"Not Sustainable"

Yep. That's socialism in a nutshell. Margaret Thatcher once famously said that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. So True. Yet, our low-IQ friends on the left never seem to understand this. Consider what we've seen the past year or two.

● Guaranteed Minimum "Income"

Ontario announced just yesterday that they were ending their experiment with a free basic income. The plan had been to give single people up to $17,000 a year each and married people up to $24,000, with those faking a disability another $6,000. But the plan was cancelled less than a single year into its three year plan. Why? According to Canuck Authorities, "It wasn't sustainable." In other words, it cost too much and made people too lazy. Yeah, no sh*t, eh?!

Sweden tried this last year too. They wanted to give cash to the long-term unemployed in the hopes that they would no longer feel so stressed out about finding work and would go get jobs with the stress gone. You know... for fun. That lasted only a few months into a three year plan too. Why? It wasn't working and it was costing too much. Really? Shocker!

Yet, leftists like these new socialist turds keep pushing the idea.

● Medicare for All

Bernie came up with a way to say "socialized medicine" without it sounding so harsh. He called it Medicare for all! A study released the other day, and widely reported, concluded that this would cost around $32 TRILLION to implement. And given how government works, that's understated by a factor of five. To give you a sense of perspective, the entire federal budget for 2018 is $3.6 trillion. So this would cost about 9 times the entire federal budget. Or said differently, it would mean taxes of about $100,000 a year per every man, woman and child in this country. Nice work, Bernie!

● Venezuela

Venezuela has reached the point all socialist countries reach eventually. Total poverty. Shortages of fuel, food, medicine. The total absence of basic consumer goods. The shuttering of factories. Roving gangs of killers trying to stay alive. China was headed in this direction until they went capitalist. Now they're super rich. Vietnam, same thing. Eastern Europe, same thing. Even Russia kind of sort of did this. No socialist system has lasted long. Every socialist system has drive the country in question to the brink of cannibalism. Capitalism saved them all. So why are so many Democrats proud to be called socialists? Are they just psychopaths or are they monsterously stupid... because there's no other possibility.

Fake News... Whoops

I had such a happy moment this weekend when I read how the publisher of the New York Times "implored" Trump to stop his attacks on the media because his attacks were "not just divisive, but increasingly dangerous." Oh, that felt good.

Do you remember when the words "fake news" were first spoken? They were spoken by the leftist collective, MSM journalists in particular, and they were repeated by all the other leftist MSM types within hours. Gee, it was like a planned attack. Huh. And who did they attack with this? Fox News and other right-wing sites, and they did it with the idea of de-legitimizing them. In fact, the idea was even grander than that. The idea was that they, the MSM, had just appointed themselves as the arbiters of who would and would not be considered real news. Thus, by simply pointing at someone they didn't like, like Brietbart or Fox, and saying, "Fake News," they could get the herd to stop listening to anything those sites said.

Even more disturbingly, they also spoke of regulating "fake news" sites. So not only would they tell the herd not to listen to places like Fox, but leftists like the New York Times wanted to strip places like Fox and Breitbart of any of the protections our Constitution affords journalists and maybe even get them regulated into reporting only what places like the New York Times thought appropriate.

It was a truly evil idea.

But as you may recall, I chuckled. I chuckled because it was obvious to me that these good little Hitlerian liberals had no idea what kind of monster they were unleashing. The problem was that there was no one to say who could call whom fake news. They didn't see this, though anyone with a brain could. And indeed, within days, that is what happened. Trump was even one of the first to turn this against them. Soon others followed. And it never stopped. Now Trump has taken up this refrain to great effect and it blasting them with it daily.

So this weekend, the New York Times tweeted that Trump needs to stop attacking the MSM as "fake news" because he's killing their reputation with the public and they've hit an all-time low in terms of trustworthiness. Even worse, the Times whined, journalists are finding that the public holds them in such low esteem that the situation is becoming "dangerous" for them as certain less-stable members of the public see them as "enemies of the public" (something Trump has said too).

I have no sympathy for this. Indeed, I think it's well-earned. Keep in mind, as I just discussed, this all started because they were trying to do this very thing to conservative media groups. What's more, they've spent the whole last two years trying to destroy Trump. And I say that meaning it. They aren't criticizing Trump, they are trying to destroy him. They've published actual fake news as true (sure, they usually apologize, but not until after their lies become conventional wisdom). They smear him with rumor. They smear him hypocritically. They publish things against his family they would NEVER had allowed against Obama. And even when they haven't flat out lied they've used such a vile spin that they've certainly fed the derangement syndrome with which so many on the left and in the MSM (and a few on the right) are beset.

As an aside, this is so typical of liberals. They come up with these horrific ideas to destroy their enemies and then squeal like stuck pigs when the ideas get turned against them. It's funny how the Independent Counsel law, vote rigging in California, speech codes, fake news and the such are all fine and dandy and noble until they snare liberals. "No one could have seen this coming! Somebody needs to do something! This wasn't what we intended!"

Ha ha.

Yeah, About That...

So I've been trying hard to figure out why, other than derangement, the anti-Trumps think this recording of him apparently talking about buying the silence of some woman he had an affair with is such a big deal. Some do claim the moral element matters, but they didn't care about Clinton or dozens others. So that's not it. Well, I think I figured it out. And what a joke it is.

For those not paying attention -- for which I can hardly blame you -- Trump's former lawyer is in trouble for some sort of crimes he committed which apparently were enough to break the attorney client privilege, though I actually doubt that to be true. His lawyer has since decided to play mafia don and is threatening to release all kinds of evil secrets if people don't help him. Aiding him in this, is his own attorney -- Lanny Davis -- who was a Clinton attorney. Funny how that works.

Anyways, this week, "someone" release the smoking gun tape that was supposed to destroy Trump and lead to his impeachment and incarceration. On the tape, Trump is apparently (the tape is unclear at key points) talking to this attorney about paying off this woman to buy her silence. Shocker! End of the world! The horror!

The only problem is that there's nothing illegal or shocking about this. Pubic figures do this all the time. It sounds like they were trying to be a little more clever about it than most by not letting her know the money came from Trump (it would come from a dummy production company supposedly to buy her story) but that's not illegal either.

So what is this smoking gun that has the anti-Trumps so excited?

No one can really say. They all just seem to know that THIS IS IT!!!

So I started digging. What I've found is everyone repeating the litany that this "could involve" tax fraud (failure to declare income), campaign finance violations, wire/telephone fraud, and conspiracy to commit the other crimes. Sounds horrible, but here's the thing... the key word is "could." The people who claim this is a smoking gun are adding a step to their logic that they aren't admitting. This payment is only tax fraud, wired/phone fraud or a campaign finance violation IF those things ALSO occurred. That's like saying, "Andrew could be guilty of bank robbery, as shown his admission of speeding, IF he was speeding as part of a bank robbery." Talk about overstating the significance of the speeding ticket.

In this case, all we know is that Trump did nothing wrong or illegal or unethical. His attorney did by releasing this information and should be disbarred and maybe imprisoned, but Trump didn't. The rest is all wishful thinking.

What's more. The tax fraud would arise if the woman didn't declare it as income. That's not on Trump. The wire fraud and phone fraud would be her use of the phones or the mails as well, unless Trump's used them to commit campaign finance fraud. Campaign finance fraud only arises if Trump used campaign money to pay for this and didn't declare it, and I've seen no evidence of that -- and I suspect that tape would have been released if it existed. So these crimes aren't even Trump's. Their best bet would be some sort of conspiracy charge, where they claim Trump conspired with the woman to help her commit tax fraud, but that's a super stretch.

So all told, there's simply no smoke here. Imagine that.

Those Silly Leftists...

So get this...

● In the name of helping college students avoid student loan debt, colleges are apparently experimenting with taking a percentage of future income rather than issuing loans. This used to be called indentured servitude and was one of the things that was banned after the Victorian Age because it was tantamount to slavery. So liberal colleges are re-instituting slavery. Well, liberals do love repeating history.

● Income inequality, the left's favorite cause, is rising... in liberal states. In fact, it's worst in these states: New York, Florida, Connecticut, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, California, Nevada and Wyoming. In each of those, the difference between the top and the bottom is at least 30times with California being the only state in the 40s. Most states are in the high teens. Illinois just barely missed the list at 29. So the five top liberal states, dominate the list, with the sixth close by. As for the others, Florida and Nevada are blue-trending swing states. Wyoming, the only conservative/red state on the list, is probably a statistical anomaly, since no one lives there. So once again, liberal states are the home of what liberals complain about.

● I have been telling you that there are a lot of problems in the alignment of the tribes on the left. Some of them just don't fit together. Blacks and women don't play well together. Atheists and blacks. Environmentalists and unions.

One group that fits particularly poorly on the left are gays. Moreover, within the gay community, I've always thought that male-transgenders/transvestites do not fit well at all with lesbians or women generally. There are three problems with this relationship. First, lesbians tend to be anti-male, regardless of how the male dresses. Secondly, trans-males typically are using a stereotype of women that is more than a little misogynist. You see this really intensely with drag queens, who mimic women in ways that would get a heterosexual man torn apart by the #metoo community, and it seems to carry over into other aspects of the trans community. Third, when you have trans-men trying to join things that are set aside for womyn, you run into deep tribal problems. We see this in recent events with trans-men like Bruce/Caitlin Jenner being award Woman of the Year and thereby taking one of the few things the genetic woman tribe have set aside for themselves. You see it also in the trans-men who go into women's sports and "surprisingly" dominate because no matter how they look, they still have more powerful male bodies.

Anyways, in the past few months, there have been a growing number of clashes between lesbians/feminists and the trans community. Just the other day Facebook actually banned a UK feminist group for "transphobia" in their posting. A month ago, a lesbian group brought protest signs against trans groups to a gay pride rally. Look for this rift to continue to worsen, especially now that gays are no longer tied to the collective for political reasons and are free to attack whomever they want.

● The left is upset that dirty evil banks are stepping up their lobbying efforts because they feel like they haven't gotten anything from the Trump administration. Think about that. The left is pointing a nasty finger at Trump because banks are hiring more lobbyists because Trump isn't giving them what they want. Shouldn't they be celebrating the fact Trump is standing up to the banks? Not this left.

The Democratic CIVIL WAR!!!

What has struck me lately is the coverage... or lack thereof... of the "Democratic Civil War"!

For most of my life, the media has written almost continuously about the "Republican Civil War." Time and again, this was the theme the collective media ran with. Whether they were talking about Reagan versus the country clubbers, the GOP driving out the racists, the flight of the libertarians, the exodus (in-odus?) of the Religious Right, the revolt against Bush 1, Pat Buchannan versus George Bush, conservatives versus McCain, the Tea Party, Trump versus sanity, etc. In each instance, the storyline was that there was a "civil war" in Republican ranks and the "inevitable" implosion/explosion/break-up/shattering/END of the Republican Party™.

Now, in some of these instances, the feuds were indeed quite nasty. Some definitely changed the party for the worse, while some changed it for the better. Some people did leave the party during each of these. But the party never broke up. There was almost never a threat of the party falling apart. The body of the party really almost never turned on itself (the elites are a different matter -- they've never been loyal). So in the end, the idea of a civil war proved ludicrous even as that's been the constant liberal MSM headline since the 1970s.

On the other hand, the Democrats have periodically engaged in Civil War. They've expelled the small business class. They expelled white males. They tribalized and went to war with each other over the ranking of tribal pet peeves. In 1968, their fringe got famously violent. They unseated LBJ. They have rigged their elections and their conventions. They've sabotaged each other. They've run as third parties. And unlike Republicans, they do stay home when their ideological guy doesn't make it through the primaries. And for about two decades now, there has been a power struggle between "progressives" and progressives-who-think-they're-moderates (MORONS). Despite all of this, there hasn't been a peep about a "civil war."

This election cycle, the progressives have decided that being progressives isn't satisfying enough. They've decided to call themselves "socialists," though they SWEAR they aren't really socialists //wink wink. See, they don't want to nationalize things, they just want the government to run our health system system ("medicare for all" or "single payer")... and to set wages ($15 minimum)... and price controls ("drug companies, housing")... and open borders (end to ICE)... and open season for criminals (thugs need hugs, cops should be in jail). So yeah, not socialist.

The rest of the Democrats are freaking out because they see their best chance to win power slipping away from this idiocy and they are rigging their convention (again), using dirty tricks to rig primaries (again), planning third party runs... the usual stuff. It's indeed getting quite nasty with each side refusing in many ways to support the other and likely not turning out for the other. Yet, not a peep of a Democratic Civil War. Gee, I wonder why that is?

As an aside, lest you worry that the Democrats will be overrun by this new breed of "Democratic Socialist," (1) these are the same people who've tried it for 20 years and they've made no headway, (2) ironically, they are fighting against the MORONS who are essentially ideologically identical to them so their victory would mean no real change, (3) the Democrats are too tribal to pull anything off, and (4) this new group of open socialists numbers only around 50,000 people despite the headlines of a growing movement... that's it. There are probably more prohibitionists in the US. So this is much sound and fury signifying nothing, but man is it a lot of sound and a lot of fury... unless you hear the MSM tell it.

Interesting

So this is rather telling, in my opinion. It deals with the left and how they "think".

Elon Musk is a billionaire and the 53rd richest man on the planet. He got that way creating a computer company which was bought by Compaq and then creating an online payment system which became Paypal. From there, he created Telsa, Space-X and some other things. Musk has never been a noted darling of the left, but they've generally liked what he does. For example, they see the creation of Tesla as environmentally friendly because Tesla makes electric cars -- environmentally disastrous electric cars... but it's the label that counts on the left. He's big on solar power, roofs in particular, and claims he could power up Puerto Rico, which the evil Donald Trump plunged into darkness so he could kill brown people and eat their hearts.

They like that he on-again, off-again dates a #metoo chickie. They like that he wants to build an underground high-speed train from LA to New York. They like that he wets himself over artificial intelligence. He supports "direct democracy" and a universal income. And he resigned from some panel Trump put him on after Trump withdrew from the Paris environmental treaty. So not bad.

Well, last week, Musk volunteered to send a mini-sub to help the kids in the cave in Thailand. Somehow (not sure), this turned into a pissing match with one of the divers and Musk eventually called him a "pedo" and expressed doubt that the man was even one of the divers. Whoops. For whatever reason, this stupidity has been declared double-plus bad and the left has now decided to turn against Musk. They are fickle indeed.

So suddenly, this weekend, a whole series of nearly identical opinion pieces spread throughout leftist land all attacking Musk. Interestingly, the same day these came out, the same journals all posted one other little piece of information (//whisper whisper): did you know that Elon Musk donated to Republicans in the last election cycle?

I find this fascinating.

Not only do we have yet another example of the left producing group think articles all at the same time, but it seems that whatever his crime was, it wasn't enough without the addition that Musk donates to Republicans (no mention is made that he actually donates to both). Clearly, the leftist elite aren't selling the idea that the drones should hate Musk for what he said or did, they are telling the drones, "Here is another Republican CEO we need to destroy," and his actual crime seems largely irrelevant -- calling some guy in Thailand a pedo. In other words, it's not enough that he did something wrong, he needs to be seen as an evil person, an enemy. That's how the left works.

You know, except for the fringe right (and now the Anti-Trumps), you don't see that on the right. The right judges people on their actions. The left judges people on their correctness as a person. This is important to understand because it means that you can't appease the left with an apology or corrective action. It also means they don't judge people fairly, as we see all the time.

Musk has now apologized, but we'll see. He seems to be targeted for destruction now. I'll be curious how this plays out.

Leftists At Play

The left is running amok. They really are.

Selective Outrage: French President Marcon congratulates Putin in glowing terms on an excellently run World Cup. Crickets from the left. Donald Trump congratulates Putin. The left erupts. How dare he?! Doesn't he know how evil Putin is?!

Body Cams Again: This weekend, Chicago police killed a black man. The race industry immediately screamed that he was unarmed and blah blah blah racist cops killing black men. A riot basically began. Then the Chicago PD released body cam footage. Surprise, surprise. The angelic African American gentlemen who did nothing wrong was indeed armed with a handgun and an extra magazine, and after the cops tried to restrain him, he ran into the street and tried to draw his gun on the cops before they shot him. Once again, body cams reveal that this idea of cops hunting innocent black men is a myth. Draw on a cop... you die. No sympathy.

Trump Whining: The news this weekend was full of images of British protesters whining about Trump. I have to tell you, I honestly couldn't care less what some British white trash think about Trump or us. I guess I am impressed that they sobered up enough to stage a protest -- must have been near a welfare office -- but I still don't care. The British government is not relevant to the world anymore and the British people are the bottom of the heap. They lead every bad statistic in Europe. As a people they voted to make themselves wards of the state. They act like white trash. Their elite have repudiated everything that ever made them relevant. Why should we care about them?

Hilariously, by the way, many of the signs I saw from their protests made no sense. It was clear that these idiots had no idea what actually bothered them about Trump... or just couldn't spell.

The Moral of Papa Johns: For those who have followed this, John Schnatter, the Founder of Papa John's has gotten himself into trouble and was ejected from his own company last week. It started last NFL season when Schnatter used the NFL kneeling issue as an excuse for pizza sales falling flat. That didn't sit well with a lot of people who didn't buy it and it hurt his reputation. So Schnatter decided to rehabilitate himself. He chose the issue of race. He decided to talk about how anti-racism he was. Big mistake. Where it went wrong was that he used the n-word in his attempt to be sympathetic, when he claimed, "Where I grew up in Indiana, they used to drag niggers behind pickup trucks." First, that's bullsh*t. Schnatter grew up in the 1970's, by which time that crap had ended -- if it ever happened outside of a few southern states. Secondly, big mistake using the n-word.

The backlash was immediate and furious. How dare he use that word?! It didn't matter to the left that he was trying to support their "everybone's racist and hunting black men" narrative, he used the forbidden word and he wasn't a certified leftist. Soon, every journalist had converted this into Schnatter making racist statements and using the n-word. Not one grasped the context of how he used or it or what he was trying to do. Within days, he was forced out. Even funnier... the company forced him out immediately, and yet a number of colleges and sports teams are severing their relationship with the company over this. Think about that. They are attacking a company that did exactly what they wanted -- fired one of their enemies for lack of collectivist thought. You can't trust them.

The moral is simple. The left is looking to destroy. It doesn't do context. It doesn't do proportionality. Unless you have a free pass from them because you are far left enough, any misstep will lead to them trying to destroy you.

The Left Keeps Screwing Up

The left continues to implode.

● It's funny to me how the MSM never learns their own lessons. When they tried to destroy Ronald Reagan with Oliver North, they made the mistake of using camera angles that made him look heroic and the public really took to him. Yet, almost every image I see of this biased FBI agent Peter Strzok has him snarling or looking incredibly haughty. These are not looks that win people over or make the target a hero.

● The Democrats are having a real messaging problem with Kavanaugh... several actually:

● The Democrats are feuding over what message to use. Some want to attack Kavanaugh as the destroyer of Obamacare. Some want to use him as the destroyer of abortion. Some want to attack him as a danger to the Russia investigation no one cares about. Some want to use every message they can think of. And the red state Democrats are panicking that all the attacks will hurt them. There are already a great many hand-wringing articles about this.

● The Washington Post article on Kavanaugh's debt has already tripped Democrats up as it was clearly a dirty trick. The Post suggested that Kavanaugh has a problem because he took on a lot of credit card debt buying baseball tickets and remodeling his home. Here's the problem: First, most Americans are in a similar position, especially when it comes to remodeling, so this line of attack just makes him relatable and it insults the public. Secondly, it contradicts their attack that he's some rich white guy (the latest version is that he's biased by his too-strong education yo). Third, it turns out that he didn't actually have "debt" as people understand it because he paid it off... so the story was a total lie. Fourth, the baseball ticket thing turned out to be that he bought tickets for a group and the others paid him back. That the Post sold this as a scandal has blown up on them and all the leftists who mindlessly repeated this.

● Something has struck me about the Democratic attack. They never once considered whether or not he is a good candidate. Instead, they went straight to "we will do what we need to do to defeat him." This utter lack of any genuine consideration feels dishonest... disingenuous. It feels like a dereliction of duty, like politics of destruction over Senate duties. It feels like people whose goal is to destroy rather than to govern. Between that, the smears, and the hard, hard left messages, I see this blowing up on the Democrats in the midterms, especially if they act like jackasses in the hearings.

● So, a month ago, the Democrats were crowing about Wisconsin proving that the Republicans were in trouble. It seemed spurious at the time, but who knows. Well, this weekend, there was an article at Politico about the Democrats being in a panic that Wisconsin is getting away from them. At the same time, I've seen several articles saying that the polls suggest the Democrats cannot take back the Senate because they will lose as many red state seats as they might hope to gain.

My Thoughts On Brett Kavanaugh

So Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Kennedy. I think it's one of the better picks in decades. Here are my thoughts.

● In terms of qualifications, you aren't going to beat Kavanaugh. He's got more than a decade experience on the federal appellate court for D.C., where he is described as "influential". The DC Circuit is a great court, a very important court, which handles most important federal questions. Moreover, being considered influential is the best thing you can say about a judge. He's been a law professor at Yale, which suggests an orderly and creative mind capable of debate. He worked for Ken Starr. He worked for Bush in the White House, which shows political knowledge. You can't build a better resume.

● He's young and should serve for decades. Excellent.

● I still wish Trump would have put a conservative woman on the court, but that's a minor point and doesn't detract from his excellence.

● Philosophically, Kavanaugh is considered solidly conservative and has 12 years of a record to prove it. He's supposed to be in the mold of Clarence Thomas, my favorite Justice. He's a textualist, which is what a judge is supposed to be (though few are). He's also described as not living in a conservative bubble and having liberal friends. That's good as it keeps him grounded. He's also a strong believer in separation of powers, which is the key to small government. All good.

● The left is whining that he's a Nazi, which they would say no matter what. The fringe right is calling him a "moderate," which I think they would say no matter what. So that's good when he alienates the idiot factions on both sides.

● I'm impressed that he debunked the idea that Vince Foster was murdered and he wanted to reduce the discussion of sex in the Ken Starr report. This shows him to be both rational, not doctrinaire, and having an ear for politics. Those are all great things in a Supreme Court justice.

● Watch for liberals to howl about the faces his wife made during the announcement because, you know, that's what really matters.

● Once again, Trump proves to be excellent at delivering strong conservative talent that won't offend or scare average people (except liberals who would be scared no matter who got picked). Trump really can be an amazingly good President at times.

Thoughts?

Thoughts...

We're heading to Zion this week to get away from the world. I hope you all have a wonderful 4th o July. God Bless America! :)

As an aside, here are more thoughts.

● The MSM really doesn't get it. Because they are leftists, they think nothing of glorifying leftist stupidity. Right now, they are treating this "democratic socialist" (read "socialist") who won the Democratic primary (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) in New York as the shooting star of some new wave. That's stupid of them. Pointing to a socialist as a rising star is the sort of thing that scares people beyond the conservative base in the public at large.

What's more, they think this woman means some sort of surge in voting by young people and Hispanics. But she won a primary in which only 17% of Democrats voted. There's zero evidence of any sort of surge. All this does is excite people on the left who will soon be disappointed while scaring people on the right and center-right to vote. Not to mention, the way they present her as a slayer of corrupt old, fate, honky Democrats just makes the Democratic Party seem corrupt and turns off the very people she's supposedly inspiring. Stupid.

● The MSM really doesn't get it (Act II) They are highlighting this sudden push by leftist activists to shutdown ICE. While I'm sure that sounds great in illegal and moron circles, that will scare the hell out of the public, who want the borders controlled. That's a bit like saying you're going to abolish the police. The percentage of people this wouldn't scare are something like 15%. Bad call to highlight this.

● The Supreme Court recently issued a decision called Janus v. AFSCME. In this case, the Supremes said that unions could not force non-union types to pay union dues. Unions had argued these dues were required to cover the cost of collective bargaining, from which these people would benefit. They specifically stated they would not go to political lobbying. Well, the court disagreed and stopped the unions. Now the same unions who claimed these funds did not go to leftist political groups are whining that they have had to drop their lobbying donations by as much as 30% -- tens of millions of dollars no longer going to leftist advocacy groups. How funny is that?

What Greatness Is Not

LeBron James is going to the Lakers. I don't really respect that -- and this is a bigger point than just LeBron.

Cleveland was built around LeBron. When he didn't like a player, a coach or a general manager, they were fired. The roster was built to support him without challenging his leadership. The other players were content to do as they were told. It didn't work. They won a title, but then they ran into a better team in the Warriors and now LeBron is running from the mess he made. I see this is more and more with "successful" people. Indeed, I can think of a number of "great" coaches I've heard say they would only go to the NFL if they were given a franchise with a great roster and all the pieces you need to win a Super Bowl already there. But where's the challenge in that? To taking nothing and making it something is an achievement. Replacing the broken cog in an otherwise perfect machine makes you a mechanic.

Look at the feminists who think we should celebrate the first woman to do what a bunch of men have already done. Why? How is that an achievement? Is it truly so painful to be a woman that just being able to do what men do should be celebrated? Or how about those who want to celebrate the first black or Hispanic or gay to do what a buttload of straight whites have done regularly. Is that really something to be proud of? Why can't you go out and do something no human has done before? Invent something. Create something. Go to Mars. Go to Saturn. Colonize Venus or the ocean floor. Don't celebrate some white guy appointing you to some job.

When did the human race become so listless? When did our lofty goals become so pathetic? When did we stop looking at the stars and start shuffling around so pointlessly?

I've been reading "Around the World in 80 Days" and I'm reminded of an era when "explorers" really existed. When whole hosts of people launched themselves out into the world to discover, to build and to create. That sense of adventure is gone. Did you know Americans once tamed a continent? Humans once created great art too. For the love of God, make a movie that isn't processed by focus groups. Write books that aren't knock-offs of knock-offs of knock-offs. Do something special, humanity.

Unrelated One....

I find the replay effect funny. The more you watch a replay, especially in slow motion, the more it seems like the action can be changed. Missed the ball by inches? Watch the replay several times in slow motion and you'll find yourself almost thinking "he might get it this time!"

Unrelated Two....

I hate virtue signalling. It's such BS. This is the same self-congratulatory mental masturbation that gets doctrinaire, hateful liberals to swear that they would have stopped the witch burnings or ended slavery or killed Hitler. Sorry, but you faux-tolerant groupthinkers are the very people who did those evil acts, none of you would have stopped any of it. Anyways, virtue signalling is a way for racist, sexist, ageist, eco-harmful companies to declare that they are morally superior to the rest of you.

One of these that bothers me a lot comes from Subaru. No surprise there. Subarus are the car of choice for smug, progressive pot-smoking assh*le hippies. The commercial in question involves this dipsh*t couple who are looking for the peninsula trail. They are trying to find it on a map when an old smelly blind man announces that, "You're not gonna find that on any map." So they take this smelly, hillbilly rapist blind man with them so he can show them how to be pure of heart. He takes them to a cliff, where they listen for whales. Then they go into the woods at night where the pathetic husband stumbles, of course, but the blind man walks fine. In the end, we learn that (1) being blind makes you noble and gives you insight that sighted people don't have, (2) blind people have superior senses, and (3) Subaru owners are morally superior to you.

Allow me to counter... First, why in the world would they launch themselves to Oregon without researching where they were going? Gee, honey, we'll stumble upon a map and, if not, we'll find a blind man. Secondly, while Subaru is being all smug, they should realize that blind people do not gain other senses. That is a myth and it's one that upsets a lot of blind people. Subaru is clearly anti-blind for perpetuating that able-ist stereotype. Third, doesn't it occur to Subaru that using blind people to wash away their sins is condescending and blind-ist? This is the magic negro trope in hillbilly face. You are taking a human being and making them into a tool for sighted people to absolve their sins... and that's wrong. Idiots.