Suspicious Minds

August 19, 2016

I accompany my wife occasionally to what I call UFC stores. (Useless eFfing Crap).

Nothing in these stores has any utilitarian value. If I’m not the only man there, I’m not the only one sitting on a chair reading his phone.

It’s all knick-knack decorative crap, emblazoned with stupid rich white middle-aged girl slogans. Eat/Pray/Love jejune idiocy that only an estrogen-poisoned retard takes seriously.

Most of these slogans are about the virtue of drinking too much wine and guzzling chocolate and to hell with your demanding husband and kids who are harshing your mel.

Greeting cards, napkins, all kinds of snotty stuff catering to snide women who are goddamn lucky their husband makes a lot more money than they do.

Everything in the store is propaganda aimed at housewives who think they’re feminists. You are the most mystical, whimsical, wise, put-upon creatures Gaea ever baked. Or half-baked.

In reality, you are the most pampered, self-overrated gaggle of traditionalist jackasses ever. You live June Cleaver lives, except with lots of alcohol.  You are in book clubs where you masturbate each other to keep believing you’re smart.

I used to consider this harmless.



A thing that’s better about getting older

August 12, 2016

When I was young, if I found out that somebody didn’t like me, I’d immediately go, Why? What did I do? What should I change?

Nowadays, my default, and I didn’t come to this philosophically but only actuarily,

OK, then, you not liking me is plenty reason why I don’t like you.

I don’t care to investigate why some person who isn’t important to me doesn’t like me.

If my boss doesn’t like me, well, that’s important information, and on a practical level I should figure out why and do something about it, but on an emotional level, it makes me like him less. And respect him less.

If a friend stops liking me, that is actually interesting to me, if it puzzles me. I will try to work it out.

But sometimes, it doesn’t puzzle me. Sometimes, you can see it coming.

I have (had) a friend who is a complete screwup. He’s been the butt of jokes from most of his friends for about 20 years now, because we’ve been all trying to tell him to knock it off without getting too serious. That’s a guy thing.

Perhaps we should have had an intervention. Maybe that would have worked if he had one single problem, like heroin addiction. But his addiction is when given any range of decisions, he’ll just ALWAYS choose the stupidest, easiest one. Every single one of my other friends reading this will know exactly who I am talking about.

By the way, if you’re a guy, and most of the time when you talk to your guy friends, the conversation turns to your problems, you are screwing up big time.

So the other night, he suddenly pops up on my social media with a snotty attitude about something that has nothing to do with him.

He’s obviously pissed at me, and I can see why. Over the last year, I’ve stopped joking with him and started getting serious. Like, seriously, Jane, (I’m going to call him Jane) you’re going for Insurance Amway now? (if everyone didn’t know who I’m talking about before, now they do.)

If you don’t like me, take it from me, I probably no longer like you.

The 2nd Amendment Solution

August 11, 2016

Ok, all you Democrat pearl-clutchers and panty-bunchers, Donald Trump did not just threaten Hillary Clinton’s life.

And all you conservative radio talk show hosts absurdly trying to pretend he wasn’t talking about violent revolution if the Supreme Court tries to take a big bite out of the 2nd Amendment, you shut up too, and listen to some sense for a minute.

Trump pretty clearly threatened the lives of agents of the government if Hillary and Her Court try to obviate the 2nd Amendment. And, I want to say, three cheers!  I’ll explain why below, but before this post hits the TL;DR wall:

  • Hillary Clinton, in 2008, when asked why she was continuing her quixotic quest for the Democrat nomination well into May, said, well, Bobby Kennedy was the Democrat nominee, and he got assassinated in June, so it’s important I stay in this race. If Trump’s words are a dog-whistle inviting assassination of Hillary, then he’s following her tradition, except she was inciting blue-on-blue violence.
  • Joe Biden, also in 2008, pandering to “2a enthusiasts” as they are called these days, directly physically threatened Barack Obama, were Barack to come after his shotgun or beloved Beretta.

There was only a minor kerfuffle about Hillary’s invitation to assassination and Biden’s comments sank without a trace, as they should have.

It’s unquestionable that the news media jumps on every questionable or inartful or rude thing Trump says and beats it till it dies like John Wayne’s horse at the end of True Grit. Trump is Drunk Uncle, which is the main thing that endears him to me. May I suggest that when Hillary lets the mask slip, it matters more than Trump’s political glossolalia?

A while ago, I asked a good friend who proudly asserts his “commitment to Progressive politics” as one of the most important things in his life what his fundamental political principles are?  He gave me no answer. We were on a road trip. After waiting about 10 minutes, thinking he was thinking, I assumed he was not interested in answering. So, subject change, and a reasonably quick return to cordiality.

Now, I’m not saying he had no fundamental principles; he may have just been not interested in having an argument or not interested in having an argument at that level or he was still thinking about it for the first time, and I interrupted before he had time to articulate what he wanted to say.

He has often said he didn’t want us to fight about politics, but occasionally couldn’t resist a little fencing, and then I would feel free to riposte . . .

I could resist this bait, but I don’t. Unlike Democrats and Progressives, people like me with libertarian/conservative views can argue about politics, even heatedly, and shake hands with no hard feelings.I don’t know why I have to shut up just because the Prog-Dems can’t handle ideas like adults. This is not just my experience; I hear this from a lot of people, getting rudely and unexpectedly shouted or pouted down by Prog-Dems who freak out when they don’t expect opposition. And, I’m really tired of Prog-Dems feeling free to make snotty cracks in polite company without fear of pushback.

I remember this statistician I worked with . . . ok, never mind, I’ll get on with it. I have lots of stories of Prog-Dem horrible manners and zero to 60 spit-flecked rage in social situations where they’re accustomed to applause instead of  “I disagree.”

Back to fundamental political principles. At what point is it either morally acceptable or morally necessary to violently resist the government?

If you’ve never thought about this,  you don’t think much when it comes to politics.

Donald Trump defined a principle today: If the Supreme Court abrogates the 2nd Amendment, it is at least OK, if not morally mandatory, to shoot back at the government if they make a move on your guns.

If you’re a Prog-Dem, your leaders think it’s OK to break the law and fight back against the government way before conservatives do. Why did Bill Ayers think it was OK to set off bombs? Why does Black Lives Matter think it’s OK to shut down freeways and vandalize businesses and–for real–incite nearly a dozen assassinations of police so far?

Prog-Dem reasons for violent resistance are jejune and trivial and just part of their MO. If you goad conservatives to violence, that takes a lot, and the shit will get real.

Now, couldn’t somebody take Trump’s statement as a “What if someone had assassinated Hitler?” provocation. Sure. So what? Seriously, so what?







Gary Johnson is a bad man

August 9, 2016

The Libertarian Party has sold out to Democrat-lite statist Gary Johnson who demands that a Jewish baker must decorate a Nazi cake under penalty of law. There are things libertarians may disagree on, but this is not one of them. Johnson is no libertarian. And neither are you, if you vote for him.

If you vote for Johnson, based on your purported libertarian principles, you’re not just a coward throwing away your vote to virtue-signal, you are a Hillary minion.


In case the video link goes bad:

Johnson’s opponent: [Johnson] has stated he believes that bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for people that they disagree with–homosexual couples. And this is a big problem because we’re running for President as Libertarians.

Moderator to Johnson: But is he correct in quoting you?

Johnson. Uh, yes. But I think that if you discriminate on the basis of religion, I think that is a black hole. Look, I think you should be able to discriminate for stink or you’re not wearing shoes or whatever, but I tell you what, if we discriminate on the basis of religion, to me that’s doing harm to a big class of people, and right now . . .

Moderator interrupts:  Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a Nazi wedding cake?

Johnson: Muslims in this country would be banned by all sorts of businesses right now because it would be the popular thing to do . . .

Moderator interrupts: So the baker should have to bake the cake for the Nazi wedding?

Johnson: That would be my contention, yes.

Money for Nothing

August 6, 2016

Here’s a little Friday afternoon I-don’t-think-I-can-concentrate-on-work-anymore just-for-fun arithmetic about the US dollar equivalent $400,000,000 the Obama apparatchicks just paid directly to the Iranian terrorist masterminds as ransom for 4 hostages.

All of it in physical, unmarked bills, none of them dollars, because that’s still illegal. I wonder if the bank they got the money from had to report the transaction to the IRS?
Of course, it wasn’t a ransom, just a cosmic coincidence that never happens except in chick-flicks, that the $400 million and the hostages crossed paths that night.

Iranian media, months ago, said it was a ransom. Barack Obama, yesterday, said it was not. Who are you going to believe? Your own President or the Iranians? I suggest you believe Barack Obama when he says the Iranians can be trusted.

There were reports that the money was forklifted into a cargo plane shrink-wrapped on multiple pallets. Iranian TV even showed a purported pallet. Donald Trump mistakenly thought B-roll of a plane landing that was run behind a news story was of the money being unloaded from the cargo plane. There was video of a guy carting a huge duffel bag down the steps of the plane. Silly Donald. Had he just done the arithmetic I did this afternoon, he’d never have said something that dumb.

A single piece of US paper money weighs about a gram. That’s a little more than 20 pounds per million dollars in US $100 bills. So let’s assume the ransom was paid in US $100 bills (it would kind of defeat the whole purpose of “unmarked” to pay it in a higher denomination, wouldn’t it?) I know you can tell where this is going, so I’ll just cut to the chase:

Because the ransom was paid in various crappy foreign currencies, it’s unlikely the actual tonnage of the payment was less than had it been paid in $100 bills. It’s likely that it was actually double, triple or more. Estimating conservatively (intelligently) as opposed to liberally (credulously), the ransom payment weighed at least 4 tons and could have been piled into a single 15 foot cube, if you had a forklift the size of a monster truck.

If you shrink-wrapped five foot cubes of cash on each pallet, each weighing a bit more than 300 pounds, you’d only need a few more than two dozen pallets. Still, no way in hell would that many pallets of that size fit on the plane Trump saw. What a maroon! Can’t he do arithmetic?

Meanwhile, Democrats believe that this whole sordid affair was a star-crossed “meet cute” romance.

Big magazines

August 6, 2016

Dumb Democrat on the radio complaining about how nobody needs a gun with a 20 round magazine. Like every single person who’s ever said anything like this, a person who has zero training, interest or aptitude for self-defense.

If you’re a gun grabber, allow me to help you sound less stupid: Never argue about magazine capacity.

If I am a bad guy walking into a nightclub or a classroom filled with unarmed, or at least surprised, people, magazine size doesn’t matter. I have not only the advantage of getting in the first punch, but also the fact that anyone resisting me is discombulated, even if trained, for at least seconds, and is likely in a tactically bad position. And has the wrong attitude — is interested only in self-defense, not racking up body count. It takes a second or two for a bad guy who has done even minimal practice to drop and reload a new magazine. And that person likely has brought plenty of magazines. The only thing the ban on large capacity magazines does is very slightly increase the weight of his backpack and slow him down, maybe, 10%.

If I have a concealed pistol, I want as many rounds available as possible to deal with even a single mass-shooter. I don’t have the luxury of carrying multiple magazines. I need my weapon to be compact and convenient since it’s an everyday accessory.

Very few guns designed for concealed carry have this many rounds anyway. So some people do carry one extra magazine. It’s a pain in the ass, usually literally. If some big good guy is willing to carry a bigger pistol that holds somewhere near 20 rounds, God bless him.

Now, what if you are in a situation where you have multiple bad guys? This is not just about a terrorist attack, but is the standard MO of street thugs, who tend to travel in packs of 3 or more. Given how easy it is to miss, how delayed the effect is most of the time for a single pistol hit, you probably need 5 rounds per assailant if you are to have a fighting chance, and that is if you are well-trained. Thus, 20 rounds is at best enough for 3 assailants and a few rounds for margin of error.

Big magazines benefit good guys more than bad guys

Get it? Got it? Good.


Some things I’ve learned from Donald Trump and Saul Alinsky

August 6, 2016

I was at a party given by genteel liberal friends. Everyone who’s part of this circle knows by now that it’s not a good idea to bait me for not being in the political herd. Yet they can’t resist indulging their sadomasochism.

A particularly genteel and nice fellow asked me, So now how do you feel about being a Republican? Hmm? I responded, pinkie perfectly balancing my glass of Chardonnay. You know, with how they’re attacking gay rights now. (I voted for gay marriage in Washington state, and am well-known to not have a problem with gay people, well not till they all started acting like fascist assholes the last couple of years.)

What is expected is that I take the question seriously, at least at first, make a reasonable philosophical argument, start getting shouted down (literally–why are Seattle liberals such crybaby ear-stopping How Dare You! addicts?), thus goading me into hoisting the black flag and laying into them with gleeful mockery.  Oh, wait, now maybe I do understand why they keep baiting me . . .

This time was different. I jumped immediately to the sarcasm, getting my shots in before they had time to work up a good dudgeon.

“You do know that black people are more anti-gay rights than Republicans. Even more blacks than Mormons voted for Prop 8 in California. And blacks are 95% Democrats.”

Uncertain, perhaps shocked, silence followed by bouts of stammering. I had responded for the first time with no intention of logically persuading, but only with mocking.

“Now that I’ve got you here, I know that Democrats believe that black people are your pets, and so you know them better than I do, and I’m curious-why do black people believe in such weird shit? Like all the conspiracy theories about the CIA, that gays are awful, that OJ is innocent and Jesus is Lord. What do you think is wrong with them?”

The conversation ended mostly visually, and I spent the rest of the night dogging the poor guy by shoe-horning in snide comments about the sinister powers of the CIA.

What have I learned recently that made me respond this way?

  • Alway on offense, never on defense (Trump)
  • There is no defense against ridicule. (Alinsky)
  • Make them live up to their own rules. (Alinsky)
  • Go outside their expertise (I interpret this as assert your facts first instead of refuting theirs) (Trump/Alinsky)
  • Attack people, not ideas (Trump/Alinsky)
  • Make sure you’re having fun (Alinsky)

The voice I hear in my head now when I act this way (and I’m doing it more and enjoying it a lot) is Milo Yiannopoulos.

We were not put here to convert Democrats, but to defeat them. The only reasons to argue with a Democrat are (1) to make them worry that there are other people like you, and (2) to entertain and encourage onlookers who also can’t stand the Democrats but are bewildered, think they are alone, and don’t think it’s safe to say what they think. (This is called starting a “preference cascade.”)