Preemptively Protecting Our Men

     The scurrilous barrage of vicious and implausible accusations the Left has mounted against Judge Brett Kavanaugh has achieved more than one remarkable result. The first and most conspicuous, of course, was the rise of Senator Lindsey Graham to alpha status. A second one, which really should have occurred well before this, was the surge of interest in just exactly how men might safeguard ourselves against similar assaults by vindictive women. That, of course, has been accompanied by a predictable renewal of interest in the wisdom of the late Billy Graham, which has most famously been adopted by Vice President Mike Pence.

     I expected the above. But one I didn’t expect appears at PJMedia, under Megan Fox’s byline.

     Fox’s article provides excellent advice to the parents of daughters, aimed at keeping them out of situations in which they might be abused or might succumb to an unwise impulse. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but its recommendations are neatly summarized in its four subheads:

1. Take her to church.
2. Teach her to be sober, wise, and chaste.
3. Get her self-defense training and teach her to shoot.
4. Fight like hell, get evidence, come forward, and LOCK THE BASTARD UP.

     I fully expect America’s shrieking feminists to assail Miss Fox brutally for her wisdom, especially for the following bit:

     Since everyone is fascinated by yearbooks, I recently took out one of mine and found this inscription by one of my friends: "If you mean no, don't dress like you mean yes!"

     After I chuckled, I thought about how far we've come from that very sound advice. It doesn't mean you deserve to get raped if you wear a mini-skirt. It doesn't mean that you have to be Amish either. What it does mean is that if you want to be respected then dress like it.

     Once upon a time this was broadly understood, by both men and women. The boundaries one wants others to note and respect are expressed in several ways. One of them is dress. There’s a contextual element to this, of course. No one but a Muslim expects a woman not to wear a swimsuit at the poolside. But going to a party that will serve alcohol and be populated by young persons of both sexes in a bikini is, to put it mildly, unwise. At the very least there’ll be “talk.”

     All that having been said, I must note the insight of Esteemed Co-Conspirator Linda Fox:

     My thinking on the Kavanaugh accusations by Ford are colored by my knowledge of women. With many (not all, but greater than 25%), it's more important that their victims SUFFER, than they receive full restitution.

     Let's put it this way:

     If a woman has a grudge against a man, and sees an opportunity to get him charged with a crime, she is more interested in finding a way for him to suffer, than to see him convicted.

     Gentle Reader, you won’t get such candor from many women, at least not in our time. It implies something very unpleasant for men, but impossible to refute:

Unless you’ve video-recorded your entire life,
You will always be vulnerable to a woman’s spite.

     That’s a fact, in this era of “#MeToo” and a man being deemed guilty of sexual misconduct upon a mere accusation. Remember the Scottsboro Boys? Remember what happened to Steven Pagones? Remember the “Duke Lacrosse” case and the young men whose reputations were despoiled by Crystal Gail Mangum, now in prison for second-degree murder?

     Men fight with physical weapons. Women fight with emotional weapons – and there’s nothing in their arsenal more potent than sexual slander. Ask any high school girls’ clique. Just now, the Left is heavily “feminized.” That has implications that men, especially prominent and wealthy men, must beware.

     No man is absolutely safe in a society that has weaponized the vicious edge of a woman’s tongue. That too is a fact: one men must resolve to endure until the current sexual-assault hysteria has damped down to pre-Weinstein levels.

A Mighty Wind

     Pivotal events, the sort that give rise to great and long-lasting transformations in the order of things, often go unappreciated until well afterward. Some such are never flagged in the history texts. Others assume their full significance only after a long period of reflection on “how things got to be this way.” But some are visible to millions as they occur and become permanent markers in our collective memory.

     Senator Lindsey Graham’s impassioned denunciation of the Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee was such an event:

     That’s not stage anger, Gentle Reader. That’s the real thing, the sort of fury that once led to pistols at dawn. And from Lindsey Graham! The man most likely to pour oil on troubled Senate waters when “my Democratic colleagues” pretend that something perfectly reasonable is outrageous and unpardonable...or vice versa. It’s like watching the slow-motion video capture of a great explosion.

     One short sentence stands above the rest:

“These have been my friends.”

     Note the perfect tense of the verb: “have been.” The Democrats have finally gone far enough for Graham – Graham! — to put such a relationship firmly in the past. If any Republicans on Capitol Hill haven’t yet grasped the significance, it had better not take them much longer.

     “We’re all thieves and scoundrels, so whatever we say in public, let’s be friends in private” has been the working principle of Congress for decades. That rule has just gone into the toilet...and it’s about BLEEP!ing time. Beer bashes and softball shall no longer salve the wounds from political viciousness. Venality and injustice shall no longer be papered over with earmarks.

     It’s barely in time to avert an armed uprising. At least, I hope so.

---

     There are three figures at the center of this cyclone. Each deserves individual mention for his part in it.

     First is Brett Kavanaugh himself, who’s stood foursquare for his record and his reputation despite the most evil, utterly calculated slanders any Supreme Court nominee has ever faced. Kavanaugh didn’t give an inch. That’s the way it must be, for throwing a sop to the wolves only delays the moment when they eat the rest of you.

     Second is Lindsey Graham. He’s long been the U. S. Senator with the milquetoastiest reputation in the GOP caucus. He strained to preserve his amiable relations with men who did their best to savage him and the rest of us when the chips were down and the little marble was rolling. Clearly his priorities have undergone a revision. As I said above, it should be clear to the other Republicans in Congress that the time for playing nice in the forlorn hope that the other side will reciprocate has passed.

     Third and foremost is the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump. His aggressive, combative style got him the White House. His string of victories in both the domestic and foreign-relations spheres confirms the appropriateness of his methods. His enemies, whether in office or in the press, are the measure of his stature. It’s unlikely that anyone else could have opened the eyes of the always-be-nice Republicans who even when they held the majority in both Houses have repeatedly kowtowed to the Democrats in the hope that “next time they’ll play fair.”

     All three have been instrumental in bringing us to this cusp. All three deserve our thanks and ongoing support. Don’t think the barrages of calumny from the Democrats will cease just because of this setback. It’s far more likely they’ll redouble their efforts. That’s what fanatics do.

---

     There are midterm elections coming. It’s had me worried. I think, if Americans’ memories aren’t totally wiped of the events of the last two weeks, the Right will enjoy those elections. The Left, poor screeching babies, will not.

     Judge Brett Kavanaugh will soon be Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court of the United States. Thank You, God. Don’t forget to vote on November 6.

Don't Make Me Angry...

...you wouldn't like me if I get angry.

Bruce Banner - aka, Senator Lindsey Graham, UNLEASHED.

Day-am!

Never been so proud to be from SC.

If You Have Time To Read Only One Thing Today...

     ...make it this piece at Conservative Treehouse / The Last Refuge. Have a tiny taste of its brilliance:

     Deliberate intent and prudence ensures we avoid failure. The course, is thoughtful vigilance; it is a strategy devoid of emotion. The media can call us anything they want, it really doesn’t matter…. we’re far beyond the place where labels matter.

     Foolishness and betrayal of our nation have served to reveal dangers within our present condition. Misplaced corrective action, regardless of intent, is neither safe nor wise. We know exactly who Donald Trump is, and we also know what he’s not. He is exactly what we need at this moment. He is a necessary glorious bastard.

     He is our weapon.

     Cold Anger is not driven to act in spite of itself; it drives a reckoning.

     Stunning from first word to last. Please read it all.

Boil Them Down!

     Slowly, the Mule bowed his head, as anger and despair cornered his mind completely, “Yes. Too late–Too late–Now I see it.”
     “Now you see it,” agreed the First Speaker, “and now you don't.”

     [Isaac Asimov, Foundation and Empire]

     The period between the completion of the first draft of a novel and embarking upon the changes required to reach a final draft is, for me at least, one of great intensity. Sometimes it tells me things I seriously needed to learn – and not just for the refinement of the current novel-under-construction.

     In my stories, the driving force is always character. More specifically, my stories are about the reasons people do things. Tom Kratman has said that illuminating the “eternal verities” is his fuel. That’s a good short way to put it, for the eternal verities are immutable facts of human nature – and the most important of those facts, at that. So as I write, the characterization process is continuously uppermost in my thoughts.

     That doesn’t mean I always get it right.

     A friend I shan’t name has served as an indispensable test reader for Experienced, which is drawing near to release. Her observations have proved critical to unearthing flaws and under-exploited motifs in the story. But the most valuable thing she’s done for me is to illuminate, to and for me, a stunningly important guideline to characterization.

     There are only three ways to characterize a character:

• Through what he says;
• Through what he does;
• Through what other characters say about him.

     My friend illustrated this for me by capturing each of the Marquee and Supporting Cast characters in Experienced in no more than three sentences. And in reading her summations I had a brain flash that damned near incinerated the BLEEP!ing useless thing:

A character’s character – i.e., his animating desires, fears, and convictions – must be summarizable in no more than three sentences.
If you can’t do that, you’ve got a problem.

     That comes pretty close to being a fictioneer’s Philosopher’s Stone.

---

     Characterization is critical to any writer who has a theme of importance in mind. If Smith wants his story to impress the importance of some idea on his readers, he must do so through the decisions and actions of his Marquee characters, and through the changes they experience as they travel his fictional landscape. Bad fiction will fail at this; good fiction will bring it off beautifully.

     The novelists of centuries past often missed this point. I find it relatively easy to excuse them; after all, the novel as a form was still in its infancy, and what works / doesn’t work was still being discovered. We of today have no excuse.

     Theme is closely coupled to the emotions we feel at seeing a character triumph or fail, or be exalted or destroyed. In my little tome The Storyteller’s Art, I wrote:

     [I]t's the passion evoked by the theme that's really important. However, the writer can't simply scream at his readers, “Feel deeply for my characters!” That would be akin to an actor trying to evoke audience emotion without a script, by the sheer power of his expressions and poses. That's called “emoting,” and no self-respecting theatergoer -- or reader -- will stand for it.

     Theme, as embodied in plot and character, is the conduit by which the writer transmits his passion to his readers. There’s a conservation law at work here, though not one you’d study in first-year physics: passion can neither be created nor destroyed, but only transmitted from artist to consumer.

     This approaches tautology. Yet the heartily detested maxim ”Show, don’t tell!” which fledgling writers have resented since Ug first scrawled on the wall of his cave is about nothing else.

     And as always, the fewer words you need to capture a character you’ll use to transmit your passion to your readers, the more likely you’ll be to depict that character in a maximally effective way.

     So: Once you’ve decided on your theme and Marquee characters, for each character, write three sentences, no more. One about the sort of things the character will do. One about the sort of things he’ll say. And one about what the other characters will be prone to saying about him. Strain for concision in each sentence; concision is the best imaginable aid to clarity. For best results, do this before typing the first sentence of the story. Print the results on a 3” x 5” card, prop that card in front of your monitor, and make a point of reviewing it before you begin a scene.

     It’s the cure for what ails your stories, and it’s available without a prescription. Trust kindly old Dr. Fran. Might help with your rheumatism, too.

How Different It Was Then

Then, referring to the Bill Clinton testimony.

No distaste, today, for hearing from the women. No worries that this is a waste of time, and not properly germane to the main point of the hearings:

Is his professional background/opinions suitable for a Justice?

No, no. They're gonna dip their hands in slime. They're gonna entertain sleaze, UNSWORN testimony, and hearsay - by the barrel. LOTS of hearsay. Despite that not being permitted in any legal hearing.

Will they bring back the ducking stool?

While we’re all diverted by the soap opera . . . .

I don't know how much more forcefully Russia can say this:

- We see what you are doing. We always have and always will. You can't fool us, you can't swindle us, you can't hypnotize us, you can't bribe us, you can't con us, you can't humor us, you can't intimidate us, you can't bankrupt us and you can't destroy us.

- If you go over the line, you WILL be stopped. It will NOT be fun. Our lines are flexible and pragmatic, but they will not be flexible forever.

- We are willing to work with you, but only on the basis of fairness, rules, law and reciprocity. Wake us up when you are ready.

The problem? It is hard to communicate with the deaf, dumb, blind and inbred. Russia needs to come up with the new communication software to effectively communicate with imbeciles.

Comment by Deda Svetko on “Russia Releases Footage Of New Anti-Ship Missiles Pounding Warships.” By Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, 9/26/18.

It's Gonna Be a Tough Few Days

for the Republicans in the Senate. They're going to face an onslaught of protest - deliberately nasty, crude, and loud - that hasn't been seen since the anti-war protests.

The Progressives/Leftists are just about completely unhinged. They are burning bridges, and willing to take down anyone who will not bend to their pressure. Some Republicans may fold. I hope not.

It does seem as though the leadership - McConnell, for one - is getting a spine. They have not folded, so far, and even Lindsey Graham is pushing back.

Will wonders never cease!

It's gonna get ugly. It's gonna - unfortunately - probably erupt in even more violence. If the Capital police aren't frisking ALL visitors - even, and especially, the media, they may regret it. That might easily include the Senator's staff, most of whom are even more partisan than the members.

I'm going to be praying for this country.

There Will Come a Time

...in the dark night, when the accusers - AND their facilitators, AND those who said "No smoke without fire", AND those who said, "It's really too bad, but I don't want to go on record as supporting him", will all have to face the reality of just what they have done.

I hope that they will be able to survive that night. It would be tempting to just give up.

There was an old book about a confirmation process. The targeted character, who was being blackmailed to vote for the President's nominee, had a brief gay affair. It was unearthed by one of those scurrilous hangers-on who float around the periphery of Presidents. The guy committed suicide. The leadership of the Senate reacted by organizing an action to defeat the nominee.

It was called Advise and Consent.

From a Senate old-timer’s wily maneuvers, a vicious demagogue’s blistering smear campaign, the ugly personal jealousies that turn a highly qualified candidate into a public spectacle, to the tragic martyrdom of a presidential aspirant who refuses to sacrifice his principles for his career—never has there been a more revealing picture of Washington’s intricate political, diplomatic, and social worlds. Advise and Consent is a timeless story with clear echoes of today’s headlines.

 Not a lot has changed in the Senate. Except, this time, the body spreading rumors is the Senate.

The Nature of Women

My thinking on the Kavanaugh accusations by Ford are colored by my knowledge of women. With many (not all, but greater than 25%), it's more important that their victims SUFFER, than they receive full restitution.

Let's put it this way:

If a woman has a grudge against a man, and sees an opportunity to get him charged with a crime, she is more interested in finding a way for him to suffer, than to see him convicted.

If you told her: Look. You can convict him, and he'll pay restitution, but he'll only serve a few years in jail. You can cause him to suffer - for LIFE - but the only way that is going to happen is if you die.

There are too many women who would reach for the knife, and stab themselves in the heart, smiling as they died, in the sure knowledge that the guy would SUFFER.

 That's what's behind this travesty. I've no doubt that, somehow, somewhere, Kavanaugh got on the wrong side of Ford. Maybe he said something that was less than flattering, maybe he failed to respond to an invitation. It would have been too inconsequential for him to remember. It didn't even have to be a face-to-face incident.

Whatever it was, it rankled. It caused her to probe the insult, over and over again, until she had convinced herself that it was The Worst Thing in the World.

Later, in counseling, she embellished (not in an "I'm deliberately lying about this" kind of way, just talking) and expanded on real/imagined past incidents - perhaps not even involving Kavanaugh, just someone who reminded her of him). By the time she was finished, she actually believed what she said.

And, so, she exacted a Womanly Revenge - Total Destruction.

If This Is Not a Call for Violence, I've Never Seen One

Some people think the Conservatives and Trump supporters - not the same group, by the way - are unduly paranoid about the possibility of assassination.

They're probably not. The LA Times has an op-ed that slyly avoids calling DIRECTLY for violence, but clearly indicates that, if women DID use it, the action would be justified.

Look, some of these women are not all that stable. It wouldn't take much to set them off. As we saw in the Scalise assassination attempt, those involved in jobs that are in public affairs are at high risk. The threats are ongoing, and seemingly will continue.

In part, that's the fault of a news media who has no problem in whipping up "outrage" at the Right, for real or imagined sins. Proof? Who needs THAT!

Justice? No time for THAT!

Street Action? Totes Justified!

This is not just threats. Rudy Peters, running against Eric Swalwell (Yes, the same person who 'Boo-Hooed' Senator Collins' complaint of death threats), was attacked by a man holding a switchblade. He was held off by the candidate, who used a campaign sign (good use of a defensive manuever!) to keep him away. The candidate eventually wrestled the attacker to the ground. That Peters was not stabbed was due to the good luck of a malfunctioning switchblade.

The attention that the news media paid to this attack ranked far below what they provided a a local appearance by a has-been rock star. Many people, if asked about political violence, wouldn't even think of it.

One of the papers of the mainstream press - The Atlantic - believes that Kavanaugh has "The Burden of Proof". Against all American legal precedent, he is expected to defend himself against a woman's accusation that has NO evidence whatsoever that a crime ever occurred, let alone that he did it.

It's a return to the Southern Democrat stance that a 'delicate flower of Southern charm and gentility just HAS to be believed, when the accused is a member of such a VILE community'.

Furor, Frenzy, And The Law Of Diminishing Returns

     A competent engineer will accept as an inviolable and irrefutable principle that no design can be improved indefinitely. At some point any further tinkering will reduce the design’s desirability. We’ve been given enough examples of this to take it as written.

     Of course, this is really just a specific domain of application of a general law of the universe: the Law of Diminishing Returns. Like the other laws of the universe, this one is self-enforcing. Every field of human endeavor obeys it. We all resent it, of course, but that’s as pointless as protesting against the Second Law of Thermodynamics...which, come to think of it, is almost certainly the principle behind the Law of Diminishing Returns, but that’s a subject for another screed.

     As I’ve watched the wrangling over the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the Law of Diminishing Returns has moved to the top of my thoughts. The Democrats, being utterly without a substantial objection to the confirmation of this exemplary jurist, have resorted to character assassination through sexual innuendo. It’s worked for them in the past, and they figured it might serve them one more time. Anyway, it’s not like they had a lot of alternatives.

     But the Law of Diminishing Returns has been at work. It’s stepped forward a pace every time some left-wing shill has attacked a conservative with an “ism.” It’s slid toward them with each allegation of unsavory motives against a Republican in high office. It’s taken a bold stride with the sexual misbehavior assaults on Brett Kavanaugh. Recent developments indicate that the Democrats are now injuring themselves and their agenda by continuing to saw on the sexual-misconduct fiddle.

     There are several implications to this. One of them is that the Right should pray that the Democrats don’t wise up any time soon. (Cf. Napoleon’s “Courtesy toward the enemy” maxim.) Three others are important enough for the politically engaged to ponder at length.

     First, when a tactic crosses the zero point of diminishing returns – i.e., the point at which a previously profitable tactic begins to harm its user – normally all the parties complicit in the deployment of the tactic take damage. The Democrats have made heavy use of their media allies and the organs of the press to ply their defamation tactics. The media, until recently slavishly obedient to their Democrat masters, are suffering intense damage to their already tottering credibility. In consequence the media have begun to reduce their degree of allegiance to the Democrats and the Left generally. Signs of this have appeared in places as remarkable as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

     Second, when such a tactic is wielded by a group, crossing the zero point induces fragmentation within that group. Committee meetings become contentious. Coalitions are stressed and sometimes come apart. Leaders find that their positions are threatened, and must divert some of their time and energy to defending themselves against challenges from ambitious others. This, too, can be seen on the Left: the luminaries who’ve promoted the defamation of Kavanaugh can no longer expect absolute conformity from rank-and-file members and followers.

     Third and last for this essay, the tactic will become unprofitable in all venues of usage, not merely in the one where it’s most plainly crossed the zero point. The damage to the Democrats from their allegations against Brett Kavanaugh will be paralleled in any near-future use of the sexual-defamation tactic against a prominent conservative or Republican. “They’re trying that old trick again” will be heard in every chamber of public discourse. While the tactic might regain its potency at some future time, there will definitely be an interval during which the Left’s memory of its self-administered wounds will discourage the attempt.

     This is not unalloyed good news. The nation’s politics has suffered grievously from the use of unsupported allegations of sexual misbehavior against prominent men. Viciousness toward ideological opponents is rampant in both directions. Good men who might otherwise have stepped forward to become champions for their convictions have been given a strong reason to say “It’s not worth it” and restrict themselves to their private pursuits. And of course actual thought about what constitutes a res publica that could be Constitutionally and usefully addressed by government action has been severely diminished in favor of bare-knuckle combat against “the enemy.”

     Perhaps the saddest aspect of all is that the Left, knowing itself bereft of any other useful tactics, is simply hammering harder and harder at this one. This condition is called frenzy: the accelerating amplification of an ineffective or unprofitable behavior, as if “doing it harder” could somehow make it work. Misleading surface indications play into this: ever-louder street demonstrations; increasing rhetorical violence from prominent spokesmen; concentration of media attention on the allegations instead of on more worthwhile items of news. The most probable outcome is the Democrats’ wholesale loss of attention from decent Americans, who are growing tired of being dragged into tawdry sexual fantasies for the sake of political advantage.

     That’s not good news for the GOP, either. Too great a victory has caused other victors to become overconfident and flaccid. There’s nothing like a capable, energetic competitor to keep you at the top of your game. If the Democrats haven’t learned that – and they’ve had ample demonstrations – the Republicans might not learn it either.

Rainin’ on the charade.

One week ago, Dr. Christine Ford claimed she was assaulted at a house party attended by four others. Since then, all four of these individuals have provided statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee denying any knowledge of the incident or even having attended such a party.”

~ White House spokeswoman Kerri Kupec, 9/22/18.^[1]

Will this be Karo Syrup in the carburetor of the Democrat Senate Slime Machine? Why, no. It won't.

The Dems can't sell their treachery, lies, and preposterous social and political plans for their New, Multicultural, Welfare Total State Utopia for Minority Buffoons, Surly Foreigners, Globalism, the Sexually Confused, and Feminist Lunatics (NMWTSUMBSFGSCFL) to the voters, so all they've got left is the fervent desire to obtain and hold five votes on the Supreme Court.

That's it. Ultra-left Democrat Party Operation Overlord.

From there all manner of leftist viciousness, stupidity, and destruction can flow like sarin and chlorine from jihadi gas cylinders in Syria. The hopes for the victory of leftist malevolence and subversion over all that is decent and regular hang on those five votes and common decency and facts will not stand in the way of that leftist version of Operation Barbarossa organized against the historical American nation.

Notes
^[1] "Woman denies attending party where alleged Kavanaugh assault occurred." By Burgess Everett, Politico, 9/23/18.

H/t: Yer Ol' Woodpile Report.

Pearls of expression.

Countries caught running large deficits are now having their Wile E. Coyote moment.

"The Gathering Storm In The Treasury Market." By Global Macro Monitor, 9/21/18.

H/t: Yer Ol' Woodpile Report.

How I Got Where I Am - Part II

As I recall, I left on a partial sentence:

I first began having some small doubts during the Clinton

I'm continuing that thought process today -

... years. Yes, the economy was, generally heating up. In some sectors, it was OVER-heating - banking, risky investments, housing. We didn't benefit much from that - we lived in a modest home, and limited our investments to TSA's - what are called Teachers Saving Accounts. Those are tax-shielded investments in mutual funds, controlled by various companies. Most districts gave little choices to which companies could set them up for automatic deduction from your paycheck. More suspicious types might wonder whether there was a little - um - kickback to give favored status to certain companies.

Not me, of course. I was a wide-eyed innocent then.

So innocent, that I honestly believed in the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' against the Clintons. Oh, I occasionally had my doubts - the Travelgate brou-haha did lead me to question the story. No matter how much you wanted to believe HRC, the Travel Office's employees' stories rang true. And, eventually, they were vindicated.

But, my doubts were not enough to overcome my husband's strong support of the President. We both thought the worst thing would be for a Republican to take over again. In our defense, we did not gain from the rising stock market or housing appreciation of the Reagan years. We didn't even own our first house until 1988. As renters, all we saw was rising rents. It took a long time for us to stabilize our income, and begin pulling a LITTLE ahead.

In some ways, we were lucky. We didn't overpay for our education, and we lived frugally.

But, the Clinton years were good for us, financially. We were - finally - both working, and began to pull ahead. Eventually, I went back to teaching, which, despite what you hear in the news, DOES pay well compared to other jobs (and considering the good benefits), and we were able to begin saving for our retirement. It was a good thing, too, as we had 30 years to squirrel away our little pile that - hopefully - will last our lives.

Frugal living has outlived the need. We still live in a modest house, and, as a consequence, have few debts.

Little things, though, started bothering me. Hillary's role in the attempted Health Care Reform was underwhelming. I, like Congress, was not impressed by her report and the demand for Universal Health Care.

She 'retired' to play First Lady, but, even in that role, made one blooper after another, and they displayed her tone-deafness to those who held contrary opinions. And, during those years, we started a business, and began associating with people who didn't view the co-Presidents with admiration and approval.

In fact, that group of people thought of the Clintons as NOT as smart as they thought they were. So, I listened, and began questioning - not openly anti-Clinton, but - willing to listen.

Then, the Starr hearings began.

Frankly, I tuned out a lot of it. I was busy, and had little appetite for hearing stories of sexual sleaze. My husband, like many Democrats, argued that it was all just about sex. And, because it was a private sin, not an impeachable offense. It's an argument made by many, and it did have some justification.

But, when the story was everywhere you looked, even in the magazines at the supermarket, I started wondering. My sympathies were not so much with HRC, as with Monica. She looked and acted like a big dumb kid. Nothing about her said seductress. It said goofy, fun-loving kid.

She still is known by a stupid kid mistake.

She looks older now, but still quite pretty. From recent interviews, she is finally willing to acknowledge that the power differential between Bill and her made this still consensual, but...maybe less her fault than his?

She is right about one thing - she was the first person slut-shamed across the Internet. It truly has ruined the life of a young girl who seemed poised to become a contented wife and mother - which, she may never be.

It's sad. Just sad.

I really hated the public hearings. My family was glued to the TV. I made excuses to do other things. I didn't want to sit in the same room with my kids, and listen to the details. I had no interest (nor, do I now) in hearing about other people's sex lives.

The Democrats played for BLOOD when Bill was impeached. They forced Newt Gingrich to step down (he was having an affair), forced Robert Livingston into resigning (another adultery issue), and finally settled on Dennis Haskert - who COINCIDENTALLY was later charged with having sex with underage boys.

Hmmm. Could it be that the Dems had maneuvered Haskert into that position, so that they could control him with blackmail threats?

In the Senate, giving Clinton their Not Guilty Votes:

• John Chafee - a Rockefeller Republican (according to Wikipedia)
• Susan Collins - a long-time RINO, who appears to be also be playing a scripted part in the Kavanaugh hearing
• Slade Gorton - ditto - he's long gone from the Senate, but he did endorse Evan McMullin in his failed attempt to Stop Trump
• James Jeffords - voted Not Guilty, then left the Republican party (formally) to declare as an Independent. He did so after being returned to the Senate as a Republican.
• Richard Shelby - no idea what motivated him to vote Not Guilty on one count, Guilty on the other
• Olympia Snowe - always a waffling RINO
• Arlen Specter - another RINO
• Ted Stevens, Fred Thompson, and John Warner all split their vote as Shelby did, on the Perjury article.

That's TEN Senators. Even if ALL had switched their votes, Clinton would NOT have been gone. You need 2/3 of the Senators to agree.

So, in essence, as long as Dems would vote as a block - and, they ALWAYS do, conviction on the impeachment charges was NEVER gonna happen. Sometime, I wonder why the Republicans bothered.

I didn't see all of this at the time. Even 2 years later, I waited, on pins and needles, for the Bush-Gore outcome. I had voted Gore. I found myself wondering about the process, seeing that the Gore forces' arguments were not as logical as the Bush arguments. When it got to the Supreme Court, I accepted it, and moved on.

What I started noticing was that many Dems could not. They were re-visiting the Supreme Court decision every day. By this time, I had 4 computers in my classroom, and one on my desk. I got into the habit of reading my news on the web. At first, I was primarily CNN and other mainstream sources. I put search terms into Yahoo and other search engines (before the Monster That Took Over the Searches arose from Sergey Brin's and Larry Page's minds to crowd out nearly all opposition). I'd used the Internet since before WWW, so I had little trouble navigating it.

Then, I found Andrew Sullivan. And, eventually, many other bloggers (few are still around - heck, I don't even remember most of them). The counterpoint they provided to the 'regular' news had an impact on my thinking. I began to think about other points of view - up till then, I was barely aware that there WAS any other POV.

I was blogging even before Hugh Hewitt came out with that book on the topic.

I started bringing up information that I'd learned from these alternative sources. I also started becoming aware of just how much NEWS is left out of the News.

You would have thought I'd sprouted devil's horns. My friends and family responded, "WHERE did you hear THAT?" as though I'd been reading the National Enquirer for the news.

Funny, given the role that NE played in the Edwards' uncovering.

We plodded along, my Progressive Posse and I. Just about every word out of their mouth derided Bush as stupid, Cheney as evil, and the rest of the Bush administration as both corrupt and inept. They were truly rooting for Bush and the Gang to fail.

Then, I woke up on September 11, 2001. I've written about this before, and I won't add to it now. That's a post that needs some time to reflect on.

And, life as we knew it changed. I upped my blog reading, and found I was not alone. I developed a truly massive blog habit. Then, something funny happened - a blog that I regularly read, RightWeAre!, sent out a call for another blogger.

And, I put my hand up.

The blog I started out on was Right We Are! in 2003. Here was my introductory post (first time blogging).

Like the Pointer Sisters, I'm so excited!

I’m the new girl (Woman? Chick? Old Lady?) at Right We Are!. I’m still in a state of shock that Maripat accepted my offer to help. It’s a little like seeing A-Rod sitting on a park bench, off-handedly saying, “Wanna toss a ball around?” and hearing back, “Sure.” Panic time!

I’m a science teacher, formerly teaching in urban schools, currently unemployed, and completing my master’s in technology. I have 3 children and 2 grandchildren, and a husband who:

· Cooks most of the time
· Picks up after himself (most of the time)
· Does laundry
· Still rings my chimes

What more could you ask for?

I am another used-to-be liberal. I was born in 1951, so that makes me a Boomer. I was too cautious (OK, I was chicken) to participate in drugs or random sex, but I seldom questioned the Boomer orthodoxy, either social or political.

Then came 9-11.

Two of my children were in the service that day (Navy and Army National Guard). I was worried about their safety, but my view about military response was the same as it is today. The terrorists crossed the line, and I’m going to open a can.

What gets me hot? (Not hot sexy, but frothing at the mouth kind)

· Most teachers – willing to blame anyone for student failure other than themselves. And don’t get me started on educational theory.
· Women who believe that all men are awful, and all women are wonderful, and everything would be perfect if men could just be more like women.
· People who sneer at “Christian values”. It’s those values that led us to end slavery and child labor, provide for the helpless, treat women with dignity, etc. Show me the Wiccan or New-Ager who’s had that kind of impact.
· People who laughingly say “I can’t do math”. Maybe you can’t today, but you could learn. 

That's it for now. I'll add to this story as I have time to think about it.

More Nefarious Doings

I made this meme today. Feel free to Share it.

How Serious is the EMP Threat?

The fact is, a relatively small actor could throw our country into chaos for a LONG time. But, that's true of many other countries, as well. Ironically, the less-advanced countries would have the most to gain from this strategy (like China). Most of the infrastructure is not dependent on electronics.

The figure bruited about in this article cites 2 billion to shore up our structures from EMP attack. Keep in mind, much of the infrastructure is in private hands. Some is in the federal government offices, and, even there, some of the functions are less important - the endless paperwork is, often, just not that essential to the rest of us.

The main, important features - Defense systems, air traffic control, records of Social Security contributions and other records - military, tax, etc. - are probably already as secure as it's possible to make them.

Frankly, that 2 billion figure is probably inflated. You could triage records/equipment by need. And, there are damn few government jobs/functions that are actually NEEDED.

But, yeah, go ahead and harden the most urgent areas. AND, do NOT use foreign nationals - even if they are legally resident, or have gained citizenship. Vet ALL that are involved in the project, and make sure that they can pass a military-grade security check.

A Public Service Announcement

You might try this method of reducing phone solicitations.

Yeah.

Just, yeah.

This List Will Take Your Breath Away

It's a list of 48 "offenses" that can get you sent to a Chinese re-education camp.

The full report is here. Let's hope the Leftists don't use this as a manual.