Liberty's Torch

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Responsibility for civilian casualties in Syria.

As with liberations prior — Aleppo, Ghouta, Daraa and elsewhere in Syria — Russia and Syria have opened humanitarian corridors to enable civilians to leave areas occupied by terrorists, to avoid the coming fighting. And as with prior humanitarian corridors (including one I was standing on in November 2016, before Aleppo was liberated), terrorists have been firing on and shelling the Abu Duhur crossing in eastern Idlib.
Further, as with previous corridors established to enable civilians to flee to safety, they are being forcibly prevented from doing so by the “moderate rebels” inside.

"Liberate Idlib and Syria: The Martyred of Mhardeh Speak Through the Ones They’ve Left Behind." By Eva K. Bartlett, MintPress News, 10/4/18.

Friday, October 5, 2018

Busy, Busy

I really have been for the last few days.

I wrote my first post at The Declination. An open invitation went out, and - being an especially foolish person, as well as a huge fan of the blog - I responded.

I'm convinced that group blogs - blogs in which there is a mix of personalities, passions, and styles of writing - are the next generation of blogging. Many of us started a blog, but have started to run out of steam. I get as outrage - perhaps even more so - than the next person, but, at some point, you run out of outrage.

For most independent bloggers (those working alone), we settle down to a 2-5 posts a week schedule. When the news gets exciting, we may up that, but, for the most part, we get into a routine.

That's fine. That's what Op-Ed columnists did for years, in the Old Media - Royko, Hamill, et all - they You might stockpile future columns, so you could schedule vacations. But, usually, week after week, you'd be giving your personal take on the news.

I do that, sometimes. It works, until something like the Kavanaugh hearings come up. I'm enough of a Journalist-y type to want to get the story out - before I get scooped.

Those are the days that I churn out 4-6-8 posts.

Followed by a few weeks of just barely making my minimum. And, a lot of writing on other things - short stories, novels, non-fiction. Gotta keep that balance.

Tomorrow, I'm going to participate in an OFF-line activity - a Hamfest. It's a combination of VE (Volunteer Examiner) testing for new hams/those that want to advance their license, informational presentation, and SERIOUS swapmeet. What you have to know about amateur radio enthusiasts, is that they LUST after new, shiny, feature-rich equipment.

But, many of them (me) live with people who will not look kindly on another purchase unless they get rid of the old stuff. Which they do, and, since no one looks down on getting back some of the purchase price of the old stuff, load up their cars with old equipment, and enter into the back-of-the-car horse trading that has both parties happy.

Good deal for both. Used is a good way for new hams to get their feet wet.

I'm baking tonight, and will be taking in lots of chocolate-y treats to donate to the bake sale. Tomorrow, I'm handling traffic control for a few hours. After that, it's fun and games for the rest of the day.

If you're anywhere near Rock Hill, SC, come on down! Scroll down for the directions and information.

Who Makes The Rules?

Enjoy a little television history: from the black-and-white days, it’s Abbott and Costello:

Now you and I both know that no version of the game of poker honors anything like a “kangaroo straight.” Abbott sleazed that into being to collect the pot. Unfortunately, the YouTube clip ends there, because in the very next hand Costello presents a “kangaroo straight” and reaches for the pot, whereupon Abbott says “It’s only good once a game,” and rakes the pot in for himself.

And with that, we turn to the news.

Concerning modes of acceptable conduct between the sexes – and, sorry all y’all “genderqueer,” “two-spirited,” and the like: there are only two sexes — what are the rules, who established them, and who has the authority to amend or suspend them?

Kurt Schlichter wants to know about that and more:

Forgive my confusion, but I’m trying to figure out how this all works. If rules are going to guide my behavior by providing negative consequences for their violation, it’s not unreasonable to want to know exactly what they are. Except all these rules that I and other Normals are expected to follow, well, they don’t make a lot of sense. I just want to know what they are. Maybe you liberals and Fredocons can help a brother out.

It’s quintessential Schlichter, so by all means read the whole thing. His point isn’t hard to discern.

Social rules are not legislated laws. They don’t involve arrests, indictments, and trials. But some of them, historically, have been grounds for ostracism or worse. Woe betide him who violates one of those and fails to make amends. His life might as well end right then and there.

The old Victorian phrase “That’s not done” is apposite here. It was a way of describing a firm social rule with severe penalties that everyone in Victorian society was expected to observe and enforce. God Himself couldn’t bail you out of a violation – and He would frown most severely upon one who failed to enforce such a rule when it demanded enforcement.

If that sounds harsh, well...it was. But it had several salutary effects:

Parents were meticulous in teaching the rules to their children;
Adults who sought to violate a rule made sure to do so secretly and with discretion;
Legislated law did not address the realms of human conduct that were covered by the rules.

Mind you, the rules were violated. Indeed, the rules concerning sexual conduct were violated rather frequently, at least if we can believe the statistics about prostitution during the Victorian Era. Nevertheless, men who patronized prostitutes endeavored to do so discreetly. They strove to keep their wives and children from finding out – and if a man’s misbehavior was discovered, he was expected to display extreme penitence and to make whatever amends he could to his wife, even if she were to divorce him for it.

The rules demanded all of that.

Victorian society didn’t possess some sort of board that met regularly to codify the social rules. They weren’t anyone’s conscious creation. They emerged epiphenomenally from other powerful and pervasive social currents, most notably Christianity.

As the United States was largely the creation of colonists from England, the rules as the English observed, enforced, and promulgated them became our rules as well. We also inherited England’s Christianity, of course; the Christian faith and the rules went together. In consequence, Americans from the Founding Era forward tended toward Victorian norms of sexual conduct. Those norms had overwhelming force until about 1960.

When the rules lose force, it’s unlikely that anything effective will replace them. Legislated law has sharp limits; a law that more than about 2% of a large population wants to violate or disdains to enforce is effectively null and void. Neither is it guaranteed that new rules with adequate cohesion and social concurrence will emerge.

However, in recent years we have seen Leftist activists of various kinds attempt to proclaim new rules, founded on their own imagined authority. The militant feminists have tried it. The homosexuals have tried it. The “gender-fluid” camp is trying it as well. In the usual case, their enforcement mechanism is harassment, extortion, or blackmail. (Cf. this piece on “human resources” departments.)

Owing to Leftist colonization of major commercial, educational, and entertainment institutions, plus the highly confused current state of sexual ethics, those activists have been getting their way...even when they change their rules in mid-stream.

It is insufficient to wish for the old rules back. They’re not coming back; they’ve been shattered too completely to reassemble. Anyway, the Christianity that underpinned them has weakened too far to sustain them.

Neither can legislation take the place of the old rules. As I mentioned in a conversation elsewhere, laws against adultery and fornication are on the books in every state of the Union. They’re not enforced; they don’t command adequate social concurrence for enforcement. You might as well try to enforce laws against selling and consuming alcoholic beverages. (Wait, what’s that you say? We’ve tried that? Oh, sorry; my mistake.)

What we can do is deny the noisy activists their pretenses of authority. They who seek to pillory Brett Kavanaugh for imagined teenage misbehavior, while excusing Bill Clinton for his capric cavortings and Roman Polanski for actual, admitted rape of a young teenager, must be stepped on – hard. If there are no rules, then activists have no authority to make any — and certainly not to compose “rules” that only apply when it pleases them.

For here we have an uber-rule that must be enforced lest society perish:

If there are rules, they shall apply:
1. To everyone,
2. At all times and places,
3. Regardless of anyone’s preferences.

That’s the Big Rule: the one that determines whether we have a functioning society or a war of each against all. Verbum sat sapienti.

Putting All Your Eggs in One Basket

...NOT a good idea.

For all the faults of blogs:

Can be set up and administered by amateurs (this might also be considered a plus)
Most fold rather quickly
Often badly written - grammar/spelling errors, shoddy thinking, barely literate
Notorious for not sourcing copyrighted material (I should be better on this - I've been trying to remember to ALWAYS provide the source of pictures and graphics, but...)
Comments often devolve into name-calling and profanity

...they have been an alternative to a flawed and biased mainstream media cartel.

Those that retained both a hefty readership, and, consequently, advertising sufficient to support the blogger, have been targeted. The various social media have used their clout to bring down successful bloggers, and have used "temporary suspensions" to limit the reach of others.

Some tactics I'd suggest for bloggers:

Go ahead and use Blogger (free!) or WordPress. Just remember to back up the blog regularly, and store it offline. There will come a day when you will need to reboot your blog, and you don't want to lose those years of work.
Monetization is fine, but limiting yourself to Adsense or other aggregate ad systems is not a good idea. Well, it SEEMS good, right up to that day when Adsense drops the hammer, and declares that you've violated some unspecified TOS, and yanks away your cash flow. Many a Youtube mogul has found themselves Back to Broke, within a few weeks.
The immediacy of blogging is seductive. Just start a post, and let 'er rip. The trouble starts when you become a target, and they begin looking for excuses to drop you. That might be inappropriate language or graphics and failure to control commenters' responses (a favorite ploy is to unleash bots to post blatantly racist or libelous comments, then report your blog at spewing H8). So, check the veracity of your sources (and include the original post), take screenshots of Leftist spew (they often disappear quickly), and always credit the artist who produces any graphic used.
Never post drunk. I know Vodkapundit makes it look good, but, I'm warning you, this will not end well.

The glory days of blogging are gone - they will not return. Those of us who continue, do so for other reasons than fame and quick cash.

It helps to bring in other contributors - If you run a blog, consider asking for volunteers to contribute. If you regularly read a particular blog, email them, and ask if you could guest post (the easiest way to break in). Essentially, by combining forces, blogs have become online community newspapers. They are not limited geographically, but develop a niche that they serve.

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Concerning Ethno-Nationalism

     Blacks do it. Look at Zimbabwe and South Africa.
     Asians do it. Look at China, Japan, and the nation-states of Southeast Asia.
     Hispanics do it. The nation-states of Central and South America have some of the toughest entry and immigration laws in history.

The white nations – the nations of the Enlightenment – the nations that were settled and constructed by Euro-Caucasians from what was once called Christendom – are being told that for us to seek to preserve our achievements and our racial inheritance is somehow unjust.

For those who say so, I have only one question : Why?

The Euro-Caucasian peoples are under sustained attack. That attack has several prongs. In many cases the governments of their nations are part of the attack force. It has a lot of well-meaning whites utterly baffled.

We’re being told that we shouldn’t resist being made a minority in the countries we created and built. Of those saying this:

Some are slavery-trumpeters or race hucksters;
Some trumpet their “compassion;”
Some, sad to say, call themselves libertarians;
And some see it as a route toward wealth or power.

I can understand their motivations without agreeing with their claims. What I can’t understand is why good-hearted white people are buying into it.

Did you know that among those...persons there are several who call “whiteness” something to be eradicated?

Would you want to be a minority in a country where the majority blames you for its troubles? Regardless of your identity, your trade, your background, or your individual actions?

There’s a difference between hating others and loving one’s own.

Whites in the United States have never been less safe than we are today. The historically safest regions in this country – and I live in one of them: Long Island, New York, for which I pay a whopping premium in taxes and overall cost of living – are steadily being infiltrated by persons and groups that hate whites categorically and are willing to say so to anyone who asks. Local governments are doing nothing about this. Indeed, police forces are being cautioned about dealing ultra-gently with “minorities,” as the potential for race or ethnicity-based lawsuits terrifies their administrations.

We are told that “racial profiling” – i.e., taking note of the skin color of a criminal in our descriptions to the police – is somehow discriminatory. We are told that the reverse-racism called “affirmative action” is our penance for slavery and racism. We are told not to take notice of the huge crowds of obviously nonwhite laborers who congregate at convenience stores, fast-food restaurants, and throughway on-ramps waiting for buses to take them somewhere they can earn a few dollars. We are told that it’s evil to want a wall on our southern border to inhibit illegal migrants. The very suggestion that our immigration laws can and should be enforced as written has been assailed as somehow racist.

Not long ago, while in a clothing store, I was physically threatened by a huge Hispanic for daring to stop his completely unsupervised two-year-old from ramming a wagon into my wife’s ankles. Since then I go armed whenever I leave the house. Should the need arise I won’t hesitate to kill to defend my wife or myself. I might not have many years left to live, but I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

A lot of other whites I know feel exactly the same.

I’ve lost patience with those who claim that for whites to want to be among our own kind is somehow wrong. Note that any other racial or ethnic group that makes such a statement is treated with the utmost forbearance. Note that those other groups are never accused of intolerance or bigotry.

Only whites must endure this sort of brutalization and ignominy.

It must stop. If it doesn’t stop, it will be stopped. And it won’t be pretty.

“You Can’t Confirm Him! We’ve Covered Him With Mud!”

Yes, Gentle Reader, that’s exactly the argument Time has made:

     During passionate and angry testimony on Sept. 27, Kavanaugh shouted, “My family and my name have been permanently and totally destroyed.” His fate isn’t yet assured. But as he limps over the finish line, with the FBI now looking into sexual assault allegations against him before a full Senate vote, the question could soon shift from whether he will be confirmed to what kind of justice he will be.
     Will Kavanaugh, who denies all of the sexual misconduct allegations, dig in on the far right, radicalized by the experience? Will he swing the other way towards the middle, determined to improve his reputation among women? Or will he be able to move past it entirely?...
     Blaming Democrats for his ordeal could be a sign that Kavanaugh would carry that anger to the high court and stay rigidly with the Justices nominated by Republican presidents. “What he said was so explicitly partisan, so permanently political, so grudge-bearing, that I don’t see how somebody puts on a new robe, goes to a new court and forgets about that,” says John Q. Barrett, professor at St. John’s University School of Law....
     For many women throughout the country now facing the specter of a Supreme Court that holds two men accused of sexual misconduct, that might not be enough. “It will raise questions about whether he could ever view any issue that touched on questions of sexual misconduct fairly, given what has happened,” says Melissa Murray, professor at New York University School of Law.

These are the fruits of the Democrats’ resort to sexual slander as a political tactic. They now know that they cannot further impede a full Senate vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. So they have to employ this scurrilous tactic – using their wholly unsubstantiated allegations of wholly uncharacteristic misbehavior by Kavanaugh more than thirty years ago — to plant fear and doubt in the minds of the less sensible members of the Republican Senatorial caucus. To compound the viciousness, the article cites Anita Hill’s equally unsubstantiated 1991 allegations against Associate Justice Clarence Thomas for emphasis.

Accusations without specificity, lacking corroboration, and devoid of material evidence are being used to destroy the name of an exemplary jurist and a genuinely good man. Could it be worse than that? Why yes, it could – and it is: All three accusers have been revealed as liars. One is almost certainly psychotic. No one could possibly go lower than that.

The Democrats who have participated in this villainy are dishonorable in the extreme. They deserve to be run out of the country. They certainly don’t belong in high offices. Yet it’s near to certain that they’ll retain their seats in the United States Senate for years to come. There’s a moral in there, somewhere.

Forgive me, Gentle Reader. I had to vent the above before it blew out my eardrums. Federal politics in this country has become such a disgrace that virtually no one can even stand to read the news. Ironically, that will probably save the seats of several Democrat legislators who should be behind bars rather than on Capitol Hill: not enough of their constituents are following this exercise in venality and cruelty.

What matters isn’t that Time is an important organ of information or opinion; it isn’t and never has been. (Fifty years ago a teacher of mine called Time “the magazine for people who can’t think.” He was right.) Neither is it that the Democrats’ smear tactics have wasted so much of the Senate’s time and energy; at most they’ve added about three weeks to a Senatorial session that wasn’t doing much anyway. What matters is the complete abandonment of any standard of honesty, when honesty threatens the political agenda of the Left. All that matters to them is regaining power, and no principle of right or justice will be allowed to stand in their way.

The Left has declared war on the ideological foundations of the United States. The Democrats, its political arm, have enlisted in the campaign. As usual, the Republicans seem disinclined to take up their own weapons and fight back. When only one side is fighting, the outcome of the war is guaranteed.

It’s up to us now.

Adult take on our reckless, national orgy of arrogance and self-worship.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity are a sober and experience bunch. But prudence is not the hallmark of U.S. activity in Syria. Even Trump’s own intelligence advisers tried to keep him from precipitous action after the contrived “chemical attack” on Douma but he was adamant, spurred to action by some maudlin calculus of his own.

The U.S. has for a long time been able to act militarily with no fear of a first-world opponent. That this will continue much longer is unlikely. Several years ago, a Chinese submarine surfaced inside a U.S. carrier battle group having been undetected. Russian anti-aircraft weapons are clearly formidable, and an apparent electronic warfare demonstration over a U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea caused consternation, though I’ve never read a report that provided any details on what actually happened then. Hypersonic Russian missiles make survival of even carriers debatable. The U.S. military industrial complex is formidable and may have tricks up its own sleeves but stealth isn't what it used to be and even if we have or can develop the ability to engage hypersonic anti-ship missiles and torpedoes the detection, identification, targeting, and destruction of incoming missiles will have to take place within a matter of seconds. As a troop or a crewman, I wouldn't like the sound of "margin of error" all that much.

Russia clearly has focused on the development of a defensive military capability and I think Putin himself has said that the next war will not be fought on Russian soil, suggesting to me not vast armored formations churning up the urine-soaked streets of Paris but thousands of missiles fired from Russian soil engaging logistics, command, communication, and troop targets deep inside Europe and ships at sea. Quantity has a quality all its own as someone has observed, and the U.S. has the decided advantage there, but I think we're looking at a Mexican standoff much more than U.S. "leaders" appreciate, especially as we are the ones operating at the end of an extended supply line. The Germans came close in both wars to shutting down supply shipping with their U-boats.

Maybe the U.S. will continue with its inexplicable provocations in Syria and what results can be confined to that area. However, Russians would be entitled to draw the inevitable conclusion that the U.S. is spoiling for a fight based on its NATO and Syrian activities and the execrable – and beyond moronic – “debate” or, gack, “conversation” that goes on inside the U.S. that assumes, totally without proof, that the Russians are “our enemies” and are hell bent on re-establishment of the Soviet Union and expanding to Heidelberg and Nairobi. Unless, that is, you take prudent defensive measures as proof of a clever Putin/FSB/RT/Satan/Zakharova/GRU/Kremlin desireforworlddomination. Those bastards. How dare they read our lickspittle press and watch our Romper Room cable news shows!

***State of the art Russia analysis.***

I see nothing but recondite, oracular, and dumbass utterances from American national leaders (Tulsi Gabbard and the Pauls being honorable exceptions) about Russia and our special @#$%&+>= role on the world stage. The VIPS people perform a great service in trying to establish clarity with regard to Syria (and Iran) and keeping the Russia-haters staked close to their doghouses:

As in Aleppo, it [clearing out Idlib Governate] will mean unspeakable carnage, unless someone finally tells the insurgents theirs is a lost cause.
That someone is you. The Israelis, Saudis, and others who want unrest to endure are egging on the insurgents, assuring them that you, Mr. President, will use US forces to protect the insurgents in Idlib, and perhaps also rain hell down on Damascus. We believe that your senior advisers are encouraging the insurgents to think in those terms, and that your most senior aides are taking credit for your recent policy shift from troop withdrawal from Syria to indefinite war.
Big Difference This Time
Russian missile-armed naval and air units are now deployed in unprecedented numbers to engage those tempted to interfere with Syrian and Russian forces trying to clean out the terrorists from Idlib. We assume you have been briefed on that — at least to some extent. More important, we know that your advisers tend to be dangerously dismissive of Russian capabilities and intentions.
We do not want you to be surprised when the Russians start firing their missiles. The prospect of direct Russian-U.S. hostilities in Syria is at an all-time high. We are not sure you realize that.
The situation is even more volatile because Kremlin leaders are not sure who is calling the shots in Washington. This is not the first time that President Putin has encountered such uncertainty (see brief Appendix below). This is, however, the first time that Russian forces have deployed in such numbers into the area, ready to do battle. The stakes are very high.^[1]

As I’ve noted before, the 100-year anniversary of the First World War should be an occasion for mature reflection on the terrible destructive forces of modern warfare set in motion and fueled by people with too much pride and self-satisfaction and too little foresight. The West wounded itself terribly, if not mortally, by that hideous mistake and yet even now we have saber rattling and chest thumping by fools who don’t give a rat’s ass about facts or the will of the people but are motivated to kiss various unidentified asses and take money from mysterious benefactors.

But it isn’t. An occasion for mature reflection. This U.S. is being destroyed internally by lunatic social and economic policies and yet again we see our political elite entertaining modern warfare without a thought to the day after. Bolton apparently cares more for his mustache than he does about the consequences of his posturing. God knows what Nikki Nookey cares about. Maybe taking on Kamala Gorilla and Pocahontas in the next wormfest to select our nextest president.

Notes
^[1] "Ex-US Intel Officers Warn Trump Over Syria Attack: 'Don't Be Surprised When the Russians Start Firing Their Missiles.'" By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Russia Insider, 9/10/18 (emphasis added).

Teddy Roosevelt, grandstander par excellence and political opportunist.

A view of Theodore Roosevelt you don’t often see. A bit ragged but a dreaded “other perspective” nonetheless. Fools and zealots wrecked America and it was passed off as business as usual in our magnificent experiment in self-government. Only forget the “self” part and focus on the “government” part. The murderous, controlling, arrogant part.

Anyone who now holds to the idea that our political class gives a tinker’s dam about the American people or the Constitution or that we have a remotely representative republic just hasn’t been paying attention.

T.L. Davis says it well:

Now, all of this [the destruction of our home and the futility of voting] is predicated on the simple understanding that our leaders, those we have either placed in charge of this land, or have allowed to assume control of it, will not ever serve the people. They have transcended beyond that existence as have our industries, our media, our churches. They no longer have to appeal to the people for their riches, because no matter how foul they are or how insulting, they have those who cheer on their most base instincts, instinctively knowing that it fundamentally damages a wholesome society.
Facebook, Google and Twitter along with millions of other restaurants, stores and service industries can simply tell most of us to go pound sand.^[1]

Notes
^[1] "This Is Our Home." By T.L. Davis, Christian Mercenary, 9/25/18. H/t: Yer Ol' Woodpile Report.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Assorted

A few people have asked, over the years, why I group little bits of observation and commentary into “assorted” posts rather than giving each one its own post and headline. I know a lot of other Web writers would do as those correspondents have suggested. I don’t, for two reasons:

There are one hell of a lot of posts at Liberty’s Torch, and I see no reason to multiply them pointlessly.
I have a life beyond blogging. I write fiction, remember? Stuff that people read for pleasure and that occasionally brings in revenue? So I try to be efficient in my other pursuits.

So have another grab-bag.

1. Punch back twice as hard.

Apparently, U. S. Senator Bill Cassidy hasn’t read the manual. Review Cassidy’s linked exchange with a shrieking anti-Kavanaugh shill. Then let’s take a swing at how it should be done:

Left-wing heckler: Why are you supporting Kavanaugh?
Cassidy: Because conscienceless scum are trying to destroy his life.
Heckler: So you’re OK as a doctor to harm a woman?
Cassidy: Aha! So you’re conscienceless scum. Security! I’m being harassed!

Now watch a master do it.

2. Mindlessly cheering for a number.

Do not uncritically celebrate a high DJIA:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose to a record Tuesday, while major indexes in other regions of the world struggled, a sign of the growing divergence in expectations for growth in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Shares of Boeing , Caterpillar and 3M , manufacturers that have been sensitive to trade, led the Dow industrials higher, contributing to more than half of the index’s roughly 123-point gain. Monday’s revamped North American trade pact between the U.S., Canada and Mexico helped spur the latest leg of the Dow’s climb, its fourth consecutive session of gains.

This is less newsworthy than one might think. There are several thousand equities listed on the New York Stock Exchange alone. The DJIA comprises only thirty of them – and they’re not representative of the sector that provides most of the nation’s economic growth.

But even if some average of equities prices could justly be called nationally representative, what does such an average tell you? Only this: Money is flowing into equities. Where’s the money coming from? Was it freshly created by the Fed as “stimulus?” Has it been “sitting on the sidelines,” as many large cash balances did during the Obama years? Or might it be coming from overseas?

A stock market average is, in the words of a wag whose name I’ve lost, like a bikini on a beautiful girl: “What it reveals is interesting, but what it conceals is vital.”

3. Perjury plain and simple.

Lie-detector tests can be beaten, and Christine Blasey Ford knows how:

In a sworn statement provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a man who claims to be an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed Ford coach a friend on how to take a polygraph exam. If true, it would mean Ford provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when she claimed she had never had any discussions with anyone about how to take a polygraph.
The troubling allegations about Ford’s polygraph history and potentially false testimony were revealed Tuesday in a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, to attorneys for Ford. Ford and her attorneys have thus far refused to provide all polygraph-related documents and media to the Senate for review.

The polygraph does not determine whether the subject is lying. It determines only whether his pulse, respiration rate, and perspiration are rising or falling. Thus, it can be beaten with a modest amount of training, which is why polygraph examinations are not admissible in court.

4. Must be bad for the Democrats.

Dianne Feinstein wants the FBI report on the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh kept private to the Senate:

People familiar with the process said Tuesday that the FBI investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh could wrap up very soon, well ahead of the end-of week deadline. ...
The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said "it depends" and she thinks a report it "should be limited" to the committee.

What inferences would you draw from Feinstein’s preference?

5. The Double-Bind.

Provoke a man to anger over scurrilous, unsupported allegations that are impossible to refute, then accuse him of “partisanry:”

     After Brett Kavanaugh’s heartbreaking testimony last week, which was in response to his life being destroyed, RINO Jeff Flake said he was troubled hearing the judge’s address. Flake says Kavanaugh was “sharp and partisan”.
     “I was very troubled by the tone of the remarks,” Flake said in a panel discussion alongside Democratic Senator Chris Coons at the Atlantic Festival on Tuesday.
     “We can’t have that on the Court,” said the Arizona senator, who didn’t elaborate on which interactions he was referring to....
     “The initial defense that Judge Kavanaugh gave was something like, I told my wife: ‘I hope that I sound that indignant if I was unjustly maligned,’” Flake added. “But then it went on, and the interaction with the members was sharp and partisan and that concerns me.”

I think Flake has been bought off. He’s leaving the Senate in January, which makes him purchasable without legal consequence.

6. Escalation in progress.

I wrote yesterday that should the nation react to the Democrats’ smear tactics by supporting the Republicans in November, we should expect and be braced for an escalation in their viciousness. But apparently they’ve decided not to wait:

And it could yet get still worse. Be watchful. Always go armed.

That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. I’m still editing Experienced, which I hope to release as soon as I have a cover image for it. See you tomorrow.

UPDATE: I've been informed that the "Kavanaugh's home vandalized" article linked above above has been revealed as a hoax. Apparently it got a lot of circulation before it was debunked. Apologies.

Incredible surgery.

With makeshift equipment and no training, a twenty-three year old pharmacist's mate manages a major operation aboard a submarine while under enemy attack in 1942. more..

~ Remus.

Yer Ol' Woodpile Report , 3/11/08.

H/t: Paul Scott.

The bedrock principle of American foreign policy.

Balkan politics at the best of times seem impenetrable to me. All the more so that I never could understand our involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo in the ‘90s. That probably says something bad about me but there you are.

Howevvver, in my own defense, I rather suspect there aren’t a lot of people who can give you a run down on the what and the why of our involvement. The way in which we screwed the Serbs who, as I never cease to remember, returned many of our airmen to us during the German occupation, is a disgrace and we were lucky the Russians chose not to respond to our mistreatment of their Slavic brothers. Why we climbed into bed with Albanian Muslims and the likes of the Kosovo Liberation Army is one of the eternal mysteries and one of the many, mannnnyyy aspects of our foreign policy that are greasy and stink.

That said, here’s an excerpt from an interview Julia Gorin had with Jovan Tripkovic in Serbia’s largest foreign affairs weekly Pecat. I know nothing about Tripkovic but Gorin thinks he's worthwhile talking to so that settles it for me. He identifies the man behind the curtain in our earlier involvement and, especially in light of the anti-Russian hysteria of our time, I think he is right on the money as to the why of our strange policy, at least in part:

[Julia Gorin:] It’s been almost 20 years since the US intervention in Kosovo and 10 years since Kosovo unilaterally declared independence. Do you think that military-intelligence structures in DC have realized the mistake that the United States made in Kosovo, taking into account the fact that the territory of Kosovo is the biggest exporter of jihadists to Syria and Iraq?
[Jovan Tripkovic:] Even the fact that today — 20 years later — Kosovo is proportionally the biggest exporter of jihadists to Syria is beside the point regarding the words “Kosovo mistake.” Our attitude toward jihadists in general should be clear by now. Events since Kosovo — that is, in Libya, Syria and others where U.S. again supported jihadists against governments — have made it unmistakable: we do not regard terrorists and jihadists as an ultimate target, even if we are theirs. The ultimate target is, and has always been, Russia, and jihadists are viewed as an often useful tool against such perceived “rivals” no matter how many Westerners they kill. We don’t take seriously those who seek our end, but are very serious toward Russia, which does not seek our end.
Now, through this prism, our backwards involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo is crystallized.^[1]

Gorin and Tripkovic think there is a community of interest between Serbs and Jews apparently along the lines of “if you can do it to the Serbs you can do it to another small country like Israel.” Tripkovic also mentions the U.S. determination to throw in its lot with the Muslim world, which at the time I thought was really the driver of our Balkan misadventures. He also alleges that “9/11 had connections and origins in Bosnia” which is news to me but which idea I do not dismiss. Nor do I get the Serbian-Jewish alignment of interests but leave it to you to decide for yourself on that. To me, it seems a strange connection.

His reference to “many others [Albanians or, if you prefer, Albanian-Americans] throughout our intelligence apparatuses” is alarming. This highlights the usual American penchant to consider foreigners scrubbed of all foreign allegiance the moment they take the naturalization oath. What makes more sense than to give Muslims guided tours of sensitive security installations?

Interesting and bewildering stuff to simple minds. My takeaway point is merely the “Russia in the cross hairs” one. That keystone of our foreign policy that has been decided upon by the lizard people from Andromeda and which is immune to democratic control. Yes, yes. Those Russian bastards. Our worstest enemies EVer, followed by the Iranians. It's all so obvious.

Notes
^[1] "My Interview in Pecat and Novosti, Translated." By Julia Gorin, Republican Riot, 8/31/18 (emphasis added).

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Every Gain Comes At A Price

Sometimes it’s money. Sometimes it’s time, or effort. And sometimes – particularly in politics – it’s at the cost of driving the other side to even greater extremes of behavior.

Gateway Pundit has issued its election predictions for 2018:

     Here is our prediction for the mid-terms: Republicans will pick up at least 5 and possibly 6 or 7 or more seats in the Senate and Republicans will maintain leadership in the House. Below is our support for this prediction.
     Social Media Data is No Longer Accurate or Transparent
     We can no longer use social media as an indication for who will win the mid-term election or any election going forward. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google have all made significant efforts to curtail and eliminate conservative content and publishers. Posts and articles shared on social media are no longer going viral due to liberal bias by the tech giants.

The article is definitely worth reading in its entirety. But if the prediction is correct, one consequence will be a redoubling of Democrats’ use of lurid allegations against Republicans and conservatives named as candidates for high office.

It’s the only tactic remaining to the Left that has any potency. Their allegations of various “isms” have all dwindled in effect as bad behavior by Negroes, feminists, homosexual activists, Muslims, and so on has been reported. The smaller their caucuses grow, especially in the Senate with its “advice and consent” role, the shriller, more strident, and more lurid the accusations will become.

That’s not a reason to throw the elections, of course. But it is a reason to be as prepared as possible for what could follow them.

Why The Later Insistence on 1982 as the Year?

Because Christine Blasey Ford was born in November, 1966. Very much after that summer, she would have been 16 - no longer such a compelling story, and Kavanaugh can no longer be a CHILD ABUSER. Also, if she was 16, she would have had a driver's license.

Was she impaired on that date-questionable night? I really don't believe that ONE BEER claim - that's what ALL drunks say. So, ASSUMING that SOMETHING happened, and that she left the party abruptly, did she drive drunk?

LOVE to see whether she had been involved with the police as a teen for drunk driving. A competent and unbiased investigation should show SOMETHING in her past, even if - as has been suggested - that past has been scrubbed.

Bygone Problems Of Bygone Days

Every so often, it’s appropriate to turn – briefly – away from the trials of today and reflect on the problems of the past: specifically, the ones we’ve solved, never to trouble us again. It can help to restore our sense of potency. After all, how are we to know our strength except by the loads we’ve lifted to date?

Some of those problems were real doozies:

Waxy Yellow Buildup: Older linoleum often changed color from whatever to yellow, because the polishes used back when incorporated sealing agents that were almost impossible to remove. That resulted in a lot of homemaker angst — ask Louise Lasser – and the replacement of a number of otherwise good linoleum floors. But today? No Problem!...mostly because people don’t install linoleum on their kitchen floors any longer.
The Heartbreak of Psoriasis: Remember that one? Young adults ashamed to let their elbows see the sun, for fear that the crusty patches would elicit derisive laughter? Oh, the pain, the pain...but no longer! Not only do we have innumerable creams, pills, and gentle abrasives; there’s hardly a part of the body which can’t be bared for public display – and who’s going to fixate on elbows when all that other flesh is on display?
Five O’Clock Shadow: At one time this was the male office worker’s greatest fear. The single-bladed razors and electric shavers of the day just didn’t do a deep enough job. But today we have safety razors with so many blades in them that you need both hands to lift them. And of course, the cultivation of pointless stubble – not only is it unsightly, it catches food just as efficiently as a full beard – has become a practice as well. So now five o’clock shadow is mainly a concern for transwomen.
Bad Breath In Dogs: This was a serious concern...though I can’t remember why, as I don’t remember dog owners French-kissing their pooches. Today’s pet-supply impresarios offer a multitude of palliatives for this malady. The one we use here at the Fortress is called “Greenies:” little toothbrush-shaped chewables that combat canine tartar and halitosis at one stroke. And minced up fine, they go great in a salad. (What, you don’t feed your dogs salads? You know, for...regularity!)
Iron-Poor Blood: You have to be really old to remember this one. It was the big pitch of the Geritol commercials. But we don’t see those any more, do we? Probably because no one wants to admit to being old these days. I mean, we’ve been told that 70 is the new 35, right?
Smoking More But Enjoying It Less: Thanks to public anti-smoking campaigns (and the proliferation of “No Smoking Zones”) smoking at all is in a steep downtrend. Most remaining smokers are also demonstrably stupid – indeed, they demonstrate it at every opportunity, especially during their times behind the steering wheel of an automobile – which suggests that this problem is on the way to solving itself.
Beer Jingles: If you’re a sports watcher of venerable years, you might remember the Ballantine, Rheingold, and Schaefer jingles. Indeed, you might occasionally wake up in the wee hours and find yourself humming one of them; that’s how catchy they were. But today’s beer commercials emphasize machismo, humor, and calorie counts. Obviously, those things matter far more than a memorable lyric married to a bouncy tune, especially if the game is into extra innings, you want an “extra-dry treat,” and are “having more than one.”

These are the ones I remember most vividly, and with ingenuity and effort we’ve conquered all of them! Be proud, Gentle Readers. That’s the kind of can-do spirit that put men on the Moon! Though it’s been a while since we’ve been there, hasn’t it? Must’ve slipped our minds.

Where Do We Go From Here?

He said.

She said.

No resolution, except in the minds of those who crave easy answers.

More than one pundit has suggester parallels with the Salem Witch Trials.

Are we in danger of entering a New Puritan Era? It's not as crazy as you might think - Andrea Dworkin's work was strongly anti-sex.

Cartoonists and Progressives seem to be competing to generate the lowest, most vile slogans/cartoons/comments. Apparently, this was triggered by the Kavanaugh daughter who said that she would pray for Daddy's accuser. Naturally, the 'wit' decided to turn that into a cartoon that targeted Kavanaugh through his daughter.

I found this post late in the afternoon - the explanation makes as much sense as anything else I've seen - more, in fact.

UPDATE:

I was watching this video about body language from Gateway Pundit, and I had one of those Sudden Insights:

This accusation is being assessed very differently by the Kavanaugh side and the Ford side (including the other accusers).

The Kavanaugh side is using logic, breaking down each lie, evasion, gap, or contradiction. Collectively, it forms a case for Kavanaugh, based on available knowledge of the facts.

The Ford side is using emotion, looking at Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony holistically, and ignoring the specifics.

Essentially, it's a Male Thinking vs. Female Thinking situation. My daughter and I were talking about this yesterday - she had been in a meeting with a colleague, and attempted to refute that person's complaint with a logical response.

I pointed out to her that she needed to speak with that person the next day, focusing on FEELING words (I understand how you feel, it doesn't seem as though your work or circumstances are valued, etc.). In other words, I told her - talk like a woman, not a man.

She is not, and never has been, a man. But, like me, she has worked in environments that were more male - sometimes considerably - than female. She is a teacher, but a science teacher. She served in the military. That makes a difference, and it is in her ability to "speak bilingually" - both male and female styles.

Most elementary/middle school teachers function in the female mode, whether or not they have that body type. They are focused on feeling, emotion, and connections that bypass the logical thinking process. When confronted with a situation like the Ford/Kavanaugh testimony, they revert to their preferred mode of emotional empathy.

Translation? Don't expect the investigation to change anything, whether or not Ford's story is completely exposed, or not. It will not matter to those women (and, emotional men). What counts is how they FEEL about Ford.

For these women, what counts is that they can identify a time in their life, when something similar to what she describes happened to them. They say, "I was telling the truth, therefore SHE is telling the truth."

Not logical, but - that's the point.

When arguing before juries, a lawyer has to make an EMOTIONAL connection, not a logical case.

Pearls of expression.

I truly and sincerely don’t want to make light of sexual assault. Rape is evil. Which also means that false accusations of rape are evil. And treating each additional, wholly unverified accusation as if it is more proof is evil.^[1]

~ Jonah Goldberg

Notes
^[1] "Quote du jour." By Mike aka Proof, Proof Positive, 10/1/18.

Common sense on the circus d/b/a the United States Senate.

The usual Denninger understatement regarding the problem of Senate proceedings that make the Indispensable Nation the laughing stock of the world:

Going forward, however, let's put a stop to this crap. The Senate can change its rules on its own without any consent from anyone else, and I suspect the Judiciary Committee (which hears these nominees) can as well. There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop such a rules change, and it ought to be implemented immediately.
It's simply this: No allegation of past conduct for any person subject to a confirmation hearing will be heard or accepted unless it is filed with both the majority and minority Judiciary Committee members 10 days prior to the commencement of public hearings. The sole exception will be for conduct that is alleged to have occurred after the nomination was announced.
That's the end of this circus bullcrap.
If you withhold information as a member on either side of the aisle, it's inadmissible.
If you wish to perform a late hit sort of political maneuver, ala Thomas or Kavanaugh, it's inadmissible.^[1]

Not to mention Herman Cain and Roy Moore. All showing that the left has “elevated” character assassination to the pinnacle of American political life. Yes, it has. The left in Congress being what we refer to as the "loyal opposition." Principled, honorable souls, every one.

When leftists are out for blood no accuser is too flaky or too incredible and no story covered with too many layers of cobwebs for it to be thrown at the front door of the candidate for office. You can follow the stink all the way back to the DNC. But, if its Bill Clinton, women with credible accusations of his having exposed himself to them or raped them are ignored by the media and leftist politicians and, in one instance, had it suggested that they are venal trash. James Carville can get away with sliming women but if any Republican were to suggest that Ford's story is thin gruel or, more accurately, manufactured a tidal wave of leftist female hysteria would wash over the top of the Washington Monument. (Did I mention that Washington was a slave owner?)

And what you will never see is an exploration of the finances of these grasping, destructive accusers. As Denninger points out in his next post Julie Swetnick is not only a person of low character, to say the least, but has had two substantial tax liens paid off by unknown persons. Not that this fact will be brought out in any way in what remains of the time until there’s a vote on Kavanaugh by the full Senate.

Nor, let it be said, will there be any kind of a summation in any debate before that vote of all the inconsistencies and absurdities of all the accusers. A case needs to be made by the Republicans that Kavanaugh has been subject to a high-tech ambush, that Feinstein and all the Democrats deliberately concealed the existence of Ms. Ford’s letter until the last moment making a circus of the proceedings, and that the evidence of each accuser, considered as a whole, is a joke. Ford’s pussy hat activities, her political connections, her scrubbed social media pages, and her finances need to be made a part of the record of this disgraceful exercise in constitutional government. Each accuser needs to be asked under oath (1) what overtures were made to them by politicians, lawyers, investigators, or journalists prior to their taking any action to publicize their grievances, (2) what were the substance of those overtures, and (3) what payments have been made or promised to them.

If the “take no prisoners” prosecutor who examined Ford made any inquirites along these lines, I am not aware of it. I simply did not have the stomach to watch the proceedings.

Notes
^[1] "The Answer To Kavanaugh-Style Smears." By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker, 10/1/18.

Monday, October 1, 2018

Yearning And Frustration

Don’t expect this to be pleasant or easy reading.

Someone I value highly, though I’ve never met him “in the flesh,” has been lamenting his lot in ever more plaintive tones. At one point he said – for public consumption — that he was contemplating suicide. As of today, he’s stated that he’s unable to find any value in living, owing to his physical debilitation.

You have no idea, Gentle Reader, the emotions that stirred in me. I was ready to do just about anything for that guy. Then I remembered my own obligations, and sternly suppressed the impulse.

Then Duyen called. She loves the unnamed subject of this tirade. Yes, loves, even though she hasn’t met him either. (Duyen has a capacity for love that boggles the mind. For example, she loves me. Anyway, at one point she was thinking of courting him.) Here’s a condensed version of our chat.

DK: Flashy, what can we do?
FWP: Damned if I know. He seems sunk in the Slough of Despond.
DK: Where’s that?
FWP: It’s a metaphor. It described the place where despair is inescapable.
DK: We can’t let him kill himself, even by neglect!
FWP: Don’t you think I know that? But what can either of us do about it?
DK: I don’t know. I was hoping you would.
FWP: I’m as lost as you are, sweetie.
DK: Damn it, I count on you to crack the ones I can’t!
FWP: Forgive me, sweetie. Some nuts are too tough for either of us.

Duyen and I share certain drives, to smite the wicked and to succor the downtrodden being foremost among them. We look at the subject of our concern and have the same reaction: we want, even need to help him. But we don’t know how.

Among his other problems, the fellow is essentially isolated from in-the-flesh human relations. His physical maladies are a part of that, but his preferences are at least as large a component.

Oftentimes, good intentions are destructive. They point the well-intentioned one down a road that does more harm than good. But I can’t see that in this case. I see someone suffering, in large measure because he’s ill and alone, without anyone to help him cope. Moreover, he’s someone I think very highly of. But he’s far away and tends to keep others at a considerable distance – and not just physically.

Maybe this is an artifact of old age. I am old – 66 – and so is the fellow of whom I speak. The idea that someone like me in many ways should be in his condition is maddening. It’s partly the “there but for the grace of God go I” effect, but it’s also a determination that good people deserve better than to waste away alone.

This will probably keep me awake tonight. That I recently lost my best and only friend in all the world has only something to do with it.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Conversations

This one took place in the local CostCo:

FWP: (looking at what CSO’s carrying) Three pounds of mesquite wings?
CSO: Yes, ready to eat. Don’t worry, I won’t eat them all at once.
FWP: Well, you could, but you’d regret it later.
CSO: No, I think I’d regret it right away.
FWP: I prefer to defer my regretting. I get more mileage out of it that way.
CSO: (sniffs) When do you get around to it?
FWP: Saturdays, at Confession.
CSO: Ah, you papists. We do all our regretting on one day every year.
FWP: You matzoh-ball types have to hang on to a whole year’s regrets waiting for that one day to come around. We theophages clear the meter once a week. Less strain on the conscience.
CSO: Figured out how to make sure you die on a Sunday?
FWP: Working on it.

Yeah, we get a lot of really odd looks at times like those.

Resonances

Many objects possess resonant frequencies. A solid object is likely to have one. A homogeneous solid object is almost guaranteed to have one. A prolonged wave at that frequency, even if the individual periods of the wave are gentle, can destroy the object through constructive interference. Nikola Tesla was known for experimenting with this phenomenon.

Parasitic relations are subject to a similar mechanism. Let’s imagine that one side of a binary system is parasitic on the other, whereas the other side is capable of continuing on independently. If a resonance builds up in their relations, the result will be fatal to the parasitic side even if it succeeds in killing its “enemy.”

A political system can possess a resonant frequency too.

There’s been a steady build-up in the political passions surging through American society. Each side’s escalation has evoked an even greater escalation from the other. Though it’s a form of “constructive interference,” it’s wholly destructive in direction. It threatens to tear the country asunder, severing all amicable relations between the Left-dominated coastland and the Right-dominated heartland. There are many ironies in this. Not the least of them is that the two regions benefit greatly from one another. In such a system, for one side to threaten the well-being of the other is a clear indication of irrationality, if not lunacy. Yet both sides believe themselves not merely rational and sane, but the exclusive possessor of truth and virtue.

Shall we have a rousing chorus of “This will not end well,” Gentle Readers? Because present trends continuing, that’s beyond reasonable dispute. The accelerating social and political disharmony of the past two decades has already been expressed in violence. More violence is threatened daily. Persons determined to have their way at any cost now plot openly to assassinate their adversaries – and those adversaries just might include you and me.

I dislike to write about this sort of thing, especially on a Sunday.

It is likely that the most relevant of the models in the previous segment is that of symbiosis. Indeed, it’s possible that neither the Left-dominated coastland nor the Right-dominated heartland is capable of going on without its “enemy.” Even if that isn’t so, the benefits of cooperation in a competitive market economy are great enough to make the desire by either to destroy the other utterly insane.

Tragically, in our contemporary political battles, each side considers itself independently viable. Yet it might be true of neither.

Despite living along a coast, I’m aligned with the Right. That’s not to say that I don’t dissent from its orthodoxies in some respects, for just as every man’s religious convictions are his own, so are every man’s social and political convictions. That having been said, I would prefer that the nation return to its Constitutional roots, which respect individual liberty and conduce to a high degree of harmony and stability. So I “have a side,” and would prefer to see that side’s values and ideas prevail.

But not at the price of everlasting enmity toward and from those who hold to different conceptions.

It’s a problem of some difficulty, for under current circumstances the Left has already decided that it will be victory or death. Indeed, the behavior of some Leftist luminaries suggests that should they not prevail, they’d prefer to see the country destroyed rather than have it adopt the libertarian-conservative course I advocate. That’s a mindset I can’t fathom. Reasoning with it is difficult. Dealing with it seems impossible.

But here we are. We have no choice about when and where we’re born. We must cope somehow. It’s the great question of our time. Ultimately, it’s the only question.

And as we search for an answer the resonances continue to build.