As Long As The Subject Is Abortion

     There has been some good news:

     Catholic pro-life activist Mark Houck on Monday was found NOT GUILTY on both counts of federal charges.

     Mark Houck was charged with two counts of violating the federal FACE Act for shoving a pro-abortion volunteer who threatened his son outside of Planned Parenthood in Philadelphia in 2021.

     The FACE Act prohibits “violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.”

     Mark Houck is a Catholic father of 7 children and often prays outside of abortion clinics.

     That the myrmidons of the Omnipotent State should do their utmost to discourage pro-life sentiment is inarguable. That’s why they chose this method of taking Houck into custody:

     Mark’s wife, Ryan-Marie Houck, shared about the events on September 23, 2022.

     On that morning as the corrupt members of the FBI were banging on his door, Mark said to the agents:

     Please, I have seven babies in the house, I’m going to open the door.”

     The FBI then charged into their house with guns pointed at them and their children – their babies – and took their father away on bogus charges against the pro-life author.

     If there’s a case in which any pro-abortion activist was treated in such a violent and threatening manner, I’m unaware of it. Indeed, given the way the regime has treated the 1/6/2021 protestors, I was surprised to learn that Houck was allowed bail.

     You’re probably aware that a woman in Britain was arrested for praying silently across the street from an abortion clinic. I don’t know of any comparable case in these United States, but I’d be unsurprised by one. Abortion is the Left’s sacrament, and thou shalt not oppose the administration thereof by any means.

     I know, I know: “And this, too, shall pass away.” But it’s taking one bloody long time to do so.

One In The Eye For The Feminists

     If you’re a “feminist,” it would logically follow that you favor the protection of women, wouldn’t it? If so, the information in this article “should” upset you:

     100 Percent Fed Up reports – Did you know that between 1970 and 2017, there were 45 million “missing” female births due to prenatal sex selection? This information came from a British Medical Journal Global Health in-depth study in 2021. It was based on examining 3.26 billion birth records.

     Over 95% of these missing births were in China or India.

     What about the United States?

     Sex-selective abortions are abortions performed for the purpose of eliminating an unborn child of an undesired sex. Usually, females are the “undesired” sex. Only seven states in the U.S. ban sex-selective abortions.

     Such a ban is unenforceable, given the state of the law. After all, a woman who seeks an abortion isn’t legally required to say why. But that’s less relevant than the statistics.

     A pronounced sex-ratio imbalance has implications for the birth rate beyond the abortions involved. In case some Gentle Reader wasn’t paying attention during high school biology, to bear a baby, a woman’s participation is required…at this time, that is. And that’s to say nothing of the sociological consequences of a regime in which men are born at much greater numbers than women. China could tell you about that.

     Cock your ear to the breezes. Hear that roar of disapproval from the feminists? Neither do I. Can you guess why? Of course you can! Feminism is an integral component of the political Left, and the Left wants “abortion rights” to go unchallenged.

     I imagine there will be more reporting on this subject. However, it might need to be samizdat, as our media are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Left. Stay tuned.

A Badly Crafted Yet Revealing Article

     Here’s the first sentence:

     After previously advertising they would wear LGBTQ+-themed warmup jerseys and use rainbow tape for their seventh annual Pride Night, New York Rangers players reversed course.

     Who did the “advertising?” Was it the players, or someone from the non-playing front office?

     The article continues to be nonspecific to the extent that on one knows who said what, or when, or why. Even the quasi-apologetic statement is like that:

     “Our organization respects the LGBTQ+ community, and we are proud to bring attention to important local community organizations as part of another great Pride Night. In keeping with our organization’s core values, we support everyone’s individual right to respectfully express their beliefs.”

     As PR intended to say nothing of substance, I doubt it could be bettered.

     Needless to say, the Left is wetting its panties over the episode. You’re simply not allowed to have private convictions that differ from the Left’s gospel. It’s the state religion in our time.

     The “LGBTQ+ community” is slipping into the same category as the race hustlers. There’s some point at which normal people – yes, it’s normal to be heterosexual and unconfused about one’s sex – will say “We’ve had enough” and exercise their anger on those groups in a fashion they won’t like. Where that point is, no one can say…but I definitely can say that we’re getting closer to it.

Bad Apple

I’d never heard about most of this. I have owned some Apple products:

  • My iPhone – this is, for now, non-negotiable. Hearing aids are difficult to get to work with many brands of cellphone. Only Apple has seamless integration of just about EVERY hearing aid on the market. I depend on using the Bluetooth features, and so, reluctantly, keep using Apple phones.
  • iPad – I’ve owned several. At present, I use it mostly for travel, due to the light weight. It’s replaced my Kindle device. And, for remote work in the field, it allows use of the iPhone’s connection to the internet with few problems. I MIGHT look into replacing it when it gets old; if I did, I’d probably look into a Fire device (I tried the MS Surface – not robust enough).
  • Mac – this was the easiest one to give up. I have an old one that needs some work – the trackpad doesn’t work. I turned it over to my son-in-law, who probably can get it working. I won’t replace it when it dies, I’ll just let him have it for parts.

Given the apparently credible accusations made in this article, I’d recommend against Apple products. If a cellphone provider would take users of hearing aids seriously, and provide full integration with their phones, I would, of course, switch the next time the phone needs replacement. Otherwise, I’m pretty much stuck with them.

Other reasons to switch from Apple?

  • Crappy customer service – I made an appointment for a Mac a few years ago at the “Genius Bar”. Due to unfamiliarity with the mall, I was slightly late for the appointment. I was informed that my appointment had been cancelled, and I would have to make another trip to the store (one that was 45 minutes away). I had a hissy fit. After a little discussion with the manager, he agreed to take me 1/2 hour later (a perfectly acceptable solution). I did express my irritation at the superior, snooty attitude of the semi-geniuses to him, though.
  • Price – Apple products – ALL of them, both the core machine, and the extensions/upgrades, are WAY overpriced. Even the refurbished ones are too pricey.
  • Ease of repair. I understand Apple wanting to have control over what components are used in their products (it’s that limitation that makes them work so seamlessly). But not permitting non-Apple/certified Apple repairs is silly. There is really no reason for knowledgeable users not to be able to upgrade memory, replace a failing part, or switch out a keyboard – these are simple repairs. Only the App-Sheep put up with that without complaint.

I’m writing this on a Samsung computer. It replaced the previous Dell that died a sorry death (I used to like Dell – no more. The quality has gone done since I bought my last one. I require a laptop that can handle a lot of use and is lightweight). It’s both lightweight and fully functional, and so far has been up to the challenge of handling daily use.

None So Blind Dept.

     It’s amazing the contortions some people will twist themselves into to avoid acknowledging an unpleasant fact. The fact, of course, is the measurable, race-correlated differences between blacks and the other races as regards aggression and lawlessness. Charles Murray went to considerable difficulty to pin it down factually and firmly, without recourse to anecdotes. The rest of the scholarly community upbraided him for daring to do so…but no one has refuted his statistics or their implications.

     Consider the headline of this piece about the Tyre Nichols incident by CBD at Ace’s place:

     It’s Not A Race Problem; It’s A Policing Problem

     Does CBD stop to consider that the Tyre Nichols incident involved only blacks – and that the penchant for violence visible from the crime statistics might manifest itself in black police as well? He does not. Here’s what he does say:

     What stands out, aside from the casual brutality, is that these men were lousy cops. They clearly did not know how to do their jobs. Or maybe they simply didn’t understand what their jobs were! Or even worse…their level of violence was accepted by their bosses, was accepted by their fellow policemen, and was part of the ethos of policing.

     Those five cops were black, which is unsurprising because Memphis is about 2/3 black. Was their beating of Nichols precipitated by his color? Or was it precipitated by the complete disconnect between the police and the communities they are charged with protecting? What is most frustrating is that had those five cops been white, Nichols probably would have survived the encounter because of the insane calculations that are necessary in today’s racially charged environment.

     This completely evades the implications of a highly illustrative incident. “Lousy cops,” indeed! When was the last incident in which white policemen, however numerous, beat a detainee to death? Given that persons who actively seek careers as police must have some inclination toward the use of force, what accounts for the difference?

     But “It’s Not A Race Problem; It’s A Policing Problem.” We dare not imagine – or explore – any other possible explanation. Paul Kersey would mutter “Yet another vignette from Black-Run America,” and he would be right.

This Writer Has An Uncanny Foresight

     I’ve mentioned Mackey Chandler’s April series more than once here. I liked it enough that I’m now reading his other works. Just now I’m enjoying his 2011 novel Paper or Plastic, an unusual first contact story in several ways. A moment ago I encountered this passage, in which a very human alien is explaining aspects of her world to the Earthman who’s harboring her:

     “A lot of people work for the government, so their script is issued by the government, but there isn’t a big supply of it for everybody to use like here. Some agencies and companies print them with an expiration date and if they aren’t cashed in the credit goes back to your account and the note is void, so there isn’t a bunch of it out there floating around. You can’t save them up. Some you have to sign, to validate where you spend them.”
     “That all sounds like it is intended to avoid a hot economy. Restricting the money supply always keeps a lid on development. But, Dear God Martee, don’t tell our government anything about perishable banknotes. They’d embrace the idea, but forget the part about the unused value going back in your account. It would just be another hidden tax on people who let them expire.”

     Sound like anything you’ve heard proposed recently?

The Most Obscure Beatitude

     Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. – Matthew 5:3

     Have you ever pondered the first of the Beatitudes, Gentle Reader? Were you uncertain about what it might mean? Perhaps, given that the Sermon on the Mount is deemed an indispensable roadmap to living a Christian life, you were baffled by what it commands of you. Those are all common reactions to Christ’s declaration that the “poor in spirit” are blessed, or will be.

     As the Sermon on the Mount was the first of Christ’s great pronouncements on what God wants of us, it’s appropriate that we should give it serious thought. Yet Christian clergy of all denominations have been tentative, muddled, or both in explicating it. Their parishioners have endured a fair amount of confusion as a result. I endured a muddled discourse on it this very morning.

     So for what it’s worth – which will be for you to decide – I’ve decided to put my own shoulder to this wheel.


     First, imagine the following dialogue between our old friends Smith and Jones:

Smith: The Giants will host the Pygmies this coming Wednesday at Oversized Arena!
Jones: Of course I know! I’m a huge Giants fan.

Smith: So am I. I’ve got two tickets to the game. Want to come with me?
Jones: Sorry, I can’t, but I’ll be with you in spirit.

     What did Jones mean by his last statement above? Surely not that his ghost would sit beside Smith (or hover above his head) during the game. As he’s another fan of the Giants – the only maze-hockey team worth following after the recent barrage of trades – Jones will be rooting for them against the Pygmies just as Smith will. So while he can’t attend the game in person, Jones will be pulling for his team right along with Smith. He’ll be there in spirit, though his cheers and exhortations will be inaudible to Smith.

     That’s one approach to “poor in spirit.” There are poor persons in the world, and while we may not be numbered among them in fact, we can empathize with them. We can and should assist them when and as appropriate, just as (we hope) they would do for us were our circumstances reversed.

     While it’s a valid interpretation, it’s not the only one – nor is it the most important one.


     To say “I’m poor in X” implies a corresponding hunger for X, or for those things that go into making X. If you were to say instead “I don’t have any X,” it would lack that implication; you might want some, or you might not. To express a poverty of any kind says concurrently that you want more of whatever it is you’re poor in.

     “Things of the spirit” are of several varieties:

  • Faith in God’s love;
  • Hope of His mercy;
  • Comprehension of His will;
  • Humility in thinking of and dealing with others;
  • The cardinal virtues:
    1. Prudence;
    2. Temperance;
    3. Justice;
    4. Fortitude.

     With those things in stock, the love of God and neighbor, as Christ prescribed to us in the two Great Commandments, becomes achievable. But the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican comes to mind:

     Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
     And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
     I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

     [Luke 18:10-14]

     The humble man never says to himself, “Okay, I’ve got the virtues in good supply, so I can stop worrying about them and concentrate on other things.” Neither does he judge others’ supply of them. The virtues aren’t merely abstractions to be honored in one’s skull; they’re perishable skills that must be exercised through one’s words and deeds. The humble man works at the virtues, practicing them consciously when the opportunity arises. Should his hunger for the things of the spirit ever fail him, he’ll be in trouble in the hereafter.

     This is a more imperative interpretation of “poor in spirit.”


     I don’t claim the above to be exhaustive or definitive. It’s simply my take on the first Beatitude. I’ve never heard any priest, minister, or lay preacher utter a comparable interpretation.

     The usual closure at this point would be “Your mileage may vary,” or something like it. But however you approach the Beatitudes, let’s pray for one another and ourselves that:

  • We come to understand them as Christ intended;
  • We’ll practice them assiduously throughout our lives.

     A roadmap is of no use unless one follows the course it indicates. So also with the Beatitudes.

     May God bless and keep you all.

The Ugliest Front In The Race Wars

     Full disclosure: I’m married. I’m not going anywhere except to the grave. Hopefully, neither is my wife. So you wouldn’t think the subject of racial preferences in dating would be of intense personal interest to me. However, as it happens, I have some relevant experience with interracial dating: all of it bad.

     It’s natural to prefer the company of one’s own kind, and supremely so when the subjects are love, sex, and procreation. However, there are institutions that have made it their policy to “debias” white people’s “desire.” Some of them have effective control over our entertainment and our Web experiences. Jason Kessler has a video on the subject. If you’re 1) white, and 2) easily angered, you might not want to watch it.

     As it happens, many American singles go looking for love through an online dating app. I have no idea what frequency of success they enjoy. However, it’s become apparent that the one thing a white singleton looking for a sweetheart must not do is to state openly that he’s looking for a white date. That, we are told in stentorian tones, is racist:

     On the surface, the dating site Where White People Meet – launched in late 2015 by a married man who publicly defended the site, for white people who want to date other white people, by stating he isn’t a racist because he dated a black woman once – may seem like a fair endeavor. There are lots of dating sites catering to people of certain identities, like for Jewish people or for those older than 50.

     But while sites catering to specific religions help adherents meet requirements of their faith, and sites for people with shared interests help connect likeminded souls, Where White People Meet is just another example of racism. White people are already one of the most desired demographics on most dating sites anyway. And according to a recent study out of Australia on online dating apps, people who display a marked romantic preference for one race are more likely to be racist.

     If you search for “Dating apps for whites,” you might find one or two – I did – but you’re guaranteed to find articles denouncing them as well. I searched for “dating apps for blacks” and “dating apps for Asians,” and failed to find any such articles. The distinction could hardly be clearer.

     But Quartz wants you to know that you don’t need a dating app for whites:

     The creator of the online dating website WhereWhitePeopleMeet has been getting some questions about why he and his wife would build such a site. The answer, according to the website’s “About Us” page, is “why not?”

     But despite criticisms that the website is inherently racist, Sam Russell, the 53-year-old Utah man who founded the website with his wife Tami, told the Washington Post that the site is not racially motivated in any way. He insisted that it was born of the idea that singletons of “every origin, race, religion and lifestyle” can find someone for them, even white people.

     “It’s about equal opportunity,” Russell said. “The last thing in the world I am is racist.”

     He compared WhereWhitePeopleMeet to Christian Mingle and Farmers Only as examples of preference-based dating websites. In addition, there’s also Tinder, for mobile-first millennials, and Hinge, for anyone who’s afraid of Tinder, and Grouper, for those who prefer to bring two friends along to blind dates. The League caters to a crop of Ivy League graduates and high-earning young professionals. Grindr is a popular option for gay men; Her bills itself as a dating app for lesbians built by lesbians.

     But what seems to have escaped Russell is that white people can already find each other with ease on these apps—and in real life, especially in Russell’s state of Utah, which is 91% white. The country as a whole is 77% white. ”Where White People Meet” could pretty much describe almost every online dating website.

     Got that? It’s all in your head! The constant hectoring about “white supremacy,” the barrage of “anti-racism” ploys and pitches, the demands for “reparations,” the barrage of entertainment that always contains an interracial couple, and the instant, savage condemnations of any mechanism by which white people can find one another for any reason or none. You’re imagining it all! It’s just one more artifact of your “white privilege” and your “systemic racism.”

     As I said, I have some experience in this matter, though it was pre-Internet and conducted through a dating service. Today, as singles strive to connect with someone to love through the Web, the tech giants are doing their best to “debias our desire.” What’s that you say? You don’t find black or Asian woman attractive? You prefer to be with your own kind? You want your children to look like you? YOU RACIST MONSTER!

     Many years ago, when I first confronted the thesis that there’s a sotto voce genocide in progress against the white race, I was skeptical, to say the least. No longer, though I have no idea how to counteract it. I hope someone is working on it.

Conditional Hypotheticals

     “Say, what if there were no hypothetical questions?” – Originator unknown

     I found this at Ace’s place:

     I can’t speak to whether the figures cited are accurate. However, the suggestion that persons of below-average intelligence would have trouble understanding such propositions seems like that most uncommon of all things, “common sense.” Moreover, when a hypothetical is buried two or more layers deep, such that it occupies a “nested fantasy” universe, I’d imagine even bright people would have some difficulty with it. It requires the patient, accurate operation of mechanisms most people don’t possess, much less exercise regularly.

     And it bears directly and heavily on storytelling.

     I use the technique called “framing” – the embedding of the “main” story within a “frame” story whose action and dialogue occur later in fictional time – fairly often. I employed it in Chosen One, Polymath, Statesman, Love in the Time of Cinema, Antiquities, and The Warm Lands, and I feel it served my purposes well. But it can be confusing if done poorly.

     Formatting the “frame” segments to distinguish them from the “main story” segments, which is my approach to maintaining clarity, can help the reader to keep the two timelines separate. Other writers prefer other methods. But however one goes about it, any deviation from regularity in treatment can produce an incomprehensible mess.

     Now imagine that in a tale structured that way, one character within the “main” story tells an extensive “inner” story to an interlocutor. Imagine further that the “inner” story contains a dialogue between two persons, one or both of whom appear in the “main” story. Can you see the difficulties the reader would face in keeping the timelines and events properly segregated?

     It can get worse, of course. Imagine that within the “inner” story, one of the “main” story characters proposes hypothetical questions to another – questions that bear indirectly on what happens in the “main” story. At this point, the reader is struggling to separate what’s happened in the various timelines and to what extent those “inner” story hypotheticals, and the conditions on which they’re based, drive the events in the “main” story.

     I’ve never done such a thing, and I hope never to feel an irresistible urge to do so. I don’t know of any popular writer who’s done it, either. It would make the hash some storytellers make of their verb moods and temporal referent language appear simple and clear by comparison.

     Add it to the list of pre-anathematized practices all storytellers should avoid. Complexity for the sake of describing truly, unavoidably complex events is forgivable; enmeshing your reader in a maze of timelines, hypotheticals, and conditional propositions that require a CPM chart to keep straight is not.

Deep Fakes on Ace of Spades ONT

Follow the link – it’s eerie to see just how ‘real’ this looks.

What’s really interesting is a comment made on Ace of Spades about the uneasiness most of us feel about ‘almost-human’ entities:

Food for thought: The existence of the uncanny valley means that sometime in the history of our species, there was an evolutionary or survival advantage to being uneasy about things that looked almost human, but weren’t.

In the past, there had to be ‘close enough’ species that interbred with ours. The offspring would be closer to our genome, but not quite. Acceptance of a stranger with a body composition near to ours would not necessarily be a good idea, particularly if that stranger held some attraction for the females in that group (not uncommon, women then, and today, are often attracted to men on the edge).

Which brings to mind:

Were most wars of the prehistoric era intra-species combat? Did the outcome decide the fate of the human race? And, does our almost instinctive suspicion towards those exhibiting ‘almost right’ traits reflect the past need to keep the barriers up, lest our genome be overrun?

We clearly interbred. Analysis of current DNA shows some variance in the incidence of Neandertal and Denisovan genetic markers, but it’s present in a significant portion of the White and Asian races. It’s nearly completely absent in those of African heritage (unless they have White/Asian ancestors).

The apparent correlation between those humanoid sub-types in the DNA, and superior abilities in math and other STEM subjects, speaks to the idea that interbreeding was a major advantage to humans. It may have made our modern society possible. I’d love to know whether the traits are tied to the X or Y chromosome. That would give us a clue as to whether humans were the aggressors, or those other types were. It may have been somewhat mutual.

I hope some of these questions are answered in my lifetime. It just fascinates me.

It’s Plain And Open Now…

     By now you’ve heard about the Project Veritas capture of a Director of Pfizer, Jordon Walker, talking about how his employer might perform a “directed evolution of the COVID-19 virus so it can devise new vaccines for the variants. Here’s the video:

     Here’s James O’Keefe himself to tell you why YouTube is suppressing that video:

     It’s always been something of an “open secret” that Google and YouTube censor those emissions they disfavor for political reasons. Now it’s right out in front of God and everybody, as blatant as a fart in a cathedral. Decide for yourself what that means to you, Gentle Reader. I shan’t insult your intelligence by explicating it for you.

One Of My Heroes Is No Longer With Us

Gerard Vanderleun:
December 26, 1945 – January 27, 2023

     For many years, Gerard set the Web standard for graceful and evocative writing. Whether in poetry or in prose, and regardless of the subject, his pieces consistently demonstrated what I call “The poet’s gift:” The right words in the right order. One who loves this language of ours could not help but love him. He will be remembered widely, long, and fondly.

     Rest in peace, my friend.

One Positive to Old Age

I can generally only sleep 3-4 hours at a stretch, before I have to get up to go to the bathroom. That’s true of nearly all of us.

I use that time, when I’m too wired to immediately go back to bed, toread, study, or write blog posts. I’ve been doing that last a lot, lately, both here and at Right As Usual – The Next Generation. I’m no longer trying to be the Founding Mother for a New Generation of Patriots. I’m just linking to important or useful posts by smarter people than I, passing along information I’ve learned that I thought might be useful, and letting people know what my own Next Steps are, in hope of sparking others to think about where they are at.

Oh, and occasionally writing the Get-it-Off-My-Chest posts, lest I pop off in public or in a quiet family dinner. Gotta let the steam out, ‘ya know.

Personal: I’m hip deep in clearing out the junk in our southern house. I’m starting to see progress. I’m in frequent communication with husband and family about my progress, and they’ve given me some good suggestions about handling the process.

I delivered the Radio and Physics talk to the AAPT (American Association of Physics Teachers) last week. It went well, and I’m hopeful that we can develop some projects between AAPT and ARRL (American Radio Relay League). Gotta love these acronyms, doncha?

The warmer weather is helping my joints (other than the recent storm system that came through this week). Doggo is loving the new neighborhood to explore, and I’m getting my mileage in. It’s going to be tight timing, but I’m hopeful that we can clear it up and get it finished in the next month. That would take a big load off my plate, and my budget.

Why I Am Not A Republican

     Republican Party partisans and assorted functionaries have on several occasions striven to persuade me that I “belong” in the Republican Party. I countered that I belong elsewhere – specifically, in that void where no party goes – but my interlocutors seldom take me seriously.

     A nice person on Gab has developed a graphical explanation:

     I feel it expresses a deep truth.

More Likely Than Not?

     One of the enduring characteristics of the Leftist is that he refuses to accept the responsibility for anything that goes wrong. This is utterly evident in matters of public policy, but it’s also visible as regards personal decisions. Two graphics – one intended as black humor; the other a fake headline – illustrate the point:

     The first graphic expresses a truth of the current controversy about the COVID-19 vaccines. The second graphic is a brilliant tongue-in-cheek prediction of what will happen when the Left is finally compelled to notice the elephant in the first one. If the Left can blame the tidal wave of vaccine-induced maladies on us in the Right, it’s likely to do so.

     This is the conclusion of a fairly simple syllogism:

  1. As the Left cannot admit to being wrong about anything, whatever goes wrong must be the Right’s fault.
  2. It appears the Left was wrong about the COVID-19 vaccines.
  3. Therefore it must be the Right’s fault.

     Why mention this in pixels? Because getting this prediction into general circulation reduces the probability that it will come true. It’s anticipatory derision — laughter now for what may come in the near future – and like Satan, the Left absolutely hates to be laughed at. This has two virtues:

  • First, it’s good for us in the Right to take amusement from something so ludicrous;
  • Second, it increases the probability that the Left will admit to having been wrong.

     Now, not everyone who aggressively evangelized the vaccines is on the political Left. Donald Trump certainly isn’t. But a good many of the “Thou shalt get the Jab or be forever shunned” crowd are also on the Left. Leftists are the sort of people most likely to say “If we think it’s good, then it should be compulsory.” (And the inverse, of course.)

     So I suggest spreading this one around. Do it in a good-humored way. Don’t get into long arguments over whether trusting the experts about COVID-19, the vaccines, or both was justifiable on any grounds. Just put it out there and let it make the rounds.

     I expect we’ll get a fair amount of mileage out of it.


     Among the utterly invaluable bits of life advice I’ve received from older and wiser heads – no, not recently — several stand out as gems of wisdom that deserve to be immortalized:

  • “Get a shot off fast.
  • “Don’t sit with your back to the door in a public place.”
  • “Don’t go ‘round breakin’ young girls’ hearts.”

     Precipitated by a conversation to which I was uncomfortably privy just yesterday evening, here’s another that eclipses all the rest:

Keep your shoulds to yourself.

     Only in my later years did I come to appreciate how critical that bit of advice really is.

     While this maxim applies with greatest force to “You shoulds,” it’s almost as wise to withhold your “I shoulds.”

     Advising another on what he “should do” is never politic. It poses you as his superior, at least topically and for a moment. No adult likes to be put in the position of a student at someone else’s feet. Remember: American citizens are the best armed in the world. Do you really want to “should” someone who might be packing in a heavier caliber than you are?

     (Children resent it too, even when they need the advice to keep them out of serious trouble. That’s why raising children is a difficult and hazardous undertaking best left to qualified professionals with degrees in Gender Studies. But I digress.)

     Admitting to others that you should (or shouldn’t) do this, that, or the other thing often makes them feel uncomfortable, especially when it’s related to a serious fault. Besides, what responses are you likely to get? “Oh no, not at all” — ? Unlikely to be sincere. “Yes, you should, so why aren’t you?” — ? Who wants to hear that?

     And before you ask, yes: this piece is a perfect example of contradicting one’s own advice. I really “should” consider what I’m about to say before I start stroking these furshluginer keys. As they used to say at Incredibly Big Machines:

Before you louse something up:


Qualifications For The Federal Bench

     …don’t include intimate familiarity with the Supreme Law of the Land:

     Yes, really.

     Actually, as I ponder this, when the Democrats choose a candidate for a federal judgeship, they probably screen out any jurist or lawyer who exhibits such a knowledge. After all, one who knows the Constitution’s provisions well probably regards it as binding on Federal judges, and we can’t have that. Everyone knows feelings are what really count in a court of law. Didn’t the Magic Negro say as much, not too long ago?

     America, we hardly knew ye.

The Good Old Days Dept.

     Being old, my memories contain a great deal that pertains to “those halcyon days of yore:” i.e., when I was young, dumb, and full of…well, never mind. Just a minute ago I ran across an image that brought many such memories flooding back:

     (Courtesy of Bustednuckles.)

     The engine is sweet-looking, but that supercharger! My God, what I could do with one of those and a modern high-compression V8! Say, the 5500 cm3 engine in my Mercedes. But I’d better not fantasize too vividly. I still have all my shop tools except for my hoist, and serviceable used hoists are pretty damn cheap if you know where to look. The C.S.O. will tell you: I’m not all that well armored against temptation.

     Carly Simon has told us that “These are the good old days.” Well, in certain respects, perhaps. And with that, it’s back to my morning yogurt.

Leftist Rules for an Unruly Culture

The first problem with this “decriminalization of prostitution” is that it does NOT help out the people on the street. The problem with prostitution is not that people get arrested for engaging in paid sex, but that so many of them are wounded individuals with a long history of being abused.

It’s similar to the argument for decriminalizing drugs. It doesn’t HELP the addict; it just allows them to continue their self-destruction without penalty. And, for addicts, that usually means health and mental breakdown, and likely death. The rise in the “Zombie Addicts” is proof that toleration of public drug abuse is NOT a good thing.

People under the control of an addiction or an abusive person aren’t free. Those that wish them to break free of their psychological chains aren’t the Bad Ones. Yet, that is the argument by the Left, over and over again. And, in some jurisdictions, such as LA, San Francisco, and Philadelphia, that mindset is in control (thank you, George Soros – go read the story at the link – it will make you sick to see how easily a targeted donation can upend the criminal system).

Libertarians often argue for minimalizing laws, on the grounds that such actions ‘free’ people to pursue their best lives.

Unfortunately, in many societies, the cultural wasteland has led many to function at the level of domesticated animals – many of whom operate on a lazy, it-feels-good-so-I’ll-do-it level. That’s not how animals in the wild work – they manage their time so as to acquire, and protect food, shelter, and their offspring.

The same with working dogs, whose intelligence is notable. That category includes herding dogs, hunting dogs, and guard dogs. They have a purpose in life, and they restrain their base impulses to achieve that purpose.

But, many pets have little purpose, nor function in their households. The cats that inhabit most homes have little function other than to accept human affection (sometimes reluctantly). They lounge around for long hours, never being encouraged to keep the home environment free of vermin. Those that DO engage in hunting, excitedly showing their dead prey to their owners, are often discouraged from doing so again.

We have permitted too many people to reach adulthood – as defined in years, not maturity – with no responsibilities and few useful skills. Leftists have skillfully enlarged the numbers of such people, to the detriment of our society.

We need to begin prying these leeches on society loose from their secure niche. Set a time limit for welfare, EBT, housing allowances, subsidized health care, and other forms of enfeeblement.

Those with serious health issues would be exempt from these limits, for now (we may want to revisit their situations, AFTER getting the more obvious layabouts loose from public support).

But, but, but…What About the CHILDREN!

Two choices:

  • Use that time-limited period to find gainful employment and support themselves (as WORKING people, defined as those who work at least 30 hours a week), with possibly SOME temporary continuation of partial subsidies.
  • Take the kids away. If no relative with more gumption steps up, put them up for adoption/place them in care. For the teens, heavy intervention in their schooling, so they can become self-supporting, along with some useful skills training. We shouldn’t leave them with a lot of unstructured time – that age group gets into trouble, if not kept busy.
  • For the younger kids, put them with people already approved for adoption. IF they handle these admittedly likely difficult kids well, bump them to the top of the list for adoption.

Too much intervention? Too heavy-handed state action?

Probably. However, I’m thoroughly sick of seeing salvageable kids ruined by lazy-a$$, self-indulgent parents.

We’re in Triage Time, folks. We need to stop this $hit NOW. And, never again introduce a “compassionate” program that enfeebles sovereign citizens.

Hey, Where’s The Music?

     It’s been a while, hasn’t it? And thinking about it, I find myself in a mood for Bob Seger’s darkest, most contemplative hit:

     Members of my generation should know the feeling well.


     The longer I live, the more Bob Seger strikes me as the bard for my generation.

     We came to our majority full of ourselves, sure we needed nothing from anyone. We blithely dismissed the wisdom of our elders, certain that such stuffy self-restraint was unnecessary to us. We traversed the “Summer of Love,” with all its arrogant certainty about its convictions. We suffered the depredations of the sexual revolution and the drug culture, and emerged from them sadder but not necessarily wiser. We contracted unwise marriages and unwise debts, and paid for both. And we staggered, bloody but not quite unbowed, into the Eighties.

     Things changed so radically that it left us gasping. Capitalism! How could we have failed to appreciate its opportunities? But we did, and the readjustment was barely short of traumatic. We adjusted to the 180-degree shift in perspective as best we could. Some of us prospered. Others found themselves relegated to careers in retail.

     The world was turning beneath our feet. The changes were good ones, yet they chafed us. We’d been so certain our flower-children attitude was morally invulnerable. The problem was what it always has been: it only takes one dissenter to spoil the illusion.

     Ronald Reagan appeared a hero-saint to some, but a devil to others. He’d brought down the system to which the great majority of us had subscribed as the inevitable course of the future, the proper destiny of Mankind. Some could not accept it. I knew some of that cohort. The survivors will still tell you today that socialism would work if only we were allowed to run it. A lot of them work in retail too.

     The Nineties might have stung worse than they did, except that by then we expected that those who postured as “our leaders” would prove false. We still had hope. After all, they gave way to a new decade, a new century, a new millennium! But ejecting the Left in favor of the Establishment Right would prove no great improvement. Wars multiplied like maggots on a corpse.

     The Naughties gave way to the Left’s next Anointed One: The Lightworker, the Magic Negro from Chicago. We hadn’t yet surrendered our hope, and here there seemed genuine change. But the Magic Negro was just one more arrogant, un-self-critical poseur. He proved incapable of admitting to error, and even less capable of gracefully retiring from the scene. He and his allegiants bent all their powers toward thwarting America’s choice of a captain who might, by dint of his Outsider status, succeed in righting the course of the ship of state.

     Here we are in this year of Our Lord 2023: hagridden by a political Establishment that refuses to admit that its time has passed, suffering the presidency of a dementia patient behind whom the Deep State continues to milk America’s inheritance of freedom for every penny it can be forced to yield, uncertain whether the Pretender-in-Chief will precipitate the end of human civilization. The Republic we knew seems to have vanished. The malaise is deep. Many prepare, most elaborately, for the end of things as Americans have known them. And it might come to that yet.

     Our numbers dwindle steadily as time and assorted maladies claim our lives. It’s no ultimate moment, for subsequent generations stand ready to take the helm and repeat all the mistakes we’ve lamented and, in many cases, repented. We cannot look ahead optimistically, but what does that matter? Soon enough we’ll no longer be around to do so.

     But at least we’ve had Bob Seger.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Load more