The Potemkin Campaign

 Like a number of other people, including (today) some Minnesota reporters who were told that only national media would be inside the hall where Joe Biden is to make his Duluth appearance, I've been wondering: what's the point? Why is this tired, incoherent old guy flying around the country only to speak to half a dozen reporters, and usually taking no questions afterwards? 

Then it dawned on me. The national media is a wholely-owned subsidiary of the Democrat party now; they can be trusted to report only what the Biden campaign wants reported. People whose sole source of "news" is that they're occasionally in the same room as a TV tuned to CNN will hear "Oh, Biden went to Florida, he went to Michigan, he's been campaigning all over the place." 

They will not hear that he gave a very short speech to a handful of reporters. They won't hear that he stumbled even over that, because evidently reading from the teleprompter is becoming too challenging for him. They won't hear that he left after taking only three questions from a list prepared in advance. 

I think the purpose of this frenetic pseudo-activity is to prepare the ground for his failure to appear in the scheduled debates. The story is going to be, "Hey, he's in great shape, he's been campaigning all over the country, he just won't be able to be in the same room as Trump on September 29 because.... reasons."

They may be testing various excuses on focus groups right now, trying to decide which one will go over best. Or they may have the "reason" prepared and ready to roll out just before the first scheduled debate. Maybe we could start a pool on which excuse they're going to use.

Partisanship - How it Differs From How Normal People Function - With UPDATES!

 I was reading Cold Fury today, and found this post on Partisanship, and how it has changed America.

Most Normal people don't organize their opinions and thinking around the 'acceptable viewpoints on every topic'. We pick our positions, not on a rigid philosophical basis, but on the question:

How does this affect ME?

 Now, I acknowledge that this is not a highly intellectual way to look at issues. Heck, it's not even SLIGHTLY cerebral.

What is it, though, is a way of thinking about the world that makes SENSE.

The average American does not vote the Straight Party Ticket. Instead, we are willing to listen to a variety of viewpoints and approaches to governing, often picking our choices by selecting "someone I can trust to do the right thing". It is such an approach that nearly sank Trump's campaign in some states, as the media drumbeat cast major doubts on his trustworthiness, particularly with women.

We didn't know that much about his life, other than what hit the tabloids. Our experience with his business ventures was limited to big successes and epic failures. The voters generally prefer the candidate who can keep America on an even keel.

It's four years later. Despite the constant criticism and emotional screams of the Left, most people have learned that Trump is NOT a tyrant, nor an incompetent, nor a slacker.

He hasn't enriched his family - in fact, some of them have seen their businesses suffer from the boycotts, investigations, and abuse of the Left.

He hasn't had wild orgies, over-the-top entertainment extravaganzas, or lavish vacations on the public dime.

He's not flouted court orders; when he disagrees with a court's decision (whether on a policy, or in handling his personal affairs), he's brought in the lawyers. Lots of lawyers,

He hasn't engaged in wholesale firing of people (other than his personal lawyers). He generally gives people second chances, holding off on forcing their exit until their disloyalty or incompetence is evident. He has let his executive staff manage their own departments (although often with some public criticism, should they fail him in a big way).

Despite provocation in Seattle, Portland, and other cities by the "peaceful protesters", he hasn't sent in armed men to put a smack-down on them. He DID federalize local officers, to allow Federal arrests to be made, despite the governors' failure to act.

But, no, not a tyrant. Not inept. Generally, a fairly decent administrator, and operating within the Constitution.

Such action have ENRAGED the Left, mostly because he hasn't fallen into their trap of being heavy-handed.

How have ordinary citizens reacted?

With support. With a willingness to consider voting for him. With increasingly suspicious of media 'narratives' (which will come in HUGELY when the inevitable October 'surprise' is released). With lessened hostility.

The tepid and sparse crowds for Joe Biden are a reflection of his weak appeal (as well as disinclination to vote for an obviously addled candidate).

Harris was a surprise to me. I didn't really like her, but I thought others might.

Surprise, surprise. People DON'T warm up to her. She looks like a lightweight, who got their the old-fashioned Leftist way - on her knees.

Even my husband, a man with an eye for hot women, and a reliable Dem vote, doesn't like her - at all.

Black men don't like her. At least, the ones I've talked to.

I don't pay that much attention to political spouses, other than to note - does he/she seem to respect the candidate? If they don't, that's a danger sign (they know them very well, so if they don't have, at the least, respect for that person, maybe they know something I don't).

Have you noticed that Kamala's husband is seldom seen? Could that be because he is 'inconveniently' White?

Not as bad as a White wife - which seems to ENRAGE Black women. But, still, not a plus.

Back to partisanship. The absence of that in most Americans may favor Trump. Many will split their votes, and re-elect Trump/Pence.

That won't stop the Left, but it may slow them down a little, particularly since The Donald, as Ivana used to call him, may have coattails.

UPDATE: I found this related post on American Thinker. Check it out, you may well see someone you know who has the type of thinking mentioned in it.

And, forgive the changes, but I thought this both an appropriate characterization, but also well-written.

Those Who Have Not Love

     Ultimately, love is everything. – M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled

     And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. – First letter of John, 4:16

     “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, the doing will bring the feeling in its wake.” – Father Raymond Altomare, The Wise and the Mad

     There are many quotes about love and its centrality in Christian thought and faith. I could cite them one after another and not be done by day’s end. Every Christian will be aware of them, at least. But few are capable of living according to them, wholly and without reservation.

     There are reasons for that. God is love, and to the extent that we are made in His image – i.e., as creatures with immortal souls – we have both the capacity for love and the will to give and to receive it. But we are not souls alone; we also have bodies with a survival imperative ingrained in them, and minds that are capable of both rational thought and sub-rational passions.

     In this regard, it is important to remain aware that we are what God has made us. We are intended to live the lives He has designed for us. Those lives will perforce include love, reason, and passion. The absence of any of the three would mark a man as less than fully human.

     Another distinguishing characteristic of Man is his ability to inhibit himself – i.e., his ability to refrain from acting on his passions. The lesser orders cannot do so; their behavior is wholly dictated by their flesh. Isabel Paterson gives us an example of the high importance of Man’s capacity for self-inhibition:

     When a civilized man builds a house, the plans must be laid out and materials assembled over a considerable period, and paid for by savings involving exchange of labor with many other persons. He must therefore impose restraints on himself for objectives distant in time and needing to be directed through space. He lives in the past and future as well as the present. His initiative will be wasted unless he also inhibits himself; and further, he must be able to count upon others who participate in the exchange to observe like long-term inhibitions. At an early stage in trade it becomes inconvenient to depend upon barter of goods from the hand of one owner to another. With objects of unequal worth, or in a series of exchanges, or in case of deferred deliveries, a medium of value is wanted; this is money. And throughout the series, a succession of inhibitions must be maintained; otherwise at some point the goods will be consumed and no return made. [From The God of the Machine]

     Love is expressed in such constructive self-inhibition:

• Love of one’s life;
• Love of one’s family;
• Love of one’s neighbors;
• Love of peace and justice;
• Love of the laws of nature – and therefore, of Nature’s God.

Which brings me to my non-theological topic for the morning.

---

     We have been witnessing the protracted deaths of several American cities. One of them, Minneapolis, presents an especially stark picture:

• Stores are forbidden to install security shutters.
• Individuals are forbidden to defend themselves.
• And where are the police?

     I doubt I need to enlarge upon those stories with commentary. The “authorities” of Minneapolis have decreed that the rioters and looters shall not be resisted. The residents of that city who love the businesses they’ve built, the families they’ve raised and support, and their own lives are forbidden to defend them. The “institution of public defense,” the police, have been told in no uncertain terms to let the rioters and looters do what they wish.

     Who is acting from love in this drama? Who is acting from rage and greed? Who is acting from political avidity or cowardice?

     The suicide of a city is no more an act of love than the suicide of a man.

---

     “It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two, Master Warden,' answered Éowyn. 'And those who have not swords can still die upon them.” -- John Ronald Reuel Tolkien

     Similarly, those who have not love can die for the lack of it. What happens when a creature exhausts its habitat of food by consuming without limit? Sometimes, the creature can find another locale suited to its occupancy...but not always. What happens when a parasite weakens its host to exhaustion and death by multiplying without limit? The parasite dies just as surely. And what will happen to the Takers and Fakers of Minneapolis when its climate is universally recognized to be hostile to Makers – i.e., to all productive effort?

     In these United States, the Takers and Fakers have succeeded in fastening themselves onto the Makers through the exploitation of unearned guilt. They’ve multiplied and grown fat while the Makers have grown lean. Yet were the Makers to withdraw their support, they would perish in a body – and they know it.

     The Takers and Fakers, in Minneapolis and elsewhere, have fed on the productivity of the Makers. It cannot be otherwise. But the sanction of the Makers can be withdrawn. Present trends continuing, it will be.

     Worse is possible. Should the Makers become convinced that the Takers – i.e., the government – have been consciously complicit in the ravaging they’ve suffered, they’ll want vengeance. The Takers won’t merely lose “the consent of the governed.” They’re likely to lose much more. In those circumstances I don’t think the police would come to their aid; do you?

     If Minneapolis had a government composed of officials who love their city and understand what it takes to make it livable, this would not be in prospect. Plainly, at this time it doesn’t – and the officials’ demonstrated lack of love for their city dooms them just as it dooms Minneapolis.

---

     It can happen anywhere. Indeed, the dynamic of power-seeking makes it more likely than not to happen in every place where Makers have prospered, for those are the places that Takers and Fakers will seek out and batten upon. If the Makers cannot restrain the Fakers and suppress the Takers, death through unrestrained predation is inevitable.

     But that requires that the Makers be men of a certain type. Men who have love and know what deserves to be loved. Minneapolis has fewer such men than it needs. It suffers far more of those who have not love than it can survive.

     What about your city?

So, AntiFa is Not Just Random People who HAPPEN to Be Passionate About Politics

But a committed, loosely confederated group of people, who act in a coordinated way, and with similar tactics and organizational strategies. They've clearly been trained by people operating from the same playbooks.

Not that it's a surprise, just nice to have some confirmation about the suspicions.

There are two branches of this organization:

• The rovers, who travel from city-to-city, teaching the tactics, and having 2 agendas - to openly promote 'peaceful' protest, and to teach others to spark the more violent activities, mostly after dark. They are careful to maintain their distance from actual crimes, using others to vie for attention in competitive destruction. They have been coordinating this through radio communication (a FEDERAL crime, if used to facilitate an illegal action), and use of light bars to direct movement. They have passed out lasers, helmets, weaponry, and managed the staging of various 'improvised' weapons - bricks, chains, bicycle locks, shields, skateboards, etc.
• The locals, who are 'the face' of the peaceful movement. What do they get out of this? They are able to build a power base, from which to launch careers in public life, or move into corporate America, as a SJW hire. Sometimes, both. For them, it's important to stand apart from actual crimes/violence, for deniability purposes.

A side note: I'd not read The Flight 93 Election Before (I think it was behind a paywall, then). It's here, and it hammers down on the 3 main points to vote for Trump:

• War - we DON'T need to be in another one. Sending in Americans to fight the battles of business is not only pointless, but wasteful of some of our best people.
• Trade - we need to stop facilitating losses on the balance of it. Other countries play the USA's policies for their own benefit - no surprise, given how much those countries pay off the elected officials. I like Trump's quid pro quo stance - if you play fair with us, we're good. If your trade policies unfairly give you a let up - WHILE KEEPING YOUR MARKETS CLOSED TO US - we're imposing tariffs.
• Immigration - we need to choke off illegal immigration - it's both killing job opportunities for Americans, but also unfairly favoring the big corporations at the expense of their competitors. Even if we return all those currently illegally here (including some of the MANY who have overstayed visas), it will be years before we can have our system back to stability and fairness. Trump's done one very good move here - he's appointed judicial members who ultimately have the potential to rein in the out of control district courts.

The main point of the article is that NO OTHER CANDIDATE HAD EMBRACED ALL OF THOSE POSITIONS - and they were core to the idea of Conservatism. Note that all of the above principles have the same common sense basis - we're in favor of less government, UNLESS someone puts their fingers on the scale, and disadvantages Americans. Then, the President can act, to restore the status quo. Once that happens, it's fine to return to less intervention by government.

Take Them Seriously

     I encountered the following over at 90 Miles From Tyranny:

     James Woods isn’t just highly intelligent; he’s also diligent and has a reputation for honesty. All the same, I decided to be diligent myself and check what he asserts in the above.

     And...weeelllll, it’s not quite right. Here’s the only thing I could find in the Dems’ platform that appears to touch on 401(k) and IRA accounts:

     We will also make it easier to save for retirement beyond Social Security. We will support approaches to retirement saving that enable workers and retirees to prepare for and prosper in retirement, including reforms that will allow states and municipalities to create public individual and pooled retirement account options that are easy for workers to access and understand. We will advocate federal legislation to make it easy for all workers to save, not just those in states or municipalities that have established their own programs. Democrats believe that when workers are saving for retirement, the financial advisors they consult should be legally obligated to put their client's best interests first. We will take immediate action to reverse the Trump Administration's regulations allowing financial advisors to prioritize their self-interest over their clients' financial wellbeing. And Democrats will equalize the network of retirement savings tax breaks so that working people can build their nest eggs faster, while also providing more equitable access to these accounts through automatic enrollment and relaxed contribution restrictions for unpaid caregivers. [Emphasis added by FWP.]

     That’s on page 26 of the 92-page Democrat Party Platform for 2020, which I downloaded from here. As far as I can tell, the platform makes no explicit reference to either 401(k) accounts or Individual Retirement Accounts. If a previous version of the platform did so, I can’t find it.

     Mind you, whenever a politician starts talking about “taxes” and “equality” or “equalization,” you should have one hand on your wallet and the other on your gun. “Retirement savings tax breaks” are principally implemented through the 401(k) and IRA systems. If the Democrats intend to “equalize” those things, certain questions arise:

• “Equalize” meaning what? Which rates would go up and which ones would go down?
• Would that “equalization” be with the tax rates on Americans’ Social Security benefits?
• Would the new rates apply to retirees currently supported in part by their 401(k)s and / or IRAs?

     I have an uneasy feeling that these are questions no Democrat currently in or running for federal office would answer honestly and explicitly. But then, they’re unlikely to answer any question in a fashion that would deprive them of finagling room later on.

     Take them seriously. They’ve been after your retirement savings for at least thirty years. The proposals have been several:

• To eliminate the “favorable tax treatment” of 401(k) and IRA accounts, as implied above;
• To make the purchase of T-Bills by pension systems and 401(k) account holders compulsory;
• To seize all pension accounts, 401(k) accounts, and IRAs and fold them into Social Security.

     I’ve noted these things before. Any of them would enrich the already bloated federal government and impoverish millions of current and future retirees.

     Please, if you have the stomach for it, read the entire Dem platform. It’s filled with horrors, though usually couched in language that permits endless quibbling about “what we really mean by that.” Here’s the section on guns, which proposes blatant violations of the Second Amendment’s guarantees in the name of “Ending the epidemic of gun violence:”

     Gun violence is a public health crisis in the United States. Over 100,000 people are shot and nearly 40,000 people die annually from guns—devastating countless families, friends, and communities. We can and will make gun violence a thing of the past. Addressing the gun violence crisis requires supporting evidence-based programs that prevent gun deaths from occurring in the first place, including by making mental health care more accessible and supporting suicide reduction initiatives, funding interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence in neighborhoods, and strengthening protections against domestic violence. Democrats will also ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue, including the ongoing health care, mental health, economic, and social costs that can affect survivors and their families for years.

     Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal 47 background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

     If you weren’t outraged before this, I hope you are by now.

     Nota Bene: (For anyone out there who’s unfamiliar with this Latin phrase, it means “Heads up, doofus.”) There is no such thing as a trustworthy politician. Democrat, Republican, or other, it’s proper to suspect all of them, at all times, of:

• Wanting more power, prestige, and perquisites for themselves;
• Wanting more of your money.

     Both those statements are well supported by history. Ergo (another handy Latin word; this one means “therefore”), there’s no justification for just throwing out their rascals, replacing them with your preferred rascals, and sitting back satisfied that your job is done. Nor is it sufficient simply to watch them as they steal, resolving to turn them out at the next election; you have to keep the tar hot and the feathers handy at all times. Failure to do so this century past is why we endure the burdens of today.

     Which raises another question: Is there anything in the penal law – state or federal – that makes it illegal to tar and feather a politician? I mean, if we can’t recall them, which is not possible in most states, what recourse is left to us? Other than hanging them, that is.

     Something to muse about over your Cheerios^®.

100 Years Ago, a Bomb Went Off at Wall Street

It was in the run-up to the 1920 election, which, BTW, the GOP won. And, presided over one of the longer stretches of economic good times up to that point. In that time period, the nation transitioned from mostly rural, to cities crammed with new residents. The average standard of living soared.

Now, this will surprise you, but the History Channel doesn't consider that event all that important - many things take precedence over the significance of Anarchy's assault on America, including Ghandi's fast to protest the caste system, and a reference to "a man" with no apparent reason that shot up the Washington Navy Yard in 2013.

NOT mentioned in History.com's coverage of the 'incident' is that the shooter, Aaron Alexis, had a prior record of shooting up a construction site near his home. He got a waiver of that record to enlist in the Naval Reserves. His record in the Navy was NOT great.

He was sworn into the Naval Reserves in 2007 and received an honorable discharge for a “pattern of misconduct” in 2011, CNN reported.

In one incident in 2008, Alexis was arrested in DeKalb County, Ga., on a charge of disorderly conduct. In 2010, he was arrested by police in Fort Worth after he allegedly fired a bullet through his ceiling into the apartment above. He was never charged.  

I'm at a loss to understand just how that discharge could possibly be 'honorable'. It sounds to me as though the Navy just wanted to get rid of him, ASAP.

That Day in History's description of the event is limited in blaming any particular person or organization for the bombing; it takes multiple paragraphs before the writers grudgingly admit that the culprits were likely anarchists or other Leftists:

With the first Red Scare still in full swing, most of the finger pointing soon centered on anti-capitalist communist and anarchist groups, which had been blamed for dozens of other bombings dating back to the 19th century.

I like how they use the words "Red Scare", as though Leftist violence was not happening. Somehow, those same people using that term never seem to mention that the person who was responsible for the events underlying that term - the Palmer Raids - was the Democrat Woodrow Wilson - the guy who first brought in all the Educated Elite to teach the Deplorables of his time how to properly govern.

But, this continued in American government, over and over again.

Under FDR, the Left was brought wholesale into the government bureaucracy. The Ag Dept. was seeded with their ilk - among them, Alger Hiss. For a fuller discussion of this, read Witness or Diana West's American Betrayal. Both deal with that time period, and, to some extent, with the period during which the GOP actually tried to root the Left out of government.

I'm not going to go further into the takeover of the machinery of government by the Left in this post. What I want to focus on is several specific actions of the Left, who repeatedly used violence to try to destroy America:

• During the Truman administration, there was the attack on Blair House, in which PR radicals tried to kill the President - and came within a hairsbreadth of doing so.
• Feb. 26, 1993 - the 1st World Trade Center bombing. 
• Sept. 11, 2001 - the 2nd World Trade Center bombing. As with the 1st bombing, an Al Qaeda operation.
• There are many others listed here - click on this link - and many of them were committed by Leftists and other radicals/revolutionaries trying to put pressure on the American administration.

Leftist violence has a long history in this country. After the election, Trump needs to swing into action to take those elements off the streets, and nip the attempted takeover in the bud.

Tuesday Terpsichore

     I haven’t done a grab-bag column in a fair while, and the “Future Columns” folder is about to burst, so...

---

1. Convergence.

     If you haven’t yet read this piece by Wolf Howling, please do so. Wolf accurately (and without distortion) integrates the many seemingly independent anti-American initiatives of the Left into a single, cohesive attack that should terrify any thinking person. Indeed, anyone who’s had his finger on the pulse of events will already be terrified:

     This is, collectively, the predicate to the coming storm. On the ground, the armed wings of the Democrat Party, BLM and Antifa, have executed over 570 violent riots in 22 cities during the past several months, most tolerated, if not outright aided and abetted, by local and state officials, including DA’s funded by George Soros. The left is stoking a race war even as they comprehensively attack the pillars of our society and Western Civilization as a whole....

     Does anyone expect that the progressives, having thrown everything that they have against Trump over the past four years without driving him from office, will accept a Trump reelection?...

     The storm is coming and indeed, we may falter. How bloody and bad it will get, only time will tell.

     Wolf’s assessment is ironically reinforced by this execrable, counterfactual screed at the Atlantic:

     Liberals had enough trouble accepting the results of the 2016 election. In some sense, they never really came to terms with it. The past four years have witnessed the continuous urge to explain away the inexplicable, to find solace in the fact that the voters betrayed them. How could so many of their fellow Americans side with a racist and a fabulist, someone so callous and seemingly without empathy? It was easier to think that those Americans had been lackeys, manipulated and deceived, or that they simply hadn’t understood what was best for them. Moreover, the Russians had interfered, and tipped the balance in an extremely close election through propaganda, fake news, and collusion with the Trump campaign. Perhaps, as former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested, the Russians had even tampered with the vote itself.

     That was then. This time, it would be worse. In 2016, Trump hadn’t ever held political office, so no one could truly grasp just how bad, and exhausting, a president he might become. Perhaps in 2016, too many voters were unwilling to believe that America was “already great” (and, for too many, it wasn’t). They had no reason to be content with the status quo, so their willingness to try something quite risky was understandable. Now, though, everyone should know the risks. Moreover, Hillary Clinton was an unusually polarizing candidate, whereas Joe Biden tends to attract attention for not attracting attention.

     (Note that the Atlantic had already argued for the elimination of the Nobel Peace Prize, specifically because Trump has been nominated for it.)

     With slanderers and propagandists like Shadi Hamid trying to “relax us” to the notion, there might be no way of averting a full-scale civil war. But in that case, hadn’t you better know which side you’re on and what you plan to do about it?

---

2. The Use Of Alternative Punishments.

     The Feral Irishman has an example. I don’t know how to embed the video he presents here at Liberty’s Torch, so please hie thee hence and view it at his place. Also, recall what Robert A. Heinlein said about “cruel and unusual punishment:”

     Dubois had mused aloud, "I do not understand objections to ‘cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment—and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism? However, that period was loaded with pre-scientific pseudo-psychological nonsense.
     "As for 'unusual,' punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose." He then pointed his stump at another boy. "What would happen if a puppy were spanked every hour?"
     "Uh... probably drive him crazy!"
     "Probably. It certainly will not teach him anything. How long has it been since the principal of this school last had to switch a pupil?"
     "Uh, I'm not sure. About two years. The kid that swiped—"
     "Never mind. Long enough. It means that such punishment is so unusual as to be significant, to deter, to instruct. "

     Indeed.

---

3. A Genuinely Tough – And Nice – Chick.

     Gina Carano may not be everyone’s favorite actress. However, for my money she’s a genuine star: a model of strength and femininity in combination. Recently the “trans bullies” decided it was time to get on her back about her pronouns:

     Last time the transextremists (there are an awful lot of them in antifa and BLM) were demanding she repeat "All Cops are Bastards."

     Now these lunatics are demanding she put her pronouns in her Twitter bio-- or else they'll pressure Lucasfilm to fire her from The Mandalorian.

     She did partly agree to their demands: She put "beep/boop/bop" in her name, suggesting those were "her pronouns." When it was actually her making fun of NPC Robots for always making the same three robot noises.

     They didn't like that, either.

     Oh, I’m sure they didn’t – and I’m sure Miss Carano couldn’t care less. She, you see, is a really strong woman: one who has decided to test herself to her limits, and has passed with flying colors by anyone’s standards.

     If you haven’t seen Haywire, see it. Buy a copy of the DVD and run it whenever some Leftist twit starts nattering about “transgender rights” and / or “strong women.”

---

4. Pro Football Is For Leftists.

     Or so it seems:

     On Thursday night, the NFL hosted its season opener, and it was just as woke as other sports have been in their respective seasons so far. And the ratings seemed to show that fans are not happy about it.

     Breitbart reports from Deadline Hollywood:

     “…the Kansas City Chiefs pummeled the Houston Texans 34-20, and the ratings were down — a lot. In early numbers, the primetime NBC game scored a 5.2 among adults 18-49 and 16.4 million viewers between 8-11 p.m. ET.

     “Now, those numbers for the 8:25-11:30 p.m. ET game will certainly be adjusted upward later, but right now they mark a 16.1% drop over the spectacle of the September 5, 2019 season opener in the advertiser-rich demographic. In an America and a NFL still adjusting to the new normal of live sports in the era of COVID-19, last night’s game also fell 16.1% in total sets of eyeballs from last year’s fast affiliate results.

     It wasn’t enough of a shock to the NFL’s managements when Americans started looking away as athletes deliberately and visibly disrespected the National Anthem. That was when the C.S.O. and I decided to forgo pro football viewing. Now, with the open endorsement of the fascistic Black Lives Matter “movement” by the league and many of the players, the NFL will be fortunate not to have its TV contracts canceled by season’s end.

     “Get Woke, Go Broke.” Some people need it tattooed on their foreheads – backwards, so they can read it in the mirror.

---

5. A Win For Freedom.

     A U.S. District Court judge has ruled Pennsylvania’s lockdown orders unConstitutional:

     U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV concluded the governor’s stay at home orders, limits on gatherings and closure of “non life-sustaining” businesses violated citizens’ Constitutional rights. The judge was responding to a lawsuit brought by a group of Pennsylvania businesses.

     Which is exactly correct. Here’s the complete text of the ruling. Now could we get something like this from the Second Circuit, or perhaps the Supreme Court?

---

6. As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap.

     Some time ago, PowerLine’s John Hinderaker noted a disturbing development in educational practice in Edina, Minnesota. Today, he notes another disturbing development:

     Life-threatening crime in elite suburbs like Edina is a new phenomenon, but residents had better get used to it if they continue to support BLM and other anti-law enforcement causes. What do they think is going to happen if law enforcement is dismantled?

     The stark choice between law and order and violent crime is on the ballot in November. Frankly, I suspect that a majority of Edina residents are too far gone to make a rational decision. One hopes that is not the case in most suburbs across the country.

     Now, one cannot ascribe the rise in crime in Edina directly to the changes in the schools, but one can easily understand that a force capable of suborning a community’s public schools must have made substantial inroads elsewhere in the community. Why would the Leftists who’ve colonized Edina’s schools stop there? They’re always looking for new worlds to conquer...and it appears that in Edina, they’ve found one ripe for the plucking.

---

7. “Let Us Kill You, Racist Pigs!”

     This hardly requires comment:

     In Lancaster [Pennsylvania], an officer responded to a domestic violence call at a residence where a man had stabbed four people last year. As the officer approached the house, a female escaped out the front door. A man — the suspect from the previous slashings — then emerged and ran at the officer, brandishing a knife over his head. The officer shot him, as the officer was by all appearances legally authorized to do, to stop the threat of deadly force. Twenty-seven-year-old Ricardo Munoz died from the officer’s gunfire.

     The response from the “community,” after this summer of lethal cop hatred, was predictable. Rioters pelted Lancaster cops with bricks, glass bottles, and sharp projectiles ripped from road barricades. They smashed the windows of police cruisers, the downtown police precinct, the post office, cafés, and stores. They torched a dumpster dragged from another part of the city. They pulled street signs and bike racks out of sidewalks to use against the police.

     If it isn’t yet time to go to live fire, when will that time arrive?

---

     That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. I have a ton of work ahead, so do your best to enjoy your Tuesday. I’ll probably be back tomorrow.

It's Not That We Don't Understand or Use Science,

 ...it's that we don't trust the Left/Progressives/Liberals (LPL).

That post nails it exactly. It always usually amuses me when the people who are hopelessly innumerate (incapable of handling anything more than basic math) and science-clueless (they've HAD some classes - usually the ---- Studies type) take it upon themselves to educate me about the Science in condescending tones.

I used to teach the Physical Science (Physical Science, Physics, Chemistry). I think it's fair to say that I have a better than average understanding of the basic principles, and can comprehend the level of science needed to make decisions.

But, it's fair to say that there is a difference between agreeing that something (let's say the processes that drive Climate Changes) is worthy of study, and insisting that Americans completely destroy their economy to implement ONE potential solution for a problem that may not exist, at least in a form that we can affect.

This country really does need to bring back old-fashioned academic skills, such as the ability to construct a logical and reasoned argument, and debate people using rational responses.

Rather than screaming incoherently that "YOU WANT US ALL TO D-I-I-I-I-E!!!!!!!!!!"

Or swearing and sputtering and calling all who have questions about your position "H8rs!!!!!!!"

They're children. Unfortunately, not actual children (usually), but over-aged, over-privileged, and ill-mannered persons who have reached a chronological age, but, alas, not emotional or intellectual maturity (something that used to be common in mere teens, and sometimes pre-teens).

I'm beginning to think that we need to have some standards for voting:

• Ability to support yourself without resorting to public assistance or cash from Mumsy and Daddums. There are many of sufficient years, who cannot meet that standard. On the other hand, there are some young teens who could qualify.
• Ability to explain the provisions of the Constitution, given a short passage from it. Heck, I'd be thrilled to find very many (some who currently vote) who could explain the Bill of Rights, and the limitations of it.
• More than a year in the same town. Not necessarily owning a home, but showing roots in the place.

The Greatest Challenge: A Sunday Rumination

     Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
     Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
     Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
     And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
     But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
     The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
     Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
     But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
     And his fellow servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
     And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
     So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
     Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
     Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee?
     And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
     So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

     [Matthew 18:21-35]

     Every Christian faces some challenges. For each of us, there will be some challenge, some trial of mind and spirit, that exceeds all the others and tests us to our limits. That greatest challenge may take a lifetime to surmount – yet we are guaranteed that it is possible, for God is just. He asks nothing of a man that is beyond his strength. This has sometimes been termed a piece of His Covenant with fallen Man: that while we may sin, no matter what we have done we may also repent and reform. While we may struggle with faults of character that predispose us to unChristian behavior, nevertheless we can learn to control those faults and avert the temptations they present.

     Christians are commanded to put anger and vengeance aside, and to forgive those who have wronged them. For many, this is the greatest challenge. Forgiveness isn’t a formula that can make everything right yet preserve the dark impulse to revenge that we privately savor. It’s a resolution to let go of the anger and lust for vengeance – to declare oneself “over it all” and to mean it.

     For me, that has always been the greatest challenge. I’d imagine that there are some among my Gentle Readers who have found it to be equally trying, for anger has a pleasurable aspect, even if not acted out in deeds.

     There’s no “royal road” to the mastery of the ability to forgive. Indeed, it may be that we must relearn it every time we’re wounded by another. For me, that serves to undermine its uniqueness, as a virtue the practice of which cannot be made a matter of technique.

---

     I haven’t done a Rumination for some time, and it’s possible that my Gentle Readers might have wondered why. The explanation is a simple one: I wait to be inspired, usually by an event in my own life or a story told me by an acquaintance. But other stimuli sometimes contribute, as well. This morning’s Gospel passage coupled to a train of thought I’d been riding about characterization.

     A fiction writer can characterize a character legitimately — i.e., without “telling” the reader what sort of person the character is – through any of three techniques:

• What the character says;
• What the character does;
• What other characters say about him.

     In most cases, a writer will use all three methods to acquaint the reader with each of his Marquee characters. However, the three techniques are not equally potent. Showing the character in action is by far the strongest of them, to be preferred to the other two whenever possible.

     Christ’s parable cited in the previous segment is a fine illustration of that technique. The Redeemer didn’t just say “Forgive those who have wronged you, or Dad will kick your ass.” He had the fictional king and his two servants act out the quality of mercy, and its absence, and the consequences of not exercising mercy, in a little “morality play” suited to the understandings of His audience. That was Christ’s preferred method for conveying an important moral message to His disciples and other followers.

     Contemporary writers could learn a lot from Christ’s parables: both as regards morality and characterization.

---

     I can’t resist throwing this in from The Wise and the Mad:

     “You’re becoming rather tight with the old boy,” Rowenna said.
     Holly leveled a flat look at her. “He’s been gracious and helpful. Do you have an objection?”
     The muscles in Rowenna’s face worked. “I’ve told you of our history.”
     Holly nodded. “Yes, you have. Yet here he is. When he found himself beset by a problem he didn’t know how to solve, he came to you. He accepted your conditions without protest, did he not?”
     Rowenna nodded reluctantly.
     “Has he been unpleasant toward you since he arrived? It doesn’t seem so to me.”
     “...no...”
     “Then perhaps the time has come to allow that things might have changed, that the two of you might be able to mend your bridges,” Holly said. “God forgives. He accepts repentance and reformation. Perhaps we should provide for them as well.”
     “Oh?” Rowenna’s gaze turned sharp. “Have you forgiven your father, love?”
     Holly breathed once slowly.
     “Yes, I have,” she said. “It wasn’t easy, especially as he has not forgiven me. But I managed, and I’m the better for it.” She pulled Rowenna back into her arms and hugged her gently. “A grudge such as the one I bore is a heavy thing to carry. I had no idea how heavy until I set it down.”
     She released her lover and started away, halted and faced Rowenna once more.
     “By the way,” she said. “I told Sir Thomas that I’m equipped the same way as you, though in my case by choice. Did you see him treat me as a freak? As someone to keep at a distance?”
     Rowenna paled. Holly nodded, headed to the kitchen, and set to work on the flounder.

     And later in the same novel:

     Walsingham stopped at the entrance to Grucci’s Gardens’ main dining room, thanked and tipped the maître d’hotel as he would have in London, and looked about for Rowenna. He found her beckoning to him from a table along the far wall. He made for her and seated himself across from her.
     “This is quite a posh eatery, Rowenna.”
     She inclined her head. “It’s considered the best restaurant for hundreds of kilometers in any direction. You’ll soon see why. Where did you dine with Doctor MacLachlan?”
     “A more modest place that calls itself the Aquarium. Quite decent food, though the décor could use a bit of work.”
     She nodded. “I’ve been there.” A waiter arrived with menus for them. He glanced at his briefly.
     “What sort of cuisine should I expect, my dear?”
     “Continental. Everything here is first rate, but for your first visit I would recommend the veal piccata. They’re particularly proud of their version.”
     “You’ve eaten here many times, then?”
     “Several. Holly and I often sup here when she doesn’t want to cook.”
     Walsingham nodded. “Then the food here must be special. Holly’s hand at the stove is plainly a skilled one.”
     “Oh, indeed,” Rowenna said. “But I must tell you, we have a young friend whose creations outshine both Holly’s cuisine and the offerings here rather handily. I’m hoping we can induce her to visit before you must return to England.”
     “Really? How young?”
     “I believe she’s twenty. An exceptional talent.”
     “Most unusual.” He noted their waiter’s steady drift toward them and set down his menu. Rowenna asked for the lobster fra diavolo, out of the shell. Walsingham requested the veal piccata. The waiter murmured a suggestion for a suitable wine, and Walsingham assented.
     When the waiter had moved away, Walsingham said “Fra diavolo dishes are often rather challenging, you know.”
     Rowenna nodded. “But perhaps a trifle less challenging than what I invited you here to do.”
     Walsingham tensed. “What would that be?”
     Rowenna locked eyes with him.
     “We are here that I might seize this unprecedented opportunity to try to restore your daughter to you,” she said. “Your older daughter.”
     “Ah,” Walsingham said. “I thought it might be that.”
     The waiter approached with their salads.

     Two of my more recent efforts at characterization. The first addresses my desire to show that Holly is a genuine Christian who understands the importance of forgiveness. It uses Holly’s words (“What the character says”). The second is a bit slyer: Rowenna speaks to her estranged father of a challenge, but who is it that’s really being challenged? She rises to the occasion (with the aid of a nice dinner) in the passage that follows (“What the character does”).

     Do those passages “work?” Only the reader can say. But they do illustrate how one best impresses the reader with the moral and ethical aspects of his characters – just as Jesus did in the parable from the opening segment.

---

     Perhaps forgiveness hasn’t taxed you as it has me. Perhaps there’s some other challenge to your Christianity that you’ve found more difficult. Perhaps you’re still struggling with it. I shan’t ask you to describe it. Rather, I’ll ask this: Do any of Christ’s parables strike you as especially relevant to your greatest challenge? If so, do you reflect on that parable when your struggle becomes a conscious one? But if not, are you certain you haven’t simply overlooked it? The Redeemer’s coverage of what God asks of us was rather complete, you know. Remarkably so, considering that He had only three years to “make His point.”

     May God bless and keep you all!

Pearls of expression.

This is not about reform. It is about revolution, and revolutions don’t care about elections.

~ Sam Faddis.

"Former CIA Officer: 'Violence Will Explode' If Trump Wins Re-Election." By Paul Joseph Watson, ZeroHedge, 9/13/20.

At The Djinn Mill

     [A short, fanciful story. I once asked a college class whether any of the students there had ever been interested in magic. One young woman raised her hand, somewhat timidly. I reassured her that there was no need to be embarrassed about it, for magic, if it really worked, would be a low-effort way to get or do a lot of things that take tremendous effort as matters stand. So also with the existence of djinni – “genies” in the American idiom. Such supernatural beings would make many things possible that aren’t today...but who’s to say whether they would be benevolently disposed towards us? -- FWP]

---

     “Khalid!” I cried as he entered the Ajedrez. “I haven’t seen you in an eon. Come sit and hoist a couple with me.” I signaled to the bartender. “Two more Omnipotence Punches, please.” They appeared instantly before us as Khalid squatted on the stool next to mine. He nodded thanks, immediately downed half of his drink, and set down the glass looking morose.
     His appearance took me aback. Khalid is lauded among the djinni for his upbeat, can-do attitude – and what he can do in the way of frustrating a human wisher is legendary. Many a human whose wishes Khalid has granted exactly as stated has wished afterward, when thanks to his own avarice all was irretrievably lost, that he had never found Khalid’s lamp. I’d studied his greatest feats with a combination of worshipful admiration and hope that I might someday be half as ingenious.
     Yet here he was, looking as if someone had hexed his houris.
     I laid a hand on his shoulder. “What’s troubling you, my friend and mentor?”
     He scowled, finished his drink, and signaled to the bartender for another. The empty glass vanished and a new, full one appeared in its place. The Ajedrez is famous for its customer service.
     “I’ve been defeated,” he grumped.
     “What? How?”
     “I had to grant a human three wishes and couldn’t outthink him on any of them!”
     I sat back, appalled. Khalid’s been beaten on one wish before—we all have—but on all three? Never before. Not him! It was news that shouldn’t be allowed to get around among the humans.
     It was plain that he needed to vent, so I said, very softly, “Would you like to talk about it?”
     “Like?” he said. “Gehenna, no. But I suppose I should. Especially if the way he outfoxed me should become common knowledge.” He turned and looked frankly at me. “What human characteristic do we exploit?”
     I shrugged. “Their greed, of course. Our power seems to promise them the sun, the moon, and the stars, at no cost and no effort.”
     He nodded. “So we encourage them to think big. Ask for whatever you’ve been lusting after. The huge fortune. The godlike body. The movie star lover. Then we exploit the margins they leave unspecified to frustrate them.”
     “It is our function in the scheme of things,” I said. “It teaches them moderation and realism—that their dreams are bigger than their pockets. What they think they want is something no one can have without consequences that render it worthless.”
     “Indeed,” he said. “And the three-wish format gives them just enough rope to hang them with their own avarice. That is the intention, at least.” Animation flooded into his face. “But this one...Najib, I couldn’t tempt him!”
     I couldn’t quite believe what I had heard. “You were found by a human who had no greed in him? None at all?”
     He nodded. “None that I could exploit within the conditions of the three wish system. Perhaps if I’d been able to offer him a fourth one...but that’s been forbidden ever since the invention of the antique brass oil lamp.”
     I waited in silence, desperate to hear everything, but I knew that Khalid had to tell the tale at his own pace. Presently he sipped at his second drink, set it down, and began.
     “When he rubbed my lamp and I saw him for the first time, I thought I’d bagged a prize,” he said. “You would have thought so, too. Short, painfully gaunt, and with a cleft palate. He could barely stand up straight, and when he did he only came up to my waist. His arms and legs were so spindly that they looked like a strong breeze might snap them. The cleft palate made him too unsightly for a woman to look on him with sincere affection, much less lust. From his appearance alone, I was certain he would be the greediest specimen I’d ever encountered! It took all my strength not to cackle over him.”
     Other djinni had noticed that Khalid was holding forth and had clustered around us to listen. I nodded and gestured that he should continue.
     “I told him about the three wishes. He barely reacted. He said he was satisfied with his existence, that he couldn’t think of a thing to wish for.” He chuckled. “I’ve heard disclaimers of that sort before, you know.”
     “As have I,” I said.
     He nodded. “Always before, it’s been a pose. Not this time.
     “So I told him that the three wishes could be saved for a later time, when he might perhaps think of something he wants but doesn’t have. He thought about it briefly,” Khalid said, “and the expression that bloomed on his face made me think that my moment had arrived. He said ‘No, I think I’d better use them at once.’
     “‘Very well, master,’ I said, “What is it that you wish?’
     “‘For my first wish,’ he said, ‘I wish that you relieve me of my tendency to pity myself for my lot in life, for I know self-pity to be a great fault in a man—but leave me unaltered in any other way.’
     “It took me aback,” Khalid said. “It was the first time anyone who found my lamp had wished for an improvement in his character. Humans rarely doubt their own characters. They’re constructed so that each will think himself the standard, the expression of all that is right and worthy. It surprised me so greatly that I granted his wish at once, without any distortion.
     “‘For my second wish,’ he said, ‘I wish that you relieve me of my tendency to envy others who are more fortunate than I, for envy is both a sin in itself and the mother of many other sins—but leave me unaltered in any other way.’”
     It was too much. I gasped in horror. A human incapable of envy? What could djinni and demons do with a race so formed? “Did you honor that wish?” I murmured.
     “I was compelled to do so,” Khalid said. “He had struck twice against his own defects, and had fenced his wishes with exactly the right formula to prevent me from doing him any harm. So I gave him what he had wished for, and said ‘And your third wish?’
     “‘May I give that to my mother?’ he said.
     “‘Sadly, you may not,’ I replied. ‘Your wishes are irrevocably yours, and cannot be transferred to another. Is there nothing else you would wish for?’
     “He lapsed into thought once more, and I became hopeful. He had frustrated me twice, but I was certain he could not do so a third time. So I waited, and after a few moments his expression brightened, and he said ‘Yes, I believe there is something more.’ I smiled and crossed my arms in our traditional fashion.
     “‘My mother is old,’ he said, ‘and has been much afflicted by chance. She is a widow, has little in this world, and only one child, who has always fallen short of her dreams: myself. If it is within your power, O djinn, would you please give my mother the son she has wished for all her life?’”
     The shock was almost unendurable. “Did the human know that we cannot create life, that we are restricted to altering that which is and nothing more?”
     Khalid shrugged. “I do not think so, Najib, but it does not matter. I had to grant his wish, and I did so. And before my eyes, he straightened, grew tall, became fit, trim, and handsome. A fine, straight specimen of young manhood. He could not believe what he had become through that third wish. He sang my praises most fulsomely and ran off to present himself to his mother as I vanished back into my lamp.”
     The djinni gathered around us moaned in sympathy.
     “Let us pray,” I said, “that this episode went unwitnessed, and that no tale of it will ever be told among humans or demons.”
     “If the Lord of All should deign to listen to the prayers of djinni,” he said.
     “Do you think so?” I said.
     “It is uncertain.” He finished his drink, nodded farewell, and left us behind to ponder and lament.

Copyright © 2020 Francis W. Porretto. All Rights Reserved Worldwide

Mask Slippages Dept.

     I’d say they’re all the way off now:

     On the 19th anniversary of the horrific radical Islamic terror attack on September 11, 2001, Black Lives Matter activists on Twitter tried to mock people who say “All Lives Matter” and “Never Forget 9/11.”

     The hashtag “#AllBuildingsMatter” started trending on Twitter after stand-up comic Wale Gates shared a segment from Saturday Night Live cast member Michael Che’s Netflix series from 2016. Che used All Buildings Matter to mock those who insist that America should “Never Forget” September 11 and those who respond to the Black Lives Matter movement with the slogan “All Lives Matter.”

     “‘Black lives don’t matter,’ that’s not what they say. That’s not the argument,” Che explains in the video. “They hit you with that slick sh*t. Well, ‘All Lives Matter.’ Really? Semantics?”

     “That would be like if your wife came up to you and was like, ‘Do you love me?’ And you were like, ‘Baby! I love everybody, what are you talking about? I love all God’s creatures, what are you saying? You’re no different,'” Che quipped.

     Then the SNL actor compared the historic struggles of black Americans to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.

     “Why do black people always have to get over sh*t so quickly?” he asked. “Slavery. ‘Oh that was 400 years ago.’ Segregation. ‘You guys got black history month out of it. Come on, we gave you February.’ Police shooting. ‘That was two weeks. Come on, you still? Still?’ 9/11. ‘Oh, Never Forget.'”

     “That’s why, this September, I’m getting a t-shirt that says, ‘All Buildings Matter.’ Now you see how that works,” Che quipped.

     Please read it all. Thank you, Tyler O’Neil, for that excellent though enraging article.

     Why yes: this “Michael Che” clown is black. But don’t doubt for a moment that the hard-left, mostly-white producers at Netflix and the similarly inclined promoters of “Saturday Night Live” approve of his sentiments. Those who disapprove are probably unwilling to say so, for fear of their jobs.

     It’s become entirely obvious that if there’s a group to whom “black lives” don’t matter, it’s American blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks. Black “community leaders” dare not say anything about it: some for fear of ostracism; others for fear of much, much worse. And of course, when their children are accused of lawbreaking, black parents reflexively do what they can to shield them from the legal consequences rather than cooperate with the justice system.

     But over whose deaths do these “black lives matter” activists riot?

• Trayvon Martin
• Michael Brown
• Freddie Gray
• Rayshard Brooks
• George Floyd

     Criminals, one and all. Think about that.

     Mocking and disparaging Americans’ reaction to the most horrific assault ever perpetrated on American soil – an assault that took nearly three thousand lives, using hijacked airliners, at that – won’t win Michael Che any new admirers. But it does make quite plain where his allegiance lies. Striving to stir up ill will under the guise of “comedy” makes it inarguable.

     I wonder which door Michael Che would choose, were he to be informed in short, simple words what lay beyond each of them? And I have begun to wonder, were I in the position of Colonel John MacKenzie in that scenario, whether I’d be tempted to misinform him?

     A wave is building. It’s been building for some time and had already risen high before the “Black Lives Matter” riots. Decent American blacks had better decide, and quickly, whether they’d rather act to halt its escalation – by taking their own hatred-filled, violence-inclined members in hand and disciplining them – or allow it to peak and crash down on them. There isn’t much time left.

     (NB: A comparable situation confronts American Muslims. The fulminations of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are bringing matters to a head in that venue, too. Be warned.)

But, It's Too Early for my October Surprise!

 And, I didn't get you anything!

Schiff is at it again. SURPRISINGLY, he has yet another IMPEACHABLE 'witness', who claims to be able to put Trump in the middle of the target (ooooh, sorry, was that too - I hesitate to use the word - TRIGGERING?)

This has reached a level beyond parody. If comedians had ANY integrity, they'd be all over this, making it a major part of their act.

SNL would feature a paranoid Schiff, scurrying around looking for imaginary enemies, and blaming Trump for everything. (But, it's hard to parody by going FURTHER - it just isn't possible)

What else?

• Stock Market downturn - too early
• Riots in the streets - nah, bro, the last time, the cops got deputized by the Feds, and now little Derek and Phelishia's parents have refused to fund further studies if they get arrested again.
• Climate catastrophes - nah, the rubes have finally gotten wise to the reality that the blame rests on the Left-controlled state.
• COVID? People are starting to notice that the trend is NOT up-ticking. And, the parents are getting REALLY tired of the teachers calling it off, and are pulling their kids out of public school.
• Congress start another Russia/other investigation? Other than losers like Schiff, that's a dead horse. Politicians are starting to worry about their OWN seats, and squashing efforts that might put their re-election in jeopardy.

The only option that remains is a bullet - Trump, you MIGHT want to reinforce your 'unofficial' security guys.

UPDATE: Looks like Trump has his own October Surprise in store - Ted Cruz is on the list for the Supreme Court.

Your Friday Morning Musical Interlude

     I like a lot of different kinds of music, including a few varieties that might surprise my Gentle Readers. And I have a special affection for the piano and its greatest exponents, in particular Frederic Chopin and Ludwig van Beethoven. But I also appreciate musicians who understand that theirs is a category of entertainment – and who therefore don’t take themselves overly seriously. So a piece such as the following delights me in more ways than one:

     Queen’s best songs were truly awesome. This piano-solo arrangement of “We Are The Champions” is as dramatic as any rendition I’ve heard. That Miss Astanova is drop-dead gorgeous certainly doesn’t hurt. But even without such an attraction, I’ve always respected a good “cover band:”

     Enjoy your Friday, Gentle Reader.

Simulated Outrage Dept.

     We’ve all seen it before: the leftist, when asked a question which, candidly answered, would tell the public something the leftist doesn’t want anyone to know, reacts with seeming outrage. But seeming is the key. I feel morally certain they practice it before a mirror several times per week. Because behind the “outrage” is actually a great deal of fear.

     Here’s the most recent illustration:

     A top press secretary for Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden’s campaign erupted in anger on Thursday afternoon after he was asked during a live television interview if Biden has been using a teleprompter to answer questions during media interviews....

     “Has Joe Biden ever used a teleprompter during local interviews or to answer Q&A with supporters?” Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked.
     “Bret, we are not going to eng–, this is, this is straight from the Trump campaign talking points,” Biden spokesperson TJ Ducklo erupted.
     “Well yeah, they’re using it,” Baier responded.
     “And what it does, and what it does, Bret, is it’s trying to distract the American people,” Ducklo ranted.
     “They’re using it; they talk about it every day, can you say ‘yes’ or ‘no’?” Baier pressed.
     “They talk about it every day, Bret, because they don’t have a coherent strategy—” Ducklo continued.
     “Well, you haven’t answered,” Baier pressed. “Yes or no?”
     After Ducklo continued to rant, Baier responded, “I understand, but you can’t answer the question.”

     Yes, Gentle Reader, we’ve definitely seen it before. Remember John Kerry’s “I refuse to have my patriotism questioned?” Remember Donna Brazile’s fury that she – “a Christian woman” – had been accused by implication of deliberate deceit for political purposes?

     The dangerous question asked by Bret Baier above goes to the most important aspect of the current presidential contest: Is Joseph Biden mentally capable of discharging the duties of the presidency? If the answer to that question is no, the Democrats have knowingly nominated an unfit candidate and are knowingly campaigning to give him powers and responsibilities for which he is unfit. Baier’s question has such an implication. Therefore Ducklo must evade it. And the Left’s go-to tactic for accomplishing such an evasion is to pretend to be outraged.

     There’s precious little candor in politics these days. That’s what makes Donald Trump a political stand-out: he’s always candid, even if he’s not always grammatical. The contrast between Trump’s speaking style and that of anyone on the Left, when combined with his exemplary performance in office, “should” garner him a fifty state sweep on November 3.

     In the long term, something must be done about political dissimulation and pretense. What that something might be, I have no idea. However, Arthur Herzog does:

     The press could be challenged to present a daily Thought Pollution Index—not that it would, but at least reporters could be encouraged to attend the Platitude Recognition Training Sessions, the object being to raise cliche-consciousness and overcome the serious problem of cliche-deafness that settles over crowds when a speaker mounts to the podium. In these sessions, platitudes will be flashed on a screen, and if they are allowed to pass unchallenged the participants will receive electric shocks from wires attached to their skulls....Audiences skilled in Platitude Recognition can deliver a crushing blow: the mass yawn. This quickly forces the speaker to take stock of himself.

     We “should” try it, but first let’s see to this bit of overhead:

     That will make the yawns much more emphatic – and who would be more angered by the mass yawn, possibly to the point of foaming at the mouth on camera, than a faker straining to simulate outrage?

     The entertainment possibilities alone make it worth a try.

The Expiration Of Traditional Conservatism

     There’s a new conservatism in town. The old one, which feels itself being displaced, doesn’t like it. No surprise there, I suppose. But it’s worthy of a few words of examination on a relatively quiet Thursday morning.

     The old, “traditional” conservatism that feels itself being displaced is probably best characterized by a statement the late William F. Buckley made many years ago about his conception of the role of the conservative:

     A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

     “Stop,” of course, means “Stop here. Go no further.” It is a slogan against change, rather than for any particular value. It is the outcry of the defeated party anxious for an armistice that will preserve what he still holds against further incursions by his enemy. It is a maxim that implicitly admits failure.

     The pre-Trump GOP, to the extent that it was “conservative” in any sense, was that kind of conservative. It conceded that the enemy – left-liberalism, social democracy, “progressivism,” what have you – had gained much ground. It did not fight for the ground it had lost; rather, it accepted the Left’s gains as irreversible. It merely hoped to thwart any further left-wing gains, especially in economic and fiscal matters.

     But a “hold our ground” position will always be attacked with the enemy’s full force. Without a counter-initiative pressed with vigor and resolve, it will continue to lose ground. So “hold our ground” comes to mean “lose our ground as slowly as possible.”

     Yet that variety of conservatism appeals to many. Humans are extraordinarily adaptable. Given time, we adapt to changes in our environment, including our legal environment, with changes in ourselves and our behavioral patterns that will preserve as much of what we value as possible. But “change is hard, and difficulty makes people impatient.” (Arthur Herzog) Traditional conservatism, with its message of resistance to further change, appeals to our adaptability and our dislike of change itself.

     Once men have adapted to a set of changes, keeping things as they are appears to be “the path of least action.” It seems to require the least thought and effort from us. We’ve adapted; we’re still doing reasonably well; why exert ourselves any further? Especially if in our hearts we believe that the changes forced upon us are “here to stay” — ?

     If history has any enduring message about sociopolitical systems and their dynamics, it’s that the most difficult of all feats is staying in one place.

---

     My thoughts this morning were nudged in this direction by this most recent piece from Wes Rhinier:

     [H]istory proves and human nature holds true that the only time people are motivated to change is when the turmoil and pain of change is better than the current state of affairs. Right now I don’t think many people are happy with how our country is at this point in time.

     As long as we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils the best we can ever hope for is the status quo. But evil and the power hungry will never settle for status quo, they will always want even more power. We are losing ground by continuing to play their game, on their terms.

     As long as everyone has remained fat, happy and entertained, people have seemed content to justify voting for the system.

     Now, Wes’s essay is a broadside against simply “voting for the lesser of two evils:” Republicans rather than Democrats. And it has merit – if there is no prospect for converting the GOP from its traditional “Stop here” conservatism to the more modern variety which the policies of Donald Trump have largely expressed. That modern, Trumpian conservatism is founded on a question:

What should we be trying to conserve?

     If we can arrive at coherent answers to that question – answers that would be widely agreed upon – we will simultaneously answer the related questions:

What is not worth conserving?
What must we oppose with all our power?

     My question, to Wes and my other Gentle Readers, is a simple one:

Can we transform the Republican Party:
Away from its “Stop here” legacy,
Into a party that promotes freedom and American sovereignty?

     I hold that this question, which is seldom seriously addressed and almost never seriously answered, is the crux of our contemporary political discourse.

---

     William F. Buckley was no fool. Indeed, he possessed a powerful intellect and a great erudition. One of his other statements, which seems to qualify the “stand athwart history yelling Stop” maxim, runs thus:

     Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great....The laws concerning marijuana aren't exactly indefensible, because practically nothing is, and the thunderers who tell us to stay the course can always find one man or woman who, having taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder. But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating....General rules based on individual victims are unwise. And although there is a perfectly respectable case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very difficult to defend.

     While that addresses a single contentious issue, the general principle to which it alludes – Each of us has the right to go to Hell after his own fashion – is an important one. While Buckley was willing to consider exceptions to that principle, he would not do so lightly, nor without pondering the consequences and alternatives.

     If there must be exceptions to the principle of individual freedom, let them be as few as possible. Never accede to one without soberly contemplating the probable consequences. Traditional conservatism often espoused policies that had grave consequences – far worse than the goals held out for those policies – that could have been foreseen, whether from simple reasoning or from historical precedents. It is from that sort of dogmatic, uncontemplative conservatism that we must retreat.

     President Trump’s thinking and preferences appear to incline in the direction of a new, freedom-centered conservatism. For me, the question of the hour is whether we can swing the rest of the Republican Party into his orbit, or whether he’s fated to be a glitch on the graph of history. If it is still possible to make the GOP into a party of freedom that isn’t overrun by fringe loonies and anti-Americans, then the time for revolution, and the chaos and bloodshed it would entail, is not yet upon us.

     Thoughts?

One Great Song

     Now and then, a rising musical artist will “catch a break,” be noted by the producer or director of a film in progress, and one of his songs will be employed in that film. There are fewer such instances of good fortune than there are “rising musical artists,” of course – and some of those artists favored by fortune never rise very far. But their one song might just “rise without them,” becoming enduringly memorable.

     Here’s one such, from British composer / performer Alan Price. It became the opening-credits song for O Lucky Man!

If you have a friend on whom you think you can rely –
You are a lucky man!
If you've found a reason to live on and not to die –
You are a lucky man!
Preachers and poets and scholars don't know it,
Temples and statues and steeples won't show it,
If you've got the secret, just try not to blow it –
Stay a lucky man!

If you've found the meaning of the truth in this old world -
You are a lucky man!
If knowledge hangs around your neck like pearls instead of chains –
You are a lucky man!
Takers and fakers and talkers won't tell you.
Teachers and preachers will just buy and sell you.
When no one can tempt you with heaven or hell -
You'll be a lucky man!

You'll be better by far to be just what you are
You can be what you want if you are what you are
And that's a lucky man!
Oh yeah, a lucky man!
And that's a lucky a lucky a lucky man.

     A nice approach to what it means to be a lucky man.

Occasions Of Joy

     You may have noticed, Gentle Reader, that I’ve been trending somewhat away from the political / current events crap and toward...well, just about anything else. There are reasons, of course. Foremost among them is that I’m near to despair over it all and find that I must direct my attention elsewhere if I’m not to haul out the Barrett M82, the twelve-pack of Yoo-Hoo^® and the emergency package of Oreo Double-Stufs^® and climb the nearest clock tower.

     There must be reasons to take pleasure in life. There must be celebrations, satisfactions, games, pastimes, and simple moments of relaxation and contentment. “Life is not a dress rehearsal.” – Paul Hogan. God designed human life as He did because He wants us to live it as it stands, not to turn it into a marathon of fear, suffering, and lamentation. That’s my major beef with the Church’s doctrines about “mortification:” It contradicts God’s Plan as expressed in the bodies, minds, and souls of men.

     Jesus turned huge barrels of water into a most excellent wine entirely for the sake of the wedding celebrants at Cana. Remember what He said just before He did as the Blessed Mother asked? “My time is not yet.” When Mom put the screws to Him by telling the servants “Do whatever He tells you,” He knew He was “on the spot”...and He came through big time.

     So the C.S.O. and I have been concentrating on finding and luxuriating in our occasions of joy. As it happens, we have a four-footed one that provides us with an ample selection.

     The newest member of our furry family, Newfoundland puppy Joy, is about five months old. She’s a continuous delight in all ways...well, maybe not when she wakes us at 2:00 AM for a trip outside to relieve herself, but nearly all the rest of the time. The purity of her delight in things too simple to express is a reminder of the joys of childhood, before we became obsessed with money, careers, opportunities, advancement...and the news.

     A case in point: Joy likes yogurt. A lot. Especially Stonyfield’s Whole Milk Vanilla. (Hey, I like it, too.) And she likes it best when she can immerse herself in the yogurt-eating experience. That happens about once every three days. Herewith, a few photos of the most recent occasion:

     First, we have Joy becoming alert to the approach of yogurt:

     I get mine first, of course. (Hey, having opposable thumbs entitles me to some privileges!) Joy waits her turn semi-patiently:

     Ah, but when it gets here:

     Then there’s the afterglow, which the C.S.O and I consider particularly memorable:

     These have been just a few moments of joy with Joy. I provide them in the hope that they’ll cushion you against the effects of the national news. Do have a nice day.