Thursday, November 22, 2018

Giving Thanks, 2018 Edition

     Yes, this is the day for it. Yes, gratitude is the secret ingredient to happiness. Yes, even in the deteriorated conditions of America today, we each and all have much to be thankful for. Yes, yes, yes. But the usual parade of Thanksgiving acknowledgements is fraught with cliches and repetepetepetition. Some freshness is urgently needed.

     So before I set my fingers to the keys this windy, cold Thanksgiving 2018 morning, I pondered the “outlier” blessings: the ones people tend to slough in composing their “I’m thankful for” lists. Here’s what I came up with – and as usual, your mileage may vary.

     I’m thankful for:

  • Flomax®.
  • Hot running water.
  • The independent-writers movement.
  • A general contractor who keeps his promises.
  • An auto mechanic who seems to be able to fix anything.
  • A ten year old desktop computer that still serves me adequately.
  • The hedge that buffers off the noise from the connecting street that runs past my house.
  • The New York State wine industry, whose products abate many of life’s other unpleasantnesses.
  • A wife who can out-cook anyone since Brillat-Savarin, can’t abide meddlers or fools, loves the Yankees and the Rangers, and reads as compulsively as I.

     Okay, that’s enough of the personal blessings. Now let’s get to the public ones:

  • Leftist idiots so numb between the earphones that they publicly imply that the federal government would use nuclear weapons to enforce a gun confiscation.
  • Inexpensive gasoline. (Hey, a gallon for two dimes is pretty damned good. They have to be two silver dimes, though.)
  • A Republican Establishment that’s finally shown its true colors by openly stumping for Democrats. Buh-bye, Fredocons!
  • A president – at long last! – who’s willing to tell the heavily left wing “news” media exactly what he thinks of them.
  • The absence — at long last! – of the odious Barack Hussein Obama from our television screens.
  • A president who seems sincerely to put American interests above all the globalist and internationalist BS.
  • A nation with so many guns and gun owners that would-be tyrants are beaten before they start.
  • A rising economic tide that gives the lie to the Democrats’ “We’re the party for minorities” crap.
  • A slowly but surely rising social tide that rejects political correctness.

     That’s enough for a compendious “grace” prayer over the turkey.

     Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Go easy on the stuffing. (Remember why it’s called that.) Though Thanksgiving Day comes but once a year, if not approached with caution its effect can extend through the 364 after that, and the 365 after that, and the 366 after that, and...!

     (tee hee)

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

New Fiction! (UPDATED)

     It’s here at last:

     The long awaited sequel to Innocents:

     A neurophysiologist develops a technique for altering human desires...
     A college strictly for futanari finds its protective obscurity threatened...
     A romance novelist becomes the emotional target of a young transwoman...
     A young American genius unknowingly courts a futanari from distant China...
     A Japanese sex slaver whose business was destroyed by an American security company seeks vengeance...

     Once again, Father Raymond Altomare, pastor of Onteora County, has his hands full.

     Experiences is currently $3.99 in digital form.

     UPDATE: The paperback edition is now available, priced at $9.99.

     Also, I’ve released an omnibus edition of the three Athene Academy novelettes, priced at $1.99.

     Enjoy!

Searchable Voter Fraud Database

Right here.

Might come in handy the next time someone says there IS no voter fraud. Link thanks to The New Neo, another one of the many people, who had an epiphany after 9/11.

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Yet Another Dreamer Pursuing His American Dreams

YADPAD (I'm going to have to start trademarking these acronyms).

Here's the story. Let's just say that he wasn't doing an extra-credit project for his college classes.

At least, I hope not.

Attacks And Defenses

     First, a brief citation from another blogger that expresses the sentiments of many on the Right today:

     I am exhausted of having to campaign or every red c**t hair’s breadth of my civil rights.

     I am so ready to stack bodies of black bloc and the pussyhat #Resistance on the National Mall like firewood, grab microphone and shout into the night:

     “I am tired of these radicals setting the tone of the national debate. I am tired of having to fight constantly to preserve even the basic semblances of the rights guaranteed to me in the Constitution. Go argue over tax rates and spending cuts and those kinds of things that normal Americans care about. Stop being beholden to the insane Radicals. If you do not understand that, I’ll stack up another 10,000 in black masks and pink hats until you do get the message that we don’t want Socialism and we don’t want to give up our civil rights. It’s the economy you stupid fucks, fix that and leave the Bill of Rights fucking alone.”

     Have you been feeling like that, Gentle Reader?


     The period between the invasion of Poland in September of 1939 and the blitzkrieg against the Low Countries and France in May of 1940 is often called “the Phony War.” It didn’t look like there was a war in progress. There were no maneuvering armies, no shooting, and no casualties being reported among the major combatants. Things were happening at sea, but they seemed largely irrelevant to the people of Britain and Western Europe. Nazi Germany had invaded Denmark and Norway, and the Soviets had attacked Finland, but those contests, like the sea engagements, were largely ignored by the citizens of the Allied Powers.

     Yet a war was in progress. It would prove to be the largest war ever fought on Earth. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would host its battles. Many millions would die. The geopolitics of the world would be completely rewritten.

     America is currently in a “phony” phase of its domestic war: i.e., the war over who (and what ideas) shall dominate our nation’s governments. There’s a lot of angry rhetoric, but very little actual violence. Indeed, much of the fighting is explicitly over the meanings of words:

     One of the key lessons of the 2018 elections is that the Left is waging – and winning – a linguistic war. The Left claims and occupies more and more linguistic ground with each new fight.
  • Defense of the Founding Fathers becomes defense of white, racist, slaveowners.
  • Defense of American identity becomes an act of white male domination.

     ....Wanting to obey the law in counting votes becomes an effort to suppress votes and disenfranchise poor people, minorities, and immigrants.

     The presumption of Democrats winning is so great that Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown said, “[I]f Stacey Abrams doesn't win in Georgia, they stole it, it's clear.”

     Every day, we are watching Democrats break and stretch the law for the sole purpose of winning, while they attack Republicans for wanting an honest count of legal voters.

     Democrats and their liberal media allies know that if they repeat something often enough it begins to be accepted as truth.

     Newt Gingrich’s column goes on to argue that these verbal attacks on the Right are a kind of battlespace preparation: the creation of conditions in which mob violence against conservatives, whether public servants or private citizens, seems morally justified. He could well be right.

     There a war on, and it’s no phony.


     I’ve wanted to believe that the electorate would come home to traditional American values: individual freedom, the free market, Constitutionally limited government, and national sovereignty. At various points over the previous three decades it looked as if we might be making progress. At other points we appeared to be backsliding toward socialism, globalism, and authoritarian government. All the while, the Left strove to change the meanings of words essential to political discourse.

     How long has it been since you first heard the ominous phrase our truth? I recall seeing it in print more than twenty years ago, during the height of the Sturm und Drang over government funding for AIDS research. The implication that truth itself could be “privatized,” such that what’s true for Smith might not be true for Jones, is terrifying. If we don’t face a common reality with objectively perceptible facts, how could we manage to communicate or cooperate to any worthwhile end?

     The answer isn’t hard to find; it’s just hard to face. Yet the Left has assailed the concept of objective truth – an accurate statement of fact independent of anyone’s feelings or opinions – for decades, promoting in its place a quasi-solipsistic notion that “my truth” need not have any relation to “your truth.” That’s the entering wedge for the replacement of evidence and reason by propaganda.

     The only defense is infinite stubbornness about the meanings of words: an absolute refusal to grant an iota of respect to persons who misuse them. Such persons might think they’re on the side of the angels. Indeed, the Left rhetorical machinations are designed to get them to think so. But they aren’t – and under no circumstances should we accord them the presumption of integrity, for they have enlisted in the effort to make communication and cooperation impossible.


     Columnist Maggie Gallagher once observed that if there is no such thing as objective truth, our communications amount to nothing more than attempts to manipulate one another, a constant struggle to use and not be used. The battle over the reliability of words we use and the statements we construct from them will only remain nonviolent for a little while. After that, our ability to trust one another will be gone, perhaps forever. Then the lead will start to fly.

     I wish I could end this on a hopeful note. I can’t.

Monday, November 19, 2018

Who Is “Society” And How Do I Bill Him, Her, Or It?

     You’ve heard all the cant phrases: “Social justice.” “Social responsibility.” “Social cost.” “Social conscience.” There are others, of course. They have exactly two things in common:

  1. Each one refers to an undefined entity labeled “society;”
  2. Each one attributes to that entity a conception meaningful only to individuals.

     Thus, each phrase destroys the meaning of the second word. But the “social junkies” who wield them like political shillelaghs have been sufficiently numbed between the earphones that there’s no way to convey that to what remains of their brains.

     So perhaps a different approach is in order.


     Anyone who challenges the orthodoxy of political correctness – the lexicon that originated the cant phrases above – will be attacked by those who uphold it. One of the most prominent attacks in recent weeks has been on fledgling social medium / Twitter competitor Gab.com and its founder and CEO, Andrew Torba. Torba’s brainchild is unabashedly free of politically correct censorship. It forbids only what is demonstrably illegal: “doxxing,” threats of violence, and child pornography. For this, Torba and Gab.com have been under heavy assault. They’ve lost two hosts and at least two payment processors since the assaults began.

     You’d think that here in the Land of the First Amendment, a venue that cherishes freedom of speech would be appreciated. Not to the Left! No, those nasty Righties mustn’t be allowed to spew their “hate speech.” “The cost to society” is far too great! Have a recent example of this sort of “argument:”

     Torba reposted that, which I believe occurred on Twitter, at Gab.com to thunderous applause. And to some “social junkies,” it might have been a clinching riposte. But not to all: the belief among them in the absolute power of “social” arguments is widespread. So I thought I might suggest an alternative approach: asking a confounding question:

How can I invoice Society?

     “Costs to society,” after all, must be measurable to be meaningful. How, after all, could anyone say “it eventually costs society too much” without a standard of measurement that applies to it? Therefore, there must be a unit in which such costs are expressed. I don’t think it’s the dollar; “society” doesn’t pay in dollars. But whatever it is – I’m fairly sure it isn’t the quatloo — there must also be an Accounts Payable department that handles the invoices and responds to them. Does it have an email address, or must we use the Postal Service?

     This upends the “social junkie’s” lexical world. What reply could he possibly make to it? He can’t think about it; there’s no handle his politically correct brain can grip. The most likely reply would be “You know what I mean!” Which of course is best answered “No, I don’t. Explain it.”

     The point of this approach is not to win the “argument.” Such persons do not argue. It’s barred to them, for an argument must be founded on a clearly stated proposition around which evidence and logic can be mustered, and those things are absolutely forbidden on the Left.

     The point is to induce verbal paralysis in the “social junkie.” Enough of that would shut the fool up for a protracted interval. We’d gain a measure of peace and quiet. Those commodities are growing scarce; anything that might expand the supply is worth considering.


     Saul Alinsky wrote that “a good tactic is one your people enjoy.” That was spot on. Confusing your adversary is inherently amusing, though not to him, of course. Therefore I release this new approach into the public domain, and await reports from the field about how well it serves the cause of freedom. Don’t expect any reports from me, though; when I see a “Jason Baumgartner” or any other “social junkie” coming I cross the street and walk at best speed in the other direction.

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Religious Fundraising: A Sunday Screed

     My parish, St. Louis de Montfort of Sound Beach, has begun a campaign to get parishioners to “increase your commitment to the parish.” This, of course, means “give us more money.” In response, I’ve asked a question that’s not often asked, and even less often receives a substantive answer:

“What do you need the money for?”

     The only justification our pastor, Monsignor Christopher Heller, has offered so far is “to continue to grow the parish.” But what does that mean? Does he expect to build a larger church? That seems unlikely, inasmuch as the parish held a capital campaign to raise $1.2 million to refurbish the existing church only a few years ago. Have the living expenses of the parish’s priests risen appreciably? It doesn’t seem so. Then what about rising taxation, which has afflicted so many Long Islanders? Uh, no, church donations and property aren’t taxed. Well, then does some ongoing activity appropriate to a Catholic parish need better funding? Or is there some activity the parish ought to undertake as part of the Great Commission, but can’t for lack of funds?

     At a time when there are two separate collections on every other Sunday, when many parishioners are scrimping to afford oil and gas for the heating season, and when other parishioners are still struggling to recover from the depredations of the Obama years, asking us to “increase your commitment to the parish” should come with specific reasons it would be the Christian thing to do. “Growing the parish” doesn’t cut it; it’s too vague, and too easily applied to any undertaking whatsoever, including undertakings inappropriate to a Christian ministry.

     These days Christian religious institutions are constantly panning for dollars. The devotion and generosity of many Christians is such that they never ask “What do you need the money for?” And those who do ask don’t often receive adequately specific, verifiable answers.


     One premise must be established to make the exploration of this subject worthwhile:

Some activities are appropriate to a Christian ministry,
And some are not.

     Obviously, the promulgation of the Gospels, the administration of the Sacraments, counseling for the troubled, religious education for youngsters, and judiciously administered charity for the benefit of the truly needy are all appropriate. Christ Himself exhorted us to do these things. But there are an awful lot of things I wouldn’t want to see my parish fund. Political lobbying comes to mind at once. Yet many American clerics, including some of the very highest, have immersed themselves in politics, to the detriment of their duties as ministers of God.

     As usual, C. S. Lewis had something to say about that:

     At the other church we have Fr. Spike. The humans are often puzzled to understand the range of his opinions—why he is one day almost a Communist and the next not far from some kind of theocratic Fascism—one day a scholastic, and the next prepared to deny human reason altogether—one day immersed in politics, and, the day after, declaring that all states of this world are equally "under judgment." [The Screwtape Letters]

     (If why involvement in politics is inappropriate to a Christian parish is unclear to you, please reflect on the nature of the Christian faith, and on why Christ Himself told us to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” [Matthew 22:21])

     But parishes that are over-funded for their core missions inevitably get involved in activities in which a Christian ministry has no place.


     There’s a word that denotes the sale of holy things: simony. Simony was a common practice in the medieval Church. Ecclesiastical positions were often for sale, as benefices whose holders would derive a profit from them. That practice, and the associated practice of selling indulgences, were important fuels for the Protestant Schism.

     Funding drives aren’t simony. But a funding drive that divorces the money from the reasons the money is needed – if it is needed – comes very close. If there’s anything about which Christians should be in no doubt, it’s that Christian ministries and institutions are not commercial enterprises, aimed at profit.

     The Church Temporal drifts away from the Church Mystical, and from the missions set forth for it by its divine Founder, when it pursues worldly gain. The question “What do you need the money for?” must be asked — and Christians who ask it must demand specific and verifiable answers before they reach for their checkbooks.

Some Sunday Thoughts

I'm up early (so, what's new?), and wanted to quickly post this link to a very thoughtful piece on the Beatitudes, from Assistant Village Idiot.

Other than that - I've been vegging and ruminating for several days. I do need to get some housework and preparation for the upcoming holiday done over the next 3 days, so, I'm PLANNING to post here very little. You know how it is - you resolve to take some time off, then you see a headline or news story, and, before you know it, your ire is up and you've typing away madly, ablaze with the need to correct the world.

But, no. I'm going to make a very dedicated effort to NOT post for a few days. I have other things, more important AND more urgent, to do.

Saturday, November 17, 2018

I’m In One Of Those Moods...

     ...in which only a whole lot of great old music can possibly suffice:

     Enjoy.

Culmination

     Sometimes the reactions of smart and good people to the actions of stupid and bad people infuriate me beyond even what the bad people have done.

     Go ahead, ponder it. Scratch your head over why I would write such a thing. After all, I’m on the side of the angels, right? I should be cheering the good people. Well, yes – when they do what good people should do. But when smart people excuse stupid people, saying, “Don’t hold it against them; they don’t know any better,” while good people goggle at the words and deeds of blatantly bad people and mutter “But why are they doing this,” it makes me want to lift each of them, individually, by the lapels and shake them until their brains start working.

     The major shortcoming of smart and good people, throughout the history of the West, has been projecting their own mental maps onto others. And it’s still that way today.


     There are a number of news items I could cite as examples of what’s on my mind today. I’ll content myself with just one:

     WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.

     In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

     Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

     That’s a California Congressman. A man so detached from reality that he can’t envision the consequences of what he proposes:

  • Constitutional crisis;
  • Nationwide armed resistance;
  • Most LEOs unwilling to enforce the law;
  • Thousands of deaths among LEOs who do try to enforce the law;
  • Inevitably, a march on Washington by tens of thousands of gun owners, with their guns.

     A California Congressional district sent that man to Washington to represent them. But wait: there’s more! Have a look at a couple of tweets:

     That punches through the stupid/crazy envelope and forges a new trail into hitherto unexplored realms of idiotic lunacy. Eric Swalwell isn’t just criminally insane; he’s so stupid that he thinks he can use weapons of mass destruction to enforce a federal law. More, he doesn’t realize that he’s revealed himself to be criminally insane.

     Smart people have a hard time imagining the mental vacuity of stupid people. Good people have a hard time imagining the moral/ethical voids at the core of bad people. Thus, the self-disclosure of an Eric Swalwell baffles them doubly. And what do they say to one another?

“Forgive them; they don’t know any better.”

“He doesn’t really mean it. He can’t.”

     But he does – and you put him in Congress.


     Allow me a citation from Isaac Asimov:

     On the other side of the doors, in a large room strangely simple, behind a large desk strangely angular, sat a small man, almost lost in the immensity.
     Mayor Indbur – successively the third of that name – was the grandson of the first Indbur, who had been brutal and capable; and who had exhibited the first quality in spectacular fashion by his manner of seizing power, and the latter by the skill with which he put an end to the last farcical remnants of free election and the even greater skill with which he maintained a relatively peaceful rule.
     Mayor Indbur was also the son of the second Indbur, who was the first Mayor of the Foundation to succeed to his post by right of birth – and who was only half his father, for he was merely brutal.
     So Mayor Indbur was the third of the name and the second to succeed by right of birth, and he was the least of the three, for he was neither brutal nor capable – but merely an excellent bookkeeper born wrong.

     This exemplifies the political deterioration that sets in when a country accepts a ruling elite that perpetuates itself through primogeniture. A ruler who doesn’t have to earn power tends not to be equal to its demands; the longer this process persists, the further short of adequacy the rulers fall. But primogeniture isn’t the only way of experiencing such a deterioration.

     Superficially, the political process of the United States appears essentially the same as it was when the nation was founded. Oh, there have been some “adjustments:” the Twelfth and Seventeenth Amendments, and the successive extensions of the franchise to Negroes, women, and persons eighteen years of age. But it looks pretty much the way it’s always been, at least to an untrained eye.

     In fact, the American political process of today bears no resemblance to its origins. It’s been hollowed out through conquest by the two major parties. They possess de facto ownership of the process, buttressed by a variety of mechanisms by which they can prevent effective challenges.

     The DemRep duopoly over the political process has caused both parties to deteriorate. No longer can they produce effective statesmen. No longer can their elected ones exert effective authority. Instead, they subcontract those trifling details to appointed officials and bureaucrats.

     You want to talk about whether there’s a Deep State? Yes, there is, it’s real and very powerful – but there’s a better question to be asked: Why do the elected Powers That Be defend it? The answer is the simplest one imaginable: They need it. It masks their incompetence.

     But every so often, an Eric Swalwell pulls the lollipop out of his mouth and reveals it.


     It’s worse in California than anywhere else. California, for various reasons, is effectively a one-party state. Democrat candidates hardly have to campaign; the mere fact that they’re Democrats is usually enough to get them elected. Thus, California Democrats are substatially stupider and less sane than Democrats nationally – and considering how stupid and insane are Democrats nationally, that’s saying something.

     California produces Kamala Harrises, Dianne Feinsteins, Adam Schiffs, Maxine Waterses, and Eric Swalwells. It sends them to Washington, where they act as anchor men on the Stupid & Insane curve. Then Democrats in other states can campaign on the oh-so-thrilling platform that “at least we’re better than those California idiots and lunatics,” whereupon voters install them in office...only to discover shortly thereafter that the California idiots and lunatics are the vanguard of the Democrat Party and America’s political future: an era in which Congress, desperate to improve the mathematics grades of “minorities” — which always includes women! – decrees that henceforth pi shall be equal to three. (Four shalt thou not count. Neither count thou two, except that thou then proceed to three.)

     At this point, California is stuck. Its millions are either too stupid to realize what’s been done to them and how they’ve collaborated in it, or they’re getting paid to support it.


     The malady at the core of the thing is smart people making excuses for stupid people, and good people exculpating bad people. Maybe the stupid people are stupid through no fault of their own. Maybe the bad people are bad because they were brought up wrong. It doesn’t matter. They must not be permitted to go on doing what they’ve been doing.

     Quite a few stupid people have to be hauled up by the scruff of their necks and placed in confinement – clean, safe, gentle confinement to be sure, with three meals per day, showers, and beds with nice mattresses, but with doors that lock from the outside and without computers, phones or Internet access. Quite a few bad people have to be strung up from lampposts, under the soon-to-be-enacted No More Swalwells law.

     And the time to be about it is right BLEEP!ing now.

Bleeding Kansas

I was reading Limbaugh on the Democratic refusal to accept that they lost - honestly and fairly - in the recent elections. Rush touched on the shenanigans of the multiple voters, the ineligible voters, the imported voters, and all of the other irregularities that the Dems seem to have no problem with.

It reminded me of something in history - the time before the Civil War, in the elections before the two sides reached the point of a formal split.

The territories were not yet fully settled. People resided there, but in relatively small numbers. That was about to change, after the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which changed the so-called Missouri Compromise.

After that act, which allowed the people of that proposed state, which was above the Mason-Dixon Line, to choose whether they wanted to enter the union as Slave or Free, both sides flooded into the territory to try to use proponents to force the residents to choose their side.

In truth, if the actual residents of that territory, along with the majority of those who wanted to settle there had been the only ones counted, Kansas would likely have entered as a Free state. The rabid pro-slavery side would have none of that, and flooded the state from nearby Missouri and Arkansas.

The pro-Abolition Northerners, seeing that rapid influx of Slavery advocates, eager to sway the choice, came in quickly, as well. Both sides were armed with weapons, although, surprisingly, there were few actual deaths, at first.

The next level of escalation occurred when the Pro-Slavery forces out-voted the Free-Staters. In what is perhaps a foreshadowing of the future of voting, the Pro-Slavery Democrats "found" votes, and got Kansas declared a Pro-Slavery State.
Fewer than half the ballots were cast by registered voters, and at one location, only 20 of every 600 voters were legal residents. The pro-slavery forces won the election. While Kansas had approximately 1,500 registered voters at the time, not all of whom actually voted, over 6,000 votes were cast. More significantly, the Border Ruffians repeated their actions on March 30, 1855 when the first territorial legislature was elected, swaying the vote again in favor of slavery.
John Brown's infamous slaughter of his political enemies came later - interestingly, he was never prosecuted for that crime. Officially, he claimed not to have been responsible for the Pottawatomie Massacre; most historians think that was untrue.

Brown later died at Harper's Ferry, where he hoped to spark off a Slave Revolt - it was stopped, unsuccessful in its aim.

Mind you, this prelude to the actual Civil War was in 1855 - just 6 years before the attack on Fort Sumter.

I've noticed that very few history texts deal in any depth with this topic, one that would be of interest to modern students, involving, as it does:

  • Voter fraud
  • Refusal to accept results of elections
  • Dirty tricks in voter eligibility
  • Willingness to destroy the local area to gain political capital
  • Use of the media to sway results
  • Suppression of media
  • Demonizing one's opponents
  • Acceptance of violence actually inside Congress, used against one's enemies
  • Over-the-top rhetoric, with religiously affiliated speakers leading the way

I'm going to spend some time making lessons for middle-schoolers on this conflict, and others that involve political dissension in the United States that is not resolved at the ballot box. It will focus on voter fraud, manipulation of the electoral process, and other relevant topics. My goal is to look at political conflict, and how it relates to refusal to use elections as a way of managing the dispute.

I'll post here again, once I've got the packet ready (probably about a week's worth of lessons). I anticipate using something like Teachers Pay Teachers to sell it.

Pearls of expression.

Lots of good photography tips from Nigel Danson on YouTube. [1]
Comment on Danson’s tips by Paul Weedon:
My photography became instantly better when i took the Lens cap off.
Reply by p0rt0b0y:
I experienced the opposite. :-)
Notes
[1] "7 SIMPLE photography TIPS I wish I knew EARLIER." By Nigel Danson, YouTube, 7/8/18.

Friday, November 16, 2018

An Early New Year's Resolution

I happened to be on Facebook today, in between cooking and stuff. It was a low-key to kill time waiting for the cooking time to be up, without getting too involved.

Today was a good day. I wished an in-law a Happy Anniversary, laughed at some silly cartoons/videos, and for the last 1/2 hour, happened to watch several very good videos in a row.

One of them was featuring Mike Rowe, who captures the Every Man persona better than anyone.

Another was from Prager U - a young woman who explains how she learned more valuable lessons from McDonald's than from her university.

And the last was from Goalcast, and told the story of the life of Jon Hamm, and the actual life struggles he had before success. Check out the Goalcast Channel on Youtube; you could do worse than use that page to start every day.

And, I made a decision. I'll still use Facebook, but I'LL USE Facebook - it won't use me.

I'll Hide the argumentative people and threads. I'll Reject the Ads that pass in front of me.

And, most importantly, when someone says something flat-out DUMB and uninformed, I'll HIDE that post.

Really. Just walk on by, and ignore it.

I have made a choice to stop working to correct/teach/inform dumbasses. It's just a major waste of time.

So, walk on by.

At Last! Some Sensible Advice From a Woman

This is something we don't see often enough - a professional woman who doesn't feel the need to be more macho than John Wayne.

I'd like to point out that she is also a rarity, in that she doesn't pretend that a woman who works 60-80 hours a week can function as a good mother. I also stepped back on work during my children's younger years. The older I get, the less I regret doing so.

Even now, when my reduced SS earnings show the price of that choice, for me, it's a no-brainer. Better that time with kids than the most showy executive career on the planet.

Strain at a Gnat, Swallow a Camel Department.

As the U.S. public, politicians and media once again struggle to identify the motives of yet another psychopath murdering his fellow citizens in a pointless act of violence, they all fail to identify the exact behavior perpetrated by the nation as a whole, on the citizens of so many other nations. Americans lose no sleep over the murderous, psychopathic behavior of their government, yet are frozen in apoplexy and incredulity when a handful of innocent American citizens fall victim to the immoral and deranged actions of one of their own. If the United States government sets the example for its citizenry by murdering 8,000 civilians in Raqqa, or by freely providing weapons to regimes that target school buses and play grounds in Yemen, is it really any surprise that this evil and deranged behavior has taken root within the U.S. society itself?
"Why do Americans struggle to understand mass shootings, yet fail to question the violent role of their nation in the greater global community?" By Brian Kalman, South Front, 11/11/18 (?).

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Just Because I Feel Like It

     Perhaps the best song Richard Thompson ever wrote:

I was nineteen when I came to town
They called it the Summer of Love
They were burning babies, burning flags
The hawks against the doves
I took a job in the steamie
Down on Cauldrum Street
And I fell in love with a laundry girl
Who was working next to me

Oh she was a rare thing, fine as a bee's wing
So fine a breath of wind might blow her away
She was a lost child, oh she was running wild
She said "As long as there's no price on love, I'll stay.
And you wouldn't want me any other way."

Brown hair zig-zag around her face
And a look of half-surprise
Like a fox caught in the headlights
There was animal in her eyes
She said "Young man, oh can't you see
I'm not the factory kind
If you don't take me out of here
I'll surely lose my mind."

Oh she was a rare thing, fine as a bee's wing
...So fine that I might crush her where she lay...
She was a lost child, oh she was running wild
She said "As long as there's no price on love, I'll stay.
And you wouldn't want me any other way."

We busked around the market towns
And picked fruit down in Kent
And we could tinker lamps and pots and knives
Wherever we went
And I said that we might settle down
Get a few acres dug
Fire burning in the hearth
And babies on the rug

She said "Oh man, you foolish man
It surely sounds like hell.
You might be lord of half the world
You'll not own me as well."

Oh she was a rare thing, fine as a bee's wing
So fine a breath of wind might blow her away
She was a lost child, oh she was running wild
She said "As long as there's no price on love, I'll stay.
And you wouldn't want me any other way."

We was camping down the Gower one time
The work was pretty good
She thought we shouldn't wait for the frost
And I thought maybe we should
We was drinking more in those days
And tempers reached a pitch
And like a fool I let her run
With the rambling itch

Oh the last I heard she's sleeping rough
Back on the Derby beat
White Horse in her hip pocket
And a wolfhound at her feet
And they say she even married once
A man named Romany Brown
But even a gypsy caravan
Was too much settling down

And they say her flower is faded now
Hard weather and hard booze
But maybe that's just the price you pay
For the chains you refuse

Oh she was a rare thing, fine as a bee's wing
And I miss her more than ever words could say
If I could just taste all of her wildness now
If I could hold her in my arms today
Well I wouldn't want her any other way

[Richard Thompson]

Corporatism And The American Future Part 1

     A corporation has neither a soul to be damned nor a body to be kicked – old maxim

     Have a few words from an old (1932) book:

     In the declining years of capitalistic old age, assuring adequate consumption to balance a requisite volume of production is the problem for the coercive action of the state-not for planning by profit makers or producers. Capitalism has always depended on the state, whether for war profits or tariff protection. In its old age, a senile capitalism must be nurtured by the state, not with war profits, necessarily, but on an even diet of 2 per cent gruel. Capitalism has run down· for want of new worlds to conquer.

     And from another almost (1936) as old:

     From the inescapable fact of the inequalities of human endowment, it also follows that any well-ordered society must train and condition its elite under an efficient and hard discipline of national interest. Fascist theory, by recognizing personal inequalities and their full social implications, can be much more humane than a liberalism which assumes that all men are born equal and which, in practice, affords to those born with superior endowment, or favored with better luck than the majority, virtually unlimited opportunities to acquire and use power with irresponsibility for social consequences and in ways further to increase social inequalities....

     Fascism does not accept the liberal dogmas as to the sovereignty of the consumer or trader in the free market. It does not admit that the market ever can or should be entirely free. Least of all does it consider that market freedom, and the opportunity to make competitive profits, are rights of the individual. Some measure of market freedom, competition, private enterprise, and profits and losses for private enterprise, in the view of fascism, must be deemed essential as guides to any measure of social control.

     Under fascism, private property, private enterprise, and private choice in the market, have no rights as ends in themselves. They have different measures of social usefulness subject to proper public control. If these institutions and ways are to have social utility to the State, the liberal regime must be ended, the great monopolies nationalized, and all the economic processes subjected to the discipline of a national plan. The ultimate objective is welfare through a strong national State, and neither the dictatorship of the proletarian nor the supremacy of private rights under any given set of rules.

     The first book’s title is Is Capitalism Doomed? The second book’s title is The Coming American Fascism. Their author was Lawrence Dennis, a moderately popular commentator of the Thirties and Forties.

     What’s on my mind this morning is how greatly Dennis’s vision of an “American fascism” resembles contemporary corporatism. The most significant point of comparison is the ever-tightening concentration of employment into a shrinking number of employers. The most significant point of contrast is that in Dennis’s vision, the federal government was explicitly in charge of the “national plan,” whereas in our actual present Washington exerts influence through law, regulation, and its purchasing power rather than explicit authority.

     Note that Dennis’s underlying value system differs greatly from that of the “national greatness” fascists of his era: Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. Those latter figures were militaristically inclined, whereas Dennis was an isolationist in the fashion of Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. Indeed, he opposed FDR’s “New Deal” fascism because he saw it as an instrument for enlarging an American Empire that had ceased to grow when its land frontier disappeared:

     Getting rid of the American frontier amounted to getting the American empire. Being republicans and Puritans, we could not well call ours an empire. We had no emperor. Besides, our governing, though not ruling, imperialists, the Eastern plutocracy, felt that the less said about their ownership and power, the better. They were interested in the take, not the glory. They wanted to rule indirectly and anonymously. Their principal device for ruling eventually, along in the eighties, came to be the modern corporation which has been called by the French, with their genius for logical definition, the société anonyme.

     Briefly, so far as empire is concerned, it is the growth, not the existence, the getting, not the keeping that is historically significant and socially dynamic. A nation grows great by winning an empire. It cannot remain great merely by keeping one. Indeed, once it stops growing it will start decaying. This is clearly proved by Spain and Portugal both of which went into decline once they ceased to increase their imperial holdings. Mankind is destined to live by toil and struggle, not by absentee ownership.

     [The Dynamics of War and Revolution, 1940]


     After the war, Lawrence Dennis repudiated his earlier convictions and adopted a free market orientation. He came to see that the system he advocated could only lead to the reverse of his highest aim – i.e., that fascism, socialism, and similar systems of collectivism all produce a totalitarian State that will pursue the expansion of its power through war:

     “The most socialist institution of the State in America today,” Dennis wrote, “is that of the armed forces...the free market or freedom of contract is out. The members of the armed forces, their dependents and their widows and orphans must be virtual wards of a paternal state.” Just as Hitler had built his war machine through a strong national socialism, the U.S. defense program was “the most obvious and practical way imaginable to convert America to a totalitarian socialist basis.” The same liberal leaders now calling on war with Soviet Russia would transform the United States into a “socialist society by conscription, controls, and rationing.”

     Major governmental subsidies to develop foreign markets meant socialism at home and war abroad. “Most people will think that the essence of socialism is a shift from private to public ownership, greater equalization of wealth and income and certain so-called economic reforms.” Dennis disagreed. “They are all wrong. State planning and control of the economy, with enough spending of government or bank-created money to maintain full employment—that is now the essence of socialism in action.”

     [From Ronald Radosh’s Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism ]

     Thus did an early, intelligent and highly articulate booster of fascism, once confronted with the consequences of the system he had advocated, transform into one of the staunchest critics of a government managed economy – regardless of the guise assumed by the managers.


     The above citations from Lawrence Dennis illustrate one of the oldest maxims of moral and ethical behavior:

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

     It is not enough to mean well; one must act virtuously, and virtue cannot justify compelling others to conform to one’s own preferred plan. Similarly, he who argues for a system of social control, and who, upon being confronted with the horrors such systems inevitably inflict upon their subjects, is morally obliged to admit his fault, to detail how he came to see it – in Lawrence Dennis’s case, by realizing that FDR’s fascistic “New Deal” had led directly to the American involvement in World War II and the subsequent institutionalization of a government-administered economy – and explicate the educational process he followed for the specific benefit of those who had been seduced by his earlier reasoning.

     It is particularly pernicious to assume that one’s own intellect and virtue are so superior to that of others that one is justified in taking power over others, whether by force or by fraud. There is no defense for such self-exaltation.

     But let’s examine America in the Year of Our Lord 2018. We see a corporatism further advanced than even FDR intended: a state of affairs in which approximately 3000 corporations employ half the workers in the United States, while governments look on with approval. Yes, approval! For they who seek to rule always prefer that their targets be compact: few in number and therefore easily fettered with a single set of enforceable rules. One more citation, this time from the late, great Garet Garrett:

     There was a Director of the Budget who was not at heart a New Dealer. One day he brought to the President the next annual budget—the one of which the President afterward said: "The country, and I think most of Congress, did not fully realize the large sums which would be expended by the government this year and next, nor did they realize the great amount the Treasury would have to borrow."

     At the end of his work the Director of the Budget had written a paragraph saying simply and yet in a positive manner that notwithstanding the extraordinary activities indicated by the figures and by the appropriations that were going to be made, the government had really no thought of going into competition with private enterprise.

     Having lingered for some time over this paragraph the President said: "I'm not so sure we ought to say that."

     The Director of the Budget asked, "Why not, Mr. President?"

     The President did not answer immediately, but one of his aides who had been listening said: "I'll tell you why. Who knows that we shall not want to take over all business?"

     The Director of the Budget looked at the President, and the President said: "Let's leave it out." And of course it was left out.

     [From The People’s Pottage.]

     More anon.

I'm Feeling Frugal Today, So...

Let's look at the Federal Budget, and how we might reduce the Deficit (NOT the yearly expenses, which are, of course, important).

The Deficit is that nasty storm in the far horizon. We can set up our family picnic, have a good time, and be inside before the storm comes.

Sometimes.

At other times, the clouds will move in fast, and, almost before we can react, the rain will drench us.

I've been hearing about the Deficit (I capitalize it, because it's an indicator of its importance) since I was a kid. It was a relatively low-level problem in my younger years.

By the late 1960's, an overheated economy had begun to make it more difficult to adjust the budget. If politicians voted down increases in military spending, Social Security, or other budget items with a lot of payments to individuals who depended on that spending for their income, he was likely to be defeated.

If he voted for status quo, or increases, it was inflationary. A few times, we had the worst of both - an inflationary economy and stagnant incomes.

It quickly became apparent to many of people that a main driver of the increase in the debt was the so-called entitlements:

  • Medicaid, Medicare
  • Welfare
  • Food Stamps
The government was slowly getting out of some of the programs that had been in effect, such as some of the big housing projects (and replacing them with Block Grants), but were adding on other, more expensive projects and departments - HUD, EPA, etc.

In the midst of all of this, COLA was introduced - the Cost of Living Adjustment.

COLA is a main driver of debt at this time. If the economy is bad, and the cost of living decreases, the COLA never goes down. It's a ratchet, that only is applied in one direction - adding on to those monthly checks.

Which checks are affected?

Government beneficiaries - servicemen, "welfare", Social Security, federal retirees. 

Because they never face smaller paychecks when the pinch of increased costs hits, these recipients have no incentive to stop the Deficit from increasing - when it goes up, the economy is pressured, and - voila - they get more money.

Win-win - for them.

In contrast, most people actually lose when the cost of living increases. The businesses they work for have to cut corners, in response to increased costs, and they are likely to face pay freezes, if not cuts.

COLA has to stop - now. It's not going to get any easier in the future. Will seniors feel the pinch? Sure.

But, it still has to be done. It just isn't fair for working people to bear the brunt of the financial hit, while seniors get to avoid the pain.


The Daily Signal's solution is multi-pronged.

If we don't do this, SOON, the younger people might just take any of the decisions out of our hands.

And, it WON'T be pretty for those affected.

AARP can keep threatening legislators who try to clamp down on the over-the-top amount that goes to the senior population. They WILL NOT be able to out-vote them forever.

The longer they wait, the harder the changes will be. The longer they insist on holding the line, the MADDER the younger voters will become. Pent-up anger, when released, it NOT pretty.

AARP, and the geriatric lobbyists, need to pick the time frame for giving in - anywhere from 3-5 years, max. If they don't, there WILL be a rebellion. And, it will likely involve some hideous outcomes for some. They've watched elders get their Senior Discounts, yearly cruises to exotic lands, cushy lifestyles, and, generally, better medical care at a lower cost than younger people can get.

There is a simmering anger. Expect a raid on savings/investment/annuities, and manage your own portfolio accordingly.


Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Serious Troubles Afoot

     Incredibly, Amazon is disputing my rights to one of my books. Here’s the email I received:

Hello,

     Thank you for publishing with Amazon. Copyright is important to us – we want to make sure that no author or other copyright holder has his or her books sold by anyone else. To publish your book, please respond with documentation confirming your publishing rights within four days:

     Love In The Time Of Cinema by Francis Porretto (AUTHOR) (ID: PRI-CXTSTTECFD9)
     Examples of documentation we cannot accept are:

     - A personal statement by you that you have the publishing rights
     - A copyright application for which registration has not been confirmed
     - Contracts that have not been signed by all parties

     Examples of acceptable documentation are:

     - If you are the author and you are republishing your book after your publication rights have been reverted to you, a signed reversion letter from your former publisher
     - A signed contract between you and the author granting you the rights to publish the book in the territories, languages and formats you have selected
     - An e-mail from the address listed on the author’s (or their agent’s) official website confirming that you have the rights to publish their book in the territories, languages and formats you have selected

     If you publish books for which you do not hold the publishing rights, your account may be terminated.

Best regards,

Amazon KDP

     I’m at a loss here. No one but Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) has ever issued Love in the Time of Cinema. To the best of my knowledge, no one else is claiming to be its author.

     Here’s my reply to the email above:

Dear Sirs and Madames at Amazon,

     I don’t understand the reason for this demand. I am both the author and the publisher of Love in the Time of Cinema. Why is there any question about that? Has someone else claimed that the book belongs to him?

     I operate several websites, all of them on Google’s Blogger system:
     http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com – My general commentary website.
     http://fwporretto.blogspot.com – If I have an “author’s official website,” I suppose this would be it, even though it doesn’t amount to much.
     http://face-press.blogspot.com/ -- This one is just a “vanity press” I invented myself.

     But at no time has anyone other than myself published any of my books. Indeed, at this time, all of them are available strictly through Amazon!

     Is it possible that there’s some confusion because I don’t consistently use my middle initial? Some of my books appear under Francis Porretto, and some under Francis W. Porretto. But both of those are the same individual: me!

     Please let me know what other information you need to resolve this, as I am totally dependent on Amazon for the sale of my books, including Love in the Time of Cinema.

Sincerely,
Francis W. Porretto

     Can anyone offer any insight? Any remedy?

The anti-American, revolution.

This – the Dem takeover of the House – does not involve loyal opposition in any sense. It is the culmination of a long, hard, contemptuous, communist slog through the institutions of constitutional America. The ultra-left Democrats care not for law, reason, sovereignty, or the welfare of the nation and its people. They care about total power and we will now see how far they will go to acquire it. What they have in mind is the death of freedom, law, rights, truth, and decency.
Independently of the impeachment sound and fury in Washington, the walls will continue to close in on domestic dissenters. The digital ghettoization of alternative views to “protect our democracyfrom supposed outside meddling conflated with “hate online” will accelerate, with social media a particular target for censorship. The Deep State’s intelligence and law enforcement organs will step up actions to penalize any resistance to Antifa violence, while perpetrators of such violence will rampage with impunity. Trump has done nothing to protect free speech online or in public places while his enemies continue to contract the space for both—but things can and will get much, much worse. Such vestigial protections of religion, free speech, right to bears arms, and others that we still possess—for now—aren’t likely to survive much longer as the edifice of the old America continues to crumble under the malfeasance of the very Executive, Legislative, and Judicial officials who pretend to be its custodians.[1]
To the normal citizen today what does “elite” signify except a treasonous scumbag intent on either destroying America as it was conceived or consciously choosing to do nothing to prevent that destruction?

Be sure to read the whole article, especially what Mr. Jatras says about “tribes.” NO politician out there will speak about the reality of what Jatras points out but it is precisely what is driving us straight to civil war. NOTHING is being done to deal with the spiritual and ideological problems of our time. Trump at least understands basic economic calculation, in the realms of trade and employment anyway, but that’s it. But he’s clueless about war and the Constitution.

One hundred and four years after the criminal stupidity of WWI we now have a far worse stupidity to deal with. The earlier disaster was the result of mere strategic miscalculation. Today, millions are confused about the meaning of civilization, rationality, and decency. How exactly will this end except in a true cataclysm?

Notes
[1] "The Dictatorship of Victims Strikes Back." By Jim Jatras, Chronicles, 11/8/18.