Ghost materialized in the lobby with a tablet in his hand…a real tablet, chiseled, not one of those iPatty things.

Dread Lord,

This came to my attention via Facebook from a Gen X’er. I find his gibberings to ooze obsequiousness to Dear Leader.

His other toadying is just as bad, if not worse.

—Ghost

Holy cats, man. That’s what you get for hanging around Salon.com, which spends less time on research than ‘Puter does.

Okay, folks, don’t click on that link unless you like heartburn.

Within, author Edward McClelland writes that the real reason wages are so low—unlike all those economically sound reasons that make liberals look bad, that is—is because unions are losing power. In other words, workers no longer fuide the means of production. With all the early-morning dorm room Marxism he can muster, McClelland produces a string of 150-year-old arguments to explain why things were better in the 1960s. He knows this because he briefly studied the 1960s in a college course presumably in the last 25 years…unlike those of us who were alive for both periods and know full well how under-educated the author is based on, you know, actually living then.

Yes, this is tired stuff.

But what McClelland fails to address is that the 1960s sort-of happened, you know? And the end game of the 1960s was the 1970s, which was followed briefly by the 1980s…and so on…until the year 2014. The stuff he hates today is the logical output of the 1960s he likes so much. Basically, we already know what his thought experiment leads to: stuff we all hate. Thanks, liberalism.

If we are going to sigh for another time, the Czar might suggest McClelland spend more time looking at the years 1920-1929, before socialist democrats decided a healthy market was a bad thing because they were losers and everyone else was succeeding. Before logical evolution was dismantled by the FDR administration, giving way to the LBJ policies of the 1960s that led to the miasma of Carter and Obama.

Wow. What a mess of an argument. But of course, McClelland is an author of two books, so he must be right. Otherwise Salon.com might, possibly, peer review his ideas.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.