Climate change – the perfect excuse for political failure.

I know. It's hard to believe that politicians and bureaucrats don't have the ability or desire to anticipate problems. Such as, oh, demands on city water resources from (1) population increase and (2) inadequate maintenance and expansion of the water supply infrastructure.

But wait! There's a surefire solution for government failure.

To deal with ever changing weather, and slowly changing climate, requires good government and adequate national wealth, well spent, to prepare first for the present, and then for the inevitable but unpredictable possible futures. All three of the localities [Kathmandu, Nepal, Chennai, Indian and Cape Town, S. Africa] covered in the [New York "Climate Change Causes ED"] Times have not even properly planned for the present . . . .

Politicians fall back on blaming Climate Change — something they can’t be expected to be held responsible for — for their own shortcomings and failures.^[1]

Just like Certain People who cling to the idea that they are "underprivileged" or that Certain Other People are racis'.

All part of that vast, vibrant human tapestry of shucking responsibility, denial of reality, hostility to free speech, fiscal lunacy, monetary excess, elite arrogance, endless war, reckless political experimentation, stupefying media, and institutionalized malice crafted to the very highest standards in the Western world.

Notes
^[1] "Merchants Of Thirst." Authored by Kip Hansen, ZeroHedge, 1/16/20.

An Announcement

     Please bear with us temporarily, as Liberty’s Torch is suffering a plague of comment spam. In particular, someone is bombarding the site with “comments” about a male enhancement drug. Accordingly, I have limited comments for the time being to members of the blog. I’ll reopen the gates when the siege has passed.

     Thank you for your forbearance.

     UPDATE: Comments have been re-enabled with "captcha" word-verification. Thanks again.

Mincing Words Are An Indicator

     Does anyone remember President Ronald Reagan’s televised statement about the Iran-Contra scandal? Reagan admirers emphasize that he said “I take full responsibility” – which he did say, though absent an impeachment and Senate trial that “responsibility” was weightless. But he said something else that made my ears prick up: something that suggested that certain criminals would never be prosecuted for their crimes:

“Mistakes were made.”

     Note the passive voice. Note the aversion to naming the makers of those “mistakes.” And consider that criminal acts share a distinguishing characteristic that separates them from mere “mistakes.”

     And now we have this:

     In December, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Justice released a report showing significant problems with the warrants that the FBI submitted to FISC in order to secretly wiretap Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. While the OIG's report concluded that the agency was justified in investigating whether Page was unduly influenced by his connections with the Russian government, it also determined that the FBI withheld important details from the FISC that might have influenced its decision to grant these warrants. These omissions were not in Page's favor, and ultimately the OIG found 17 different errors or omissions in the warrant requests, some of which were not corrected in subsequent applications.

     The FISC's judges were extremely unhappy to discover information had been withheld from them, and then-presiding Judge Rosemary M. Collyer (who has since retired) ordered FBI Director Christopher Wray to send a plan to the court by January 10 explaining how the FBI would avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

     Wray submitted his plan last week. It's a dense and technical response that is mostly inscrutable to anybody who does not have a history of involvement with the court's surveillance processes. Wray provides a list of 12 actions the FBI has taken or will take to make sure future applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants include all the information judges should've had when the FBI sought permission to surveil Page. Wray's plans revolve primarily around adding most steps to verify and re-verify information contained in the warrant requests to make sure that FBI agents and supervisors are not omitting information that might undermine or compromise their case for a surveillance warrant. Wray also says the agency will improve training by creating a case study program to teach FBI agents about historical precedents (I'm guessing the Page warrants will play a starring role).

     Note the first sentence of the second paragraph: The FISC's judges were extremely unhappy to discover information had been withheld from them. Another case of the anonymizing passive voice! The information didn’t withhold itself; it was withheld by some FBI agent. Moreover, inasmuch as the FBI’s illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign personnel and of the campaign itself constitute the largest purely political scandal in American history, to characterize its actions, which the actors must have known were against the law, as “mistakes” is a vile, contemptible act of word-mincing.

     The mincing of words, like “mistakes,” involves a deliberate decision by a conscious actor. It is not something that “just happens,” and the rest of us have to cope with it. The FBI is plainly desperate to retain some of the gloss of “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity” that has been troweled onto it over the decades since Prohibition. Those who find the FBI useful will naturally be inclined to assist it in that undertaking....unless their consciences should impel them in another direction. But conscience, as I’ve noted at many other times, is a liability to one who seeks to serve the Omnipotent State.

     The Omnipotent State isn’t quite coterminous with the Deep State, but the two have an awful lot in common. The Deep State is well served by anonymizing devices and word-mincing “explanations” for its faceless minions’ “mistakes.” And while it’s still rather early in the morning, I cannot imagine a better rationale for tearing down the whole edifice – every Cabinet department other than State, Defense, and Justice, and all the subdepartments, agencies, and bureaus therein – than the adroit and all too frequent use of passive voice and mincing words to avert cold scrutiny of the “mistakes” those minions commit, for which they strain and squirm to avoid being called to account.

How Having a Family Changed Me

Consideration of Others and Love for Your Fellow Man

Before having kids and a husband, I lived primarily for myself. I had little need to think of the needs of others, and almost all of my spare time and money was dedicated to things that I wanted.

Then my first child was born.

Amazingly, few kids care all that much about YOUR need to eat, sleep, or take of basic hygiene. My daughter, while a delightful individual, was Me to the 10 power. All about herself. No consideration of others, except as it affected her.

I had to learn a whole new way of being. I had to learn to have patience, not just with her, but also my long-suffering husband, who was also sleep-deprived and cranky.

I had to learn to deal with messes that I had not created, anticipate needs and wants, and prepare for each outing like Eisenhower prepared for D-Day. Shockingly, when money is limited, you can dress in clothes from the Goodwill, eat beans and rice, and take walks for entertainment.

Years later, I saw my own children also putting themselves lower on the Needs List, with their own children and families. They have learned to budget, plan, and act as though they were not the only person on the planet.

I wish many of the Left had the character of my kids.

Protection of Minor Children and Care of the Helpless

This pushback from Missouri librarians on the right of parents to control the reading of their minor children is ridiculous. What's wrong with kids having to get parental permission to access sketchy books? They did when I was young, and the materials that was available in public libraries was WAY less explicit.

If kids want to access sexually-related (or drug-related) materials, what's wrong with using phones? They can always borrow a friend's phone if their own has a parental lock on it.

Make librarians responsible for their own decisions to push explicit on kids - financially responsible. Frankly, I can't see a reason for that access, unless the librarian is trying to 'groom' a minor.

Care of the helpless is a value that having a family teaches you, whether it's the minor children, the aged, or those with disabilities. The idea of Death Panels is abhorrent to parents; we value people at every stage of life.

Note that Helpless is specific; it does not mean those who could very well earn their own living should live off the work of others. So, no, Trump's insistence that EBT be limited to those who are not able-bodied or have care of someone who cannot work is not uncaring. It is a recognition that those that can stand on their own, should do so.

Money, Money, Money

I was a saver when I was young. Once, I lived for 6 months while not working, strictly on my savings, without collecting unemployment. That was possible because I lived without credit cards. My basic expenses were less than 1/2 my net income.

Still, I learned to live more frugally after acquiring a family. Stretching our incomes (and, at time, just one of those incomes) to cover all our needs was a challenge. Even after I returned to work, I spent considerably less than I earned. The kids I taught used to tease me, saying my car was old and my clothes not the latest fashion.

I wasn't offended, as I realized that many of their families collected money they had not earned, and spent to the limit, and beyond. They didn't understand about saving for retirement, emergency needs, or future wants. Their families spent now, not later.

They were Grasshoppers in a world that needed more Ants.

One major reason that poverty is multi-generational is the fact that money management is absorbed by seeing how your birth family handles money. Spendthrifts breed recklessly careless spenders.

Eliminating The Remains (UPDATED)

     A number of years ago – just after the first inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama, in fact – I wrote:

     To say that some public policy must not be changed is to say that it is right and necessary: right meaning "not a violation of the rights of the unconsenting," and necessary meaning "the costs, however measured, of dismantling it would be unacceptable." But to shout down those who disagree, or to manipulate elections to deny conservatives their fairly earned victories, is by liberals' own standards a denial of others' rights. Not only is this hypocrisy -- "we'll respect your right to disagree as long as you refrain from using it" -- it's a revelation of liberals' deep convictions about both rightness and practicality:

Liberal Conviction #1: Only liberals have rights.
Liberal Conviction #2: What advances the liberal vision is good regardless of its practical effects.

     ...Over the next four years, the "desiccated remains" of Americans' traditional freedom will come under ever more intense assault. This is guaranteed by liberals' assumption of their moral superiority and the steadily accumulating evidence against the beneficence and benevolence of liberal policies. Conservatives and libertarians must expect harsher and harsher attempts, both within and without the law, to silence them and to defraud them of victories at the polls. Violence will be involved more and more often as liberals' failures mount.

     What I did not foresee was that the real, all-stops-out effort to suppress conservatives’ freedom of expression and their exercise of the franchise in a fair election would follow the Obama Interregnum. Indeed, it’s much more intense today than it has ever been. Moreover, it’s ceased to be a covert undertaking. It’s poised for a “battle of the bulge” magnitude offensive. Here’s a bit of evidence:

     Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, "Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box." Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it....

     "When voters go to the booth, they're not expressing a mere personal preference," Smith told me. According to Smith, voters who pull the levers to harm black people are violating the Constitution. If the Constitution means that overt racist appeals undermine the legality of union elections, it stands to reason that they undermine the legality of other elections, as well.

     I submit that no deep analysis of this citation is required.

---

     I’ve cited the following passage more than once, but in light of the material in the previous segment it is massively relevant yet again:

     [W]e are told that there is no need to fear the concentration of power in government so long as that power is checked by the electoral process. We are urged to believe that so long as we can express our disagreement in words, we have our full rights to disagree. Now both freedom of speech and the electoral process are important to liberty, but alone they are only the desiccated remains of liberty. However vigorously we may argue against foreign aid, our substance is still drained away in never-to-be-repaid loans. Quite often, there is not even a candidate to vote for who holds views remotely like my own. To vent one's spleen against the graduated income tax may be healthy for the psyche, but one must still yield up his freedom of choice as to how his money will be spent when he pays it to the government. The voice of electors in government is not even proportioned to the tax contribution of individuals; thus, those who contribute more lose rather than gain by the "democratic process." A majority of voters may decide that property cannot be used in such and such ways, but the liberty of the individual is diminished just as much as in that regard as if a dictator had decreed it. Those who believe in the redistribution of wealth should be free to redistribute their own, but they are undoubtedly limiting the freedom of others when they vote to redistribute theirs.

     [Clarence Carson, The American Tradition]

     Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch will already be aware of the Left’s various sallies against free expression, especially as practiced on the World Wide Web. Those thrusts have succeeded to an ominous extent, so further pressure against the free expression of opinion from the Right may confidently be expected. The Left is unabashed about its aim to silence “hate speech,” by which it means any expression of opinion it dislikes. Couple that to the opinion of “Professor” Smith as expressed above that voting can and should be limited according to the Left’s assessment of the voters’ “racism.” Note that that opinion was provided to us by a major media corporation. What does all this tell us? What can it tell us, other than that the desiccated remains of Americans’ freedom are under an assault intended to be sweeping and permanent?

     Don’t wave it aside as harmless blather, unlikely ever to command any significant power. We once said that about the income tax, the welfare state, and the right to keep and bear arms. The danger is real and daily draws nearer. They who would rule over us in all things, absolutely and permanently, are measuring the remains of our freedom for its coffin.

     Spread the word.

     UPDATE: Here’s a bit more evidence of the Left’s intentions, in case you had any remaining doubts. I rest my case.

Whack-Jobs, Then and Now

I was too young to know much about the John Birch Society when the group was kicked out of the GOP. The facts are fuzzy, and seldom talked about in history books in school.

Ace of Spades has some discussion of them in his post about conspiracies.

The real question: why was a provable conspiracy theory so wrong then, and a fabricated conspiracy theory so right today?

If your answer is: because the Left is simply using that accusation to gain power - the SAME THING they did by denying Leftist schemes then, you may go to the head of the class.

That's what the Impeachment was about - stopping Trump, getting back power.

So, given the ethos of the Left that all is fair when trying to take over, they have encouraged some of the most unhinged whack-jobs to run their freak flag up.

And, what of the John Bircher concerns about Communism attempting to take over American institutions (and, other countries worldwide)?

In fact, there WAS a Communist conspiracy to infiltrate and destroy America, as a free country, as well as to subvert its allies around the world. The Venona Papers have uncovered many of those responsible, and the evidence is there, for those who have open eyes. Unfortunately, few schools can waste the time to teach about it, as they have WAY more important things to dwell on - Climate Change, Gay/Trans Rights, and how White People have destroyed the planet (because, EVIL).

In Africa, as in many parts of the developing world, a relatively stable and prosperous system - colonialism - was deliberately destroyed by the Leftists, only to be taken over, once the Western Europeans left. There was NEVER any intention, on the part of the Leftist, of allowing Africans to actually rule their own countries after colonialism. The flaws of colonialism were trivial compared to the genocides, totalitarian rule, and export of the wealth of those countries. The Africans in charge were brutal, avaricious, and corrupt. Those who had been educated under colonialism were killed, exiled, and impoverished.

Were the colonials bad? That's a complicated question.

• The administrative structures they brought in attempted to separate African culture from their over-involvement in extended family clan nepotism. In Africa, those having a government job are considered obligated to employ as many of their relatives as they are able. To refuse is to put yourself as an outcast. And, for Africans, family is everything. This can be a strength, but, in a modern society, it is also a weakness. The family is only as strong as their weakest link. To modernize meant to turn one's back on every cultural tradition, and to become a person, disconnected from family and the familiar.
• Some of the colonials were truly awful. Dismissive of the "natives", greedy and addicted to living large, and - particularly for a substantial number of the Kenyan colonials - composed of some of the most depraved and addicted individuals ever to represent the British Empire. After WWI, Kenya became a dumping ground for those members of the British elite whose actions embarrassed their families - sex orgies, drug use, rampant drinking, vile behavior. Their lives were talked about, and well known among both the elite and the native population. Other colonials suffered from their compatriots' sins.
• It's true that the colonials made a considerable amount of money. However, the standard of living of ALL Africans rose during that time. In the period after independence, the confiscated money and land was supposed to be distributed to the people. In reality, the only people who benefited much were the New Elite. The average African ended up poorer than ever.
• We will never know just what might have become of Africa without the Leftist invasion, that installed leaders who allied with them. Might they have come to find a compromise between Capitalism and their traditional way of life? We may never be able to answer those questions, as the Chinese are dangling their cash, in the form of loans, and will likely take outright control when the bill comes due. The Chinese are NOT known for their disinterested benevolence.

From the African journalist writing in PJ Media:

At independence, Africa had 9% of the world’s population and a share of 9% of world trade. It enjoyed relative wealth compared to the rest of mankind. Today, with more than 17% of the world’s population, its share of global trade has fallen to less than 2%. It is therefore postcolonial Africa that has become impoverished.

 I'm going to keep an eye out to see if Tigori's book "Detoxifying Africa" will be available (it's not, at this time). If I find it, I'll post a review here.

A Premise We Can’t Do Without

     I subscribe to a service that presents me with some inspirational Catholic reading each morning. It’s a “game starter” that’s served me well. (Among other things, it reminds me to pray.) This morning it led off with a quote that immediately got my gears turning:

     "I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but rather, I believe in order that I may understand." — St. Anselm of Canterbury

     This is more than merely a statement of faith. It goes to the heart of all human reasoning: the unavoidable requirement that we accept certain unprovable propositions as true, simply because without them we can do no reasoning at all.

---

     In response to the St. Anselm quote above, the scrap-lumber room of my often annoying but sometimes useful memory has just tossed up two fragments of unusual relevance. The first is from that perennial visitor to this site, the late, great Clive Staples Lewis:

     From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn. This will preserve society cannot lead to do this except by the mediation of society ought to be preserved. This will cost you your life cannot lead directly to do not do this: it can lead to it only through a felt desire or an acknowledged duty of self-preservation. The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premisses in the indicative mood: and though he continues trying to all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible. We must therefore either extend the word Reason to include what our ancestors called Practical Reason and confess that judgements such as society ought to be preserved (though they can support themselves by no reason of the sort that Gaius and Titius demand) are not mere sentiments but are rationality itself; or else we must give up at once, and for ever, the attempt to find a core of 'rational' value behind all the sentiments we have debunked. [From The Abolition of Man]

     Long-time Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch have surely seen this quote before. It goes to the heart of human ratiocination, the process by which our conscious minds approach decision-making. We cannot reason without premises: statements of fact that, while not provable, are not disprovable and have survived attempts to contradict them in observation. Even completely formal systems, derived entirely from the mind of Man, require premises, despite Giovanni Saccheri’s refusal to accept it.

     The second fragment is from the late Dr. Clarence Carson, in discussing the effects on philosophy of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason:

     What Kant took away with one hand—the Pure Reason—he returned with the other—Practical Reason. What we cannot know—that is, God, freedom, immortality, moral imperatives, principles, ideals—must be assumed. To accomplish this intellectual feat, Kant resorted to the traditional distinctions between appearance and reality. The phenomenal world, the world accessible to the senses, the only world that can be known, is only an appearance. The real world is unknown and unknowable, as Kant had earlier demonstrated to his satisfaction. Yet it must exist. No, that is not quite right. We must act as if it existed.

     Kant affirmed the traditional morality, insisted upon the necessity of faith, and proclaimed that man participates in a moral order. Practically, Kant would have it, we do seem to know that there are moral imperatives. There may even be generally accepted beliefs about what many of these are. They can even be "proved" by the Practical Reason, by which Kant means reason operating upon assumptions about what reality must be like in order for appearances to be as we perceive them. Yet this kind of reason operates upon possibilities, not certainties, so far as philosophy is concerned. Kant said as much himself:

     It is just the same as if I sought to find out how freedom itself as causality of a will is possible; for, in so doing, I would leave the philosophical basis of explanation behind, and I have no other. Certainly I could revel in the intelligible world, the world of intelligences, which still remains to me; but although I have a well founded idea of it, still I do not have the least knowledge of it, nor can I ever attain to it by all the exertions of my natural capacity of reasons.

     This stolid German, this resolute metaphysician, this determined moralist, had left the house of philosophy in ruins: of this there should be no doubt. Let us review the "achievement." Kant had changed the meaning of "objective" from something which exists outside the mind to make it refer to a property of mind itself; he had brought it into the interior world of consciousness. He had taught that mind can only know phenomena. Reason can only deal with reason. Then he declares that phenomena is only appearance, that reality is unknown and unknowable.

     [From The Flight from Reality]

     In other words, Kant refused to treat the indispensable premise of the Christian Enlightenment – that the universe is inherently lawful, that its laws impose a moral order on us, and that this order is independent of human conceptions and norms — as sufficiently demonstrated and without counterexamples to be treated as a fact. He is unwilling to concede it the status of a fact, but mealy-mouths around the matter by claiming that “we must act as if it existed.”

     “Must act.” Must! Kant says so in letters of fire. But then C. S. Lewis, that inexorable debunker of intellectual pretense and twaddle, arises to ask the most fateful of all questions:

Why?

---

     “Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence.” – Charles F. Kettering

     Paranoid: A logician with a fractured premise. – Arthur Herzog

     Althea: How do my accomplishments, as you put it a moment ago, bear on this realm?
     Probe: You are Hope’s first metaphysicist, Althea. You alone have thought to alter the properties of space itself. It is how you constructed your superluminal vessel.
     Althea: Then to alter the permittivity of the vacuum is an act of meta-engineering?
     Probe: Yes. It requires an assumption realist physicists would dismiss out of hand. Their assumptions are wholly incompatible with it.
     Althea: What are those assumptions?
Probe: They pertain to the undefined term existence. If asked “does space exist?” the realist physicist would decline to give a definite answer. Space, he would say, is nothing: the absence of anything real. Therefore, the concept of existence does not apply to it. You, by contrast, have treated space as having existential properties. You have treated nothing as being something, and so have succeeded in making changes to it.
     Althea: Which of us is nearer to the truth?
     Probe: Surely that question answers itself.

     [From Freedom’s Fury]

     Kant’s obfuscation of reality as an objective matter was accepted by a number of later thinkers, including a few for whom I have some regard. Nevertheless his notion that reality is a matter of belief rather than fact is fundamentally unsound as a matter of metaphysics itself. Metaphysics is the study of what is prior and superior to our reasoning processes. If nothing is prior and superior to ratiocination per natura, then there can be no objection to solipsism and all the madness that follows in its train.

     In other words, we need to accept reality as an objective fact, prior and superior to our opinions and evaluations, to construct any sound notions about what to do in it and with it.

     The moral order inherent in the laws of this universe is completely consistent with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and the Redeemer of Mankind. (You knew I’d get here eventually, didn’t you? I mean, I did lead off with a quote from a saint.) Thus, our indispensable premise of an objective reality that’s “indifferent to what you believe or disbelieve” (John Varley) is identical to Christ’s teachings. While one may choose to remain unconvinced by the evidence for His miracles, Passion, and Resurrection, one cannot rationally object to His prescriptions:

     And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
     He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [Matthew 19:16-19]

     ...without denying reality itself.

     In this Saint Anselm was a forerunner to C. S. Lewis:

     “I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun: not only because I see it, but because by its light I see everything else.”

     With this premise as its foundation was all of Western Civilization erected...and if deprived of this its foundation, all of Western Civilization will fall.

     Have a nice day.

The Amish git 'er done.

49 secs.

Something tells me that Amish aren't sweating the deficit, MMT, debt, tranny spasms, cross-dresser poetry readings, the spilling of blood and treasure in stupid, arrogant foreign wars, or any of the other blessings of modern post-common sense America.

H/t: National File.

The Forces Behind American Media

Now, I'm gonna state right up front, that I grew up in a 2-newspaper town. Our family subscribed to both dailies, as well as the weekly (Lakewood Ledger) that was published in our suburb.

That was not unusual in the 1950s and 1960s. The revenues of the advertising departments sustained the papers, and made their owners quite rich. Even TV ads didn't cut that much into the income stream. During that time, they pumped up the coupon offerings, and many papers were able to spin off those ad circulars, deliver them for free, and still be able to make a profit.

By the 1970s, the daily papers had more competition. The evening news got more time, alternative newspapers were growing, and many people got out of the habit of subscribing. Decade after decade, the reach of newspapers shrunk. TV faced some competition with cable, but not that much. Until the cable industry went all-in to porn, the networks were able to stay profitable.

Enter the Internet. Not that important outside of the academic and scientific world, at first, the invention of a graphical browser allowed it to take off at a stratospheric pace.

Suddenly, there was competition in media. No longer could print and TV passively rake in the cash; they had to aggressively compete for attention in an overcrowded arena.

One after another, print media collapsed, except for the biggest cities (which still reduced to a single daily), and the women's magazines (pay attention to that last part, it will be explored later).

Don Surber, formerly of the Cleveland newspaper game, now retired, has a post making the connection between the anti-American posture of most media, and where the money to keep them in business comes from.

Both domestic and foreign money, that aims to shape politics, culture, and business in America. If they would just openly identify themselves, it would be fatal to their agenda. So, they hide the money, using multinational corporations, and businessmen figureheads (Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, Jeff Bezos, to name just a few). Take a look at the list of the largest, and note just how many have foreign birth or connections.

And, their efforts to shape the message may be assisted by our own Deep State.

Women's magazines no longer sell as many issues as they once did - other than the impulse buys, or the school-donation magazine drives, very few women subscribe today. That loss is largely the result of years of coordinated efforts to drum up support for feminist/Progressive/Leftist causes, rather than include articles about topics women are really interested.

Many of them operate at a loss, and are only kept afloat through grants, parent ownership, and - frankly - scamming advertisers who believe that they actually have anywhere near the number of readers that they claim. There are ploys magazines use to entice women to sign up (for FREE!!!!), but make it almost impossible to get the subscription stopped. And, after the trial period, these organizations charge - Big-Time!

One glaring 'tell' that the Official Media is marching to the same dreary drummers is their response to Trump's candidacy/nomination/election.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM PUBLISHED NUMEROUS ARTICLES/OPINIONS/EDITORIALS on the disaster that would - according to the experts - result.

EVERY ONE.

No dissenters. Oh, sure, there might be a few that would try to be neutral. But they always slipped in the snide asides about his ways with women, his crude and brash manners, and his ignorance of foreign policy. Many of them ignored actual accomplishments, starting with graduation at a prestigious Ivy League school, to his business successes - realty, construction, management, and television show production.

Nope, all they could talk about were his failures. Or, his perceived failures.

Even after his election, the women's magazines were so petty and vindictive that they couldn't bring themselves to run features on Melania Trump, a woman who dresses impeccably, has actual modeling experience, and has a fascinating story to tell.

Noooo. They'd rather trot Yet Another Adoring Cover Featuring Michelle Obama! (aka YAACFMO - pronounced Yak-fmo).

Likewise, the articles discussing foreign relations, domestic affairs, or White House policies, uniformly cite both Hate Trumpers and Never Trumpers. It's not an accident, nor just a coincidence. The opinions of women, whether influenced by television, cable, or print media, are being 'nudged' to conform. And, conforming is what most women do best.

[I strongly suggest reading Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. It's one of the few books by Leftists I actually bought, but the price was worth it, just to understand Leftist thinking. Fortunately, it's now available on KU and in most libraries, so you won't be sending money to the Left.]

This is a well-planned plot to 'subtly' push Americans into the corral. We are being pushed into conformity, obedience, and watching what we say, lest we offend The Elite (and those allied with them).

So, what can you do?

(1) Stop consuming the media via their preferred means. Cut the cable. Don't settle for the mediated news - download selectively. For example, Congressional (and Senatorial) activities are all filmed, unless in private session. Transcripts of hearings are downloadable. Thomas can provide the full text of proposed legislation (I've read bills, and most of them are comprehensible, if a touch lawyeresque. But, the gist of them is in relatively plain English).

By detaching from the sound-bite offerings, you take control of your news consumption.

Also, make a point of using a variety of news sources, from different perspectives. Most Leftists only consume news from the point of view of the Left. Most of us are far more aware of opposing opinion (and, just how slanted the Left News is).

(2) Spend some time each week on self-education. Read the Federalist Papers. Learn about the history of the world. Pick a topic, and become an expert on some small part - and, please, share that expertise with the rest of us.

Don't waste your time trying to educate the uneducable. Focus on understanding forces at work in our world.

Learn some geography - there are interactive map games that will help you learn where countries are, and begin to understand how interactions with their neighbors might lead to conflict. Also, if you're ever on Jeopardy, you may just win!

(3) Find some people who are culturally and politically compatible with you. This might be in your neighborhood, at church, at local political events, or even virtual (make sure you get face-to-face occasionally - real life is important). Work to make a local impact on some issue. The education you receive is worth the time. May I suggest Heinlein's book on politics as a resource? Worth buying, but also available in KU.

We are not alone. There are more and more people, every day, that are reaching the point of mis-trusting MOST of what they hear/see from media. That's a good starting point. When people's own experience doesn't match what they are told is The Truth, we have arrived at The Starting Point. From that point, we have a population that will be open to listening.

We can't force it. Those that are in power over the established media are in a good position to defend.

What might bring someone to take that extra step?

Help them find a way to become a part of The Resistance. Support dissident media. Encourage people with a story to tell to write it themselves, or, at least, talk to someone who can write it. Find out how others might contribute to alternative media (video, podcast, blogs, artwork, books, etc.), and give your support. Financial, if possible, but also promotional. Help them make up promotional materials. Volunteer to help with distribution. Give them a reason to become a part of this.

In activities, let others help (this is tough for loners who believe that no one can do the job as well as they can. That, in fact, might be true. But, for every Revolutionary Leader, there were a hell of a lot of support people, delivering messages, moving stuff, listening and reporting back. Everyone in this fight should work to find at least 3 people who are willing to help, and LET THEM! No, they would do it as well as you would. Yes, supervising, advising, coaching, and teaching take far more time than doing it yourself.

That insistence on going it alone is death to the project. Don't do it. They will develop confidence and competency, if you manage to learn how to become a good coach.

[UPDATE: I'd almost forgotten these connections.]

Picture below from the same site.

Hero Hunger

     I’ve harped on my determination to provide readers with genuine heroes more than once. There’s a distinct hunger for them in the fiction marketplace, which is part of the reason for the popularity of all the comic-book movies of recent years. While the reader is free to dissent from my conception of a hero, of course, there can be no dissent from the essential characteristic of a hero as a person who acts to uphold and defend what’s right and just, at least within the context of his story. The “gray wave” that overtook speculative fiction from about 1970 onward tried to displace that notion of the hero by “flooding the zone” with antiheroes and persons of deeply compromised values who stumbled into acts of heroism without ever quite intending them.

     Thus it is gratifying in the extreme to read that another writer of ability feels the same way:

     I grew up with heroes. I grew up with comics during the late Silver Age, Superman was the Big Blue Boyscout, when Batman wasn’t the cowled psychopath, when Robin was starting solo adventures with Batgirl (and while I knew I could never be Batman, I thought maybe Robin was achievable). I wanted to be the hero, dammit, or if not the hero, at least a competent sidekick.

     Then I grew up and got “respectable”. But a part of me never quite grew out of that.

     And so I like to write about heroes that are really heroes because I figure that there are other people out there, like me, who want to read about them.

     I gave up on comic books, not because I outgrew them but because they “outgrew” (if you can call it that) me. In the interests of being “real” and “relevant” and “real” they wanted their heroes to be “flawed” by which they meant “scarcely better than the villains”.

     I saw it in prose fiction as well. Bleah people living bleah lives with not a hero to be found.

     A compact expression of the hunger I sensed. It’s pleasant to see that another writer senses it as do I. But how is hero hunger to be served?

     Heh, heh, heh!

---

     There are two approaches to the concoction of a hero-figure. One is to make him human in scale. The other is to make him larger than life in one or more dimensions. In either case he must possess a high moral and ethical character, even if he must struggle with its counterpoise to his personal interests and desires. If this seems “obvious,” you might be surprised how poorly figures of either sort are represented in conventionally-published fiction these days.

     The absence of such figures from contemporary fiction as it emerges from Pub World is notable. Everyone in their stories is compromised. Everyone disdains the notion of objective standards of right and justice. The Left rejects the notion of absolute moral and ethical principles, and Pub World has been completely colonized and conquered by the Left.

     Indies create better hero figures, but even in the independent-writers’ movement there is a tendency toward the “gray” protagonist: the Riddick figure animated by his will to survive and his desire to avenge himself on his enemies. Such characters can make for compelling fiction, especially in a movie, but they don’t satisfy the hero-hunger David Burkhead and I have in mind. Much closer to the moral-ethical conception of a hero is Boss Johns, who rescues the beleaguered Riddick at the end of the film, despite considerable risk and no reward.

     The usual disparagement the Gray Wavers pour on the moral-ethical hero figure is “unrealistic,” or sometimes “Boy Scout.” They have no idea of the condemnation they inflict thus on their own works.

---

     A hero doesn’t necessarily spend all his free time fighting crime, or opposing tyranny. He might have a job, family, debts, and a bone to pick with a neighbor who keeps borrowing his tools and “forgetting” to return them. But when a moral-ethical crisis is put before him, he rises to the occasion. He may indulge in some agonizing and dithering, or searching for a “middle way” that will preserve more of his interests. He may regret what he must sacrifice in the name of justice. But ultimately he steps up. That’s what makes him a hero.

     Double credit goes to the writer who can surprise his readers with a “hero out of nowhere:” the character who seems largely secondary through most of the story, but who stands forth when the need for a hero arises. This is a tough move to pull off: so tough that I can’t name an example of it in anything I’ve read recently. If you can cite one, please mention it in the comments.

     For examples of heroes of the sort I prefer, consider these characters:

• Ashlyn Shaw
• Tanis Richards
• Christian Gordon
• Ajaya Gurung
• October Daye
• The Smith family

     All praise to the writers who show us figures we can honestly admire!

Quickies: Trends In Collectivism

     Collectivism – broadly speaking, the doctrine that the group is prior and superior to the individual – is the root of all political evil. However, its form can change over time, according to the strategic vision of the collectivists. Ace of Spades notes this in a swift but massively illuminating comment:

     Bernie Sanders is the conventional class-warfare socialist while Elizabeth Warren is the new breed of identity-politics socialist. Elizabeth Warren has run on little except identity politics.

     Hell, she owes her entire career to identity politics, pretending to be a Native American, but only when searching for a job or angling for a promotion.

     So, in response to Sanders' dismissal of her as yet another rich bored leftwing woman with a White Savior complex, Elizabeth Warren did the only thing Elizabeth Warren knows how to do -- she played the Identity Politics Victim card.

     Sanders’s collectivism follows the Marxian model of economic class warfare. Warren’s collectivism is about “oppressed” and “marginalized” groups. In both cases, these...persons seek to get susceptible voters to see their interests as indistinguishable from those of a group – and to have “rights” associated with that group, rather than with any individual member. That way, anyone who is superficially a member of one such group, but who differs with the collectivist’s assertion of its interests, can be denounced as a traitor to his class, his race, his sex, his orientation, his ethnic heritage, or his delusion.

     And there are millions who are seduced by it.

The Religion of the Left

It's been argued that Leftism is a religion for some time. I never quite 'got that' idea. I've been blessed by being surrounded by relatively normal people most of my life, and the extreme Leftists and over-emotional Womyn were not part of that set.

John Wilder, and the people who commented on this post, have convinced me of that link.

For the longest time, I'd been treating people as though they operated under semi-rational thought processes; my bias in that direction probably was influenced by the groups I hung out with - computer geeks, hard scientists, business owners.

I gotta be honest, when I saw the over-the-top hysterics of the TDS, my first thought was:

What a pity we closed the Loony Bins and tossed these guys on the street.

You know, I'm a casebook example of There-But-For-The-Grace-Of-God thankfulness. Many of the Loonies could have been classmates of mine, because, as I've said before, I was a History major.

Fortunately, I happened to take a programming class, and got Hooked on Tech (TM). That quirky choice led to most of my other vocations/avocations, and kept me from too close contact from the Truly Deranged Left (TM pending).

It's not that I'm unemotional - that moment in Braveheart when Gibson rides in with his Blue Paint on and gives that stirring speech, always makes me cry. When Laurence Harvey draws that line in the sand, who couldn't choke up?

Don't get me started on Bruce Willis in that fake-surrender at the end of Die Hard.

But getting choked up about layabouts having to get off their ass and get a job?

Please!

I suspect most of us were the parents who responded to our children's tears with stoicism and a fervent thankfulness that they weren't planning to make a career of acting (they were hammy and terrible).

So, why would the Left expect us to treat OTHER people's children with any more delicacy?

To See Your Way Forward, Try Looking Backward

     Sometimes the clearest vision of what’s ahead comes from a frank look at what’s behind us.

     Does anyone here remember Philip Wylie? In his day he was a successful writer of fiction and non-fiction. His 1930 novel Gladiator is believed to be one of the seminal influences on the comic-book character Superman. But most who are aware of him today remember his two novels When Worlds Collide (1933) and After Worlds Collide (1934), which he co-wrote with Edwin Balmer.

     Literary style has changed greatly since the Thirties. Many who stumble upon these books today find them uncongenial. Even in its time, reviewers were dismissive of When Worlds Collide. In part that was a criticism of Wylie’s overt use of the Great Deluge and Noah’s Ark, one of the most famous stories in the Old Testament, as his inspiration for the story. But in equal part it was because he was unashamed to quote the Bible in the text. Consider the following segment, from shortly after the scientists at the thematic center of the story confirm that the Earth is doomed. The speaker is Eve Hendron, daughter of physicist Cole Hendron and beloved of the major protagonist, stockbroker and man about New York Tony Drake:

     “We’re in a very solemn time, Tony. I spent a lot of to-day doing a queer thing—for me. I got to reading the Book of Daniel again—especially Belshazzar’s feast. I read that over and over. I can remember it, Tony.
     “‘Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.
     “‘They brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God; and the king, and his princes, his wives and his concubines, drank in them.
     “‘They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.’
     “Isn’t that a good deal like what we’ve—most of us—been doing, Tony?”
     “‘Now in the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.
     “‘Then the king’s countenance was changed; his knees smote together. The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans and the soothsayers.’
     “And Daniel, you may remember, interpreted the writing on the wall. ‘Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting. And in that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain.’
     “It is something very like that which is happening to us now, Tony; only the Finger, instead of writing again on the wall, this time has taken to writing in the sky—over our heads. The Finger of God, Tony, has traced two little streaks in the sky—two objects moving toward us, where nothing ought to move; and the message of one of them is perfectly plain.
     “‘Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting,’ that one says to us on this world. ‘God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it.’ But what does the other streak say?
     “That is the strange one, Tony—the one that gives you the creeps and the thrills when you think of it. For that is the afterthought of God—the chance He is sending us!
     “Remember how the Old Testament showed God to us, stern and merciless. ‘God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth!’ it said. ‘And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth. And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; both man, and beast and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. And then, God thought it over and softened a little; and He warned Noah to build the ark to save himself and some of the beasts, so that they could start all over again.
     “Well, Tony, it seemed to me the second streak in the sky says that God is doing the same thing once more. He hasn’t changed His nature since Genesis; not in that short time. Why should He? It seemed to me, Tony, He looked us all over again and got disgusted.
     “Evolution, you know, has been going on upon this world for maybe five hundred million years; and I guess God thought that, if all we’d reached in all that time was what we have now, He’d wipe us out forever. So He started that streak toward us to meet us, and destroy us utterly. That’s Bronson Alpha. But before He sent it too far on its way, maybe He thought it all over again and decided to send Bronson Beta along too.
     “You see, after all, God had been working on the world for five hundred millions of years; and that must be an appreciable time, even to God. So I think He said, ‘I’ll wipe them out; but I’ll give some of them a chance. If they’re good enough to take the chance and transfer to the other world I’m sending them, maybe they’re worth another trial. And I’ll save five hundred millions of years.’ For we’ll start on the other world, Tony, where we left off here.”

     Who, among the speculative fiction writers of today, would dare to use the Deluge and Noah as the pattern for a tale, much less to quote the Book of Daniel? Is there anyone with the courage and willingness required to look to the Bible for his inspiration? Never mind whether the tale of the Deluge and the Ark is literally true. No one knows, and no one can. The tale itself is the thing: its open paralleling of God’s wrath as narrated in Genesis to an astrophysical calamity that would make all the rest of human experience seem trivial.

     Wylie’s other fiction includes similar stories of world-girdling disasters. But his explicit use of a famous Biblical narrative, and the implications it held for Mankind’s past, present, and future, are what I find most striking today – more than eighty years since the publication of When Worlds Collide, and more than fifty years since I first encountered it.

---

     Time was, a Hollywood producer might bring out a movie about the ministry, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ and title it King of Kings, or The Greatest Story Ever Told, release it to the theaters, and “pack ‘em in.” People were inspired by such movies, as well as being entertained. Movies founded on Old Testament tales, such as The Ten Commandments, were equally popular. These stories were acknowledged to be important elements in Americans’ cultural heritage. We weren’t embarrassed by them; rather the reverse.

     Things are different today. Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ was greeted by dark and ominous forebodings from critics before its release. Many a theatergoer was derided for saying he wanted to see it, or for praising it afterward. The Old Testament tale of the Deluge was rewritten as an enviro-Nazi tract for Noah. The moral and ethical elements of the original tale were absent from it. Despite the presence of Russell Crowe, Anthony Hopkins, and several other big-ticket stars, the movie was about as large a disaster at the box office as the Deluge of which it spoke.

     The Bible’s various stories are morally and ethically aimed. Such things make producers uneasy in our time. I trust I need not thrash this into the magma layer for my Gentle Readers to get my drift.

---

     When Worlds Collide doesn’t depart from contemporary practice solely in its antecedents. Wylie had a point to make: the one that Eve Hendron made in the segment I quoted above. Beyond that, it stands as an example of unabashedly dramatic storytelling, told in a fluid and grandiloquent style that critics have dismissed as “florid.” Rereading it after a fifty year hiatus has reminded me of what’s possible to a writer who ignores contemporary fads and fashions and hews resolutely to his own conceptions, preferences, and style.

     Sometimes, to get a sense for where one should go, one must look behind: at where he has been, but also where others have gone before him.

Conviction Versus Identity

     (I was about to title this piece “When Faiths Collide,” but decided that it would be unfair to one side of the contrast. Apologies to Philip Wylie and Edwin Balmer. Maybe next time.)

     The Web’s favorite Bookworm has a brief piece up on well-known Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz that has called to mind the important dichotomy expressed in the title of this piece. Dershowitz is a long-time liberal, and is especially well known for his work in defense of freedom of expression. He writes about number of illustrative cases in his book The Best Defense.

     Dershowitz is plainly a man of high intelligence. He’s also a man of conviction, which Bookworm illustrates in her piece:

     He’s a passionate Democrat (although he calls himself a “liberal”), but he’s willing to part ways with his party on important things. For example, he’s parted ways with the party over the whole impeachment fiasco. He’s also parted ways with the party when it comes to his staunch defense of Israel.

     It’s this defense of Israel that led him to say near the end of the interview with Hunter that, if Bernie wins the primaries, he (Dershowitz) will abandon the Democrats and campaign for Trump. The problem Dershowitz has with Bernie is that the latter went to England to campaign for Jeremy Corbyn — and Corbyn, of course, represents the apex of Western, non-Muslim anti-Semitism. Other than that, though, Dershowitz is good with his party.

     BUT...

     It’s that fealty to the Democrat party that’s the point of this post. The Democrat party has become blazingly anti-Semitic. Bernie is scarcely the worst offender and all of the Democrat candidates are hostile to Israel, even as Donald Trump is the most pro-Israel president (so far) in American history.

     “Fealty to the Democrat party” would seem to disturb the notion that Dershowitz’s politics are founded on conviction. And it is possible that something else is involved. For many persons with a greater-than-passing interest in politics, political affiliation is not about conviction – i.e., one’s reasoned opinions about good-versus-bad in public policy – but about identity. It’s an influence that can snare many an intelligent man – and has.

---

     “I belong to no organized political party; I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers

     There is a subtle difference between the following two statements:

1. ”I’m politically liberal.”
2. ”I’m a Democrat.”

     (The same difference separates “I’m politically conservative” from “I’m a Republican,” just so you’ll know I’m playing fair.) The former suggests (but does not prove) that the speaker has thought about public policy and has decided, through evidence and reasoning, that liberal policies are better than the alternatives. The latter is a declaration of attachment to a specific organization; it says nothing about how the speaker arrived there.

     There are many possible reasons for a man’s attachment to an organization, including conviction. However, when his convictions vary from those the organization supposedly espouses, it’s fair to ask “Why are you still a member?” For the reasons that still apply have dwindled to a bare few:

• Inertia: A disinclination to make the change out of simple sloth;
• Collateral Benefits: “Membership has its privileges.”
• Identity: Membership has become an important part of one’s self-concept.

     In many cases the last of those three is the most significant. If “I’m a Democrat / Republican / Libertarian / Greenie / What-Have-You” expresses an important component of Smith’s conception of himself, that will give the attachment staying power apart from any other consideration. It’s an aspect of the need to be accepted by others that Abraham Maslow cited in his work on human motivational priorities. Over time Smith’s attachment might be reinforced by other factors – often including practical ones with dollar signs attached – but even in the absence of such considerations, the sense that Smith’s identity derives in part from his acceptance by the organization will provide for enduring adhesion.

     (An interesting tangent: Should Smith have become prestigious through his personal accomplishments, the intensity in any membership relation would be reversed: organizations will seek to have and keep him as a member, to add his luster to theirs. Smith would have far less personal need for them than they would feel for him. But today our focus is on the more typical case.)

     None of this necessarily applies to Alan Dershowitz, nor to retired Governor and U.S. Senator Zell Miller, the Democrat who famously spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention. But it is a consideration for many persons. Indeed, it may be more important today than ever, given the trends toward social atomization in recent years and the steady encroachment of politics into every facet of American life.

---

     I could go on about this. I could note some of the more egregious instances in which political and ideological organizations have betrayed their members without even blushing. I could prattle about the strength of character required to eschew membership in any group. And of course I could explore the undesired consequences of rejecting “joinerism” as a matter of policy. But the major point is already made.

     Some years ago an old friend, after a long discussion of a political subject that had him perplexed, said offhandedly that “I’ll always be a Democrat.” The subject we’d been discussing was one concerning which the Democrat Party had committed the most devastating betrayal of his convictions. Yet he felt it was mandatory to remain a Democrat because he is black. There are many like him. There are also many like another friend, a passionate environmentalist, who felt his attachment to the Democrat Party to be just as mandatory, and another whose main concern is the alleviation of poverty, and another who values international peace above all else, and another, and another...

     There’s a moral in there, somewhere. Perhaps it’s most clearly expressed in this old story about Theodore Roosevelt’s 1912 campaign for the presidency on the ticket of the Bull Moose Party:

     While Teddy was giving one of his campaign speeches, a man in the audience jumped up and yelled: “I’m a Democrat! My father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat, and my great-grandfather was a Democrat, so I’ll always be a Democrat!”
     “Well, Mister,” replied Teddy, “if your father was a jackass, your grandfather a jackass, and your great-grandfather a jackass, what would that make you?”
     And the heckler replied, “A Bull-Mooser, sir! A Bull-Mooser!”

     Verbum sat sapienti.

Those 600 US servicemen killed by the terrorist Qassem Soleimani.

As it happened, the overwhelming share of the 603 US servicemen the Pentagon claims to have been killed by Iranian proxies were actually victims of the Mahdi Army uprisings during 2003-2007. These attacks were led by the above mentioned Iraqi nationalist firebrand and son of the movements founder, Muqtada al-Sadr.^[1]

Mr. Stockman deals with the issue often raised by the hysterics who claim Iran was responsible for supplying the Explosively Formed Penetrators used to attack United States troops in Iraq in their early years there. He also makes it clear that the Iranians played a crucial role in defeating ISIS and that the U.S. directly and indirectly played a major role in ensuring that ISIS was well armed. This is a complete inversion of the U.S. version that has us as the Saladins who kicked ISIS's ass and the Iranians as penny ante dogs in the manger of U.S. wonderfulness who could only muster the will to enage in "terrorism."

Stockman's piece is a healthy counterweight to the hysteria in the land about Iranian eviltude and nefariosity. Not least useful is his brief treatment of what it was that Soleimani was doing in Baghdad on the night of his death. Contrary to the hysteria of Dan Bongino on Fox last night, he wasn't there to kick off another round a terrorism or attacks on U.S. troops.

Notes
^[1] "The Donald’s Assassination of General Soleimani—As Stupid As It Gets." By David Stockman, The Unz Review, 1/7/20. I've already posted about how Craig Murray deals with that 600 death toll. Basically, he and Stockman agree, Stockman also pointing out that Sadr, the Iraqi, had "derided the Iran-aligned militias" and had also, not surprisingly, fought back when the U.S. leadership under Gen. Petraeus initiated its "surge" campaign targeting Sadr's forces.

The State Anti-Gun Laws, and How to Fight Them

From The Raconteur Report, some good sense, practical ideas, and a way out of Civil War 2.0.

The ideas in this appeal to me on several levels. They are not expensive, use existing structures to implement, and don't require the participants to be in the streets, facing off against armed civil authority (almost none of whom actually want to be there). It gives a workable way to avoid confrontation, gain allies, and initiate what SHOULD be the first goal of Constitutional Warriors:

Engage in LEGAL maneuvers as a first step. This brings together like-minded people who are not nutcases eager for war. As activities progress, this further cements the alliance. Over time, they will learn more about the philosophy underlying the actions.

The Revolutionary War didn't start with Concord and Lexington. It didn't start with the Tea Party (1.0).

It started when sober men gathered together to discuss issues, use available measures (legal) to thwart the most egregious actions of the Crown, and gradually build the Core Group that led the Revolution. It takes time to build the Brotherhood. It takes time for them to educate others about the reasons in favor of the change.

Baring any major change, such as government gunning down citizens, or HRC coming to power in 2020, we have time. Let's use what we do have - bloggers, video/podcasts, local activities (city, county, state), educational work, and meeting and sharing - to build our Brotherhood (and Sisterhood) to take back our country from the Leftists.

Years ago, The League of Outlaw Bloggers was created. It did so to combat repression of Conservative bloggers.

I'm suggesting that we start another such group, the League of Americans, with the goal of alliance, education, and support/publicity of local work. It doesn't have to take up that much time or energy, just put the link/logo on the website, and occasionally mention their work in a post, or submit something to cross-post, if you have one worthy of spreading further. (Who's arty in this group that might do the logo?).

Guiding Principles:

1. We are NOT working for armed revolution, but to bring America back to its foundational governance - in other words, the lightest hand on the citizens that is possible.
2. This is meant to discuss issues, methods that combat repression by government, and publicize actions that are not being noticed by the media. There are many citizens who are working to ensure their rights at the local level, but cannot get their message out.
3. This alliance is not about you personally. It is not meant to make you famous or wealthy. It's about promoting Freedom.
4. Those belonging to the League must be vetted by someone in the group, and submitted for consideration to the whole. I'm not eager to bring in someone who is a loose cannon, or, worse, a Leftist plant.

What do you think?

Carrots And Sticks

     One of the sturdy wisdoms the “progressives” have striven to eliminate from general acknowledgement and acceptance goes like this:

The only way to get someone to do something he isn’t already doing is to get him to want to do it.

     This is not “obvious” (i.e., in the usual sense of “Damn it all, how could I have overlooked that for so long?”) to most people. Yet it’s a fundamental truth about Mankind. Indeed, it would apply to any race of sentient creatures with independent consciousnesses.

     At this point, let us recur to our old friends Smith and Jones. There are exactly two categories of methods by which Smith can get Jones to “want to do it:”

1. Smith can offer Jones rewards for compliance.
2. Smith can threaten Jones with penalties for noncompliance.

     Sometimes, Category 1 involves getting Jones to see some aspect of his self-interest of which he hadn’t been aware. Sometimes it involves an “extra” reward provided by Smith himself. In either case, Smith is making an appeal to Jones’s own values and / or desires.

     Category 2 is a bit different in tone. Sometimes it involves calling Jones’s attention to some negative consequence he hadn’t considered, or had under-weighted. But in other cases it involves Smith’s forcible imposition of punishment upon Jones, should Jones fail to cooperate.

     Methods for “getting him to want to do it” are equally relevant to “getting him to not do it” – and here we enter the realm of public policy.

---

     Some years ago a libertarian activist named David Miller composed the following chart:

     This image provides a schematic summary of how Smith and Jones can interact, according to whether Smith wants to get Jones to do something specific, or whether he wants to stop Jones from doing that something. (It also illustrates, in a fashion no other simplification of human interaction can, what the word moderation really means, or ought to mean.)

     Let’s omit as uninteresting the possibility that Smith is indifferent to what Jones might do. While the great majority of us are genuinely indifferent to what the great majority of us are doing (“Have you ever considered that the rest of the world doesn’t give a damn about you?” – Walter Williams), every now and then that condition of “benign indifference” fails to apply. Those are the interesting cases.

     If Smith wants Jones to do X, he has three general ways to incentivize Jones:

• Help: Smith can collaborate with Jones in some way: encouragement, provision of resources, offering a reward for performance, and so forth.
• Hurt: Smith can harm (or threaten to harm) Jones for not doing X: he can harm Jones physically, or confine him, or take some of his property.
• Kill: Smith can take Jones’s life for not doing X.

     A similar pattern applies if Smith wants Jones not to do X:

• Warn: Smith can counsel Jones against doing X, or can promise to withhold some benefit Jones might otherwise expect (but to which he doesn’t have a moral right) should Jones go ahead with X.
• Hurt: Smith can harm (or threaten to harm) Jones for doing X: he can harm Jones physically, or confine him, or take some of his property.
• Kill: Smith can take Jones’s life for doing X.

     The symmetry “should” be “obvious,” as should one other thing which is emphasized by the vertical red lines: Outside the middle zone of the chart, things can get ugly. They imply the use of force, or the threat thereof.

     If we exclude a priori the use or threatened use of force, all we have are gentle methods of “getting Jones to do what Smith wants.” Gentleness, while it’s always attractive in theory, isn’t applicable in every case. Consider a very simple example that’s currently relevant to a certain Pacific Coast city: Getting people to not defecate on public property. How has the gentle method of tut-tutting while wagging a disapproving finger at the bums and vagrants as they drop their pants worked out for San Francisco to this point?

     The methods that involve force, when imposed by a government on those within its sovereign territory, are what we usually call law enforcement. Hopefully, this will come as no surprise to any Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch.

---

     Yesterday, John Hinderaker of PowerLine had some cutting things to say about the assertion of “rights” to impede the enforcement of laws that protect public order:

     Ardent Democrats may be surprised that voters care about crime and the problems associated with homelessness, but no one else is.

     He quotes Lawrence Tribe in a juicy example of the ways the Left “reasons away” law enforcement with specious rights-talk when it suits them:

     The supposed “rights” of those who are upset or psychologically threatened by the homeless, the deinstitutionalized, or others similarly situated are what I would call second-order rights, rights that a polity cannot fairly treat as having as strong a claim to protection, as trumps that override utilitarian claims as is true of genuine rights.

     Hinderaker comments thus:

     The derelict’s right to defecate in public is a “genuine right,” whereas your right not to have to watch people defecate in public is a “second-order right.” Presumably this is in the Constitution somewhere.

     What is not clear is whether the criminal’s right not to be imprisoned for his crime is “genuine,” while your right to be free of criminal violence is “second-order.”

     Indeed.

---

     While there are certain problems attendant to the idea of “public property,” Americans have accepted the notion as the best way to preserve various aspects of public order. If the public can be persuaded to grant the status of “public property” to a facility, then the application of law and law enforcement to that facility follows naturally. The laws appropriate to the facility will depend on the nature of the facility.

     The thoroughfare — a passageway provided for persons and / or their vehicles to get from place to place – is one of the oldest kinds of facility to be deemed public property. Sidewalks and public streets are obvious examples of thoroughfares. Their proper use is to transit them from source to destination; there is no other. Thus the laws appropriate to them would fall into two broad categories:

• Keep moving;
• Don’t do anything to impede or discommode others.

     If laws to prevent bums and derelicts from camping out on the streets and sidewalks are appropriate, how much more so are laws to prevent such persons from using them as open-air latrines, impeding the passage and endangering the health of passers-by and persons with adjoining properties? And how much more fatuous could an assertion get than Lawrence Tribe’s nonsense about the “right” of the “homeless” to defy such laws without suffering a legal penalty?

     Thoughts?

Some Videos You'll Want to See

From - I really can't believe this - SNL, a funny skit on Election Night 2016. Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock are a scream!

My favorite montage - both for the clips, and for the underlying music!

Similar, but with a lightly different emphasis - BTW, the creator of this video has been demonitized by YouTube. Here's a link to his PayPal account.

Nancy gets in a reporter's face about saying she hates Trump (well, she does).

Nancy, Chuck, and Trump are talking about negotiations around the budget. Trump is talking to Nancy, repeating the same reasoning, and she is ignoring it. Chuck is, from the very start, getting belligerent and loud. Neither he nor Nancy have anything substantial to say, but they keep arguing.

The Video was titled, "Watch the full, on-camera shouting match between Trump, Pelosi and Schumer". Not accurate, nor balanced.

This last video is one that compares the political climates of America and Britain, and their leaders.

Arrogance: A Quick Venting

     There are, in this world, persons who know more about a given subject than do I. There are, in this world, persons who’ve given more study and thought to a topic than have I. I know many such persons. I accord them the respect due their erudition. But erudition is trumped by arrogance.

     This is a particularly sore point with me. I’ve suffered a great deal of personal abuse from persons who thought their erudition – in many cases, their claims to erudition – entitled them to deride and dismiss me, or to treat me with contempt. In these closing stanzas of my life I’ve become absolutely unwilling to endure it. This extends to persons who have expressed contempt for those who hold particular opinions that I share.

     Everyone encounters people with whom he differs on some topic. One necessary ingredient of social peace is the tolerance of such differences. That tolerance must embed a willingness to admit that one might be wrong. That willingness is incompatible with a haughty or arrogant attitude toward those of other views. I won’t have it in any facet of my life.

     When I make a carefully-phrased statement of fact, my Gentle Readers may rest assured that it expresses the best knowledge I have on the subject. Even so, I will allow that my “best knowledge” might not be perfect, even on subjects where I fancy myself well-schooled and well-traveled. If you choose to differ with me, I’ll listen politely...right up to the point where you become haughty and arrogant. Moreover, I allow less margin to persons who have offended me in the past, whether or not they’re aware of having done so. Consider it a fault if you like; I doubt it will ever change.

     Finally, far more people think themselves highly intelligent and / or knowledgeable than are objectively justified in thinking so. That’s a bit of insight that takes some years, and some bruises, for most of us to acquire. (Ask any parent with teenaged kids.) This is one of the strongest practical arguments for the cultivation of humility. Verbum sat sapienti.

     I’ll probably be back later with a dollop of the regular crap.

The TV is On, and It's Non-Stop "Trump is a War-Monger"

It's kind of funny. My husband was home this morning, so I ended up being around TV. He watched that am show with Hoda and Jenna Bush, then The View (don't judge him!). The news broke in a few times, as well.

The media phrase of the day is: Disproportionate Response. Both the women of The View, and Andrew Yang, used that phrase repeatedly.

Cue the Talking Points.

I pretty much ignored the whole thing. At my house, avoiding talking about politics is the only way to go.

On the positive side, although Megan McCain was clearly expressing different opinions, Whoopi and Joy were not disrespectful with her today.

Too Soon? Nah.

I was looking at the new posts on Instapundit, and they are comedy gold - they rip the Please-Don't-R.I.P Soleimani a new one. Can't pick just one. Go see for yourself.

I'd been hoping that the Left would take the removal of an Iranian terrorist as a GOOD thing.

Yeah, I know, I'm a ridiculous optimist.

Look. We need ACTUAL non-Leftists, not just Never-Trumper Quislings representing us on the media.

For example, The View has NEVER had a Conservative that was capable of debating issues. I realize that such a person would be facing women who are both profoundly stupid, as well as Leftist Lemmings, and putting in a decent debater would be overkill. But sending in women who are expected to be the mildest, meekest opposition, is not helping our cause.

I like Candace Cameron Bure, and she did stoutly defend traditional family life, love of country, and other such Feel-y concepts. But, she wasn't prepared for a whole-hearted defense of capitalism and deregulation, the role of the Christian church in a modern society (NOT the Leftist Kumbuya version), and how schools need to stop playing around with curriculum (at great expense), and get back to K-8 basics:

Reading (phonics-based), Writing (grammar), and Math (no student heading to high school should be incapable of handling basic arithmetic). Throw in a PROPER civics education, fact-based history, and geography (including a test involving orienteering in an outdoor setting - you can wussy it up by tagging every kid with a GPS tracker for those failing to succeed in navigating to the goal). 

What else? Music appreciation, as well as both physical and digital music creation. Art appreciation, and also creating art with both physical and digital means. Yeah, throw in Phys Ed, but focus on two major things: fitness improvement - walking, running, lifting weights, balance, and team-building activities/sports. No PC games. No folk dancing. Actual standards, perhaps adjusted by kids' initial physical condition (but, with a MEASURABLE improvement standard).

Women's shows need to see actual conservative/libertarian opposition. Yes, that will mean that a few intelligent women will be reduced to gentle mocking, rather than actual debate. You couldn't have that - the Leftist women would scream incoherently, or dissolve into a puddle of tears and claim 'triggering'.

Frankly, I'm not all that excited about putting in Libertarians. Libertarians will not provide a defense of our traditional culture. That's what makes them semi-respectable to the Left.

This is a CULTURE War. Politics is downstream - a long ways downstream - from the culture. It needs to be defended. If you honestly asked the daytime audience:

Do you REALLY want your children - even if over 18 and in college - to engage in sex with random strangers, whose last name they don't even know? To have oral sex to avoid full-on sex with someone they DON'T want to have intercourse with? To drink to insensibility on a regular basis? To have these escapades video'd and posted to social media?

The answers would be: no, no, no, and HELL, no.

On another topic:

Opposition to non-Leftist policies is not new. It's been going on for some time. But, why?

...history shows that protests are organized first by militant, radical fringe parties and then get taken over by more centrist voices as the movement grows. They provide a vessel for people who want to protest.“

 Leftists are perfectly fine with oppression. What they oppose is the dissident political entities, not their actions. Leftists are just hunky-dory with war, theft, deliberate starvation, genocide, and trampling on human rights.

They just want to be the ones that do it. They USE their opposition to any of the above as a tactic, designed to bring more people under their influence.

I had a completely lazy weekend. I slept, lounged about, and read more than I have in months. I feel refreshed.

I also had a small epiphany. When my husband is not around, I seldom watch TV. It's not uncommon for me to take a week-long break when he's gone. To call him an addict is harsh, but...it's not uncommon for him to have TWO TVs going in different rooms.

I may talk to him about having some time each day without the TV on - perhaps we can compromise with some music playing in the background (softly)?