as an INDIVIDUAL,
    Great post — thanx!

Comments are closed.