The Real Battle is Not Politics, It's Culture

That culture is Post-American. How does that differ from American Culture?

American Culture	Post-American	Result
Married Family Structure	Female-Headed Family	Fathers have little influence on children's lives. Government has more intrusion into single-parent families
Parent at Home	Working Parents with Daycare	Increased illness, Less parental oversight, Outside influence on child's moral upbringing increases
Most services provided in-home, including meal production	Most services must be bought from outside vendors	Drain on available money, less nutritious meals at greater expense
Time available for community activities	Less time for community involvement	Less connectivity to community, sports organizations must depend on non-parental leaders

These are just a few of the losses that have changed American culture. I'm sure that you can think of many others.

So many of the Democratic leadership wants to emulate European countries.

What part would they like to copy?

• The crowded cities and their increasing violence?
• The restrictions on free speech? Never that free even before the Cancel Culture rise, even making gentle jokes can get a citizen a visit from the local police.
• Their privileging alien invaders over their own citizens?

News Flash for Elites: We ain't Europe.

And, we're very glad of that.

UPDATE: I just heard about this series (I don't watch much TV). It sounds like a good pushback to cultural takeover by Leftists.

Personal Update

I've been struggling with joint pain since autumn started. My doctors have tried steroid shots (relief for a few weeks), NSAIDS (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), and cold/warmth to relieve pain/improve mobility.

I've tried chiropractic adjustment (some relief, but it also preceded my most recent problem), water therapy, and bed rest when it got too painful.

This Monday, I was walking when I suddenly had a sharp burning pain in my right knee. By morning, I was unable to walk without assistance. I contacted my doctor, and the diagnosis is sprained ligaments. I was prescribed a knee brace (with a hinge), and given advice on managing the pain. This morning (on Motrin and with the brace), I can walk, with a cane, for limited amounts of time. Basically, just to the bathroom and to get food/drink from the fridge.

This may take some time to clear up; it's not unusual for soft tissue injuries to require months to fully heal. I previously had a bad ankle sprain that took more than 6 months to heal.

A complicating factor is that I've been receiving medical care for osteoarthritis (basically, wear-and-tear breakdown of joints - it eventually happens to most of us, particularly if we have weight issues, which I do). Last week, after testing, it was confirmed that I also have RA - rheumatoid arthritis.

My mother, an RA patient, was in a wheelchair for more than 15 years before her death. The disease affects more than 2 million Americans, most of them women. Those with twitchy immune systems seem to be more at risk - allergies, asthma, and other immune diseases.

From Mayo Clinic:

Unlike the wear-and-tear damage of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis affects the lining of your joints, causing a painful swelling that can eventually result in bone erosion and joint deformity.

 I've also been experiencing some 'brain fog' and memory loss (not major, just difficulty remembering little things - to call people on the phone, storing offhand information my husband tosses me on the way out the door). I'm fine as long as I write it down (usually), and memory usually is not a factor when I'm not feeling poorly.

However, the malaise and brain fog is hindering my progress on my book. Shorter things - blog posts, journaling, short stories - are fine. But, I've been having a devil of a time getting further on my book. As a result, I'm frustrated. Filled with ideas, and just not making progress on writing them down.

Most of this is not life-threatening. Just affecting quality of life. I'm hopeful that, now that I have a diagnosis, I can start attacking the problems head on. The knee thing is already improving, with caution and use of the brace. Decent levels of Motrin help, too.

Methods Versus Intentions

     Beware the man who claims that his intentions constitute an authorization to control your methods. Not all such persons are Democrats, though they do constitute an unhealthy majority thereof. Some are Republicans who, like former (or ersatz) Republican Michael Bloomberg, simply think you’re an ignoramus who doesn’t know what’s best for you.

     Much of the defamation aimed at the free market arises from such persons. Unfortunately, many of them are smart enough, and accomplished enough in their chosen occupations, to command more respect for their political opinions than is good for us. I have an example here:

     Conservative intellectuals launch a new group to challenge free-market ‘fundamentalism’ on the right

     Oren Cass believes conservatives have blundered by outsourcing GOP economic policymaking to libertarian “fundamentalists” who see the free market as an end unto itself, rather than as a means for improving quality of life to strengthen families and communities. The former domestic policy director on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign quit his job as a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute to launch a new group called American Compass that aims to reorient the right...

     Markets are good, Cass explained, but life is about so much more than markets. He said American conservatism historically had a richer conception of the role of government beyond maximizing returns, such as strengthening domestic industry. He lamented the growing concentration of wealth, geographically on the coasts and in the big cities, as well as in a handful of industries, which has accelerated income inequality...

     I’ve seen emissions like this many times. They tend to come from self-styled “ur-conservatives” who seek to return to pre-Cobden mercantilism and the strong protectionist measures it featured. It’s a thinly veiled form of collectivism that implicitly promotes the writer’s notions about what’s best over the freedom of others to produce and trade as they please. Note in particular the phrase “a richer conception of the role of government” in the above. Reflect on what that “role” could – and would – embrace.

     I’m not here to argue about “what’s best.” Plenty of opinion-mongers past and present have done so, with little agreement to be found among them. On the anti-free-market side they tend to lament the dwindling of what they often call “human values,” a trend they attribute to the free market and “commercialism.” The late Robert Nisbet, prominent among them, became well known for his opinion that America’s markets – hardly free at the time – might be “too efficient.” By what standard would Nisbet judge them “too efficient?” He was concerned, he said, with how they impede “life on a human scale.” It’s what R. A. Lafferty called “a good round thumping phrase,” eminently suitable for stump speeches. However, objectively speaking it means nothing.

     The resurgence of such thinking in the Right is more disturbing than most persons would imagine.

---

     At this time, President Trump is employing tariffs to correct for an aberration in international commerce. Specifically, he has targeted other countries’ governments’ use of subsidies and tariff barriers: the former to give chosen industries an edge in international trade; the latter to prevent American goods from competing with industries domestic to those countries. By using tariffs as a measure by which to compensate for such anticompetitive behavior, Trump has put our trading partners on notice: What you can do to us, we can do to you – and we will. It’s an important component of his successful strategy for correcting America’s loss of manufacturing jobs and its international trade balances.

     Yes, it’s a seeming departure from free-market absolutism. However, when one’s partners have already tilted the ice, there’s no corrective but to force it back to level by such a countermeasure. In some cases a tariff war can “run away.” That happened in the Thirties, with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and the responses of our trading partners to it. But when Trump has achieved the results he sought, he’s lifted the relevant tariff, though always with the sotto voce message that a return to bad behavior by the targeted nation would see it swiftly restored.

     Trump understands free markets. He’s spoken in favor of them many times. He understands full well that a market in which one participant has coercive power on his side, helping to fuel his efforts and retard those of his competitors, is not free.

     More to the point of this tirade, the “free market” is a shorthand phrase for an aspect of freedom itself: the right to trade one’s products and services (including one’s labor) with consenting others, without interference from a government. It is a method by which free people pursue what they think is best.

     And here we come to the nub of the thing: What commentators such as Robert Nisbet and Oren Cass think is best might differ from what you think is best, and dramatically at that. That does not authorize them to rule your preferences wrong and demand that you accept theirs.

     I could go on about this, but I believe the point is made. We each have our methods for pursuing and defending our visions of what’s best. When someone else tells you that his vision of what’s best entitles him to limit your freedom – i.e., to constrain or condition your methods for pursuing your contrasting vision – reject that person. He wants to control you, and no matter how benign he seems that’s something you must not tolerate.

     Maintain your vigilance. You know what depends on it.

Quickies: A Misdiagnosis

     I’m something of a fan of Tucker Carlson, who strikes me as the most forthright political commentator on the television networks. However, he too is fallible – aren’t we all? – and sometimes misses the point of an important development. Watch and listen to his monologue of yesterday evening:

     Carlson is correct that Bloomberg represents a threat to the political system. However, in my opinion he misidentifies the specifics of the threat. Indeed, there’s evidence to that effect in what he says in the above: i.e., that Trump defeated Clinton despite spending only half of what the Clinton campaign spent on advertising. That cross-cuts Carlson’s contention that Bloomberg’s vast wealth could enable him to purchase the presidency.

     Moreover, Carlson errs in his assertion that Bloomberg has no sincere convictions. He does have one, and I can state it in a single short sentence:

“I know what’s best and you don’t.”

     With that Bloomberg will brook no argument. It’s a common conceit among the wealthy, especially the self-made wealthy. And from it flows every other stance he’s ever taken on anything.

     While I doubt that Bloomberg can win the presidency merely by flooding the airwaves with his ads, I will admit that his money can have a role in politics – perhaps even a critical one. I recently proposed an explanation for why Bloomberg is getting special treatment from the DNC, and it is because of his wealth. That piece, in my opinion, is a better explanation for why Bloomberg is in the race than any other now in circulation. It would certainly account for the DNC’s special accommodations for him.

     Money in politics is subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns. Its principal effect is to make voters aware of a candidate, his record, and his proposed agenda in office. Beyond that it loses effect. However, billions of dollars spread among many state and local elections could have a greater aggregate effect than if it were spent on a presidential candidacy. If Bloomberg’s money could be used to buy not the presidency but a great many “down-ticket” offices, particularly in the state legislatures, the DNC would rejoice. The state and local governments are the “triple A” teams of national politics, from which candidates emerge to contend for federal offices. A Democrat takeover of government at the state and local levels would put the Republican Party on a deathwatch. That prospect, plus the neutering of the extremely dangerous Bernie Sanders, would constitute a sufficient justification for the DNC’s embrace of Bloomberg.

     From Bloomberg’s perspective, his uber-issue of gun control – really, banning the civilian possession of firearms altogether – is paramount. A great takeover of the state legislatures is the most plausible route toward that end. Thus his “agenda” and the DNC’s desires, while not identical, appear to be harmonious.

     Thus there is danger, even though the Tiny Tyrant’s chance of attaining the Oval Office is slim to none.

Quickies: Distancing Yourself From The Thundering Herd

     (Before we proceed, note the use of the correct homophone in the title. You, too, can get it right, even when writing at “Anderle speed”...which I don’t, but you might. Verb. sap.)

     Yes, Gentle Reader: Fran the Gentle Grammar Nazi is on the prowl once more, but in a spirit of improvement rather than castigation. If my room-temperature fulminations about the mistreatment of the English language bore you, feel free to surf away. It’s one of the things perennially stuck in my craw, though the passing of the years has dampened my furies to “holding” levels.

     Today’s mini-Jeremiad concerns writing in an idiom particular to another culture. Obviously, if you were writing about a non-English-speaking culture, it would be important to grasp what sort of mistakes in the speaking of English are common to people from that realm. However, what I have in mind this morning is the crafting of dialogue among persons from a non-American but English-speaking culture: the group of nations routinely referred to as “Anglophones.”

     Good dialogue must bear the stamp of reality: i.e., how the persons involved, and persons with backgrounds similar to theirs, would actually talk. As the Anglophone nations other than America have stratified cultures, this is more difficult for an American writer than it might first seem.

     The great Gregory Benford, in the dedications to his award-winning novel Timescape, mentioned that he had secured knowledgeable assistance to ensure that his English characters spoke in an authentically English idiom. That was a wise decision, for one whose acquaintance with that idiom is too slight to trust. However, what Benford did not mention is that there is more than one “English idiom.” Which of them one speaks marks him indelibly as a member of the associated demographic...or class.

     Never fear, Gentle Reader: Benford did attend to that necessity, and quite nicely at that. If you haven’t read Timescape, I recommend it wholeheartedly, and not for that reason alone.

     The same necessity impinged upon me when I decided to incorporate English characters into my Futanari series. Moreover, I had to decide whether acculturation, in the case of one character who had been in America for several years, might have cross-bred her idiom. When her father, a high English noble, came to New York to visit with her, I had her transition to the upper-class diction in which she’d been raised, even though she had shown symptoms of linguistic acculturation in previous stories in the series.

     The short version: It isn’t easy to get this stuff right. But doing so marks a writer as uniquely attentive to cultural patterns and structures. It’s a mark of considerable distinction.

     Need I say explicitly that it’s worth your time? If you want to stand out from the less attentive, less meticulous crowd, that is.

A Gift For My Readers

     By dint of a great and protracted effort that has wearied me so completely that upon the completion of this brief piece I plan to take my Kindle to my recliner, recline to the maximum, lay my Kindle gently over my face, and snore away the day, I have completed the capture of what might be the most incendiary document available during this presidential campaign season:

THE PORTABLE BLOOMBERG:
THE WIT AND WISDOM
OF MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

     ...which bills itself as a collection of exact quotations from the Tiny Tyrant of the Big Apple, gathered from the lips of his employees. Quite a lot of the sayings compiled therein are funny. Some are moderately insightful. And a whole lot are...well, let’s just say they’re not for cocktail parties, unless by “cocktail party” you mean beers around the pool table at the local gin mill.

     It is my belief that should this document get into general circulation, the little guy would be tarred, feathered, and run out of the country on a rail. (Yes, yes, he deserves worse for what he did to New York City, but some measures remain beyond the power of even a Curmudgeon Emeritus.) So if you’re opposed to having Bloomberg as the Democrats’ presidential nominee (or for that matter as anything above a sewer worker in Istanbul), email me to that effect and I’ll send you a copy of this delightful publication in return.

     And with that, it’s time for a nice lie-down.

The Impermanence Of Temporal Things: A Sunday Rumination

     I haven’t done one of these in a while, mostly for lack of a suitable inspiration or insight. However, this morning I believe I have a good jumping-off point...though you might be a wee bit disturbed by the direction I jump in:

     In truth, if the earth and all it contains must one day disappear by fire, the goods of this world are no more to be esteemed than wood and straw. What point is there, then, in making them the object of our desires and cares? Why seek to build and leave marks of our genius and power where we have no permanent abode, and where the form of this world will be removed, like a tent that has no travelers to shelter? It may be said that it will be a thousand years before this frightening cataclysm takes place; but Christ has said that a thousand years are but an instant compared with eternity, and when the moment comes—when, from the land of the future life, we are the witnesses and actors in that supreme drama—the whole span of humanity will seem so short to us that we shall scarcely consider it to have lasted a single day.

     [Father Charles Arminjon, The End of the Present World]

     There is much wisdom in the above. If we have two lives to live – one a temporal one that will inevitably end; the other an eternal one that will never end – then it makes perfect sense to give priority to the life to come. As Robert Ringer once wrote, no matter how long you live, it’s as nothing compared to how long you’ll be dead. Preparation for eternal life – the life that follows death – should take precedence over all other considerations.

     But a question arises: If this life is as nothing compared to the life to come, what’s the point of it? Why did God bother to give it to us? What, apart from adhering to the Commandments, are we supposed to do with it?

     These are questions even the most devout, utterly convinced Christian must confront. Moreover, he must answer them satisfactorily, for they pose perhaps the greatest trial of faith any Christian can face.

---

     Father Arminjon asks, quite pointedly:

     What point is there, then, in making them [the goods of this world] the object of our desires and cares?

     It’s a good question that’s best answered by inserting a single word into it:

     What point is there, then, in making them [the goods of this world] the sole object of our desires and cares?

     And answer comes there none, because...well, I’ll stop short of saying that it “should” be “obvious,” and merely point to the imbalance between temporal and eternal priorities. Clearly, what matters most to the sincere believer is whether he will qualify for admission to eternal life in God’s nearness: i.e., heaven. But while we live, we must give some priority to “wood and straw,” if only to keep the rain off.

     Father Arminjon’s exhortation actually compels us to look at the deeper question I raised in the opening segment: What’s the point of our temporal lives? The answer I prefer is this one: We are here to learn to love. As God is Love, He prefers to keep company with others who have learned to love as He does. Of course, one can ask a deeper question – namely, why aren’t we created already knowing how to love? – but one mystery per Rumination is all I can handle.

     The Two Great Commandments have far more force than most people, including most Christian clerics, allot to them:

     But the Pharisees hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together: And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him: Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
     Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. [Matthew 22:34-40]

     That last sentence was Christ saying “Pay attention: this is the key to everything!” But if love is the key, then temporal life, which we enter as caterwauling savages concerned solely with food and the state of our diapers, is perforce a place where we must learn to love – and to demonstrate that we have internalized the lesson by our behavior toward others.

     It’s not a trivial, easily learned lesson. I wrote an entire novel about it. Indeed, I wrote that novel for the opportunity to make one, overriding statement of the principle:

     “No matter where we stand in our lives, whatever our circumstances,” Father Ray had said to her, “only three paths are open to us. We can break, we can stand idle, or we can build. The Christian course is to strive to build, to improve, to contribute whatever mortal power can add to God’s edifice. If that necessitates some demolition, the tearing down of an impassable obstacle, the Christian is commanded to do so in a spirit of understanding and forgiveness. He must not condemn. He must not hate.”
     “I’ve known a lot of people who called themselves Christians,” she replied, “and damned few of them seemed to adhere to those precepts. Not as far as I could tell, anyway.”
     The young priest smirked ruefully. “I know, dear. It’s very hard. I can’t do it any better than most. It could send a lot of us right down the chute of despair, if it weren’t for one thing.”
     “Which is?”
     “That God is love. Love is patient, love is kind, love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way. It is not irritable or resentful. It rejoices not in wrongdoing but in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. And he who loves is endlessly willing to forgive.”
     The vacuum in her soul, the empty place that cried out to be filled with love but had recoiled from it at every opportunity, tugged insistently at her.
     “So a Christian is commanded to love?” she said. Her voice sounded small in her own ears.
     “Yes. But with a caveat.”
     “Which is?”
     “To remember that love isn’t just something you feel. It’s also something you do. A Christian might have a hard time feeling love for some people, especially people who’ve hurt him in the recent past. But however wounded he may feel, he is capable of deciding to love, of willing himself to love despite the difficulty—and of acting from love. And sometimes,” he said with a small smile, “the doing will bring the feeling in its wake.”

     [From The Wise and the Mad]

     I don’t think it can be said any more concisely than that.

---

     And so, Father Arminjon’s exhortation deserves respect, but it also requires qualification. Yes, the life to come is of infinitely higher priority than the one we live under the veil of Time. That, however, is a far cry from saying that our present lives are of no importance whatsoever. They are the forge in which we form our characters, especially their capacity for love.

     David Horowitz once made a fascinating pair of observations. In his thirties, he wrote, he realized that he would someday die. But he was also aware that until then, he had to live – and to learn how to live. How we live is important, and not only for our circumstances here on Earth.

     The two Great Commandments and the Ten Commandments that follow from them tell us what we must and must not do while we live. They constitute the qualifications which, once met, permit us to live as we please. Yes, we are allowed security, comfort, and the pleasures available during temporal existence. We must merely remain in obedience to the Commandments while we amass and enjoy them.

     That is the process by which we learn to love, for love as Christ used the word has two distinct meanings. To love God is to worship Him as the Author of all that we are and have, and to be grateful to Him for our blessings. To love our neighbor is to wish him well – never to wish him harm – and to come to his aid when he deserves and requires it: a precept C. S. Lewis has called The Law of General Benevolence. Created as we are, part mortal clay and part immortal soul, to merit salvation we must employ the former in absorbing the lesson He has embedded in the latter. Beyond that, we are free.

     May God bless and keep you all!

If You Need A Pandemic To Worry About...

     ...I think there’s a verifiable one in progress. Here are the symptoms du jour:

• SJW’s Wishing Death Upon Jordan Peterson
• Kevin Williamson Wants Roger Stone To Die In Prison
• Kim Hirsch on Recent Outbreaks of Trump Derangement Syndrome

     Mind you, the Left’s hatred of the Right has a long lineage. You could argue that it began with Marx and Engels, though it took Lenin and Beria to perform the first instantiations on record. But the most recent outbreaks display the ferocity that characterizes a genuinely dangerous disease.

     To the best of my knowledge, while the Democrats were certainly willing to defame Barry Goldwater in his campaign for the presidency, no one suggested that he or any of his supporters belonged behind bars. No one attacked him or his supporters physically. At that point the hatred was still incubating.

     While the Left fulminated when the GOP renominated Richard Nixon in 1968, it was a phenomenon largely confined to the fringe: the outright socialists and communists, and the “student activists” who sought media attention for themselves. Leftists’ antipathy to Nixon had to wait for the Watergate scandal, at which point it could burst forth in the desired fashion. Their success in compelling him to leave office whetted their taste for further campaigns.

     Ronald Reagan’s campaign for the presidency excited the Left’s derision, but at first leftists and liberals were confident that he would lose: he was too old and too conservative to win a majority. Reagan’s smashing victory really got the ball rolling. President Reagan suffered denunciations America hadn’t seen since the Lincoln Administration – and if you’re not familiar with those, they make illuminating reading.

     Policy denunciations and belittlements were the fodder of the two Bush Administrations. However, the Bushes were personally warm and likeable, especially Bush the Younger a.k.a. Dubya, which made savage personal attacks on them politically unwise. There came a time of retrenchment. The Left needed a new and more assailable devil figure.

     Then came Donald Trump. He was an answer to the Left’s prayers: the exact opposite of its social-fascist hero Barack Hussein Obama. More, he had pledged to undo Obama’s “achievements” root and branch. His “America First” stance is the antidote to the Left’s principal political weapon: identity-group politics. And the more Trump has succeeded for America and Americans, the more the Left has hated and assaulted him, his agenda...and his lieutenants and supporters.

     As Aerich noted in yesterday’s citation from The Phoenix Guards, it can be dangerous to succeed where another has failed.

---

     The emotions are motivators. Indeed, if we omit the drives of the body for sustenance and safety, they’re the only motivators of importance. Once we understand what has elicited a strong emotion, we have a chance of making some headway to counter its effects – if countering its effects is what we decide is appropriate.

     The Left is currently in a state of great fear. It faces an opponent who has called it out, most recently and explicitly during his recent State of the Union speech. Moreover, he is in the process of demonstrating, even in the face of strong and sustained opposition from the political and media elites, that his positions are correct: the best ones for America and Americans generally.

     Fear’s natural companion is hatred:

     [H]atred is best combined with Fear. Cowardice, alone of all the vices, is purely painful—horrible to anticipate, horrible to feel, horrible to remember; Hatred has its pleasures. It is therefore often the compensation by which a frightened man reimburses himself for the miseries of Fear. The more he fears, the more he will hate. And Hatred is also a great anodyne for shame. [C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters]

     It thus comes naturally to the Left to hate the man who is showing it up in such brilliant American colors. But of course, this combines naturally with a pre-existing hatred: the Left’s hatred of the sole unbending bastion against its ascension worldwide: the United States of America itself.

     The Left’s hatred has reached a pitch and tempo that demands its expression in action. We’ve seen expressions of that hatred ever more frequently as time has passed. From leftists in the political class we get demands for President Trump’s removal from office, his prosecution for imagined crimes, the confiscation of his wealth and businesses, and so forth. We also get crusades against those of his lieutenants who prove vulnerable, such as Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. We can expect more such between now and November 3.

     Lower-level supporters of President Trump and the GOP have suffered physical attacks with increasing frequency. You’ve read about them: assaults on citizens wearing MAGA hats, attacks on Republican voter-registration drives, and cases of vandalism against Republican district headquarters. There will be more. Not only are they the only things the Left can do to intimidate Trump supporters and conservatives generally out of participation in the political arena; they also help to assuage Leftists’ hatred of the man and his movement that are making them look like fools.

     It will continue. It will get worse as the year wears on. Whether it will cease after the election is doubtful. We must hope that it won’t deteriorate to open, blood-spilling warfare in the streets.

---

     And now, a coda:

     Coda n: a more or less independent passage, at the end of a composition, introduced to bring it to a satisfactory close.

     In this piece of yesterday, I counseled the reader not to panic: not to give in to hysteria that would cause him to sever all his ties with the world beyond his door. That is my assessment of Dr. John Campbell’s recommendations: that to subscribe to them fully would involve the severance of economic and interpersonal relations, with an effect on our society so devastating that only a threat on the order of the Black Death could make it seem appropriate.

     Fear can make us do things we would not otherwise do. Sometimes that’s appropriate. As I said yesterday, judicious fear – fear proportional to the dimensions of the threat – can be protective. But at this time, I dispute that the dimensions of the Coronavirus threat are well enough established to justify a contraction of our interactions that would effectively stop both our economy and our society.

     The Chinese are panicking. Perhaps they have a good reason. But the virus has not yet begun to spread to any great extent in North America. The most recent count of American cases I’ve seen is fourteen. Watchfulness and the avoidance of unnecessary risks are appropriate measures. More than that? I don’t think so. Choose according to your own judgment.

An Announcement

     I don’t tolerate personal insults, denigrations, or belittlements here at Liberty’s Torch, whether they’re aimed at me, a Co-Contributor, or a reader. Insults from one who issues them from behind an anonymizing moniker or “handle” are contemptible in the extreme. When they arrive, I delete them, such that no one other than I will ever see them.

     When insults arrive from a source that regularly does so, I ban that source from commenting here: his subsequent comments are automatically deleted without ever being read. While such a lowlife could adopt a new moniker, I can track any number of such. At some point the offender will grow weary of his little pastime and slink away. I am confident of this from experience.

     Yes, such a harasser has come to my attention. Yes, I have recorded his moniker in my “little list.” And he never will be missed. To those who value the privilege of commenting here: don’t be like him. My tolerance for such behavior is nonexistent.

Concerning The Coronavirus

     The reaction to this new disease that gets the most air time and column-inches has been hysteria: a pseudo-panic more appropriate to a potentially world-ending event – and I have a sneaking feeling that it’s mostly a media artifact.

     Nevertheless, I’ve been seeing emissions such as this one rather frequently:

     Such recommendations, to my mind, are more dangerous than the Coronavirus itself. To follow it in its entirety would be to abandon society, personal affection, and all external involvements in the name of germophobia. Among other things, it would result in a severe reduction of economic activity – and a healthy economy is one of the requirements for maintaining a healthy population. Contrary to a lot of Leftists’ opinions, medical products and services do not grow on trees.

     One respondent said that “some temporary adaptation to environment may be necessary.” If we were talking about the Bubonic Plague, I might agree – and the response that physician recommended would be more appropriate. Indeed, it would be near to mandatory, especially for anyone with dependents. But this is a flu-like virus that has a mortality rate (reported) of about 5% — and apparently that mortality rate is skewed by age and other factors. So an "adaptation to environment" that amounts to huddling behind a locked door strikes me as excessive, and probably worse for us than maintaining a reasonable facsimile of our usual affairs.

     For some reason this puts me in mind of a passage from Steven Brust’s The Phoenix Guards:

     “Let me tell you a story,” Aerich said.
     “Ah,” said Tazendra. “I should like to hear a story.”
     “Well then, here it is. Once there was a young man of the House of the Lyorn. He was raised in a proud family, and brought up in all the ways he ought to have been. That is, he was taught history, poetics, philosophy, sorcery, swordsmanship, penmanship, and the thousand other things necessary for one who is to rule over the lands and vassals he will someday inherit—for he was the eldest child, in fact, the only child of this family.”
     He paused to sip his tea. Khaavren thought he detected an odd tremor in the Lyorn’s hand. He said, “Pray continue, good Aerich. You perceive we are all listening most adamantly.”
     “Well, it so happened that at just about the time this gentleman reached the age of eighty—that is, well before, by the custom of his House, he was considered to have reached maturity—his father became involved in court politics. To be precise, he was called in by His Majesty, Cherova, for advice on settling matters with the King of Elde Island, whose name, I regret to say, escapes me.”
     “I think it is not important,” said Khaavren. “Please continue.”
     “Yes. Well, a certain individual, also of the House of the Lyorn, had, until that time, been advising His Late Majesty on the subject, but m—, that is to say, the young man’s father proved more able to conduct negotiations.”
     “Well,” said Khaavren, “it would seem that this would be all to the good.”
     “So it would seem, good Khaavren. Yet there are times when it is dangerous to succeed where another fails.”
     “Ah. There was jealousy?”
     “You have it exactly,” said Aerich. “And not only jealousy, but the power to act on it. The discredited advisor was not above using subterfuge and hiring known thieves. It began to appear as if the successful advisor were unscrupulous. The evidence mounted until, driven to distraction, the gentleman began to fight back in ways he would never have thought himself capable of using. Of course, this was discovered, and, in less time than one would have thought possible, the successful advisor became the discredited one, and, furthermore, all of his lands were taken and he died a broken, penniless man, leaving his son trained to rule a fief that was no longer in the family.”
     Khaavren studied his friend for some moments, then said, “And the unscrupulous advisor, could his name, perhaps, have been Shaltre?”
     Aerich stared at him coldly. “I have no idea to what you could be referring. I was telling a story, to illustrate a point.”
     “And the point, good Aerich?”
     “The point is that it is sometimes dangerous to meddle with those who have fewer scruples than you do; you may lose more than your life. You may lose a stake you didn’t know you had set onto the board.”
     “And yet, good Aerich, was the Lyorn wrong to have done what he could for the Empire?”
     “Ah, as to that, I do not say. I merely bring up a matter for you to consider before you dive headlong into danger of an unknown sort, from an unknown quarter. We have no worry for our lives, after all; they have belonged to the Empire from the moment we took our oaths. But what are we prepared to risk, my friends? Surely this deserves some consideration.”
     As he spoke, Khaavren felt a sudden chill, as if, in the winter, a window had been left open and cold air, unmistakable in feeling yet indefinite in source, had touched the back of his neck and sent its tendrils down his spine. He sent a glance at Pel, who was frowning and staring at the floor.
     Tazendra, however, said, “But consider that, if we do nothing, we are giving in to fear of the worst sort—the fear of unknown dangers. We may scorn a man who runs from a battle he cannot win; how much more should we scorn a man who runs from a place where he thinks there might be a battle that perhaps he cannot win?”
     Khaavren stirred. “I think our friend the Dzur has the right on this, good Aerich.”
     The Lyorn sighed. “Yes,” he said. “I’m afraid I agree. And you, good Pel?”
     The Yendi made a dismissing gesture with a wave of his hand. “We are young, we are brave, and we are four together. If we let fear direct us now, what will we do when we have lived a millennium or two, and know the full measure of terror? We will be afraid to throw a stick in a river, lest we be splashed by water that has somehow been poisoned. I agree with Tazendra.”

     Judicious fear can be useful: protective, sometimes even a spur to personal improvement. But unreasoning fear, fear of something not yet demonstrated to be a significant threat, is the opposite. Consider the way the Left and the media (BIRM) have relentlessly worked to spread a fear of firearms among naive Americans, and to discourage them from learning more about them and the enthusiasts who own them.

     Think about it.

Digital Slugs

     I found this at Brock Townsend’s place:

     There’s a “pincer movement” involved here. Worse, really: a pincer movement normally has only two active elements. This problem has more than that.

     First, parents are more burdened than ever before, especially by our economic situations. Consequently, they’re less involved with their kids than ever before. The “glass teat,” whether it’s a TV, a tablet, a game console, or a phone, is a burden reducer for the parents. They lack sufficient incentives to change the pattern.

     Second, the makers of digital diversions are very, very good at making them psychologically addictive. Kids are easy to hook, especially kids who are already disinclined to exercise or are averse to the outdoors. Their preferences tend to strengthen with the repetition of their chosen behavior.

     Third, the world beyond the front door, whether or not it’s actually getting more dangerous, is being billed as more dangerous than ever, especially for children. That’s another disincentive to shoving Junior outside and requiring him to find something to do.

     Fourth, many of the pastimes kids of previous generations adopted were ones they acquired from their parents. Today’s typical parent probably doesn’t have any pastimes he could share with a pre-teen. Very few maintain gardens, or build treehouses, or go walking regularly, even in districts where there are inducements to such things. In part that’s because of Item #1 above – contemporary American parents lack time and energy owing to their economic burdens – but in part it’s because the many habit-forming digital diversions that surround us have affected us too. I know a considerable number of people whose smartphones are never out of their hands. In fact, I’m married to one.

     Fifth – and this one may strike you as paradoxical – there’s been a sharp decline in the activity from which kids and their parents once acquired their interest in new activities and pastimes: reading. Reading has been called “the key to power,” and it is exactly that. It opens the world to you, to a far greater extent than watching TV or YouTube videos. So while reading is a quiet, non-physical “indoor” activity, it’s a spur to the inquisitive mind that prompts such a mind to investigate new activities...and what’s more inquisitive than the mind of a pre-teen?

     I could go on. For example, I haven’t said anything about the role of the schools in this, and they do have one. But the above five elements strike me as the most important ones. Moreover, they’re coupled in a fashion that makes them mutually supporting. It’s possible that they must be solved concurrently or not at all. Think about it.

     All that having been said, we must start somewhere, and my preference is here:

If you have young children, don’t give them smartphones.

     That’s where the addiction most commonly originates. The smartphone, with its embedded access to diabolical contrivances such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and a plethora of games, is probably the worst thing a parent could inflict upon a defenseless child. The cost ain’t trivial, either.

     Take it seriously, Gentle Reader. Think about it. There will be consequences either way – and some of them could be for you. Would you want a noodle-muscled slug, a useless lump of flesh who probably can’t even think of changing a flat tire without giving in to the shivers, to be responsible for your care when you’re an aged invalid? Wouldn’t you prefer to have a moderately competent, strong, and resilient son or daughter to haul you around, change your nappies, and keep you company when you need to vent about “the old days?” Or would you rather be a pig in a nursing home, surrounded exclusively by indifferent orderlies who walk right past you, and other octogenarians, none of whom will stop talking and listen to you for just one minute?

     Verbum sat sapienti.

The Monomaniac

     Have you heard the phrase “one-issue voter?” It was more prevalent some years back. It refers, of course, to the citizen so concerned with a single issue in public policy that literally nothing else matters to him when he considers candidates for public office. In other words, he’s a policy monomaniac.

     There have always been one-issue voters, and there always will be. The logic to it is fairly simple: If Smith believes that the whole of the Republic could stand or fall according to the government’s decisions about this one issue, then that issue deserves to be paramount. Nothing else matters nearly as much.

     Problems arise when there are lots of issues that have plausible claims to paramount status. In a Constitutional federated republic such as the United States, I could tick off about a thousand such topics, but that arises from my monomania, about which I’ll say more in a moment.

     There are monomaniacs of many varieties. For example, just now we have a gaggle of folks who are anti-Trump monomaniacs. They don’t think of themselves that way. We who value President Trump’s fighting stance for his convictions and his agenda have other terms for them as well.

     As I said, I too am a monomaniac of sorts. My monomania is about constitutionalism: the doctrine that there must be a Supreme Law to which all other law is subordinate. Your monomania, if you have one, may vary. But I’m not relentless about it, though I was when I was much younger. In ordinary conversation with others, I strive not to seem monomaniacal about it. Rather, I look for points of contact that offer the possibility of getting the other person to see things as I see them.

     The relentless monomaniac is a tiring fellow. You can’t really talk to him; you can only agree or disagree with him. At parties he’s the one everyone strives to avoid engaging. On the Web he’s unable to talk about anything but his obsession. There are quite a few such on the Web.

     There aren’t many folks who actually think about politics. I’m not sure things were ever much different. Whatever the case, it’s a lamentable state of affairs. A little hard thought could ameliorate (NB: not “solve”) a lot of problems. But hard thought, like hard work, isn’t many people’s idea of fun. It certainly doesn’t appeal to the relentless monomaniac.

     I struck a site from the Liberty’s Torch blogroll this morning because I’ve grown tired of the proprietor’s monomania. All he needs is the barest hint, the mere whisper that you’re on the wrong side of his pet issue, and he’ll call you everything but white. Moreover, he “shoots from the lip” without knowing anything about the person of whom he’s speaking. In my book that’s close to unforgivable.

     If you must be a monomaniac – and it’s possible, at least in theory, that all stances formed from sincere conviction must ultimately be monomaniacal – please don’t be a relentless or humorless one. It would render me unable to read your ventings. I value my Web reading list, especially in the early morning when I’m casting about for the subject for the day’s tirade.

     Most important for today’s exercise in character improvement, don’t go talking trash about people you don’t know anything about. Leave that sort of shit-slinging to the Leftists.

Peak hypocrisy.

I know. There's no upper limit but just work with me here, ok?

[According to the latest report from the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center, "[c]ritical infrastructure” and “key supply chains” are to be protected at all costs, while “democratic institutions and processes” are to be defended against “foreign influence” in order to “preserve our culture of openness.”

However, the section on “defending American democracy against foreign influence” recommends the US “deepen existing and develop new foreign partnerships,” apparently confident that allies who’ve been caught meddling extensively in other countries’ elections won’t turn their skills against Uncle Sam. Perhaps more importantly, a spy agency calling to “preserve our culture of openness,” while denouncing “public disclosure organizations” as a threat to the American Way of Life on par with ISIS is further evidence Washington doesn’t need foreign help sowing distrust in its institutions.^[1]

Of course, there are legitimate government secrets that must be kept. Sources and methods of the intelligence agencies are a no brainer.

However, that category of secrets termed "legitimate" is a lot more circumscribed than the princelings and barons would have us believe. "Legitimate" is suspiciously coterminous with "embarrassing," like as not.

After more than half a century of trust of and respect for my government I'm now firmly committed to the proposition that the upper reaches of all three branches of the federal government are staffed by ladies and ginamans who would be more useful to our multicultural hotbed of excellence were they to equip themselves with a plumber's snake and go to work in that line of endeavor.

At least they'd be used to the smell.

Notes
^[1] "Terrorists, Iran and…WikiLeaks? US counter-intel agency puts ‘public disclosure groups’ on same threat list as Al-Qaeda & ISIS." By RT, 2/11/20 (emphasis added).

Testing out a new code piece

I was reminded about using a New Window for links to other sites. So, I'm going to test it out here.

The High Cost of Dissent From the Leftist Orthodoxy

It may hit women harder (yeah, I know, I know). But, it is true that many women are deeply dependent on social acceptance.

Here is the story about one of those dissident women. She risked paying a huge price in her online business.

She makes a point about the fact that women, generally, only slam their victims publicly. They don't contact the subject of their bullying directly, through messaging or email. This would fit the idea that for women, this group bullying is a mechanism through which they publicly declare their allegiance to the group.

Thursday Again Already?

     I’d swear we had to endure one of these only a week ago. Ah, well. One does what one must.

---

1. The Sanders Agenda: A Compendium.

     Emily Jashinsky and Madeline Osburn have kindly compiled the elements of Bernie Sanders’s agenda for the United States in a single, maximally convenient place. Rather than enumerate those elements here, I urge you, Gentle Reader, to read the cited article and try to imagine an America under such a regime.

     Now, the point of this citation isn’t that it’s newsworthy for an avowed socialist to have a lot of insane, destructive ideas. Sane people expect insane people to have insane, destructive ideas. No, the point of this citation is that certain persons who have styled themselves “conservatives,” – yea, even “principled” conservatives, unlike thee and me – have argued that it’s so vitally important to remove Donald Trump from the Oval Office that conservatives’ votes must go to whatever Democrat is nominated. That would of course include the Septuagenarian Leninist from Vermont, Senator Bernard Sanders.

     I forget who, but someone in my morning reading list has derided the NeverTrumper pseudo-conservatives aligned with Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David French as a dying fringe that “couldn’t field a full softball team.” Wait just a moment while I backpatch...ah, here it is:

     For the sake of the Republic, I hope that assessment is accurate.

---

2. “He’s Not Supposed To Do That!”

     But as Julie Kelly is here to remind us, that’s his prerogative:

     The mood on the set of MSNBC was grim.

     Rachel Maddow fought back tears of rage. Brian Williams struggled to make sense of it all. A former U.S. senator flailed her arms in frustration and indignation....

     Maddow and company’s hysterics centered around the news that Attorney General William Barr had intervened to reduce an egregious sentencing recommendation against Roger Stone, a former Trump confidant convicted of five counts of lying to Congress, one count of witness-tampering, and one count of obstruction of justice. (Otherwise known as a day at the office for California congressman and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.)

     Read it all. Enjoy the fulminations.

     Attorney-General Barr intervened to alter a recommendation. As the nation’s highest lawyer-prosecutor, that’s his unchallengeable right. It does not infringe on anyone else’s authority. Moreover, Roger Stone’s four lead prosecutors have all departed from the Justice Department under fogs of varying densities. You’d think that for the AG to step in under those circumstances would be quite natural...if you'd think.

     But the Left had been slavering over this mini-victory. Now it will be at least partly ripped from their loving clutches. Poor babies.

---

3. “They’re Attacking Our Base!”

     In the North Central U.S., two key states of which went for Trump in 2016, the Democrats’ base is dead and fictitious voters:

     Liberal groups and high-powered New York attorneys swooped into Detroit this week to help the city fight a lawsuit over its voter roll irregularities, which included thousands of deceased individuals appearing on the rolls.

     The League of Women Voters of Michigan and its Detroit chapter filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Detroit city clerk Janice Winfrey and Director of Elections George Azzouz. Winfrey and Azzouz were sued in December by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), an election integrity group. The officials had ignored PILF's requests to inspect Detroit's voter registrations after the group discovered thousands of ineligible voters on the city's rolls....

     The liberal groups and attorneys are converging on Detroit as part of a broader campaign against alleged efforts to "purge" individuals from voter rolls. Democrats have built a massive network of nonprofit groups, funded by George Soros and other liberal donors, to oppose Republican-backed voting initiatives such as voter identification laws. Michigan is a significant target for such efforts given its "swing state" status; Trump won the state by just 10,000 votes in the 2016 election.

     "The national 2020 elections will be held in less than nine months," the League states in its motion. "If a resolution of this matter—whether by court order or through a negotiated settlement—results in an aggressive purge and a heightened standard for voter list maintenance beyond reasonableness, the League may not have significant time to remedy the issue."

     Never imagine that “reasonable” in the mouth of a leftist means anything but “do it my way” – and never imagine that the League of Women Voters is anything more than another left-wing activist group fueled by cash from the Soroses and Steyers.

---

4. From My Vietnamese-American Sweetie.

     Gentle Readers who remember the late, deeply lamented Eternity Road might remember my dear friend and shoe addict Duyen Ky. Duyen is now safely married, semi-retired from her marketing business, and struggling to grow bok choy in her back yard. However, she’s still something of a shoe fanatic. Yesterday she sent me this atrocity:

     I was...disturbed, to say the least. The following brief conversation ensued:

FWP: You aren’t planning to buy a pair of those, are you?
DK: Get serious, Flashy. I just thought you’d get a laugh out of them.
FWP: Duyen, the designer sincerely expects that women will buy those...things.
DK: I know. And some women will. We’re a little strange when it comes to shoes.
FWP: As if I needed to be told.
DK: So how many pairs of shoes does Beth own, eh?
FWP: Rather large weather we’ve been having lately, say what?

     “How interesting it must be to belong to a race of two sentient sexes.” – “Speaker to Animals,” in Larry Niven’s Ringworld.

---

     That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. Much work looms before me. I’ll see you tomorrow. Be here! Aloha!

Don't even think about suing me.

From a YouTube how-to vid on removing rust by means of electrolysis:

This product is meant for entertainment purposes only. Your mileage may vary. Do not try this at home. Void where prohibited. Some assembly required. For off-road use only. Slippery when wet. Batteries not included. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle, heavy equipment, cherokee XJ, wrangler TJ, wrangler JK, or any Jeep vehicle, especially the newer Fiat ones. How-to videos may be too intense for some viewers and children under 30 years of age. Please remain seated until the 4x4 ride has come to a complete stop. Studies have shown viewing these videos causes increased cancer risks in laboratory test people. I am not a professional, I have no training, I'm not even particularly good at horse whispering. Don't believe everything that you know. Please keep your hands in the vehicle at all times. Do not tap on glass. Do not eat anything that has been on the floor for more than 3 days. Keep your hands to yourself. Not to be taken internally. Reproduction strictly prohibited. Driver does not carry cash. Objects in Bleepinjeep mirrors may be farther than they appear.

"Remove Rust With Electrolysis." By Tyler, BleepinJeep, YouTube, __/__/19.

Yes, Size Does Matter

     In this case, the sizes of supergiant stars and the Milky Way Galaxy:

     Supergiant star Betelgeuse has been getting dimmer at an unprecedented pace over the past few months, leading some astronomers to wonder if it might be in the process of the collapse that precedes a supernova explosion. But there are other possible explanations, and we should have a better idea of what's happening to the massive star by the end of the month.

     Veteran Villanova University astronomer Edward Guinan has been watching Betelgeuse for decades and reported earlier this month that the star appears to be "the least luminous and coolest yet measured from our 25 years of photometry."

     It's well known Betelgeuse has no more than about 100,000 years left to burn and could start its death throes just about anytime between now and then. When it does go supernova, it's expected to result in a dramatic light show that could be visible in daylight and appear brighter than the full moon for a few weeks. The last time humans were treated to such a sight was the 17th century.

     Betelgeuse is enormous. Its diameter is very nearly the same as that of Jupiter’s orbit. As a class M star, it’s expected to have relatively few years remaining before it...does what?

     Well, it might gutter out. Or it might go supernova. Both deteriorations are possible, supported by models of stellar physics that have not yet been disproved and might never be. But those observing Betelgeuse are rooting for a supernova. Why? Because the last known supernova occurred before the development of astronomical instruments capable of appreciating the event!

     The last supernova on record was observed in 1604: Kepler’s Star, which was about 20,000 light years distant from Earth. It was very bright for a while, peaking at a visual magnitude of -2.5 and fading to invisibility only after three weeks.

     Now, you might be thinking “Bring on the fireworks!” You might be thinking that if Betelgeuse is observed to go supernova, we’ll have ourselves a few weeks’ light show, and the astrophysics community will get a chance to confirm a few things and disprove a few others, and that’s about it. But there are a few possibilities physicists dislike to discuss out loud. Some of them pertain to a supernova that occurs relatively close to Earth, which Kepler’s Star was not.

     A supernova is highly exoenergetic. Its emissions include both matter and electromagnetic radiation. The radiation covers a very wide portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. And radiation can travel a very long distance. Especially ultra-short-wavelength radiation of the sort that’s dangerous to living creatures.

     Now, I did say “a supernova that’s relatively close to Earth.” How close is that? Well, it would have to be closer than Kepler’s Star at 20,000 light years...but Betelgeuse, a supergiant star 700 light years away estimated to be about twenty times the mass of our Sun, might be close enough to qualify.

     Now, there’s no cause for alarm. I mean, no power on earth could do anything to prevent Betelgeuse from going supernova. (Don’t bother writing to your Congressman.) Besides, it’s already happened...if it happened at all.

     Light, the fastest moving phenomenon of which we know, moves at...the speed of light! And that speed is...one light-year per year! So if astronomers in this Year of Our Lord 2020 do get to observe a supernova at Betelgeuse, it will be because it happened 700 years ago.

     What’s done, as they say, is done. No point wringing our hands about it.

     But the physics of stellar collapse is largely a matter of theory that needs confirming data. Astrophysicists think they know what happens in a nova or supernova. However, we lack enough observational data to have high confidence in the models. Moreover, some of the data we really need could only be amassed from rather close to an exploding star...a place I, for one, would not care to be.

     But there is at least one certainty available to us: a certainty that recent events have “nailed to the wall” so tightly that no one, be he astrophysicist or layman, can doubt it for a moment. Whether you regard it as an occasion for laughter or tears, it’s as certain as the Sun rising in the East. And it is only this:

     Whatever happens, the Democrats will blame Trump.

I LIKE This Focus on Government Budgets

I hadn't known a lot about Sen. Jodi Ernst before. Honestly, I would have neither recognized a picture of her, nor been able to tell you which state she represented (Iowa), let alone her positions on legislation.

But, this Breitbart story is one to read. Many of these provisions in the bill are good common sense, and the aspects forcing the House to postpone adjournment until after their budget is delivered is priceless.

If she can manage to pull this one off, she would be in an excellent position to enter the 2024 Presidential race, whether in the top spot, or looking for a role as a VP.

Digging Out the Deep State

I'm not one that faults Trump, or his team, for not having done it yet. This was a deeply entrenched group of people. However, they were - and are - vulnerable on one front.

They were dumb enough to communicate, regularly, with the media. Some have extensive contacts with media who gave them stuff.

A practice otherwise known as a bribe.

Now, that is an indictable, FIREABLE offense.

The Deep State didn't start acting under Obama. They've been around for a LONG time. It will take time to clear them out.

One thing that Trump can do is put in place oversight. If an employee's actions have caused trouble with one sector of government, that person needs to be stopped from transferring to another sector - however seemingly innocuous. Similarly, a shady background in a hire for a part of government that is far distant from Intelligence, Enforcement, or State needs to be blocked. Many of the employees in the State Dept. that caused problems with their Soviet contacts/influencers were originally in the Agriculture Dept. At the time they were hired (the Depression), Ag was growing, and they began their Long March Through Government.

Guys, these people clearly aren't Rocket Scientists. They're often the dumbest and most transparent of the pack.

However, there is one thing that needs to be looked at when hiring.

Where does the spouse work, and who are the contacts? Too many of the spouses have been connected to news media, Leftist foundations, and Leftist lobbying organizations. The idea of a "Power Couple" hides the reality:

The spouse's function is to provide cover for bribery, influence, and under-the-table contacts.

Take a good look at what the spouse does, and who her/his contacts and closest associates are. Then, fire the employee, if the connection has caused problems - like Bruce Ohr did.