The Gormogons

Pretty sure this is from the movie. Close enough.

Today, the Czar took both boys to the cinema house to see Godzilla: King of the Monsters. True fact: we just had to look that up because the Czar totally forgot the formal name of the movie.

This is a weird situation: the trailer for this movie was a home run: scenes of monstrous destruction set to Debussy’s “Clair de Lune” with astonishing color-matched visuals, so much so that the boys agreed they needed to see that movie the weekend it came out. Folks also raved about the trailer, and months later, the film itself arrived to largely-absent ticket sales. Critics can’t seem to figure this out, and neither can audiences. Preview audiences liked it, but didn’t. Critics recommend you either see it or not. Usually in the same review.

Long-time Godzilla movie fans weren’t sure how to describe it, either. “Well,” the accounts seem to go, “The monsters are great, but the humans in the movie are utter dumbasses, with questionable acting, bad guys who seem to have no real goal or purpose, and an annoying kid who seems to have some bond with the monsters never fully explained.” In other words, just like every single Godzilla movie ever. That’s like saying you might have liked Bohemian Rhapsody if only it didn’t have that Queen music in it.

The annoying kid is played by Millie Bobbie Brown, whom you better know as Eleven from Stranger Things, and she’s a genuinely brilliant actress given a role that could have been played by anyone. Or even written out entirely. Ahem.

Speaking of eleven, guess how many people were in our theater, today? Counting the Czar and the boys? Yup, eleven. Needless to say, we got really perfect seats, centered in the stereo sweet spot. The Czar knows how to pick them, and literally up until the lights dimmed for the 35-minute trailer onslaught, we three were the only ones in the theater at all. By the way, based on the trailer package we saw, we are guessing that the movie industry has no clue what to do now that Avengers: Endgame is wrapped. Sheesh. We happy less-than-few.

Look, you’re probably wondering if you should see this movie. And the answer is probably not.

The movie requires two things of you: you really ought to be a Godzilla fan (to the point that you can spot the “Mo-su-ra….yah!” song embedded in the superb soundtrack, and that you kind-of enjoyed its twp predecessors: 2014’s Godzilla and 2017’s Kong movie, whatever that was called. The Czar liked the first, but totally missed the Kong movie because (a) it was only in theaters for about a day and (b) is currently shown solely on cable television on some channel called FilmPlex Action Plus, which is part of a channel package including the Minor League LaCrosse network, the रूमानी सुखान्तिकी channel, and a mime channel the Czar doesn’t want to pay for.

If neither category describes you, you will probably find this movie an irritating mess. Who are these guys? Why are they fighting? When did that monster develop that power? What the hell is that? If you know your 1960s-1970s Godzilla movie history, you won’t ask these questions because you will either know the answer or won’t care. You want to see the monsters bash each other’s brains in, plus a couple of American cities you already don’t like get wasted in them.

Does this movie matter? Maybe we got spoiled by the Marvel Cinematic Universe (“Hey, see how Wasp put that pencil down on that night stand? I bet that becomes incredibly important eight movies from now!”), but no, this movie doesn’t matter. Adults taking little kids to see this Godzilla movie should feel certain the kids will be entertained, but don’t expect that any of this will make sense to you. Littler kids, say under 9 years old, might find some scenes pretty intense (not scary-scary, but pretty nail-biting), and would do better seeing this movie at home where they can pause, catch a breath, and hide behind mom. And kids 5 and under probably shouldn’t see this one at all, especially in a theater. These monsters are neither cute nor friendly.

But if you like Godzilla movies, including the weird B-plots about bad guys, double agents, precocious kids saving adults from their own stupidity, impossible flying paramilitaries crossing the globe in impossibly short times, then enjoy this one, because it’s a doozy. The music is great, the monsters are excellently realized, the destruction really brutal, and the perils fairly well thought through. And there’s a bunch of clever and easily-spotted Easter eggs for you.

Mo-su-ra….ya!

The stock market closed around 26,500 last Friday afternoon, although at 9:30 that morning, it was at 26,160. That’s a 1% difference. Interestingly, it was at 26,500 on Thursday afternoon, so even if you were one of the very few affected by little drop, you made your money back.

Crazy, huh? Here’s how CNN reported this: Dow Futures Plummet 400 Points After Trump Renews Tariff Threat on China.

Plummet! Yes, like if gas goes down three cents a gallon, we can say its price plummeted.

Or if Joe Biden’s polling numbers go from 39% to 38%, we can say his support has plummeted.

Or if CNN’s ratings drop another 1%, we can say viewership has plummeted.

A 90-degree turn to the left is all it takes!

The Czar would love to link that headline for you, but CNN already revised it to Global Stocks Drop After Trump Risks ‘Full-On’ Trade War with China. You might click on that link later and see if it’s been changed again.

So why the hyperbole? Why would CNN portray an hours-long dip in the Dow as a plummet, which implies a disastrous free-fall?

Probably because the economic news is really good, and Democrats can’t win a presidency unless the economy is rocky. So by using scare words, you create the perception among Americans that, hey, maybe things aren’t so good right now. This way, you can create enough fear, uncertainty, and doubt to encourage Americans to hold off on buying the house, that car, or that new washer/dryer combo with the wireless smart-app feature that texts you when your laundry is done. And, just maybe, you get enough Americans to hold off that you can trigger a slowdown.

Any slowdown is a recession to the news media, regardless of how many quarters of non-growth you see. RECESSION LOOMS, the drumbeat goes, on so many media stories today.

Recessions get Democrats elected, even if they have to cause them themselves.

Consider this headline: Dow Briefly Dips 1% Before Regaining. Know which media outlet carried that one? None of them.

Here’s another thought for you. Summarizing the CNN story, we learn that President Trump threatened new tariffs on Chinese goods. We learned that three global markets saw their indices drop by single-digit percentages, but the Dow and oil futures made up what they lost.

We also learned the Chinese were annoyed, and that a real trade-war between the US and China would cause a reaction. No kidding. But after a week of record-breaking highs, Friday morning’s dip was the biggest dip in weeks, just before recovering.

That doesn’t sound so bad. But you know what the article doesn’t explain? How exactly does Trump’s threat correlate to this small, momentary dip in the global markets? Sure, they happened at the same time, but you know what else happened Friday morning?

Lots of stuff. There’s no direct link—presented in the article—between the Trump statement and the plunge. Could there be? Absolutely, and almost certainly there was some effect; but if so, it was minor.

Here’s a bit of advice: whenever any news outlet “explains” why stocks drop or rise, check to see if most other financial sources generally agree. They won’t. If you Google Friday’s drop, you’ll see that many diverse sources cite the Trump threat as the cause, specifically using the word “plummet,” indicating they’re all using the same source and not doing independent research.

And this requires no explanation: few financial folks will ever cite a specific cause for why the market does anything. Phrases like “on fears of,” “as a result of,” or “in expectation of” are bullshit explanations to pad out the story. The only real story is that prices are trending up or trending down (bulls and bears), and finding a specific explanation for day-to-day shifts are imaginary. It’s like blaming colder temperatures tomorrow on magazine sales or on a sea cruise cancellation.

The political origin of this style of reporting is obvious, as well. If the economy keeps booming every couple of weeks, Republicans are going to coast into an easy victory in 2020. Since this outcome is unacceptable, you will see two counter-strategies employed by Democrats: the first is RECESSION LOOMS, in hopes that consumer confidence is shaken enough to cause a real one, and the second is all sorts of twisting and gyrations to convince voters that the Democrats are actually responsible for the good times.

We’re already seeing a bit of the latter: but because Democrats promised America that Trump’s economic policies would wreak utter devastation on the land, there’s precious little to cite as proof. As a result, we have already seen the claim that the powerhouse economy was the result of President Obama, not Trump. Except, as you know, Obama isn’t running in 2020; this has less effect.

What if President Obama were president today?

That CNN headline would probably look like this: Obama’s Tough Trade Talk Lowers Prices for First-Time Investors. It’s exactly as plausible.

As President Trump’s second term grows increasingly likely by the day, expect to see more RECESSION LOOMS headlines. Who knows? Maybe the Democrats will be lucky enough to genuinely cause one. They certainly have willing helpers in the media.

Tony Stark and Black Widow bring a bit of class to every fight scene.

Anyway, forget about all that: Avengers: Endgame is out in theaters, and the Czar took up nearly his entire weekend watching it once. No doubt, you’ve got questions, so here’s our spoiler-free take on the movie.

Is it as long as they say?

Yes, all told, counting all 22 Marvel Studios movies that play into this, the movie is about 778 hours long.

When should I go to the bathroom during the movie?

Anytime you like! The Czar openly advocates urinating in the theater seats. Everybody else does.

Are there any good ways to ruin the movie for others?

Certainly! Feel free to park your car in the theater and leave the brights on. Or shoot off fireworks during the scary parts. The Czar took a different approach today and hurled a full hornet hive like a football right into the front seats.

How crowded was the theater?

Very, but not as bad as the crowd waiting for the next showing. And we hear the one after that was even longer! Frankly, if you haven’t seen it by this point, the lines will be over six miles long. So don’t bother.

Are there any surprise cameos in the movie?

Lots. Seeing Wayne Gretzky back in full uniform was great, as was Carl Ballantine. If you’re looking for cameos from other Marvel Studios movies, this one is chock-full, including the guy from Iron Man who nods at the press conference at the end, Guard #2 from Thor: the Dark World, and Irate Customer from Age of Ultron. One of the boys swears he saw Confused Kid from Iron Man 3, but that’s doubtful seeing how that actor’s relationship soured with the studio.

Anybody coming back from previous movies?

Yes! The assistant standby painter in Endgame is the same one as Black Panther.

Popcorn any good?

Not bad, although we blew through a medium bucket in the same time we normally go through a small…meaning, about 20 minutes into the movie.

Seriously, couldn’t the have cut anything out of this film to make it shorter?

The directors swear that cutting even two seconds of this movie destroy the entire structural narrative; however, there are definitely a few scenes that warranted some editing down. There’s a scene where Black Widow reads an entire phone book trying to remember the name of a pizza place (“all I remember is it had a vowel in it,”), War Machine takes an online course in college-level trig, and right at the beginning, Hawkeye attends a complete, three-hour, Greek Orthodox mass.

Bring the pets or nah?

Leave the animals at home. The movie is loud, you have to pay attention, and the theater is carpeted.

Is this another one where that guy does that thing?

Yep, he totally does.

Although this happened in 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to review the finding a couple weeks ago. Here we go.

Illinois introduced the Firearm Owners Identification Card in 1968. The FOID card is easily obtained—today, you pay a $10 fee (to cover the cost of a background check and the materials) and it’s good for ten years—and is necessary to purchase a firearm, buy ammo, rent a gun at the range, and basically even get to hold on in your hands at the store.

Frankly, the Czar never thought much about it: there’s no minimum age to getting one, and in theory a 6-year-old could apply for one and would probably receive it, provided a legal parent or guardian co-signs the application. Of all the extra steps some states make you go through, Illinois makes it a breeze.

So there it is. Not much to think about for Illinois residents, right? It’s butt-simple to get, and as long as you have one, you’re good to go in this state (provided you’re not concealing it, which is an extra set of steps). It places no limits on how many you can have, or buy, or how you store it your home. It fits easily in a wallet, and the Czar has used his as legitimate photo identification when asked to produce more than just a driver’s license.

The law’s text is childishly basic: “No person may acquire or possess any firearm…within this State without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police under the provision of this Act.” (430 ILCS 65/4(a)(1))  That’s pretty simple.

Or so we thought.

Vivian Brown is an older individual who lives in far southeastern Illinois. There is a .22 bolt-action rifle in her home just in case, allegedly in the house for decades from before the FOID era.

Local law enforcement were informed that she was shooting it in her yard, according to rumor. Incidentally, that’s not necessarily illegal in Illinois: prohibitions about firing a weapon on private property are municipal, and many unincorporated areas allow it. However, whatever Ms. Brown’s municipality exactly is, she wasn’t doing that. And law enforcement agreed.

However, they asked to see her FOID card. She doesn’t have one, and took the position that she doesn’t need one since the rifle never leaves the house, she didn’t purchase it, and is safely put away. No matter, the responding officers decided, you don’t have a FOID, you can’t have a gun.

She got a lawyer. And the lawyer brought it to court.

Judge Stanley took the case. Basically, it’s a simple matter: the Illinois State Police were sympathetic and suggested if she just pays the ten bucks, she can get the FOID and keep the gun. But Judge Stanley thought about this and listened to the prosecutor’s argument that if there’s a gun in the house, there has to be a FOID card on hand.

Judge Stanley realized that if you have a FOID card and your spouse does not, if you leave the home without your spouse, the spouse is in violation of the law. If mom and dad keep a gun in the nightstand and go out for dinner, the babysitter or little junior needs to have a FOID card, or the law has been broken. At least, that’s true if anyone in the house knows there’s a weapon on premises. The shorthand version is that if the family is aware there’s a firearm on the property, everyone needs to have a FOID card to avoid breaking the law.

And if you don’t, as Ms. Brown didn’t, then you can go to jail for possessing a weapon without a FOID.

Judge Stanley ruled against the State, and decided that not only was it okay for Ms. Brown to have a rifle without a FOID, he declared that the entire law about FOID cards was unconstitutional. Why? Because Ms. Brown was a soft test of a premise that an Illinois cannot defend himself or herself in the state without a FOID. It’s inherently unreasonable to think that a person, facing a home invader, will go online, fill out the form, submit a photograph and $10 check, and wait for the card to arrive in the mail weeks later before legally shooting the bastard.

The Illinois Attorney General’s office complained about the ruling, stating that this isn’t the intent of the law. View her case as a reminder that if you have a gun, just get the ID. It’s super-easy to get. And you’re all legal. So, they asked the judge, would he reconsider his ruling?

And the Judge did. He reconsidered it really hard, and produced an even longer opinion listing dozens of ways the FOID requirement violates not just the Second Amendment, but also the Fourteenth. He recommended the Illinois Supreme Court take a look at this and see if he was right.

Guess what happened: the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to do just that. And historically the Illinois Supreme Court has been pretty gun friendly, especially in recent years. Many state legal experts believe they will sustain Judge Stanley’s opinion, and if not, it goes to the United States Supreme Court, who will probably affirm it. Or, if the Illinois Supreme Court drops it, it still goes to SCOTUS; in that case, the Czar understands, they will probably decide against hearing it…which affirms it.

Anti-gun lobbyists here in the Land of Lincoln are sort-of freaking out about this. Thanks to Judge Stanley, it seems that the FOID’s days are numbered. They’re not over yet—so far, only Ms. Brown has been given a pass on this. But thanks to her, the rest of us may see the FOID eliminated.

This, by the way, should be great news for other states with even more difficult requirements (say, um, New York). Illinois hopes our Supreme Court knocks it out; the rest of you should hope it goes to SCOTUS.

The world is ending once again, in case you’re missing it. Today’s skyfall is the failure of the Green New Deal in the Senate. Except, of course, it wasn’t really the Green New Deal; the vote was only for a resolution to take up the proposal as an actual bill. But no matter: as far as you know, Republicans thwarted the Democrats once again in their plan to save the world.

Well, not exactly. Because the vote was for a resolution, the goal was really to see if there was enough support for it in the Senate. Not Congress, just the Senate. So naturally the Republicans managed to defeat the Democrats 53 to 45, based on the six seats they must have stolen from a fair election.

But not really. The resolution was defeated 57-0. Not a single Democrat voted for it; and if you’re quick with math, you’ll note that three Democrats (and whatever the hell that whackjob from Maine is) also voted no. Therefore, the tricky Republicans voted while the rest of the Democrats were out saving horses from a burning barn.

No, not so fast. Those Democrats were all present, and they voted “present,” because they were protesting the outcome of the Mueller report. Or the Jussie Smollett story. Or that thing that happened with the other thing.

Um, alas. No, the Democrats voted present because they want to keep their jobs. The entire Green New Deal, which originated with that goofy house across the street, is a nakedly socialist power grab that would destroy the country. And every Democrat in the Senate knew it.

How do we know it’s socialist? Because it’s a save-the-earth policy. Follow us on this one.

As you probably know, every proposal, bill, or plan to Save the Earth from Global Climate Catastrophe is a socialist paradigm. We know this because if you strip all the nouns out of a typical Green proposal, you can drop in socialist terms and the structure still holds. This reverse Mad Libs analysis is pretty easy to do: basically, the government takes over everything, distributes assets and money globally, is beholden to no one, and suddenly everyone is saved forever by minds much smarter than you.

And thus we learn that those horrible, anti-science Republicans somehow and narrowly voted against saving the world.

Did you know that the Green New Deal could be paid for with the same amount of money we spend each year on defense? If you didn’t know that, and the Czar didn’t, because he heard the cost of the Green New Deal would cost multiples of our entire Gross Domestic Product, you will be happy to learn that it must only cost $686 billion. No, in fact, that’s exactly backward. The Defense Department is getting that amount—smaller than other years—which comes as a surprise to many Green New Deal supporters who heard that Defense pulls in trillions.

Still, you have to be upset. After all, the United States has 5% of the world’s population and uses 80% of the world’s energy. Doesn’t that sound terrible? Actually, one suspects that’s actually a really good thing: the United States is using its energy to produce really amazing things that benefit the entire world.

But wait a minute, wait a minute…80% of the world’s energy? The Czar wasn’t aware there was a maximum amount of energy available to us. After all, 18% of our nation’s energy is renewable, which is an amount that also stuns a lot of people. Yes, it’s that high. And ready for more? Another 20% on top of that is nuclear-based, which while not strictly renewable (there’s uranium to be mined and waste to be carefully stored), is safe and pollution free. You know, a lot of the remaining 62% could be replaced with nuclear power, leaving some clean-burning coal and natural gas to round out the balance to produce more power.

About all that would leave is that awful, polluting petroleum energy sources. Except, even today, those account for less than 1% of America’s energy consumption.

In other words, we might account for 80% of the world’s energy usage, but we’re actually not producing very much pollution at all. The better question is why isn’t the rest of the world catching up to us?

Maybe because they’re morons and don’t have the resources to produce it. No, that can’t be it: because the statement “80% of the world’s energy supply” assumes there’s a 100% limit, with only 20% left for anyone else. Where else do we see this zero-sum logic?

Right: socialism. There’s an idea present in almost all socialist doctrine that runs along the line of “there’s only so much of X, and the rich have most of it.” You have heard it from Bernie Sanders gripe about the one-percent-of-one-percent, from Obama decrying the rich hogging 99% of available healthcare, or Clinton’s yelping about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

It’s poppycock, of course. There isn’t a finite amount of energy available: there’s enough uranium in the world to produce 100% of the world’s current power demands for over a millennium, and enough light-water fuel to add a few hundred on top of that. And the sun, well, that produces both solar and wind power. The earth’s gravity will produce hydroelectric power and geothermal power for billions of years.

This makes one wonder: if the United States is using 80% of the world’s current electrical output, when is the rest of the world going to catch up?

Evidently, we’re wrong about something, here. The Czar also learned this morning that the United States produces most of the world’s pollution. Sure, you and the Czar thought this was China and India, but a whole bunch of sources will agree that those countries have drastically reduced their pollution output, while the United States has not.

That sounds bad, provided you don’t look too closely at the basis for the claim. China and India have reduced their polluting emissions…but they’re still the worst. They drop from the top only if you look at reductions as a percentage, and not as a unit. In other words, if a thief steals $100,000 from Bank of America, he’s less deserving of punishment than a thief who steals $25,000 from the Oakdale Bank of West Summit, because the percentage of the total cash taken from Bank of America is a lot, lot lower than Oakdale’s. You get into real trouble when you rank two different entities solely by percentages.

That’s as dumb as suggesting California needs more senators than Wyoming does because they have more people. And no one could be that stupid, could they?

Speaking of yes, the whole notion of top polluters is a real mess to figure out. Did you know America is the second-worst producer of carbon dioxide? China is first, by the way.

Actually, the United States is far behind China. And know who is third, right behind America? The European Union, which as we know is the Greenest Damned Paradise on Earth. You thought India, with its slums? Or Russia, with its lax safety? No, America and Europe are practically hand-in-hand in carbon dioxide output. The next time a European takes you to taks about America’s rejection of global climate initiatives, feel free to remind them that their carbon dioxide makes them a nearly equally major problem.

Okay, well let’s question about whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It’s true you can’t breathe it like you can nitrogen and oxygen, but trees and plants sure do. And its ability to trap solar radiation is definitely a thing. But how much CO₂ is too much?

Gosh. nobody really knows. But there must be a maximum amount, right? And each day, we must get closer to that. Zero sum.

All right, let’s concede that we really don’t know how much carbon dioxide is bad. Studies from the last fifty years aren’t exactly in agreement, and predicted levels for destruction have either been safely exceeded or have not actually been reached in their predicted time frames. Let’s drop the whole thing.

Surely there are other things America is doing that are bad for the environment. What about air pollution? Aren’t we producing a lot of toxins in the air with all the coal we burn? You’d think so, but America ranks eighth from the bottom of a list of countries producing toxic air. Given how much coal we cleanly burn, that’s not a surprise. China, though, is at the top of the list.

Polluted water? China. Not the United States, which is far, far down that list. In fact, some of our industrial water is cleaner than what comes out of most kitchen taps around the world.

What about countries who dump plastic in the ocean? Well, America is really far down that list. Really far. China, of course, is at the top, and if you aren’t seeing a pattern by this point, the Czar isn’t sure what to tell you.

Indeed, when you look at environmental catastrophes, America seems to be down the list by quite a bit, except for carbon dioxide emissions. Which, conveniently, seems to be at the center for all Green initiatives requiring the government to take over private industry.

Know where government has taken over private industry? China.

It’s not a surprise the Green New Deal failed. Even Democrats know that if they support this nonsense, they’re going to get kicked like a jackass at election time. It’s just socialism in a different crisis—a crisis created by playing with numbers that make America look worse than it is.

There’s nothing New about that Deal. And it’s no longer Green.

Whoops. Somebody left the de-aging software render on Sam Jackson going all night. This required a lot of CTRL+Z commands.

Another Marvel movie opening weekend, and another tsunami of movie critics complaining that audiences continue to suffer from superhero movie fatigue, while of course Captain Marvel is set to hit about a half-billion dollars in less than 72 hours. The Czar reassures movie fans that the future looks more like Avengers 8 than it does Oceans 8.

Anyway, on to the review of Captain Marvel.

Does this movie run on Diesel or E85?

This movie does not run on fuel. You may bring a gallon of whatever you wish into the theater.

Is this movie good for dogs and cats?

Yes, clearly. But cats will enjoy it vastly more than dogs.

Is the de-aging effects used on Samuel L. Jackson good enough to use on my wife?

At this point, they’re good enough to use on Kirk Douglas.

Is it true that Brie Larson is wooden and uninteresting in her performance?

Wow, this one is difficult to answer. This movie is a bunch of plot twists and crazy reveals, and the stiff performance by Brie Larson is a deliberate one. To explain why would reveal a bit of a twist that the movie makes pretty clear. The bored delivery is used a lot in the trailers, but is not indicative of the whole performance.

Czar, I can’t figure this out. One one hand, people are saying this movie is a fascist ad for the United States Air Force, and others are saying it’s a SJW’s dream of feminist empowerment. Make up my mind!

As the Czar has said a few times, be very careful about criticism of Marvel Studios movies. They’re the top dog in profitability, and have been for years. They clearly will be for many more. And as the Czar has also said, these movies are generally right-of-center.

The movie is a fun, entertaining romp very much as good as the first Captain America film (not the best of the Marvel movies, but worth seeing. No, there is no social justice whomping over the head; yes, the USAF was heavily involved in the technical details of some dog fights, and yes, the Air Force did not allow women to fly combat missions in 1995. But most of the comments about this movie being a leftist fantasy were fake, generated by those on the Left. Remember when conservative folks blasted Thor because non-whites were used as Asgardians? Guess who wrote those? Lefties. And when white people reported they were frightened away from seeing Black Panther? Yep—hoaxes, generated from those on the Left, again.

Same thing here. Yeah, she’s a woman. And yeah, she beats up guys. There’s even a clever use of a certain song by No Doubt; but that isn’t to hit you over the head but be a sly wink at taking people for granted.

In fact, nearly all the criticism the Czar has heard about this movie is unfounded once you see it. Once again, it’s folks on the Left hoping that the folks on the Right—who are spending about a half-billion buck this weekend to see it—will stay home to tank the right-of-center franchise for good.

Because here it is: the Marvel Studios movies are about the only thing the Left is having a very difficult time controlling.

And the thing about that is that Disney and Marvel Studios both aren’t really making these hard-right movies. They’re simply making them for the broadest* possible appeal, which means fun and entertaining, and not enough SJW lecturing.

Isn’t Captain Marvel also Shazam, which is coming out?

Sorry, even Dr. J. should know** that Marvel Comics owns the rights to the name Captain Marvel, and when DC Comics got the licenses to the Fawcett Comics characters in 1972, they were forced to change that character’s name to Shazam forever. Which mean that in reprinting original Shazam comics from the early days, they were forced to retcon the name. So, no, there is definitely no overlap or coincidence between the two characters. Just a long story about licensing.

* Shut up, Puter.
** But apparently doesn’t.

Tearing open the mail bag, we find:

Neither: they are American citizens.

There are two investigations going right now regarding Mr. Smollet: the Chicago one, which is going into a grand jury in preparation for a criminal charge against him, and a federal investigation regarding his use of self-threatening letters. We have no update, at present, on the federal one. This is either because (a) the FBI is waiting to see what Chicago does, or more probably (b) since there was no real threat here, they’ll probably just drop it as a waste of time, and not refer it for federal charges.

We’ll see.

It’s a sad day for America’s Left when one of their revered Nobel laureate in economics and reliably supportive pundits gets pwned by a n00b congresswoman with a 10 year old’s understanding of economics and ex-girlfriend crazy eyes. It’s even worse for America.

Few things amuse ‘Puter more than a star in the liberal super-smart punditsphere exploding in a supernova of stupidity and self-owning. Few liberal super-smart pundits do so more regularly* than the NYT’s own Paul Krugman.**

Krugman opines in today’s NYT that Republicans are scaremongering, claiming Democrats are peddling socialism. Krugman warms up with some light Reagan bashing, *** then moves on to some vigorous straw man constructing and burning. You see, Republicans believe socialism is either (1) “economic liberalism” or (2) Soviet-style central planning, or Venezuela style nationalization of industry.”

With a segue as smooth and effortless as ‘Puter’s colonic output after all you can eat Kraut and Courvoisier night at the Leaping Peacock, Krugman informs us today’s Democrats aren’t peddling socialism, no far from it.**** Krugman valiantly moves in for the kill, ready to ignite the marauding army of strawmen he’s constructed. Gleefully, he sets the straw horde alight, righteously informing us “there is essentially nobody in American political life who advocates such things [either (1) or (2) above – ‘Puter]”

Poor Paul. Poor, poor pitiful Paul.***** So smug in his perceived victory. So not ready to get bitch-slapped back to reality by hard Left darlings of Democrats Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Crazy Town, NYC) and Sen. Ed Markey (D(u)- M(b)ass.) and their totally paid and totally free Green New Deal.

Perhaps Krugman is unaware that all the major Democrat presidential candidates have signed on to the lunacy that is the Green New Deal, not to mention a substantial number of House and Senate Democrats. That’s got to count for at least a few politicians, right Mr. Krugman? Or maybe Mr. Krugman defines “essentially nobody” and “pretty much every single major player in the Democrat party today.” When one deals with a person so devoid of a foothold in reality, it’s tough to say.

To be fair to Mr. Krugman, it’s not as if the Green New Deal advocates “Soviet-style central planning, or Venezuela style nationalization of industry.” Except it does exactly that. Don’t believe ‘Puter, believe the Green New Deal’s principal sponsor, The Notorious(ly crazy ex-girlfriend) AOC and her Green New Deal FAQs. Here’s a few of the totally not central planning or industry nationalization provisions Democrats proudly espouse:

1. “[M]obilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

It’s not like government pretty much ran a command and control economy during WW2 or anything, dictating wages, preventing worker strikes, interning Americans of Japanese descent. Man, the good old days when FDR coopted American industry and ran it as his personal fiefdom.

2. “It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years….”

Oh. ‘Puter sees. Totally not central planning or industry nationalization to use government power to destroy an entire industry, one that produces reliable power day and night, in favor or building unreliable wind turbines and solar farms. Genius.

3. “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit.”

Yes. Good. Government printing fiat currency and giving it to politically favored industries to the detriment of existing industry is in no way central planning. So shut up, proles.

4. “Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment [crappy Green New Deal – ‘Puter], the aggregate value of the investment they could make would not be sufficient.”

Permit ‘Puter to translate for you, America. “Our totally free Green New Deal is gonna cost an assload of money, more than we can steal from the one-percenters, so you idiots in the middle class and you stupid Delta working poor who nobody wants to be around because you’re icky are going to have the snot taxed out of you to fund this pie-in-the-sky scheme that will enrich we brilliant Democrat elites and our cronies while you all suffer in squalor as always. And thanks for your votes, subhuman morons!” This doesn’t sound like something socialists would do at all, disdaining their voters and bankrupting a once wealth nation. *cough* Venezuela *cough*

5. “Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.”

Government mandating you either do exactly with your house as it wishes or tear it down is totally not at all fascist, socialist, or communist. There is no history of making the personal political in socialism. ‘Puter cannot recall socialism ever devolving into government policing personal behavior within one’s home.

6. Ensure “universal access to healthy food.” “Provide job training and education to all.” “Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs….” “Guarantee a job with family-sustaining wages.” “Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic security, and clean air, clean water, healthy food, and nature to all.”

‘Puter’s just a simple Upstate lawyer who’s not very bright, but he thought the Green New Deal was about stopping global warming, not about welfare. ‘Puter’s sure this must be a mistake. Big government loving Democrat politicians would never put in pork, constituency favors, and massive welfare state increases within a bill to destroy legal industry in favor of nonexistent technologies.

7. “[B]uild [electric vehicle] charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with a goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.”

So, install infrastructure Americans don’t want, blow tons more government money on a technology proven not to work in America (see, e.g., California’s massive, money-sucking boondoggle), destroy an industry that’s linked the country together and enabled less well-to-do Americans to travel extensively, and confiscate America’s cars while outlawing production of new models. This is totally not socialist. Even if it were, government coopting industries and redirecting investment to politically favored outcomes worked in Venezuela, so no worries!

8. “Massive federal investments … to organizations and businesses participating in the green new deal….”

Nothing says “not socialist” like cronyism in service of pipe dreams and unproven technology paid for with other people’s money. And crushing politically disfavored businesses and their investors never happened in the Soviet Union. So STFU, haters.

Wow. ‘Puter’s overwhelmed with the sheer genius of Democrats’ totally-not-socialist-at-all-because-nobody-in-politics-today-believes-in-socialism Green New Deal. The ability of Democrats to create a massive government program costing trillions of dollars with no negative externalities or costs to anyone is genius! Why didn’t ‘Puter think of political program spontaneous generation years ago? Anything is possible when everything is free and there’s no cost to anyone!

‘Puter almost feels bad for Mr. Krugman, having his smug writings immediately and irrefutably disproven by his hard Left Democrat allies.

Almost.

* With the possible exception of E.J. Dionne

** Did you know Paul Krugman is a Nobel laureate in economics? Just wait a few minutes. He’ll tell you. He’s worse with the credential dropping than a Harvard alum.

*** You remember Reagan, right? He’s the totally stupid president who followed the sainted Jimmeh Carter. All that Reagan moron did was unleash America’s economy, shrug off America’s Carter-induced malaise, and together with Thatcher and St. John Paul II crush Soviet communism once and for all. So naturally Krugman hates him.

**** They’re just looking for some pie in the sky summit. Paul used Dems, Dems used Paul and neither one cared. They were getting their share of working on their Prog moves.

***** Even Linda Ronstadt isn’t amused by Paul Krugman’s shenanigans. 

Much is being made of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) statements that the United States should implement a 70% upper tax bracket for “the rich” across the media and the intranet. Paul Krugman, resident bad opinion writer for the NYT, jumped into it with an Opinion section piece yesterday. Let’s first examine her statement on the issue:

…you look at our tax rates back in the ’60s and when you have a progressive tax rate system. Your tax rate, you know, let’s say, from zero to $75,000 may be ten percent or 15 percent, et cetera. But once you get to, like, the tippy tops—  on your 10 millionth dollar— sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent. That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more

Krugman tries to reinforce it with this graph and he draws an implied correlation between the lower tax rates and a lower growth rate in GDP per capita:

Figure 1

Initially, this chart (Figure 1) threw me for a loop as I was trying to compare “GDP per capita” to the axis on the right where you see what has to be percentage points. Upon re-reading Krugman’s terrible opinion, I picked up on the “growth in” part of his description of the chart. To be clear, Krugman is comparing a point-in-time federal tax policy (the top marginal tax rate for a particular year) with the change over time measure of an economic indicator (growth in GDP per capita) that can be influenced by many things, but largely by the U.S. population. Maybe it’s me but does anyone else find it odd that he’s comparing two very different things by measurement method and impact factors?

To lay all the cards on the table (unlike Krugman who is attempting some Opinion-piece sleight of hand), Figure 2 is the chart on the U.S. population growth over roughly the same time period. The vertical axis is in millions. The chart clearly shows a pretty steady growth, particularly from the end of WW2 to present with maybe a small dip around 1990.

Figure 2

And Figure 3 is a chart on the GDP per capita over the same period. Again, pretty steady growth with a few dips when we hit some economic troubles (i.e. 2008 housing market crash).

Figure 3

For those that don’t see the conclusion, when you have a growing population (the denominator in the GDP per capita measure), you need to grow GDP in order to have the GDP per capita growth as shown in the chart. To experience a “growth in GDP per capita” you not only need to grow GDP as your population growth, but it needs to be ever increasing growth. For example, in the early 1980s when, according to Krugman’s chart, we were experiencing a ~2% growth in GDP per capita, that equates to $600 per capita but in 2015, a 2% growth would be $1,000 per capita. So while you worked hard in the 80s, adding an additional $600 to $750 to the economy per year, you now have to work harder so you can add $1,000 to $1,500 each year to the economy for the same amount of growth. And that’s only a 2% growth in GDP per capita rate.

But this is just a false argument by Krugman. It’s fodder for the non-critical thinkers out there who won’t question his numbers or charts because he is a Nobel Laureate. He is nothing more than a huckster of poor opinions. Let me offer another correlation – one that Krugman and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won’t offer. Figure 4 is the total federal spending over the same period. Not only is it increasing but it is doing so at an almost exponential rate. Try correlating this chart with Figure 1’s growth in GDP per capita: as the federal spending rate grows, the growth in GDP per capita shrinks. This highlights a key point – Krugman argues that “[t]he optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue” but we should be asking why do we need to raise the maximum possible revenue? Shouldn’t we be raising the minimally needed revenue for the federal government to function? Hasn’t history taught us that our federal government is fraught with waste and abuse of taxpayer funds? Is it a good idea, therefore, to give the federal government the MOST amount of revenue we can? What kind of idiotic logic is this?

Figure 4

If this is the “thought leadership” that the old guard (Krugman) defends while the new guard (Ocasio-Cortez) preaches, I’m worried. Worried for those that buy into it and worried for the future of this country. The debt matters. The GOP and democrats have long ignored that. An in order to solve this, the government doesn’t need more revenue – it needs to be put on a diet. Functions that are not under the purview of the federal government should be dissolved to the states and the 10th Amendment should be considered fully in any new federal government program.

And no, the “general welfare clause” isn’t a good enough defense. It has been abused well beyond how Hamilton abused it.

The only reason this is getting any attention is that the only thing certain in this world are death, taxes, and a Democrat posturing.

The Czar was able to take the boys to today’s showing of the new Peter Jackson movie They Shall Not Grow Old, which is a remarkable new documentary utterly devoid of giant gorillas, orcs, and aliens, and turn his superbly talented visual effects team on a real subject: World War I.

The movie apparently took something like four years to pull together, and there’s never been anything quite like it. The movie begins with blurry, sputtering, gray on white footage of England, 1914, cobbled together from hand-cranked archive footage depicting the world a day before Sarajevo. The war begins, and actual World War I veterans—recorded decades ago—recall how fun the idea of a war could be. Bored by the industrial age and its fixed, repetitive work, the idea of plinking a few Germans from the safety of France seemed like such a ripping, jolly adventure. The small images slowly swell to fill the theater screen, sharpening slightly in resolution, as we follow them through laughably inadequate infantry training and the growing sense of national pride the British were developing. A cryptic order to prepare for traveling across the channel is welcome news to the lads, some as young as 14 or 15, growing tired of the discipline and polish.

The first boot touches the ground in France, and suddenly the theater screen sharpens into high definition color. An incredible achievement, as Jackson’s team render original archive footage from the grainy, jostling, hand-cranked silence of the day into 4K sharpness and stereo. Although the original films were silent, his team meticulously and carefully add foley sounds to the scenes, going to the trouble—we learn after the credits in a must-watch 30 minute behind-the-scenes fully-engaging lecture—to have lip readers work out what the infantrymen were saying, and matching up their uniform insignia to ensure they capture the exact accent of the region of origin. No kidding.

Special effects and additions are kept to a surprising minimum, as Jackson lets the men tell their stories without any interruption. The viewer is escorted to the trenches, to a typical day in battle, through rotations from the front line and back, and culminating in Armistice, when the documentary fades to gray and white again, and the picture shrinks to original size.

The effect is impossible to describe without experiencing it, so the Czar suggests you catch a small taste of it, here:

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the history will learn nothing new in this documentary. There are no actors, no heart-pounding orchestrations, no sudden reveals. The star of the picture, unquestionably, is the use of computers to fully realize the original footage. Nearly all the footage is new, having been ignored for the last century: in some cases, the original film was practically ruined and impossible to fathom what was even captured upon it; however, Jackson’s team used the same tools that brought hobbits and space prawns to life, and in so doing rescued something like one hundred hours of footage, from murky-black splotches and over-exposed fuzziness to sharp, ultra-high definition. Colors were carefully matched to actual scenery, uniforms, and equipment; if you’re unimpressed by computer colorization of old movies, you will be swiftly rewarded by the efforts of people guiding each frame—some scenes are so realistic, it’s hard to believe that they weren’t filmed in a studio a year earlier.

The resulting documentary is stripped of propaganda; as a result, the British survivors are allowed to express their pride in their country, their own bravery, and how valiantly they fought under conditions impossible to imagine. The German soldiers are presented to us as loyal and brave, equally and completely confused by the politics surrounding their cause, and deserving of a warrior’s respect. No one’s actions are condemned, judged, or exaggerated: there is no revisionism here, and Jackson—himself an avid World War I buff—lets the men and the footage present themselves to you for your own verdict.

The movie was played in severely restricted release—only on two days in a handful of theaters. Our theater was packed, and unfortunately the actual screen chosen by management was inadequate for the movie: the seats were too close, and this led to some obvious software artifacts from the digital projector. If you missed it, and you probably did, let us soon hope that this soon comes to Netflix or Amazon Prime, where you can watch it in the highest possible resolution on your television.

You should also be very aware that this movie is uncensored: there is graphic violence, with real men and horses being torn to shreds before your eyes. Watching computer-generated men and horses slay each other in Return of the King is one thing; this is the real thing, and viewers should be prepared.

The movie is never dull. While most documentaries focus on the many angles, aspects, and interpretations, here you spend your time between the artillery and infantry. You will find no pop culture dissertations on minority contributions, the effect on the women, how the war changed naval culture, or any of the many extra chapters professors like to cram into their books and videos. This movie sticks to a small point of focus, and like a Gestalt, you appreciate the whole war through the examination of this one small part.

The Czar’s boys were more-than-familiar enough with the story of World War I; all the history you need to know is presented for you by the many narrators, given that most of them had no clue what the causes were or what the situation would involve. The Царевич brought along his best friend, however, who knew very little of the history of the War. The Czar asked him, upon exiting the theater, what he now understood, and the young man felt the movie was a powerful expression for how huge and important World War I was. As Jackson states in his post-script lecture, he wanted to make a non-historical film for non-historians, and let the audience experience it as the fighters did; based on this, he succeeded admirably.

This tweet caught the Czar’s tired, crusty eye (the other eye’s fine, though):

Sorry guys, you don’t get to shit yourselves every time a white person voices an ethnic Disney character and then say Warren’s lie is no big deal. You made this bed. No one else. Have a nice sleep!

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) December 6, 2018

Of course, Mr. Miller is referring to the casual dismissal of Senator Warren’s failure to prove with any remote margin of error that she does, in fact, have any Native American ancestry. In other words, how dare ye liberals giveth Senator Warren a pass after all the noise ye maketh on pop culture doing far less! How can one be racist and offensive (when meaning to be benign), while the other is not (and done for personal gain)?

For the typical liberal, there is no hypocrisy here. In fact, these are two totally separate arguments entirely.

To understand this statement, conservatives should understand there are two very different basic concepts of racism. Applying this difference explains the common shrug by the Left.

A conservative, by his or her very nature, tends to judge people by actions. What a person does is more important than who he is. Good people are those who do good things; bad people do bad things. The irony is that, by this definition, the only people who are racist are, in fact, racists. If you do racist things, you are probably a racist.

Therefore, this logic suggest most people are not racists, except of course for those who do racist things. And anyone who does racist things can be a racist: skinheads, Nazis, Klan members, democrats, whites, blacks, republicans, adults, kids, and so on. Following this, people who don’t do racist things aren’t racist. It’s that easy.

And this is why conservatives look at Senator Warren and roll their eyes; what she did was racist: needing to get ahead in her academic and professional career, she lied about her race, assuming that (in her world) the Native American is superior to her bread-and-butter whiteness. She used race to get ahead of otherwise equal competition. Just as racism can be a negative (a person of color is denied residence in an apartment because the landlord doesn’t like blacks), racism can also be a positive (lying about one’s race to gain advantage).

A black person, for example, who lies about his race (“I’m white”) to get a job in a white dominated field is guilty of racism because his assumption is not that all races are equal, but that whites are superior—at least, as far as that job is concerned. Rachel Dolezal famously lied about her race (“I’m black”) to advance herself professionally. It’s not negative, exactly, except it hurts people from getting jobs they could otherwise get due to reasons of race.

To a conservative, this is all racism. And what Senator Warren did was no different: by claiming she was Native American, she might readily have prevented a legitimate Native American from getting that job, had any others applied.

Conservatives reading this will doubtless conclude this is all obvious, and such a primer on the abuse of race is unnecessary.

Dig a bit deeper, though, and you can find many conservatives who would agree with the counterpoint: when a white actor is cast to voice a non-white role in media, that can indeed deny an equally good actor who matches the background of the role. Shouldn’t a black actor voice a black character in a cartoon? Many conservatives will actually agree with this. But there is a logical breaking point: does a monster need to voice Sully in Monsters, Inc.? Does an orc need to play an orc in Lord of the Rings?

Of course not. There is a pretty straightforward test of this: if the ethnicity of the actor doesn’t matter to the integrity of the role, then the casting doesn’t matter. So no big deal that Harvey Fierstein voiced a Chinese character in Mulan, since the character is animated and speaks no Chinese. Mickey Rooney’s performance in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is the perfect counter-example: a Chinese waiter with a Japanese name played to a series of negative and utterly inaccurate stereotypes revealing that all Asians are nitwits and basically indistinguishable to reasonable people. That violates the integrity of the role, and is wrong. It’s a simple test, really, and quite reliable although our readers can probably challenge the Czar with some clever what-abouts.

And Halloween costumes are a simpler matter. If the costume is offensive, it’s wrong. If the costume is respectful, it’s allowable. A white lad dressing up as Black Panther is not just cool, it’s also a compliment to the universal appeal of the character. A white kid dressing as one of the natives from the original King Kong movie will almost certainly make people—including whites—uncomfortable today.

Again, for conservatives, this seems pretty easy and straightforward: is the underlying action or intent of the person good or bad? If good, it doesn’t matter who does it. If bad, well, it also doesn’t matter: it’s bad.

For a large swath of liberals, though, this isn’t how racism works.

At some point, which the Czar believes became obvious in the mid-1960s, the definition of racism changed from an action and intent to a power structure. Power went from the top down to the bottom, meaning that the people at the top were in power, and the people below were not. White men, for example, were in power in the mid-1960s and therefore they were the racists.

Because power doesn’t flow up, blacks could not be racist because they were perceived to be on the bottom. A white man hating a black man was racist, of course, but a black man hating a white man could not be racist: it was understandable. A Hispanic person could not be racist, either, for precisely the same reason: power flows only one way, and Hispanics were not at the top.

You may have heard this argument articulated (the Czar noticed in 1988 that this was already a formalized argument) before, and it leads to some curious ideas.

• A white person, who does not discriminate or judge people based on skin color or culture, and who would never act negatively against others or positively on behalf of his own race, is still a racist because he is white. It’s not that it’s ingrained, subconscious, or subliminal: it’s inherent, based on his skin color.
• Can a Hispanic male be racist against a black male? Conservatives would insist on this as a real possibility, equally if the black male was racist against the Hispanic male. But the liberal argument does not exactly address this as a meaningful question because neither is white. If the Hispanic male is largely white or identifies so—say, like George Zimmerman—then yes, he is inescapably racist.
• The previous argument has led to some revisions. What about a white woman? She’s racist because she’s white: but she isn’t a male, so maybe she’s less racist. This has led to Intersectionality, in which she’s sort of racist, but she’s given a little slack because she’s female.

This sound like a confusing mess, but there’s a lot to it, and plenty of folks are able to articulate a lot of the obvious objections away. But look at how it explains things.

Is Senator Warren a racist? Conservatives say yes, because she used race as a means to discriminate against other possible applicants. Liberals say no, because she’s not a white male. What she did was unfortunate, but hey—it’s a white-male system, and you do what you gotta.

Is a white boy dressing as Black Panther racist? Conservatives say no, because the kid thinks the character is awesome-looking and is paying a compliment to the (white) creators of the role. Liberals say yes, because the kid is white and therefore appropriating.

So is a black kid dressed as Captain America racist? Conservatives say no, because the kid obviously thinks the character is neat and is paying his respects accordingly. Liberals agree it isn’t racism, but that’s because the kid is outside the power structure and isn’t appropriating anything.

A white guy is hired to play the part of an Egyptian pharaoh. Conservatives figure this could be stupid unless he looks Egyptian enough (whatever that means, since ancient Egyptians were fairly diverse), and maybe work well if he does a great job. Liberals find this racist, because he’s another white actor denying a role to an actor of color. Which may be true, depending on who was competing for the role. If the pharaoh turns out to be a bad guy, then it’s okay he’s white. If they hire an Asian to play a martial artist, by the way, here come the eye rolls that another white casting director sees all Asians as the same.

A black actor plays Alexander Hamilton on stage. Racist? To the dismay of liberals, conservatives don’t care because they’re looking at whether the actor is playing the part as accurately as he feels it should be played. In fact, lots of conservatives come to see the play and pay a ton of money for it, and applaud loudly. And to liberals? Well, it’s racist only in that conservatives didn’t get cheesed off by the racial switch.

The last one is interesting, because a lot of readers are probably sitting up and taking note. Wait, wasn’t there a hue and cry from white racists when non-white actors were playing Asgardians in Thor? Wasn’t there some sort of outrage when a black actor was cast as a storm trooper in the seventh Star Wars movie? Interestingly, it was the same Stephen Miller—from the tweet at the top of this piece—who proved these racist attacks were generated from inside the movie industry in order to generate attention. Like the crowds of angry black teens barring white folks from seeing Black Panther who, it turned out, never actually existed at all, these are people aware of the racial power structure argument trying to game the system, only to discover conservatives don’t follow that structure.

In the end, it may be another 50 years before this rickety framework collapses, largely to be replaced by something equally senseless. Or, like Marxism, it could plague us for another 150 years, sprouting up hydralike in situation after situation. The point is that it’s difficult for a conservative to argue that a position is hypocritical when the default assumption of the position’s holder is rooted in a hierarchical nest of exceptions.

It’s past time for liberals to admit they never believed their bullshit about border security.

In the last few years, liberals have finally come clean about God (no place for Him in their platform), abortion (killing babies isn’t just allowable, it’s increasingly desirable for some reason), and the Second Amendment (it needs to be repealed).

Based on the responses we’re seeing about the chaos at our southern border, it’s time for liberals to admit they were lying about immigration reform and border security. The obvious truth is that they don’t want any of it—what they want are completely unprotected, unrestricted open borders.

When a huge group of unknown people began to march toward the United States, eventual destination and intentions not clear, the Left adoringly nicknamed them The Caravan, as if they were happy Silk Road traders bringing fur and exotic spices from far-away Araby. Almost immediately, the government—independently of anything President Trump said later—identified this as a major security risk.

Nonsense, also sprach the Left, and it’s racist to consider they would be a violent group intent on crashing through, bringing criminal elements with them or using children as human shields.

Reporters investigated the group, and found that members were either moms looking for jobs (and not asylum seekers as claimed), or found that something like 500 of them were criminals or gang members. The former stories were reported; the latter stories were expunged from the news within moments.

Well, as you know, hundreds of them have turned violent. And it’s racist to resist them. That’s right: the old race canard has appeared in its classical form—damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You were racist to plan for trouble; now that there’s trouble, you’re racist to protect yourself from it.

In other words, race has nothing to do with it.

But this also means a few other things:

• The Left no longer believes that borders are necessary to defend.
• They can no longer be believed on any immigration policy.
• They have no interest in citizenship process reform.
• They have no position on security from criminals or terrorists any longer.
• They have given up any pretense of believe in national defense.

Each of these things follow, and while our readership has long suspected this list to be true, it’s time for liberals to admit that, yeah, they have no interest in protecting the United States from external threats, especially when internal threats like Twitter accounts and veterans are juicier, and have surrendered themselves accordingly.

So admit it already.

As you know, your hometown lost the benefits of having Amazon open its second headquarters there. This is also true even if you live in Crystal City, Virginia, or the New York City area where they elected to land.

As you also know, cities basically prostituted themselves to get Amazon to move in there, offering an incredible amount of benefits and concessions, including significant tax breaks. That part annoys the Czar, because it basically admits that the Democrats, who run these cities, know that high corporate taxes disincentivize a business from succeeding. Right? Notice that the first thing municipalities do when trying to lure in a business is lower corporate taxes: which means that raising them, as Democrats increasingly want to do, repels businesses from opening. You can ask yourselves why that is.

But Amazon was a perfect and entertaining lesson in how seriously screwed up our cities are. When Amazon announced, casually, that they were thinking of opening up a second headquarters and bring, maybe, something like 6 billion jobs to the hosting community, cities ranging from Atlanta to freaking Gary, Indiana, saw this as the salvation to their upside-down balance sheets and morals. City after city tore off its clothes, laid down on its back, and flung wide its thighs for Amazon. No taxes at all! Free real estate! Whatever you want! Just please, please, please, please, please open your building here. Take everything! Put a baby in me!

To say the cities prostituted themselves for Amazon is putting it charitably: the cities were basically free samples outside the brothel door.

Had any of these greedy jackasses who run the cities bothered to read the terms of the deal, they might not be surprised to learn that Amazon has much smarter attorneys by far. Amazon reaps the financial benefits promised by New York and Washington even though they are delivering half of the goods to each. That’s right: neither city has a penalty clause changing the benefits if Amazon were to, you know, short-change the deal.

A smart attorney, say one working for Amazon, might have said “Hey, reading through this, what happens if Amazon doesn’t deliver all the jobs and revenue it promised? Can we change the benefits and paybacks?” Not a single one.

So Amazon gets to divide and conquer—through no sneakiness or manipulation or Mephistophelean machinations at all—getting the benefits of both cities while delivering only half to each. Amazon isn’t to blame for this: Crystal City and New York City and their respective greediness does.

You hear a lot of kvetching from the Left about how capitalist greed hurts ordinary people: well, the capitalists in this scenario were the cities, who acted exactly like Depression-era speculators who got hosed by a clever financier. “We thought we were cheating him,” spake the swindlers, as they discover themselves broke and penniless. Crystal City and New York, meet Doyle Lonnegan and Lt. William Snyder. You have much to discuss.

Speaking of Leftists, there’s our favorite congressional dimwit, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who shames, shames, shames these cities for giving Amazon basically $2.6 billion away that could have gone in better directions. She’s right when you put it like that, but the Czar suspects she really wants Amazon taxes 99% of its revenues to buy her better directions, like a huge home and fancy car. Ocasio-Cortez might be right in blasting the cities for being stupid, but her preferences are vastly dumber. Don’t fall for it.

If you were elected to national office yesterday, please skip down to your specific section. Thanks.

Republicans

Congratulations on your win in the Senate and, to a lesser extent, your wins in the House. As you try to figure out what to do next, bear in mind you were sent two messages yesterday, and not one.

The first is that you are on notice. Have you been able to spot any patterns yesterday among the candidates who lost in the House? Take a moment. Well, the media have it wrong. House Republicans didn’t lose yesterday: they were fired. And no, they weren’t fired for backing Trump or not backing him. They were fired because their voters think they putzed around for two years in Congress.

You had a heavy majority and, for once, some mandates. You were supposed to remove and replace Obamacare. But it was too hard, and lots of people were starting to get familiar with it, and messing with it could possibly cost you an election. In fact, you were elected to do hard work, and you definitely lost an election because you didn’t want to do hard work. You were supposed to do immigration reform, but didn’t. You were supposed to cut the size of government, but instead increased it. A lot. You were supposed to reduce regulations, but barely got started. So you were fired.

Know how you can tell? Because you lost the House. That’s the easiest thing to correct, and the voters seemed to have figured that out. Consider it a two-year probation, because that’s how long you have to fix it.

Sure, you did cut some regulations, and you did indeed slash taxes and get the economy moving. That’s why you lost only a couple dozen seats and not a bunch. Voters still think Republicans can fix things—just that not all of you seemed to want to. And those guys have been fired.

Look at the Czar’s own Representative. He’s been in office for years, in a district comfortably Republican for almost half a freaking century. Last night, it flipped to Democrat and can you now guess why? Because our rep did practically nothing. He wasn’t aggressive, he didn’t really fight, and he just assumed he’d be re-elected for giving us a couple of newsletters and a voice mail reassurance every year that he was still alive. The Czar assumes his heavily Republican neighbors decided he needed to go, and elected a putz who will easily be dumped in two years—provided someone more aggressive appears and is willing to do what he or she is told.

The second reason you lost the House is your ridiculous appeal. More specifically, your lack of it: it’s not enough to run yound candidates, black candidates, women candidates, Asian candidates, or young, black Asian women candidates. That’s just copying what Democrats do, and you have no experience with identity politics. Instead, you need to run exclamation points instead of semi-colons. A lot of new faces appears in Republican victory speeches last night: colorful, interesting, and compelling individuals with intelligence and personality. And some of the losers were pretty terrifying to Democrats: check out John James in Michigan. He went from no chance to very nearly putting Senator Stabenow out of work. Not because he’s black, but because he knows how to connect with voters. The Republicans have lots of these people out there, but they’re not getting enough attention. No, not from the Establishment! From the media!

The Republicans not only held the Senate, they gained even more seats. And that’s because, during the Kavanaugh hearings, Americans got to see Senators get pissed off and motivated. Suddenly, weathered old fossils like Senator Grassley became a youthful mastermind. Senator Hatch went from being a doddering fogey to a quick-witted, sharp-tongued whip. And Senator Graham! He went from being a pasty milquetoast to a social media sensation with the kids. That’s what voters want: a sense that these people are actually willing to throw on some armor and get good with a sword.

So, Republicans, you were given two years to clean out the deadwood and get yourself some interesting folks who get this. Look to the Senate: you’ve got all the templates you need.

Democrats

Congratulations on your win in the House and, to a lesser extent, your wins in the Senate. While you seem to be very confident that your first steps are to rebuild society into a national socialist paradise, maybe you need to sit down for this. Your victory in the House was fairly thin, compared to Republican victories in recent elections. You have less than a thirty-seat advantage, which is just enough to do nothing. You can high-five and selfie yourselves getting ready for impeachments and investigations, but you have no hope of pulling any of that off because you do not have the Senate on your side.

It’s quite clear to many of us that the average Democrat has a shallow understanding of how the Constitution works and why it’s set up the way it is. Here’s a hint: it’s to stop power-mad groups from getting over their skis. Like you. You aren’t going to change the world with a twenty-odd majority.

In fact, you should probably ask yourselves if you are superheros or just interim replacements. Your newly appointed roles in the House may be nothing more than temporary help until the permanent hires arrive. You could of course make a strong enough impression that you keep those jobs. But to figure out how to do that, you better look to see why the people your replaced got let go. Not because they were Republicans, but because they were weak. They were culled from the herd. You might want to be a little more strong.

Of course, you won’t listen. Democrats stopped listening to the American people in the mid-1960s. You’re sure that the reason you won the House is because Americans must want higher taxes, higher unemployment, to see your friends and family receive millions in questionable funds, and get you some tail in a hotel. But maybe you should look to what happened in the Senate: a lot of famous Democrats are now going to be stay-at-home grandparents come 2019, simply because they thought being in Congress was a big television reality show, and that they could act like jackasses in front of us.

The Democrats won the House—only by the permission of the Republican voters. Think about that for once.

‘Puter attends his college reunion and tells his classmates his opinions on the issues of the day. The reaction is predictable. At least the resultant carnage was pretty, like one of them there color runs where hippies run a race and people throw colored chalk all over their lean, taut, sweaty bodies … Um, ‘Puter will be right back. 

‘Puter posted the following on Facebook this morning. ‘Puter fully expects his extremely liberal college friends’ heads to explode. ‘Puter is honestly surprised his friends haven’t disenfriendchised* him yet. Oh, well. ‘Puter hasn’t seen or spoken with most of these folks in years, so the only loss would be one of nostalgia.

Thus spake ‘Puter:

This is the sort of stuff that drives the Czar flipping crazy. So if you see serfs being flipped all over the dacha, today, you’ll understand the Czar is crazy. Today is probably a good day to steer clear of the dacha.

As you know, the Czar thinks news editors are some of the biggest finks on earth. You can take the same news story, often verbatim in some cases, and discover very different information being done just in the headlines alone.

There exists a colony of aspen trees near Fish Lake, Utah, that is noteworthy for being genetically identical to each other, as if they were a single organism cloning itself over several thousand years. This colony has been named “Pando” (easy, ‘Puter) after the region of the park it’s in. Two Utah State University professors have noticed that some fencing erected around the colony to protect it from mule deer has gaps in it, due to trees falling over now and then and crushing the fence. As a result, the mule deer come in and ruin the trees as deer often do.

The professors are disappointed because a lot of money was spent on this fencing, and now, to protect the colony, it needs to be redone in many places.

But check out this evolution of headlines, starting with “humans kill everything nice” to “well, the story’s a bit more mundane than that.” Note also the sources, if you want to see bias in action.

• The Biggest Organism on Earth Is Dying, and It’s Our Fault—Gizmodo
• Human Activity Is Killing One of The Largest Organisms on The Planet—ScienceAlert
• One of the World’s Oldest and Largest Organisms Is Dying, and It’s Mostly Our Fault—Live Science
• Pando, the world’s largest organism is dying, study suggests—USA Today
• USU researchers find more fencing did not fully protect massive aspen colony—The Herald Journal

Of course you see the pattern. If you read the last link, you get the real story; if you don’t want to, here’s the Czar’s suggested headline: Mule Deer Damaging Exceptional Tree Colony Due to Fence Gaps.

If you’re an editor bent on progressive politics, here’s one for you: Stupid Humans Make Mistakes In Simple Fence Installation and Earth Will Burn As A Result!!!!!!!!!

Editors are mostly human, and as a result see what they want to see. But it would help to read the entire article, rather than quote-mining to find the most terrifying statement. And scientists, when speaking to the media, should think very carefully how their words will be twisted around and re-written for them.

‘Puter and his manservant Sleestak set off to vanquish ‘Puter’s hard Left college friends on the most dangerous battlefield of all, Facebook.

‘Puter went on Facebook yesterday. After perusing his algorithmically driven timeline for about 20 seconds, he discerned a trend among many if not all of his liberal college friends. ‘Puter learned that Trump is guilty of colluding with Russia, Brett Kavanaugh raped everyone he ever met, and anyone who disagrees with their ideas is evil and should be destroyed.

So ‘Puter, being the moron he is, thought about it, assumed his friends’ good faith, and posted the following.

I’m concerned with a trend I see lately. The trend is whenever the world doesn’t work out as Democrats wish, the Constitution is to blame.

There is no constitutional flaw in the Senate. The Senate was set up to guarantee small population states equal representation in one of the two houses of Congress. To note that “states with (let’s say) 65% of the population only have 40% of the Senators” is meaningless. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature (at least to small population states) and it’s not going to change for many reasons, not the least of which being Article V provides “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Even if you wanted to amend it, you couldn’t. You’d have to chuck the entire constitution.

President Trump, like it or not, is a duly elected president. He nominated a Supreme Court nominee who, like it or not, was approved by a majority of the Senate. Now, as has been noted, Democrats can try to pack the court. But FDR tried this and failed. What makes you think (1) it’d go any better today and (2) that Democrats are in a better, more popular position today to do so? And if you’re willing to try this, why not just get Congress to get rid of all lower federal courts? The only federal court required under the Constitution is the Supreme Court; every other court is a creation of statute. And some of those courts aren’t even Article III courts (e.g. administrative, bankruptcy). There is no constitutional flaw in a duly elected president nominating, and the Senate confirming, a Supreme Court justice, not even if you believe (despite the lack of any corroboration) that one sexually assaulted a woman decades ago or that one doesn’t have what you consider to be an acceptable judicial temperament.

Not everyone who disagrees with you or your favored policy outcomes is evil or bad or malicious. Many of us just disagree with you and your preferred policies, as you do with ours. The political ought not be the personal and too many of us, including me, forget this at times.

I, at times, want to yell into the Facebook void that we have already have a highly political SCOTUS justice who admits to essentially passing out at the SOTU speech one year and who attended a “Me Too” event during the most recent confirmation hearings.

I, at times, want to scream futilely into the Facebook void that The Smartest President Ever (TM) once said, “Elections have consequences.” He also said, IIRC, essentially “I have a pen and a phone, so Congress be damned.” (The last clause I might have editorialized. We each want to think our own side the virtuous side, but it’s never true. There’s precious little virtue in politics and neither side has clean hands.

The equal representation of states in the Senate is not going to change. Kavanaugh is not going to be impeached and convicted, nor is Trump regardless of how horrible he might be. I’m not saying accept that you can’t change things. You can. But you have to win elections. And if the last presidential election was any indication, a large swath of America rejects your ideas (as does a large swath reject mine).

If you sit down and think about it, do you really believe that rejecting rule of law, abandoning parts of the Constitution that you find currently inconvenient for you, and bullying your political opponents on social media (and in restaurants and other public places) does anything other than harden hearts and fix minds against you? And, based on recent experience, how do you think you’re going to like it when “the other side” turns it around on you when they take back power (and they will). I warned Democrats *at the time it happened* that they would regret going nuclear under Reid. And here we are.

Both sides would do well to take a deep breath and step back. Talk to reasonable people with whom you disagree. Try to understand where they’re coming from and why they think what they do. You want them to understand your hopes and your fears, yet you reject theirs. Remember the Golden Rule.

And let’s all try to remember each of us is a person worth of basic human dignity and respect regardless of wealth or race or creed, etc. before we open our mouths in anger over politics again.

It went about as well as you would expect. ‘Puter learned he was a dupe of Russian trolls. ‘Puter also received a brief response (three letters total) from a college friend that implied ‘Puter was doing what he accused Democrats of doing. To be fair, ‘Puter did get some supportive responses, mostly from military veterans, which one would expect.

Oh, well.

Today the Czar celebrates on of the best things to wolf down while drinking an ice-cold cola and watching a mid-1980s action film: the gyros.

The Czar suspects many Americans still don’t know what this is. Basically, it’s shaved lamb meat dumped onto a soft pita bread, and topped with tomatoes, sliced onion, and tzatziki sauce. And you fold it up like a taco and stuff it progressively into your mouth until you choke on the onion.

The Czar lived in the Cragin neighborhood of Chicago for decades, down the street from a Greek Orthodox church that served as the center of a little Greektown. Although Greektown is a Chicago neighborhood just west of the Loop, the enclave in which the Czar lived probably had a bigger, more authentic Greek population for a long time. And that’s where he learned to love the sandwich (unlike a hot dog, a gyros probably is a sandwich).

You might ask, “Is it gyros or gyro? How do you pronounce it, actually?” Both gyro and gyros are acceptable because the word is basically made up. The Czar uses gyros, which he pronounces “year-roes,” similar to the way the old cranks did in that neighborhood. But gyro is pretty common, too, often as a singular noun.

When the Czar says it’s “made up,” he means that the word can be found in Greek today, but that came back to Greek from American Greek. In Greece, the sandwich was ντονέρ, which was similar to a gyros. When it came to America, it was pronounced called a doner. However, the meat inside the pita bread was cooked on a rotating spit, or a γύρος (yu-ros). Eventually, metonomy being what it is, the sandwich began to be called a gyros here in the States, and doner went away. As its popularity soared here, it went back to Greece, where the word gyros replaced the original name doner.

Another point: the sauce you throw on it is spelled tzatziki, which you can buy in stores now. But it’s not that hard to make your own: it’s basically plain greek yogurt, cucumber, garlic, and olive oil whipped together. And tzatziki, as we heard it, is pronounced a bit like “dzhajiki.” You know, in case you want to sound authentic.

Let’s talk about the meat. In Chicago, the only gyros meat you eat must be made by Kronos Foods, or you’re probably getting heavily-garlic-infused cat. Chicagoans always look for the word KRONOS prominently displayed in a window or on a wall. This isn’t an endorsement of this particular company, by the way—it’s more a safe way to avoid worms.

Alas, there’s no single recipe for gyros meat. Some are lamb, some are beef, and some are a mixture of both. These meats are packed into a weird extruded tube shape, which then hang vertically so that the heat lamp under which it cooks melts off the grease. When you order the gyros, the unhappy dude behind the counter grabs a pita, grabs a knife, and slices the extruded goo right onto your pita.

Then come the toppings. The Czar cares little for tomatoes, but the classic gyro calls for them. Also, far too much onion is dumped on the pile, and finally a spoonful of sauce is whapped on top of this. This is wrapped in wax paper (you hope, because gyros grease will eat through just about anything else in seconds), put into a paper bag, and handed to you.

You can eat it rolled up like a burrito or folded like a taco; that’s up to you. But the blend of spices, meats, and sting of the onion balanced by the soft taste of the sauce—man, that’s good. If you order the platter, or special, or combo, or whatever this particular outlets calls it, you get a little extra meat and a mass of french fries thrown on the side.

Now, bring this home, ensuring the car ride is long enough to stink up your vehicle for a couple of days, with the divine aromas of grease, garlic, and onion soaking into every porous surface in your interior. Get home, grab a cold beverage, and fire up the VHS player to watch Invasion USA or any Jackie Chan movie. Sit back, force feed yourself that gyro, and enjoy.

Shall we? Because here it is.

• Democrats have no interest in any FBI investigation or justice for Dr. Ford.
• They simply want Brett Kavanaugh to go away.
• Frankly, they will not accept any further Trump nomination, either, so don’t even bother.
• They don’t even like Merrick Garland all that much; it’s just that he’s the only liberal judge they can name at that level.
• Any Republican nomination on the Supreme Court is a body blow for Democrats.
• The fact that Justice Ginsberg could go any time is especially terrifying.
• This not because of Roe v. Wade, either.
• This is because the Supreme Court has been the last refuge for the liberals for some time, now (with the exception of the Second Amendment).
• A conservative-heavy Supreme Court is not going to tolerate the nonsense that the Left has enacted under President Obama.
• It’s not just abortion—it’s practically everything else from any challenge to Obamacare to immigration to changes to the Electoral College to, well, frankly everything you can name.
• No matter who is nominated by a Republican president, it’s basically the end of liberalism’s permissive indulgences.

And as long as we’re crap cutting:

• Merrick Garland is never going to be on the Supreme Court.
• Even President Obama didn’t regard him seriously: he was used like chum to stir the waters for the type of fight we’re seeing now.
• Even Democrats could have coughed up a better candidate, but liberals have no clue who their more reliable, fair-minded judges are. In fact, it’s pretty irritating to them that conservatives can quickly name qualified judges so quickly.
• Brett Kavanaugh is almost certainly going to be approved, barring some last-second stunt of sanity-defying proportions.
• Dr. Ford will be cursed and vilified by the Left, like some judicial Steve Bartman, simply because a scape goat shall be found for the inevitable.

Democrat Senators wait their turn to question Judge Kavanaugh in yesterday’s Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court.

‘Puter listened to and watched the Senate Judiciary hearings on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination yesterday. ‘Puter has many thoughts regarding the hearings, so naturally, instead of writing a coherent essay on them, ‘Puter disjointedly set them to music.

Enjoy! And if you don’t enjoy, suck it, you humorless assclowns.

*starts singing*

The legend lives on from the Democrats on down
Of the lost vote they called Merrick Garland!
McConnell, it’s said, killed the nominee dead
No vote in committee he’d scheduled!
With a load of bullshit all the pundits deemed it
An affront to the Senate’s good order!
The good judge and Dems took it in their rear ends,
When the bet of McConnell paid div’dends!

With Hillary the pride of the Democrat side
(Though she couldn’t find a state called Wisconsin)
But the Democrats knew there’s no way she could lose
To an orange-faced abuser of women!
Election night came and put Hillary to shame
She had lost to the orange-faced boob from The City!
And later that night, the wine bottles drained,
Could it be Garland’s fate was determined?

The wailing of press and the pundit’s sweet tears,
And Trump was sworn in ‘midst moaning.
Every Dem knew, and Republicans too,
T’was the Garland nomination’s death knell!
So Garland got pulled and Neil Gorsuch subbed in,
Mitch’s gamble had come to fruition!
The Dems spent their days in impotent rage,
And vowed their payback’d be brutal!

The Grim Reaper came calling Scalia by name,
Democrats girded for battle.
From the Federalist’s strong list Trump would make his next pick,
Announcing Judge Brett Kavanaugh!
Chuck Schumer declared that the Dems did not care,
There was no way the Dems would confirm him!
DiFi found and she hid allegations that did
Cause the wreck of the Kavanaugh Hearings.

Does anyone know where the love of God goes
When the Dems turn the hearings to shitshows?
The pundits all claim Kavanaugh’d clear his good name,
If he’d ask for an FBI recheck!
But Graham he stood up, said enough is enough,
And Graham told Republicans hold tough.
And all that remains is the everlasting shame,
Of the Democrats and their enablers.

DiFi denies that the folks on her side,
Leaked Ford’s baseless claims to the media!
The hard Left fumes as its antics spell doom,
For stopping Judge Kav’naugh’s nomination!
All their dumb schemes collapsed along with their dreams
Of seating Justice Merrick Garland!
As the midterms bear down, Democrats all look like clowns,
With the votes of November all in doubt!

‘Neath the Capitol’s dome in DC they’d vote,
On the nomination of Judge Kav’naugh!
A church bell should chime ringing each of ten times,
For each Dem on Judic’ry Committee.
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the shitshow they call Kavanaugh Hearings!
Democrats, they said, will kill a good man dead
If perceived as a threat to abortion.

*stops singing* *waits for applause and thrown panties*

With the type of absolutist thinking that crashes arguments made by high school freshmen, the need to reduce the Brett Kavanaugh accusations into a binary argument have completely missed the reality of how both sides could be right in this issue.

First of all, the Czar is completely convinced that Brett Kavanaugh just didn’t do it. Young men, and especially high school upper classmen, make all sorts of really stupid decisions quite unlike their day-to-day personalities. Could Judge Kavanaugh have done something definable, by today’s standards, as sexual assault in 1982. You damn well bet he could have: men of good standing and strong moral character have done worse things as 16-year-olds to people. There’s probably a teenager doing something really horrible right now to someone, and the former will grow up to be somebody that everyone likes.

The real question about Judge Kavanaugh is did he? And for that, it sure doesn’t seem like it. Not so much the lack of witnesses or the basement calendar collection or the weird, hazy recollections by the victim—for the Czar, it’s much more the response by Judge Kavanaugh: a stunned disbelief that anyone could make such an accusation. When a guy, and we all know this, does something like this in his past, he might deny it. He usually does so with all sorts of flimsy evidence. But more often, he sighs, tenses his lower lip, and admits that he did do some stupid stuff, and he really owes her a personal apology, and he never meant to hurt anyone, and that when you’re a teenager you do things sometimes you regret your whole life.

The Czar need not point you to all the politicians in the past who have acted similarly. “Locker room talk,” as President Trump explained some of his past actions. But Kavanaugh isn’t doing any of these things: he’s neither producing paper-thin counters nor is he attempting to explain why he shouldn’t be judged harshly for what he did. He’s rather acting with bemused annoyance—the same way people act almost universally when accused of something transparently impossible.

For the Left, that’s not good enough. They Believe Her. It certainly doesn’t help when so many people on the Right, who really want to see Judge Kavanaugh appointed to the Supreme Court before this turns out to be a dream, are producing flimsy rebuttals on his behalf or trying to spin such behavior a dozen different ways as, well, okay in this instance.

The Czar has a hunch that if he quietly polled a dozen liberals, they would mostly agree that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty, and that he has obviously lied about what happened, or because he’s been trying to explain his behavior away with cheap excuses. Except, Kavanaugh has done none of these things. Most of the fuel that’s enraging the Left actually originate as claims from the Right: the Left’s attacks on Kavanaugh started as stupid excuses from the Right that Judge Kavanaugh himself has never said. Yeah, the Left could look it up, but why bother?

This ridiculous circus is nuts, but isn’t the craziest part of the whole show. For the Czar, the craziest part is that the victim, disgustingly and embarrassingly exploited by Senator Dianne Feinstein, might actually be telling the truth.

At least, as far as the victim knows it.

Given what we know about teenage girls and how often shit like this actually happens to them (guys, you’d rather not know, especially if you have daughters), the Czar could put forth some plausible scenario that makes both sides correct. Let’s consider one possibility for Professor Ford, now humiliated by Sen. Feinstein in public as the victim.

There’s a teenage girl at a party that, frankly, she’s not supposed to be at. She’s had a lot to drink, as has everyone, and finds herself in a room with a bunch of guys who all attend the same high school. That is not uncommon, given that teenage boys are insecure and like to pack together. Some guy in that room totally misreads the situation—she’s drunk in a bedroom with him, so what else could that mean but “okay”—and he decides to put the moves on her. But, of course, as a drunk 16-year-old boy who’s never been this close to a real girl, he basically molests her in front of everyone.

Maybe she sort of knows him: after all, she went into that room for a reason. She knows these guys all attend a nearby school together, and might even know first names or a last name. But this situation is clearly going badly for her, so she gets out of the room. She could even mention it to some friends the Monday at school: oh yeah, one friend agrees, those guys at Georgetown Prep are assholes. So glad you got out of there.

30 years later or so, she’s in conversation with a therapist. Maybe even casually, she mentions the incident in response to a question about something else about her teenaged years. That part doesn’t actually matter, because Professor Ford did bring it up. The therapist is interested in this story, thinking it could be important. So he prods her for details. Professor Ford remembers they went to Georgetown Prep…maybe there were two in the room, maybe more. His name was Brent or Britt or… Brett? Yeah, it could have been that. Cavendish? Cavender? The therapist, we believe, was the one who later suggested it might have been Brett Kavanaugh. Yeah, that could be it, she thinks, and concludes this business is over with.

The Czar does know that the therapist put a lot of the story together, with Professor Ford even refuting some of the therapist’s compilation (for example, she insists two boys were in the room, and doesn’t know where the therapist got the idea there were four boys in the room). As our own ‘Puter will tell you, that area is a pretty small world…and it didn’t take long to produce the name Brett Kavanaugh and list three of his friends.

The Czar isn’t necessarily convinced that Professor Ford is suffering from False Memory Syndrome, at least not creating fantasies out of whole cloth the way people remember alien abductions or meeting celebrities. However, it is entirely possible—even probable—that some kids from a tawny high school were drunk with her in a room, and one of them molested her. When the therapist coached her through the incident almost thirty years later, she agrees that probably it was some guys at Georgetown Prep, and maybe the guy in question was really named Brett Kavanaugh.

Suddenly, years after the experience with the therapist, a real Brett Kavanaugh, alumnus of Georgetown Prep, is being ushered to the Supreme Court. And suddenly, these memories come flooding back, and the therapist recommends the Washington Post interview Professor Ford. Wow, the paper asks, did this happen?

Well, yes—it definitely did. And the guy was Kavanaugh from Georgetown Prep. Are you sure, asks the Post. Professor Ford thinks for a bit, and resolutely says it was. It all fits together. Sometime in 1982, probably. And there’s even a classmate who remembers, distinctly, Professor Ford telling her about it the Monday after it happened. The Professor isn’t too keen on this humiliation getting out, and she doesn’t want to testify or anything, and the Post drops the story. And yet, as if by magic, Senator Feinstein’s office is calling. And Professor Ford, who suffered some indignity in 1982, is about to face an even more disgusting and humiliating assault as Feinstein’s office shoves her into the limelight and advises her, in very strong terms, to Tell the Story: it was an attempted rape, wasn’t it, by Brett Kavanaugh in 1982?

You know the rest of the story. You have already formed your own opinion as to whether Kavanaugh did it or not.

But the Czar believes something did indeed happen to Professor Ford, probably in 1982, at a party. But there’s some 55-year-old guy named Britt or Brent Cavendish or Cavender, alumnus of Emerson Prep or St. Anselm’s who has no idea that he’s the guy. Now a partner at some Philadelphia law firm, he reads the story about Ms. Ford and thinks “Wow, I remember when I did something like that to some girl…I hope they don’t ever consider me for the Supreme Court! Man, we were crazy in the 1980s.”

It’s amazing how the brain can process memories. And when the brain has a blank that needs filling in, it’s astonishing how any Mad-Lib coaching from someone can create a reality that will pass any polygraph.

The Czar doesn’t think Judge Brett Kavanaugh is remotely connected to this memory. The Czar also is willing to accept the Professor’s account as pretty close to what happened to her, although the names were plugged in to fill the gaps in her recollection. The Czar also forgives her for really believing this story, because so much of it really is true and even highly educated people routinely create synthesized memories of real events. This isn’t her fault.

And to be blunt, Senator Feinstein really needed something to use as a cudgel against the tremendously qualified Kavanaugh, and this seemed to be a perfect gift. The Czar gets that: that’s politics. But the way her office has continued to misguide and abuse Professor Ford—both her current and past reputations—is lawngrass low for an already serpentine Senator Feinstein.

The worst part is, thanks to Senator Feinstein, Professor Ford will never see justice or respect for what probably happened to her all those years ago.

A follower on Twitter asked for this recipe – it’s really tasty. We’ve made it a few times, once for Thanksgiving and it was a big hit.

Ingredients

3 tbl unsalted butter
2 large yellow onions, thinly sliced
2 large red onions, thinly sliced
4 medium-sized leeks, rinsed, dried, and thinly sliced
1½ cups grated Havarti cheese
2 packages (5 oz each) Boursin with herbs, crumbled
1½ cups grated Gruyère cheese
½ cup dry white wine

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 350℉. Grease an 8-cup baking dish (butter works best, cooking spray is ok)
2. Combine all three types of onions together in a large bowl
3. Create a layer with a third of the mixed onions at the bottom of the dish, season with salt and pepper. Top onions with the Havarti cheese. Add another layer of a third of the mixed onions and season. Top with the Boursin cheese. Add a third layer with the remaining onions and season them. Top the final layer with the Gruyère cheese.
4. Cut small pats of butter and place around the top of the casserole. Pour wine over the whole mixture.
5. Bake for 1 hour – if the top gets too brown, cover with aluminum foil.

Serves 6

‘Puter’s no morbidly obese, tin foil hat wearing, overpriced dietary supplement shilling, Pizzagate pushing conspiracy theorist. ‘Puter’s better than that. Just a little bit better, but still.

When it’s provable.

‘Puter is not a conspiracy theorist. ‘Puter observes events, weighs them, and comes to a logical conclusion.

‘Puter’s like Sherlock Holmes, but dumber. And not as attractive. And doesn’t have a thinly-veiled homosexual relationship with his male sidekick. And isn’t British. But other than that, exactly the same.

This week ‘Puter observed the following events:

1. Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing began Tuesday.
2. The hearing went poorly – for Democrats.
3. Democratic Senators surreptitiously put “guests” in the gallery to noisily protest and create photogenic media-friendly tableaus media could plaster on the network newscasts and front pages.
4. Democratic Senators behaved worse than toddlers, repeatedly interrupting, spouting inanities, baselessly accusing Kavanaugh of holding positions he does not hold, and generally encouraging “resistance.”
5. More Americans were repulsed by Democratic protestors’ (and Senators’) antics than by Judge Kavanaugh’s competent, calm presence.
6. Democrats slowly realized their plan to paint Kavanaugh as an insane, frothy-mouthed extremist failed.
7. Democrats slowly realized their plan to paint Kavanaugh as an insane, frothy-mouthed extremist backfired showing Democrats, not Kavanaugh, to be the madman.
8. During the hearing’s day one, the Washington Post and its Pulitzer-winning reporter Bob Woodward dumped an anonymously sourced expose of the Trump White House’s alleged chaos.
9. During the hearing’s day two, the New York Times posted an opinion piece from an anonymous “senior administration official” blasting Trump as an addled, dangerously incompetent old man.

‘Puter’s conclusions are as follows:

1. Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
2. Democrats are in danger of repeating the mistakes of 1968, turning the party over to a hard Left fringe.
3. Democrats and media colluded to:
   1. Change the subject from Democrats’ undemocratic “resistance” during the hearing;
   2. Step on and cover up good news for the Trump administration; and
   3. Use unverifiable, anonymous sources to smear Trump in a manner they never would have accepted for a Democratic president.

It is now undeniable to anyone of good faith that Democrats and the media are working in concert to damage a president both viscerally loathe. It is now more probable than not that Democrats and media are actively colluding to bring down a duly-elected president in derogation of ethics, morals, law, and the Constitution. Logic and reason compel these conclusions.

‘Puter’s said it before. America is at war with itself. The shooting just has not started yet.

God looks on as evil men seek to destroy His Church on Earth. Fear not, for the day is coming when God will send his divine retribution upon these men and purify His Church.

Domine, exaudi vocem meam.

‘Puter attended Mass this weekend, 07:30 as usual. This Sunday’s readings outright damned the hierarchy’s response to the latest round of child raping, butt covering allegations.

Here’s the Gospel reading for the Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time, Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23:

When the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus, they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.  — For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders. And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles and beds. — So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him,

“Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?” He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:

This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.

You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”

He summoned the crowd again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand. Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.

“From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile.”

What more perfectly encapsulates the Church’s current hierarchy’s myriad issues than Jesus’ paraphrase of the messianic prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 29:13)? Were Isaiah to reappear today, he might well have substituted “this Roman Catholic clergy” for “this people” and few could argue against him.

Too many among the Catholic clergy have disregarded God’s commandments. ‘Puter’s fairly certain “don’t ass-rape little boys and seminarians, and even if you didn’t do so, don’t cover up for the Roman-collared criminals who did” is somewhere in His commands.

And teaching as doctrines human precepts? What say you, Pope Climate Change XII? When the Church is more concerned about climate change and plastic waste than it is about victims of sexual assault and ferreting out every last pedophile rapist in its ranks it is time for a cleansing fire.

May God’s Holy Spirit descend upon the Church, full of His divine wrath and righteous fury, to defend the least among us and burn the f*cking corrupt, hedonistic, gay bathhouse shit-show to the ground. And from the ashes, may new, faithful leaders rise to rebuild Christ’s Church according to His just commands.

Amen.

P.S. Did ‘Puter mention the Responsorial Psalm’s response was, “The one who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord?” It was. Just saying.

You know what’s even better than not researching anything about a topic? Having someone else do all that research for you. The Czar won the lottery (figuratively) twice this month when receiving two emails (literally) about his recent Spotlight on Kiribati. The Czar wants you to know know that since writing that essay, he can now spell Kiribati with only a moderate slowing of typing speed. Typing Kiribati is like rounding a corner at high speed; you sort of need to tap the brakes a bit.

No matter. Our first letter arrived from our loyal minion Badger Trowelsworthy, who presently has been assigned to monitor who enters and exits the Motorways Motel in the heart of Monte Carlo for reasons only we know and he doesn’t. His expense account shows he’s definitely been up to the task, but he hasn’t been too busy to monitor our website. Are you aware we have a website? Well, we do—and you happen to be on it, right now. Go ahead, Badger.

Who says we made any of that stuff up? Actually, the Czar did, right up front. But your reply is just chock-filled with the kind of marshmallow and nougat trivia caramel that our own Volgi enjoys, so no doubt he will send us a message correcting about fifty of the things you said. He’s like that.

Volgi once appeared on Jeopardy, which rhymes with Leopardy. We don’t think the episode was ever televised, but he got annoyed with Alex Trebek’s mildy surpressed haughtiness with everyone, and decided to provide real questions to unanswered responses. When the answer was something like “This 1814 treaty formally ended the War of 1812,” Volgi buzzed in and asked “Why did you linger by the Exit 26 underpass in Philadelphia, in April of 1981, thinking no one would ever find out?” or “Why does anyone think it’s okay to take three rolls of toilet paper out of a hotel bathroom and hide it in his luggage, Alex?” After about six of these, Trebek totally lost his cool, and threatened the Volgi, which you should never do. As a lesson to Trebek, Volgi erased the show’s wacky comedic sidekick, Ned Bunners, from history past and present. As a result, no one ever heard of him. That’s what happens when you screw with anyone Œcumenical. That’s the fact.

Also, we got this email from long-time Castle lounge lizard ScottO, who’s actually very nice although you should not underestimate his capacity to humiliate a competitor in any drinking game. His beer pong serve alone produces sufficient backspin to slice through plastic. The Czar isn’t kidding; don’t mess with him. In fact, you, gentle reader, seem to be messing with a lot of people lately, and you need to stop it. You’re going to get hurt. But ScottO writes in:

See how smart he is? He knows to butter up the Czar, but also to butter up the other five Castle dwellers. That’s good politics. And his letter to us is also filled with useful information, and the Czar briefly skimmed it and assumes it totally contradicts Badger Trowelsworthy’s letter on some fundamental level so perhaps we will let them fight it out. Or we could ask you, the reader, since you probably read both. The Czar just copies and pastes.

Just remember one of our old-timey axioms: Nihil agis, nihil moliris, nihil cogitas quod non ego non modo audiam sed etiam videam planeque sentiam, which if you had to learn Latin, is a phrase you need to learn.

Roman Catholics and non-Catholics alike reeled from the news that the Pennsylvania attorney general has released a grand jury report detailing—and the Czar means detailing—hundreds of reports of child abuse by Pennsylvania priests between the 1940s and 2000s. In most cases, priests are named directly and corroborating evidence provided in written form. Over 301 individual priests are identified (some names are currently redacted).

The Czar reviewed about half of the over-800-page report before giving up in exhaustion last night. Some findings:

• The report clearly shows a pattern of cover-up by the Church, even detailing the precise methods the archdioceses used to avoid prosecution. Of this, there can be no doubt that the scope of the abuse was known by the Church, and that it sometimes took extraordinary measures to bury evidence and deny facts.
• Over 1,000 individual victims are identified, but the report acknowledges that many of them came forward only as news spread that the report was being compiled. The writers of the report are aware that public release of this report may result in thousands more victims coming forward. An interesting facet of mass-child-abuse cases is that many victims keep silent for decades assuming no one will believe them; however, when seeing that “Rev. Joe Smith” has been identified doing X, the victims often realize “Hey, he did that to me, too” and then realize they were not alone, and are now credible.
• More interestingly, the report acknowledges the cooperation of the Church in its compilation. Even though the report lambasts current Church leaders, the report acknowledges the various archdioceses of Pennsylvania (with the exception of Philadelphia, which is still preparing information) were readily assisting with producing evidence: letters, memoranda, reports, and more were promptly turned over, and Church officials almost seem to be eager to get this information public. The report even stipulates that, for the first time, there is reason to be optimistic the Catholic Church is cleaning house at last.

The Czar noted that despite the staggering quantity of cases, the pattern of events is rather predictable for child sexual predators. Indeed, the actions of the accused are in almost perfect conformity with how child sexual predators operate in the general public. Brace yourselves.

• Many predators enter the priesthood primarily as an avenue to get near children. Predators have long used schools, scouts, sports, and park district programs as opportunities to be around large groups of kids, in order to increase the chances of finding a perfect victim. The Roman Catholic priesthood is especially ideal as a vehicle—non-Catholics, who may tolerate an annual dinner of painful, fund-raising awkwardness from their pastor, rarely appreciate how closely Catholic priests are incorporated into family life. Priests are frequent dinner guests, provide baby-sitting services, drive kids to baseball games, bring them home from school, and perform a thousand more tasks that non-Catholics would expect family members to provide. Priests, historically, are everywhere in Catholic family life. A hungry predator might be happy to serve as a scout leader or Little League instructor, but holy cats—Catholics actually invite you into their homes…for long, unmonitored stretches! This is tough for a predator to resist. As a result, the priesthood is especially vulnerable to these predators.
• The attacks on children begin fairly soon after the priest is ordained, in case after case.
• Likewise, the predators don’t seem to grow out of it: one priest was elderly when he was arrested by police in a sting operation; he was on his way to meet a non-existent young teen in a police setup.
• Child sexual predators are, pretty much universally, pathological liars. They deny, shrug off, reassure, apologize, and beg forgiveness. “It will never happen again,” they plead, while simultaneously figuring out how quickly they can move onto their next victim. The grand jury report is filled with anecdotes of accused priests admitting their fault, agreeing to treatment, promising they have learned their lesson, and immediately seeking out the next victim. Many people familiar with child predators cynically dismiss therapy, commentating that these people cannot be treated and released: they will always be pathologically compelled to commit more attacks. There is nothing in this report that will convince you otherwise: these predators never, ever stopped until they were arrested or died.
• Child predators depend upon the gullible. In most cases, pastors and bishops were immediately informed by parents or victims that they had a sexual predator serving at the parish. This isn’t something that always takes years to be revealed—it seems hundreds of stories confirm the parishes were notified at once about an attack. However, the release of letters, journals, and memoranda reveal all too often the pastor or bishop (a) taking the matter seriously, (b) talking to the priest in question, and (c) being assured by the predator that this was a one-time thing or the kid exaggerated or that this could never have happened, and (d) the pastor or bishop believing it. While there was unquestionably informed and determined complicity by many archdiocese officials, you can’t help but see that a lot of these pastors and bishops were just a bunch of foolish suckers, who believed a con man.
• A priest’s job is, among other things, to forgive. So when a predator begs forgiveness, there seemed to be a tendency for a lot of Church leaders to do just that. “Okay, but don’t let it happen again.” It always happened again; the predator knew it would when he begged forgiveness.
• You also get a sense that a lot of the Church leaders were afraid or aware that eliminating these predators from the priesthood would result in a serious loss of manpower. One bishop begged his archbishop to, at least, send a predator priest to a place where he could have no access to children at all…but the archbishop curtly reminded the bishop that this wasn’t going to be possible, based on the serious shortage of priests in parish schools. In other words, yeah, we can start bouncing these animals out of the priesthood, but who’se going to backfill all the work? Not I, thought the Church leader.
• The Church had no clue what they were dealing with, and knew it. There was so much buck-passing that, in retrospect, it’s painful to read. Bishop A knows that he has a child abuser in his diocese, so he finds another diocese that’s short a priest. So he sends Bishop B a glowing letter of recommendation, claiming that the priest in question, despite what you may have heard, does a great job with the community. Bishop B begrudging accepts the transfer, knowing that Bishop A probably just screwed him over. And Bishop B starts looking toward Bishop C, wondering if he’s heard the rumors. And the predator gets moved from community to community, each unaware of the monster stepping into their midst. Great for the predator: fresh victims. Great for Bishop A: he just got rid of a major headache.
• When the problem became undeniable for a bishop, he would send the predator off to a special hospital, run by the Church, to treat priests of this terrible affliction. The bishop washes his hands of the affair—the priest is finally getting the help he needs and will be sent somewhere else in the future, fully rehabilitated. Problem solved. Except, the evidence shows, this special hospital was staffed by morons or charlatans who had no idea what they were dealing with. Did any of the therapy work? Was anyone successfully treated for pedophilia? Seems not. After a few months, a refreshed and fully capable predator was released back into the public.
• Child predators are good at spotting victims: apathetic or absent parents, unpopular with other kids, into unusual hobbies, and who spend time alone. The kid who is picked last for teams, who shows little interest in a variety of activities, or is encouraged by parents to be different often become easily manipulated by an authority figure. You all know the grooming process: special attention, long conversations in the car about whatever the kid is interested in, purchased gifts for no special reason, an arm around the shoulder, a lingering hug, and massages all progress to the victim lowering his or her defenses. After the attack, careful psychological manipulation: your parents won’t believe you, this was for your own good, you deserved it because you started it, and more. It’s all about setup and execution. Do you see any of these attributes in your kids? A predator will, from a mile away.
• Child predators are not lone wolves. This seems hard for the public to believe, but while some operate quietly in isolation, a huge percentage of them link up and create a network. The report details the number of priests who would pass kids around; one group even gave victims special gold crosses to wear around their neck…to alert others in the network that “this kid’s an easy target.” The number of incidents involving multiple priests, from different parishes or even different dioceses, working together to attack victims is not for the faint of heart.

Having said all this, the Czar has known perhaps thousands of priests over the centuries he’s been stomping around the earth. He has, to his knowledge, never met one accused or suspected of anything (oh, he has met a couple of oddballs, though!). So while the percentage of priests who do unspeakable evil to children may be slightly higher than the number of laity who do the same evils, there is no question that the percentage of brilliant, wonderful, colorful, and basically holy men who are priests far outweighs the general public’s capacity for such grace. The evil that some priests do is severe, but it cannot outweigh the work of God performed by priests daily.

This is no excuse: just a reminder that the Church should have nothing to fear in its seemingly new fervor to expose and eradicate this evil. No matter how many terrible people the Church identifies and removes, there will always be far more good people remaining in it. So while the report is right to apologize to its readers for the heart-wrenching stories it contains, it is also right to remind the reader, as it does in multiple places, that ultimately the Church is positive institution and deserves to participate in its own purification.

May it do so, to the ends of the earth. The Czar is hopeful that every archdiocese in the United States take the same steps and reveal everything the Church knows about the evils it houses or housed in its heart. And may it do so quickly.

Our castle has a big, silver (and frequently lethal) robot dwelling within, and his piece on Federalism yesterday got the Czar thinking about something he read on Twitter.

The ever-brilliant (and darned nice about it, too) @Molratty had a short series of tweets we present here:

People in high population areas tend to want different things than those in lower population areas. This is the beauty of federalism and localism. The problem is when the high pop. areas demand that everyone else do the same things by force of the federal govt https://t.co/BFhu8n9ou8

— Mo Mo (@molratty) July 27, 2018

Why should their policies matter more? What does a Manhattanite know about the needs of a guy living in rural New Mexico?

— Mo Mo (@molratty) July 27, 2018

The fetishization of democracy without also incorporating concepts like federalism and localism is how you end up with too much collectivism, redistribution, and government, period.

— Mo Mo (@molratty) July 27, 2018

Related: the idea that we can be a social democracy like Scandanavian countries requires maintaining this delusion that we are a completely homogeneous people with the same priorities. We are not.

— Mo Mo (@molratty) July 27, 2018

To which this individual replied:

The primary thing a lobster fisherman in Maine, a cabbie in NYC, a rancher in Colorado, and a tech geek in California have in common is the desire to be free and prosper. A federal republic allows that – a democracy doesn’t.

— 🎶Del Paxton’s Piano 🎶 (@Mark_Derr) July 27, 2018

There’s an entire semester of political science crammed into those tweets, and the Czar especially fixated on Mo’s second tweet and @Mark_Derr’s tweet as especially profound. As any number of YouTube videos will reveal, Europeans who have not spent a lot of time in the United States are frequently staggered by its size and complexity. Why, the Czar still remembers when some of Mandarin’s in-laws from Europe came to visit, and boldly announced they would hit Niagara Falls on Monday, drive to Chicago on Tuesday, and swing over to Las Vegas on Wednesday. And these were not dumb people—they just failed to comprehend that America is somewhat bigger than France.

A similar fallacy exists among many urban Americans. Just because you can take the Six from Bleecker to Castle Hill doesn’t mean that a few stops further away finds you in Provo, Utah. To add to the litany of professions listed in the above tweets, a bodega shopper in Brooklyn might not be able to anticipate the needs of a ranch hand in Colorado—and the Czar suspects there is a huge number of New Yorkers, Washingtonians, and Angelinos who would be shocked to learn that there are still cowboys actively moving cattle across vast sections of grazing territory today.

You probably saw the New York Times‘ map of political bubbles, thinly and cleverly disguised as an electoral results map. The Czar agrees with its premise that the more blue or red a location is, the greater the political insulation. No question about it: there are many places in America where people can never meet a Republican…or meet a Democrat.

This ties well into the string of tweets above because most of the sweeping, generic, and inconsiderate legislation driving American nuts these days is coming out of the blue areas; the red areas are certainly far more disposed to leave-us-the-hell alone federalism. Yes, colors represent geographical area, and not population; the Czar understand that. But this is what makes the map so fascinating: Obamacare, student debt bailout, free tuition, and free housing are being promoted by people who have no idea what the vast majority of the country looks like. All those red areas? They just want to be left alone. The blue areas? Big populations, but functionally uniform islands in a sea of actual diversity.

These red areas don’t have subways and bodegas, sidewalks, buses, apartments with rent control, schools with tagging, ATMs, needles on the street, plastic bag bans, sugar taxes, or soccer camps. They probably lack other things, too, such as art museums, hands-on science centers, walk-in clinics, vegan dining options, and hookah bars. But they might have all sorts of other things, like spacious skies, amber waves of grain, swamps, rivers, waterfalls, corn silos, steel plants, roller coasters, church picnics, and more farm-to-table options than every large city combined. And sure, the nearest place to buy clothes is at a Wal-Mart 40 minutes away, and there are probably meth addicts wasting away in run down, tar-paper houses, too, just down from the same vape shops and tattoo parlors you find in the cities.

Of course, the point is that these red-area rubes probably know more about life in the blue areas than the other way around. A chin-scratching yokel who spent eight hours repairing trailers in his gravel-road, rusting, steel-shed repair shop can figure out how to use Uber, or pay at an automatic laundry, or navigate a six-level parking garage in a fraction of the time it takes an Acela Corridor commuter to execute a three-point turn with a flat bed trailer.

There is ignorance in both red and blue about the other’s lives. But, truth is, there’s way more ignorance in blue than in red. To GorT’s point about Federalism, the system was designed to make those differences trivial. Unfortunately, blue has decided it knows better about the world, based on its 4-minute walk to the bodega than red’s 40-minute drive to Wal-Mart.

Maybe bubble isn’t the right concept. Increasingly, America’s aggravation with itself is being caused by people who live in a ship in a bottle, that’s on a shelf aboard a real ship on a real ocean.

Luckily, the Czar is on his game and noticed that we just passed our 10 year anniversary*. GorT has been busy with a new work assignment, Volgi is off translating some hockey playbooks into 14 languages, and ‘Puter….well, he’s so busy on Twitter he doesn’t really notice things like this. Czar, Mandy, and Doc joined later, so I squarely put the blame on the O.G.**

By the numbers it’s been an interesting 10 years. I actually find it hard to believe that it’s really been that long – it definitely doesn’t feel that way. We’ve made almost 8,500 posts dating back to August 23, 1970 (remember: time machine) – if you don’t believe me, check the sidebar. We’ve recorded 30 episodes over two seasons in our podcast. Over 4,000 people follow us on Twitter (aside from a handful of troublemakers, minions, and ne’er-do-wells, they’re probably all Russian bots) and tweeted over 364,000 inane messages that someone is reading…maybe…well, at least their looking at all the GIFs.

All in all, it’s pretty impressive given the idea that was kicking around in our collective minds 10 years ago.

I hope I’m speaking for the others in that I’m looking forward to another 10 years – although I’m not sure what media platforms we’ll dominate then but we all hope you’ll be there with us, enjoying our particular sense of multiple personality humor.

* technically, it was July 24th

** Original Gormogons: Volgi, ‘Puter, and GorT

Almost a year ago, media conglomerate Tronc purchased the New York Daily News. Tronc is a fairly lean animal, with a penchant for nice things nevertheless, and knows a bit about turning newspapers around. They pulled the Chicago Tribune up out of a seemingly impossible tailspin, and re-powered the venerable Baltimore Sun. Recognizing the suddenly unionized Los Angeles Times was now incurable, they tanked it and sold it to someone with questionable experience. With sweeping changes at those papers out of the way, they turned their attention to the New York Daily News.

After a period of analyzing how the New York paper wrote its stories, managed its resources, and presented itself, Tronc promptly cut half the editorial staff. Editors who had been there for years suddenly found that experience counted for nothing, and were dumped unceremoniously onto the street.

“Finally, some good news,” mainstream media announced, “We can now talk about ourselves,” which—let’s face it—is the media’s absolute favorite past-time. Media outlets around the country announced, with usual liberal fashion, that firing half the editorial staff pour encourager les autres, was certainly the end of America as we know it, that fire is already raining down from the heavens, nothing is safe, and the seas boil and consume the lands. Somewhere, Jefferson sobs and such.

Because the media would rather have a completely failed newspaper, producing horseshit political screeds no one wants to read, than have a functioning reporting arm, one supposes. The fact is that Tronc purchased the New York Daily News for one dollar. You read that right: they paid a single dollar, because by law, they could not pay less for the paper. From the media’s perspective, Tronc assumed all operating liabilities and agreed to fund all existing pensions because, evidently, they wanted to see the New York Daily News continue to produce nothing of quality.

Tronc had a different view of the Daily News. One of the latter’s columnists wrote:

[T]here are “just a handful of reporters” left covering public housing, schools, transportation and courts in New York after years of cuts in local news.

That’s the problem Tronc intends to fix. Cuts at the Daily News reduced them to a Potemkin village of reporting…but evidently there were plenty of editors left to opine about politics and pop culture. Maybe they let a few of those guys go, and hire back some actual reporters? The Czar should note that, typically, editors make more per year than reporters, so cutting half the editorial staff could possibly hire a lot more reporters. The Tronc press release stated something similar: the newspaper will now focus on news, especially crime reporting. Crime reporting? What is this, the glory days of journalism? Next thing you know, they’ll put in an actual city desk, where a fast-thinking editor assigns breaking stories to eager reporters who write well and can get the story straight.

Gosh, it would be interesting to see the editorial blasphemy disappear out of the newspaper and see factual reporting in there again.

You readers know the Czar detests the news media. Where newspapers are concerned, the Czar has a specific series of observations:

• Reporters generally try to do a good job, and write stories with a lot of facts in them—a lot of those facts are interesting, but not critical to the story as it develops over time.
• Editors gut the hell out of those stories, stripping out items they deem unimportant, and—increasingly—adding elements they feel are helpful to the reader.
• Since the 1990s, editors (inspired by talking heads on cable news) feel compelled to assist the reader in interpreting the story. Here’s why this is important. Here’s how this affects you.
• Psychologically, a person is inevitably biased in which words he or she selects to relate a story. This is called lensing: you see the world through your lens (your experiences and viewpoints), and even though you believe you are being as neutral as possible, you wind up biasing a story.
• A significant percentage, perhaps the majority, of media bias examples occur through word selection. Note how a president’s economic success will vary based on his political party: homelessness is rampant despite an encouraging economy under Republicans (bad news before good), and Democrats carefully steer the nation through difficult times (good before bad), knowing most people read only the first half of a clause as they skim headlines.
• Editors control most of the content you read in a paper. Most are ardently liberal democrats, a large number bordering on pro-socialism. In socialist societies, editors have an easier job of reporting. No one blames them for getting the story wrong. You don’t get fired for nodding your head, only for speaking in opposition. With the latter, you might lose your head.
• The amount of conservative Republicans working as editors—once the vast majority in the 1920s and 1930s—is a population now smaller than a society of Pacific Northwest sasquatches, and about as often seen. Most of the conservatives have left for online media, which is growing and succeeding.
• On the other hand, most newspapers have reduced their reporter pools to skeleton crews or token forces. Editorial staff have increased, probably because there are so many news stories today that need handcrafting.
• As we said on Twitter the other day, if one were to take a highlighter and color the factual statements in a newspaper, there would be very little color on the page. We have reached a saturation point in journalism where news stories are overwhelmingly opinion or speculative fact. The Czar suspects that many editors are beyond the ability to recognize the distinction.

Sadly, too few Americans can apply critical thinking skills, and many who can—most elementary schools and secondary schools still devote a small amount of the curriculum to critical thinking, but apply it largely to literature only—fail to realize these skills are essentially applicable to news stories. The Czar has a few anecdotes in which he has witnessed people disregard critical thinking of news stories because “this is the news…these are facts.” Maybe, but how do you know? “They check these facts before they print them.” Who does? The editors…and that’s the problem.

The Czar can’t (and won’t) promise that in two weeks’ time, the New York Daily News will suddenly become a First Amendment powerhouse, watchdogging the government, fact-checking politicians, reporting on corruption in the criminal justice system, and providing its readers critical news stories to make informed decisions. There have been improvements in both the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun, for example, but too much of any newspaper is barely useful beyond lining gold-gilded birdcages under a Democrat president or insulating those sleeping homeless under a Republican president. Tronc isn’t a group of libertarians, by any means–just a business studying what drives folks away from a product.

Once upon a time, a reader could easily find a newspaper with similar political viewpoints. In a large city, you had two or more papers competing on politics; if you disagreed with one, you subscribed to the other. If your rural area only had one paper, odds were very high your political viewpoint matched the paper’s, based on your local economics or industry (in Iowa, in 1935, a Republican paper would have had no readers). In order to increase readership in a fixed market, some papers decided to adopt a more neutral tone to the stories, thereby luring readers from the other paper over to theirs. This worked, until the other paper did the same thing. Over a short period of time, the trend among newspapers was to attempt even-handed stories, providing two opposing political viewpoints where possible—no matter how extreme or off-the-wall.

As the Czar insists, this is ultimately impossible and self-defeating. You can’t do it without eventually tipping your hand. And we wind up with these ridiculous rags that are 95% opinion and 5% op ed. And that’s allegedly “fair.” And people drift away from newspapers and find a fresher approach online, where it becomes patently and immediately obvious what political party is endorsed. This increases polarization of opinion, but that was inevitable anyway. And sales of newspapers plummet to where a major city paper can be purchased for one dollar.

Or, you know,  you might try what Tronc is attempting: stick to news, and drop the opinion. It may be foolhardy, and it may not work, but it’s certainly more hopeful than the laissez-faire tantrums the media are exhibiting now about Tronc. In other words, the media are telling Tronc, “Your cure is a long-shot, whereas we’re facing certain death otherwise.” It’s not that hard to figure out, even for an editor.

Dr. J is banging on my door trying to get me to update the scoring. Who knew he was so into soccer? Oh, wait, he told me to call it football. In the final rounds, teams advancing get 4, 8 and 16 points.

GorT advances to 32 points with England advancing to the semi-finals but it’s likely not enough to overcome the exits by Argentina and Brazil in order to catch up with Mandy or Doc.

The Mandarin, fresh from krav-gor-maga training, jumps up with Belgium advancing to 37 points and, until today’s loss by the same, had a chance to catch up to Dr. J.

So it looks like regardless of the other semi-final, Dr. J is going to win as GorT can’t catch him with a win by England. Having 3 of his 5 picks advance to the bracket round really helped. Now, I just need to get him to stop following the Phillies via our Twitter account…well, at least it’s not the Penguins.

After avoiding the subject for quite a long while, the Czar got around to trying the Sig-Sauer P320 full-size in 9mm. This particular firearm is noteworthy because it’s the long-awaited successor to the Beretta 92 SBF, also known as the M9. And that’s important because the P-320 is the official sidearm of the United States military, where it shall be known as the M17.

The Beretta was a controversial decision back in the early 1980s, as it replaced the venerable M1911A1 .45 pistol as standard issue. Lots of folks like the “1911,” and were incredibly unreasonable about letting it go. It is indeed one of the Czar’s favorites, and he can hit pretty much anything with one. But the Beretta offered more ammunition, was compatible with a ton of other weapons in NATO, and was just better overall.

Except, you know, there is a large number of people that just can’t seem to get the hang of the Beretta. The Czar is one of them, too. He really disliked its strange design, its top-heavy slide, and propensity to miss nearly everything we aim it at. Better on paper, perhaps.

Not surprisingly, firearm performance and safety have advanced a lot since the early 1980s, and the military was more than happy to ditch the M9. Except, as you’d expect, a ton of people suddenly started screaming that they now loved the M9, and how dare they replace it. That’s how it goes when you do weapons standardization for the United States. Nobody likes you. Ever.

Don’t even start looking into what happened with rifles.

But after a long trial period, the military selected the P320 as its best-performing overall pistol contender, among quite a lot of manufacturers. Really. Yes, it beat out some famous competitors, much to the surprise of many and the inevitable dismay of most.

Anyway, the M17 is now the standard for all military and federal units in the United States, with the exception of every branch and bureau, all of whom have their own standard weapons made by a bunch of different manufacturers. The Czar has no idea who will actually carry the M17, since everybody seems to be approved to carry something else.

So how good is it? The Czar opted to use the full-size, which is the equivalent of the M17, using range-friendly 9mm rounds. And the answer is… it was okay.

Not okay, like your kid’s first attempt at making you eggs is, um, …okay, but really okay: as in, a pretty decent choice. It lined up well on target, had a nice grip, and easy sight picture, and was easy to use. In fact, there was nothing bad about it.

The Czar isn’t about to give up his beloved Springfield XD40 for this. And he isn’t going to say the P320 is better than the 1911. But frankly, the P320 shoots a lot better than most Glocks,* and way better than the often-rattling Smith & Wesson M&P. Anyone who’s shot a firearm made after 2000 will have little trouble appreciating the P320 for being a good weapon.

The Czar’s only problem with the P320 is the fact it’s a Sig. The Czar has always thought Sigs are over-priced for what you get; not bad, by any means, and good on you if you own a Sig. But a Sig is like a Lincoln product. Yeah, it costs a lot more, and has basically the same features as a lower-priced Ford, but the Czar has never met a Lincoln owner who felt like a dope for getting one. Because they’re good…just a bit costly.

So that’s an extremely arguable quibble; the fact is the P320 isn’t very expensive, and the thing just shoots really well. The Czar expected to have a lot more things to complain about, but really came up with nothing. It’s not a great firearm, the P320, but it absolutely does the job. It’s not all that sexy to look at, but this weapon doesn’t care what you think of it.

Look, if you put a Glock 17, a Springfield XD, a CZ-75, a 1911, a Beretta PX4, and a P320 on a bench, and said “Take what you want, folks,” the P320 would probably be the last one picked. But in a dirty sandpit in some filthy country on the far side of the world, with bullets coming closer to you, you’d be very happy to find a P320 with you. Because you know it’s going to fire, and it’s going to hit what you see.

In short, not a bad thing to have with you. The Czar won’t be too quick to doubt the military’s decision, here.

*Yeah, I said it. But not all Glocks.

With each country having played two games so far in the pool round, let’s check in on the Gormogon standings:

The first set of games have concluded in the three-game pool play portion of the tournament. As posted in the Rumpus Room of the Castle – here are the current standings:

#1 Dr. J	7 points	With Croatia, France, and Uruguay on his squad, Dr. J will be a formiddable player in this contest. But he doesn’t really care and it’s lost on him. So maybe his winnings will fund a replacement microwave after what Mandy cooked in it last night.
#2 GorT	6 points	Surprisingly, only England and Serbia netted GorT wins but the draws by Argentina and Brazil kept him afloat. GorT is currently time traveling back to the drawing for the pool to see what went wrong.
#3 The Mandarin	5 points	Russia and Belgium’s wins plus Portugal’s tie put Mandy in 3rd place. No one has seen him recently, so we’re not sure he knows the World Cup is taking place.
#3 Volgi	5 points	Volgi is also in third place with Japan and Denmark carrying the bulk of the load. 私はこれを楽しむわからないんだけど – Volgi
#3 ‘Puter	5 points	Mexico beating Germany really helped ‘Puter. He probably should be tied with GorT but Spain couldn’t pull out the win. Suck It, Czar
#6 Czar	4 points	Maybe not a surprise, the Czar is dead last in the World Cup pool. Iran and Sweden kept him above the Castle servants. I STILL don’t know why we’re doing this.
#7 Dat Ho	0 points	Egypt isn’t going to get Dat Ho anywhere in this league
#7 Sleestak	0 points	Having Germany in your World Cup pool should help, but with their opening loss to Mexico, Sleestak stays at the bottom.

Pictured, an illegal immigrant child held in brutal conditions by Trump’s Nazi stormtrooper wannabe immigration officers. Just kidding, but this is how America’s unthinking emotionally driven slapradishes think of them.

‘Puter learned this weekend that because he doesn’t have an issue with separating illegal immigrant parents from their illegal immigrant children when they are caught breaking America’s immigration laws, he is a hateful bigot. Good to know.

‘Puter may or may not be a hateful bigot, but ‘Puter is most assuredly a believer in rule of law.

Illegal immigrant children caught crossing the border are separated from their parents (or people pretending to be their parents) as a result of a court settlement. The settlement is the Flores settlement (from the 9^th Circuit, natch) agreed to by the Clinton Administration (again, natch). This settlement requires the federal government to release undocumented immigrant children first to their parents, then to relatives if parents are unavailable, and as the last option, to detain them in the least restrictive setting.

With Flores controlling, America’s been practicing catch and release for the last couple of decades. Law enforcement catches illegals crossing the border, detains them, then releases both the parents and the kids because they can’t hold the kids. Trump changed this policy by refusing to release parents caught illegally entering the United States. As such, there are no known parents to which law enforcement can release the children. Finding relatives takes time, and our current administration does not want to release kids into America knowing full well the children will not likely return as ordered for their immigration enforcement hearings. Thus, the children are detained indefinitely.

The Flores settlement’s application is further compounded by a separate statute, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 signed into law by George W. Bush. The statute provides unaccompanied illegally present children are exempt from prompt return to their home country unless that country is Canada or Mexico. Flores requires government to create unaccompanied minors if it wishes to enforce its immigration laws against culpable adults. Once these unaccompanied minors are created, law enforcement cannot quickly deport the children because of the TVPRA.

It’s a double whammy.

Government is faced with the following choices: (1) don’t enforce your immigration laws against anyone crossing the border with kids or (2) detain both the kids and the adults in separate lockups in order to enforce applicable law. America’s been doing (1) for decades. Now America’s doing (2). And non-governmental, emotional America is having a frikkin’ nervous breakdown about it.

‘Puter’s had it with emotional crybabies shrieking “but the children!”, as if illegal immigrants choosing to use their children as shields to enforcement of America’s immigration laws is government’s fault. Let’s place the blame squarely where it belongs: with the illegal immigrants who break America’s laws in the first instance.

Government is not responding to illegal immigration by seeking out brown people to put in camps as some on the Left are claiming. Government is simply finding people who of their own volition choose to violate America’s immigration laws and dealing with these people in accordance with applicable American law.

‘Puter understands many Americans do not like the visuals of enforcing our laws. But raw emotional rage-screams are not a substitute for rational debate. If you don’t like America’s laws, the burden is on you. What’s your grand plan? Return to setting free into America’s interior people who have already shown a predilection to giving America’s laws a big, fat middle finger? ‘Puter knows the footage of kids in dusty tent cities gives you the sadz, but grow the eff up already.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants claiming asylum are not political refugees fleeing dangerous oppressive governments out to kill them individually or as members of an identifiable group. These illegal immigrants are at best economic refugees who want to come to America because America offers better opportunity (well, better everything, really) than their aptly described “shithole countries.”

‘Puter is sorry these illegal immigrant home countries suck hard. ‘Puter doesn’t like seeing children separated from their parents. But what ‘Puter likes less than either shithole countries not providing safety and effective law enforcement for their citizens or waiflike, wide-eyed kids in humane detention facilities inside America is America’s citizenry casually tossing aside rule of law because, OMG, ALL TEH FEELZ.

If we are to be a country whose laws are subject to the emotional mood swings of delusional, undereducated Americans, we are well on our way to becoming one of the “shithole countries” from which people flee.

The Gormogons assembled in the Rumpus Room last Saturday to kick off our World Cup Soccer 2018 contest – it was quite the shindig. ‘Puter and GorT had the castle staff decorate the room in World Cup flags and banners and streamers. International food from various countries playing for the Cup this year was served. It was quite the spectacle. After filling our stomachs, the six Gormos sat down around the large game table to draw names for our World Cup pool. A random order was assigned with ‘Puter winning the first choice, followed by the Czar, Mandy, Dr. J, Volgi, and then GorT. The results were as follows:

‘Puter	Czar	Mandy	Dr. J	Volgi	GorT
Colombia	Iran	Australia	Costa Rica	Denmark	Argentina
Mexico	Korea Republic	Belgium	Croatia	Iceland	Brazil
Saudi Arabia	Panama	Nigeria	France	Japan	England
Senegal	Sweden	Portugal	Switzerland	Morocco	Peru
Spain	Tunisia	Russia	Uruguay	Poland	Serbia

Given there are 32 teams, the extra two teams were doled out to Dat Ho and Sleestak. Dat Ho drew Egypt and Sleestak drew Germany. Of course, everyone threw up their hands when Sleestak drew the reigning champion. Two points if your team wins, one point for a draw.

Of course, the Czar kept muttering, “I don’t know why we’re doing this” to which, ‘Puter dutifully responded, “Suck it, Czar”. We’ll fill you in on the standing periodically.

As you have heard, the GOP is in about the worst shape imaginable for the 2018 elections. The only party facing worse odds is the Democrat party. The long-promised blue tsunami might be a small puddle in some areas.

This doesn’t mean the GOP won’t totally blow it; in fact, the outcome of the 2018 elections is, right now, unpredictable—even for the all-knowing, all-insulting Gormogons. The Democrats and Republicans aren’t just in a statistical tie…they’re practically oscillating at a high rate.

Know who aren’t helping? The media. They could actually, and thoroughly unintentionally, help the GOP in a big way. Here’s what the Czar is thinking.

1. Everybody likes reassurance. You like to see good news about politicians on your side, and you dislike bad news about the other side. Indeed, psychologically, you probably like hearing good news about your side than you like hearing bad news about the other side.
2. The news media love their Democratic candidates. The Czar bases this claim on the large number of headlines about how well individual Democratic candidates are doing. Polls are showing popular support of Democrats evaporating, but you’re not seeing many of those stories unless you know where to look. But it’s easy to find stories about Congresswoman Daphne van McPrzywalski showing strong voter support in the US Congressional District PA-1,985.
3. Journalists write this stuff to offer fellow Democrats hope: see? It won’t be a total trainwreck. There are a lot of races where Dems will easily win.
4. In fact, about the only negative thing you’ll read about Democrats is concern about voter apathy. Possibly the only accurate prediction the media have made is that the winner of the 2018 elections—Republican or Democrat—will be decided on which party had less voter apathy. Truth is, many Democrats don’t care about voting in the Age of Trump, since civilization is doomed anyway. And many Republicans don’t care about voting because Hillary Clinton isn’t running. That they know of.
5. Fair enough. But when too many news stories reassure Democrat voters that there’s a tidal wave of Democrat victories coming this year, guess what happens? Democrats figure it’s in the bag. So they stay home.
6. If the Czar is right, you will see an increase in stories about the polls tightening…but written in a way to create panic among Democrats.

Of course, if the Czar is wrong, Republicans might just eke this one out after all.

And if so, the media were wrong again, because they pushed this “Victory is Near” narrative for too long without actually, you know, talking to voters. Again.

Most Americans seem to be able to sleep at night without having any clue of how the Supreme Court of the United States (SCROTUS) works. Most Americans have no idea how many justices sit on the court, although the numbers can vary from one to several dozen.The Czar understands this pathetic lack of basic education, and thought he would explain all of it to you in an easy-to-remember format.

First, there are 9 justices on the Supreme Court. They’re not judges, at least not in the American Idol sense, because they don’t do a thumbs-up/thumbs-down vote at all.

Basically, a loser in a court case appeals a local court’s decision. This then goes to an Appell…Apell…Appelate… a court of Appeals, who either agrees or disagrees with the first court’s decision. The losers go up and up until eventually they appeal to the Supreme Court to come up with the Ultimate Tie-Breaker.

Here’s the thing: the Supreme Court doesn’t pick a winner and a loser. They determine whether the Constitution is affected negatively by the decision. This is a big difference: they’re not a court of appeals, but a referee to see if the rules were correctly applied or not.

If you appeal to the Supreme Court, the odds are really good they won’t give a shit about your unhappiness. They don’t care if you’re right or wrong…just whether Constitutional law was correctly applied. As a result, they probably won’t even bother to hear your case because it’s too pathetic to consider. They want the good stuff, because they don’t have a lot of time.

So if you want to petition the Supreme Court, make it a good one. Have a good argument that your rights were actually infringed. Then, maybe.

What happens then?

Ehh, for a long time, nothing happens. Finally, two parties get up and argue both sides, during which the justices pepper you with questions. It’s like a board exam to see who did their homework. The odds are good that about six of the justices have. They may know your side’s argument better than you do.

After hearing both sides, they basically disappear for several months to let everybody stew. “Oh, they’re totally going to go our way,” the eventual losing side promises, wondering how close the decision will be. The hearins are public record, and you can read them for yourself. And millions of people do, deciding that the Supreme Court—based on the questions they asked—will go with Yanny and not with Laurel.

Then, when they think everybody has forgotten about the case in question, the Supreme Court comes out with an opinion that surprises everybody. Even the ones who successfully predicted the outcome will ask “Really?”

Because the Supreme Court is somewhat conservative right now, every decision will come out as the end of the freaking world. That’s it, America: pack it up. Gorsuch, who spent most of the hearing in question blinking at the window, is going to round your family up and put them in an internment camp. And naturally Bader Ginsburg…Ginsberg… Ginzberg? Dr. Ruth will always vote the opposite way of Clarence “Clearwater” Thomas because he’s… you know… and Sotomaior (ironically, a name the Czar can spell) will dissent because of the hegemony of the intrasocial racial post-descontructionist something-or-other.

And conservatives will cheer and celebrate because the Supreme Court is nomially conservative, and they did something. Therefore, that in itself is reason to feel great: a marginally conservative body in government did something. And it doesn’t matter what.

So someone in the Supreme Court will write the majority opinion, in which he or she tries to explain in simple language the most byzantine account of why they are the majority. See, all the good cases are gone: British troops aren’t being quartered anymore, and slavery was finally wiped out, so now we get Justice Stephens trying to explain Obamacare isn’t really a tax, even though it is a tax, and that taxes need to come from the House, except this didn’t because it wasn’t really the tax he just said it was.

And the minority opinion (in legal terms, the “losing side”) gets to write a dissenting opinion about why the majority opinion is wrong. Knowing that few people read these, they’re often quite funny. The Czar forgets which case it was, but he recalls Justice Kagan writing “The majority could jump off a bridge and miss the water, they’re so damned stupid. Kennedy blew milk out his nose at lunch.” This is the great stuff you miss when you don’t read the dissents.

The best part is that the vast majority of the American people don’t read either. They rely on social media and ABC World News Tonight to explain the decision, except that these are both well within the vast majority of people who haven’t read either.

Supreme Court: We hold, 5-4, that Americans have the right to carry a firearm across outdoor government property.

Twitter: OMG! I kin rbing a gun to school tomorrow!

Facebook: A-hole Republicans are okay with shooting kids. Here’s 12,000 copy-and-pasted rants I put together to prove it.

ABC News: By 4-5 ruling, Supreme Court denies public school children right to not be shot by people on their playground.

WaPo: This is Trump’s fault, people!

NYT: It’s time for a national conversation.

And the rest of you shrug because you can’t make heads or tails out of this crosstalk.

But at least, you readers understand how it works now.

You should probably research this topic further because the odds are very good you’ll learn something additional. The Czar’s confident in this, because he researched nothing before writing this, and frankly, we haven’t paid close attention to any of it.

One of the British princes is getting married to a former American, and thousands of Americans will be glued to the events in rapt fascination; the rest of us won’t remotely understand the appeal of this. Wasn’t despising royalty the whole point of 1776?

Meantime, the United States will feature some gun show which will be attended by a couple hundred British subjects out of thousands of American attendees; the British visitors will love putting their hands on new pistols and rifles, and happily debate the merits of one brand of ammunition over another. The rest of Britain will shake their heads in befuddlement. What’s with the fascination over firearms?

The two have that in common: a small wedge of fascination for it, with the vast majority perplexed by it.

The reason is psychologically analogous. In the United Kingdom, fascination with royalty is ingrained in the culture. We Americans, for the most part, have no clue why or even care why it works. British royalty just is, and it seems to work okay for them. No matter how much Americans scratch their head over the very concept of non-elected leaders who reign but don’t seem to actually rule, the British aren’t going to give it up. It’s part of who they are as a people.

Likewise, the exasperated tweets and Facebook posts from Brits about how stupid Americans are with their fascination with firepower…well, there it is. It’s who we are. The Second Amendment, written in America’s earliest days with a Constitution, is ingrained in our very being. We’re not going to give it up no matter how much Piers Morgan stamps his slippered foot.

Like we said, there’s a subset of Americans who love love love them their British royals, just as there are many over-the-pond gun junkies who dearly wished they had a backyard shooting range. And in America, we don’t necessarily understand that fascination, just as millions of Brits don’t get why any of their fellow countrymen and women would even know what an AR-15 is, let alone what direct impingement means.

Nothing more to it than that.

The Democrats cannot, apparently, let go of their obsession with Donald Trump. Stormy Daniels! Russia! Probes! Russian probes! Probing Stormy Daniels! Comey! And all of this seems, in the Czar’s opinion, to revolve around one concept: we need to invalidate the 2016 election, so that Hillary Clinton becomes president.

When are they going to let go of this fantasy? That’s a rhetorical question, of course, because the answer is “until the next Republican victory.” Because then it shall be replaced by something else equally lunar.

Lest we forget, everything is Year Zero to the Democrats, and that calendar has the biggest, most accessible reset button since Hillary’s gift to Putin. Everything seems to reset it.

Remember in 2012, don’t you, how Mitt Romney hated women and the poor? It was all you heard about, and he was definitely going to be the end of America as we know it. Until he lost, and then nobody disliked him anymore. But it was all you heard about until 2014, when Congressional Republicans were trying to destroy Obama. Every single hour, every single day.

But we can go back to 2008, and how Sarah Palin was trying to destroy America. She can see Russia from her house, people! Also, everything else Tina Fey said about her on Saturday Night Live was something she actually said! That’s how bat-shit crazy she is! Sarah Palin is a crazy wing-nut, and she said she can see Russia from her house! And on and on.

Don’t remember? How about in 2004 when Bush lied to get America into the illegal Iraq War, which absolutely no Democrat supported. Oh, well, yeah: the Democrats voted in support of it overwhelmingly, but only because Bush lied about the uranium or whatever we never found there. Thank goodness not a single Democrat voted in support of the declaration of war.

Fortunately, that idea displaced the fact that, as everyone knows by now, Vice-President Al Gore actually won the 2000 election, and by rights ought to be president. But Bush swindled the Florida judges, who were so badly in his pocket that Al Gore had to sue them to get the ballot results revealed. Yes, it’s true that it was Bush who sued the pro-Gore bench to confess they knew Bush won Florida all along, but that doesn’t matter because Bush lied, and Al Gore won the popular vote, and should be president, except the judges were all pro-Bush so that’s why Al Gore sued.

Want to keep going? The Czar can, all the way back to Truman and beyond.

Every two-to-four years, the Democrats latch onto a crazy, conspiratorial notion about why they haven’t locked down the American voter yet, and why there’s always some machination at work, some singular event, that unjustly robbed them of total victory.

Even Cubs fans got over the Steve Bartman grabbed-foul-ball story.

Anyway, it’s definitely 2018: if we don’t see another calendar reset in the next couple of months, the Russia investigation is definitely going to last until 2020.

We finish up with Fr. Josh and our discussion around and about Catholicism

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Before you continue, read ‘Puter’s post here for context*. And note, I’m going full-Puter with my footnotes.

Done? Ok, ‘Puter’s take on the issue is fine but let’s get to brass tax. The money quote from the NPR piece is this:

it is years behind schedule and millions over budget

Both sides of this transaction are to blame. First, the government has no spine. When a contractor begins to fail – let me repeat that with emphasis: when a contractor BEGINS to fail, the government needs to take action. They cannot let a program get “millions” of dollars over budget and “years” behind schedule. The root of the problem, in GorT’s professional** opinion, is that the government – largely in an effort to minimize efforts around acquisition and contract management, issues massive contracts that are 5+ years in duration and require aging software development methodologies. This combination has led many government agencies to an untenable situation: allocating 75%+ to their IT operations and maintenance budget and some portion of the remaining 25% towards new systems and upgrades. “Oh, but ‘the cloud’ will save Christmas for us”***, they say. Pffft. Again, many government agencies don’t understand what ‘the cloud’ is and there are many large integrator-type companies**** that still don’t know how to properly utilize it in order to realize the savings. But again, the root is that the government wants to make contract acquisition and management (on their side) easy.

This problem is nothing new. GorT’s first job was on a massive federal contract to update the systems that air traffic controllers use from airport towers to the enroute centers (that handle planes in between airports as they cross the country). It should have been issued as a number of smaller contracts to address individual pieces – but instead it was one big contract that eventually got the axe by Congress after years of mediocre progress.

On the other side of the contract, many federal contractors are satisfied in responding to the government’s Requests For Proposals (RFPs) by regurgitating what was asked for and not pushing back telling the government that there’s a better way to do this. And due to the ultra-competitive landscape, large contractors are working to submit the lowest cost bid as the government favors these LPTA (Lowest Price Technically Acceptable) awards. Well, never was there a case more applicable for the phrase: you get what you pay for….ugh, does anyone else think we should reword that to: you get that for which you paid? That preposition at the end bugs me.

We need to change the way things are done. Smaller contract terms, smaller contract amounts. If you’re going to fail, fail fast and fail cheap. It’s better if a $500k contract fails than a $3B contract. The government should consider what the operations & maintenance cost is on their contracts – if that is a growing tail, kill it. If the contract proposes proprietary data formats or data storage schemes, avoid it. Do not get locked in to a single provider.

ScottO said on twitter: “Join me in advocating the elimination of the IRS” and I couldn’t agree more. I still remain convinced that our tax code should be simplified such that at least 90% of Americans should be able to file via a postcard.

Lastly, if someone asked me to use my 25+ years of experience in developing federal-level computer systems, I wouldn’t pick Assembly as my primary language. I get that programming languages hadn’t evolved to the degree we have now when this system was put in place so choices were limited.

* GorT has programmed assembly on mainframes. 6502 Assembly on my Atari 800 was my 3rd programming language.
** 25 years of federal contracting experience developing IT systems with multiple successful deliveries (at/under budget and schedule), MS in EE/CS
*** For those that don’t get the reference, this was a quote for, if I remember correctly, for a Microsoft commercial for doing photo editing in their cloud infrastructure where the wife, worried about getting the Christmas cards out, remarks that, “the cloud will save Christmas” for them
**** GorT has worked for a few of these type of companies and is hoping his current one doesn’t evolve into one. You all know the names: Lockheed, SAIC, CACI, Leidos, Boeing, etc. etc.

A Democrat in full battle gear prepares for the upcoming Vag on Teachers on LGBTQ on Cripples intraparty war.

‘Puter, as is his wont, read this morning’s Wall Street Journal as he exercised. Two birds, one stone and all that. There, ‘Puter encountered this editorial, Crowding Out K-12 Education.

The editorial states recent teachers strikes are a direct result of overspending in other areas, namely Medicaid and state pensions. For instance, Oklahoma’s Medicaid spending has risen from 14% of the state’s general fund in 2008 to 25% last year. Kentucky showed similar catastrophic increases in Medicaid spending, from $4.9 billion in 2008 to $9.9 billion last year. One in four Kentuckians is enrolled in Medicaid.

While the federal government picked up a large share of the increased costs since Obamacare’s inception, costs are now shifting to the states in accordance with the statute’s provisions.

This increased spending was foreseeable result of Obamacare. ‘Puter and many others said as much when Democrats were busy cramming the massive government entitlement down America’s unwilling craw. We begged states not to accept Medicaid enlargement because it would lead to exactly this, busted budgets and crushing taxes on citizens.

But that’s not what ‘Puter wants to discuss. ‘Puter wants to go meta on you, real blow your mind kind stuff. This real story in this editorial is the coming war between and among various elements of the Democrats’ voting base. Stick with ‘Puter here.

The teachers strikes are the first shots in a war between two Democrat base stalwarts: teachers unions and the poor/welfare recipients. There isn’t enough funding (or tax increase room for that matter) to keep both constituencies happy. Medicaid is chewing up education dollars, and teachers are pissed off.

“How dare you treat us like yesterday’s news? We aren’t just some cheap floozy you can use and lose, pump and dump! We’re respectable unlike that new whore that’s caught your eye!”

This is how ‘Puter imagines teachers’ union executives talking to legislators and governors about Medicaid recipients.

Carry this logic out. What funds going to current Democrat constituencies are liberal states going to cut to transfer to which other liberal constituency? This is the stuff of nightmares for the Democrats. The coming funding wars could well tear the Democratic Party apart.

Do you cut Planned Parenthood funding to transfer the dollars to teachers’ unions? Do you cut LGBTQ outreach funding to pay for increases to Medicaid? And ‘Puter hasn’t even gotten into the inherent social issue division within the Democratic Party.

Democrats have run out of other people’s money to spend. The teacher strikes are just the first skirmishes. The fiscal strife will exacerbate and lay bare the divisions on social issues, and decades-old rancor will bubble to the surface.

The Democrats’ civil war is coming, and it’s not going to be pretty.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Filthy Boomer hippies worship murderous, freedom-killing commies like Che Guevara. Or is this George Clooney? Hard to tell, really.

‘Puter was pleasantly surprised at Mass last Sunday. ‘Puter fully expected some namby-pamby, feel good take on the First Reading along the lines of “MUH COMMUNISM IZ TEH BESTIST!!!1!” from one of his parish’s priests.

Here’s the reading in questions for your edification (Acts 4:32-35):

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

Imagine ‘Puter’s surprised when Fr. McFormerbarristerenglishman launched into a stemwinder about the evils of Karl Marx, communism generally, and their perversion of the biblical exhortation to communally share with others.

‘Puter was rapt (mind you, this was around 07:50 Sunday morning) as the priest denounced Marx for creating a corrupt ideology that slaughtered millions. ‘Puter’s priest pulled no punches, directly disabusing the Boomer hippies in the pews of any notion that communism was ordained by God, as they are wont to claim.

‘Puter’s priest pointed out the fundamental evil of communism (versus the communalism described in the Acts passage) is the destruction of free will and property rights. ‘Puter found himself nodding along, and had to restrain himself from standing and applauding at the end of Father’s homily.

Mass is always good. Sometimes, Mass is great.

A musical discussion!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

No, I’m not talking about Stormy Daniels, the latest GIF ‘Puter posted on Twitter, all the dishes the Czar left in the sink, or where the clandestine White House Bunker is. I’m talking about the one topic that the media, the democrats, and the the whole March For Our Lives group won’t talk about with regards to gun violence: the American societal acceptance of the destruction of the family.

From the Sun Sentinel on March 1, 2018:

The list [of mass shooters with broken homes] goes on and on, as Brad Wilcox will testify. He is a professor and director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, studied school shootings in 2013 and found all the perpetrators had either had a mother who never got married or had seen a divorce in the family. CNN once looked at the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, noting that, of the seven killers under 30, only one had his biological father around his whole childhood. 

Consider a joint federal study showing that 63 percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes; as often as not, mass shooters are simultaneously suicidal. Robert Sampson, a Harvard sociologist, has observed that urban violence is concentrated in neighborhoods with mostly single-parent homes. A Michigan State University study found 75 percent of examined adolescent murderers were from fatherless homes. The Centers for Disease Control says 85 percent of children with behavioral disorders have only a mother in the home. Wilcox also says children with both married parents around are less likely to drop out of school, to become drug addicts or to grow up impoverished.

A oft overlooked statistic in the last few weeks is that 26 of the 27 deadliest mass shootings perpetrators were largely raised in a fatherless environment.

This is a difficult topic to address but instead of addressing it – likely due to a fear of offending someone – we are sweeping it under the rug. Maybe my liberal friends will claim this is more “whataboutism”* but, like many of them ask about gun control laws: why not try to do something?!? If we kick this can down the road, it isn’t going to improve on it’s own. This is going to take a concerted effort. Maybe before I move on, I should highlight some other statistics:

• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)

• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.  (National Principals Association Report)

It isn’t just fatherless homes, in my opinion, but rather it is a change in our culture and a lack of holding people accountable. In this case, be accountable for the life you just helped create. I truly believe that children with a sense of responsibility and an understanding that actions have meaningful and real consequences are likely not going to be the next school shooting criminal.

The other part of accountability is the lack of accountability we hold our government (local, state, and federal) for enforcing the laws in place. Before we spend the taxpayer money on passing new gun laws (many of which would likely not have stopped many of these shootings), can we fix the enforcement of the laws on the books. Fix the various databases and information sharing systems for background checks. Fix the reporting of mental health issues and violent behaviors such that they would be ineligible under CURRENT laws to acquire a gun. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but I believe that the Parkland shooting was preventable if just some – not even all – of the enforcement problems were addressed. I would like to see one journalist ask David Hogg or Emma Gonzalez, “Do you think it was a legislative problem or an enforcement problem that led to the shooting and why?” Followed up with, “are you aware that there were multiple failures in the implementation and enforcement of current laws that would have likely prevented the shooter from obtaining a gun and being in the school that day in that condition?” I doubt I’ll hear either anytime soon. In the meantime, the dirty little secret will continue to be whispered because to talk about it would be “whataboutism”

* Whataboutism is the epitome of the liberal reaction to have a rational discussion and debate about a topic. Anything outside of their specific agenda is decried as the opponents just screaming, “What about…”? I actually think the texting while driving has a very real parallel to the gun debate – somewhere between 4 and 10 times the number of teens die from texting while driving accidents per day than by guns (when you include suicides, accidental shootings, incidental shootings, and mass shootings). In both cases, there are existing laws that make some aspect of the action illegal (hence, crime, right?!?) There have been ZERO marches to raise awareness or combat texting while driving. Where are the OpEds and the Hollywood events to address the issue? Can you imagine for a moment a national campaign to ban the sales of smart phones to teenage drivers? 

Obviously, there’s a lot of tension going on right now between the people very much for gun control and the people very much against it. That tension exists because we, as a country, have finally reached the point where gun control is about as good as it’s going to get.

Here’s why: we’re presently pruning gun control restraints back, nationally. More states than ever allow “Constitutional Carry,” and more are in line to adopt it. Even Chicago, epicenter for bad management decisions, is begrudgingly accepting the reality of legal concealed carry. Gun ownership is up, the number of gun stores is greater than it’s been in two generations, and overall, gun-related homicides are down.

And yet we still have 20,000 gun laws on the books. Or 50,000. Or maybe 15,000…no one really knows because indexing gun laws at every level of government in this country is like counting dandelions in a field: as soon as you tally up a section, new ones blossom in areas you just counted.

In the 1990s, gun control overreached. We realize that now and are starting to prune. And as evidence starts to mount both for gun liberties and against gun control efforts, it may be that future historians can look back and say the 1990s was the height of gun control in American history, and it achieved nothing. It sure looks that way 20 years later.

Think about it this way: we’re now at a point where every proposed gun control argument has a better counter-argument. If you’re in favor of gun control, you might not think so, especially on social media. But for every person wanting to ban x or make it harder to do y, there are two or three well-argued responses against it.* Want to ban AR-15s? Here’s reasons why you can’t. Want to outlaw gun show sales? Here’s why you’re wrong. And so on: the same false arguments keep popping up, and each time they do, more cogent counterarguments add to the list.

Here’s the issue with gun control: there’s only one way to do it. No, not passage of incremental laws, reasonable restrictions, integrated background checks, mental health assessments, licenses, may-carry reviews, non-reciprocity, or any of the dozens of strategies that worked in the 1990s. The only way is enforced confiscation.

• Banning a particular weapon won’t stop school shootings. Total confiscation will.
• Gang shootings are already illegal, and they happen weekly. Total confiscation stops that.
• Most suicides are committed with firearms. You can’t stop the suicide, but total confiscation will make it impossible to do with a handgun.
• Accidental or friendly-fire shootings? Stopped with total confiscation.

Because as long as there is a reasonable explanation for possessing a firearm—self-defense, hunting, sports, recreational shooting, collecting, historical interest—then guns will be stolen and used in crimes, will discharge negligently, will factor in suicides.

As long as there is one person with a gun out there, the rest of it continues. The only way to stop it, in agreement with frail human nature, it total, absolute confiscation.

And not that mushy kind they tried in Australia, with initially voluntary trade-ins for cash and eventual fines and arrest. That didn’t work, as evidenced by the sheer number of firearms still used in Australian crimes. This must be enforced confiscation, which means seizing of records of gun sales receipts over the last couple decades, house-to-house searches, and more.

Because anything less than this will fail. It must be absolute, and gun control proponents know this when they make comments beginning with “If even one gun….”

On a practical level, this will be an utter failure. Not because of fantasized armed revolts or ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ bumper stickers or civil wars. The effort will be impossible on a purely organizational level: there are too many Americans to search, too many homes, and an untold number of firearms out there to find in them. Not only will local law enforcement be unable to cope with this monstrous workload, they won’t do it—in a Chicago suburb that tried this a while back, the town’s cops refused to comply saying it wasn’t in their job description. The effort failed out of the gate simply because they couldn’t fund the overtime pay for such an effort.

And there’s that pesky issue of the Second Amendment that keeps coming up.

At least that pretense is over with: at long last, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in the New York Times, has acknowledged that gun control, at this point, shall require the repealing of the Second Amendment. It’s finally out there: backed into a legal and logistical corner, the gun control movement has finally conceded that, at this point, only repealing the Second Amendment will afford increased gun control. The mask is off, the ruse exposed.

This doesn’t make confiscation possible; it makes it more unlikely. Indeed, here’s the thing: the news media are happy to plaster poll after poll on our screens touting some variation of the phrase “A majority of Americans support increased gun control” but cannot prove this. Generally, the poll process works like this:

Pollster: Do you support the Second Amendment

American: Absolutely. No questions. I can quote it to you verbatim.

Pollster: Do you own a gun?

American: You bet. A bunch. And I want more. You should own a bunch, too.

Pollster: Do you think it ought to be harder for people who should not have a gun to get one?

American: Um, well, yeah, obviously.

Pollster notes this person supports increased gun control.

As the Czar speaks to average people from all walks of life, from kids to grandmas to hunting enthusiasts to outspoken liberals, he hears the same sentence: “I believe in the Second Amendment, but…” with some comment following about restricting already-restricted things like gun-show loopholes, fully-automatic AK-16s, cop-killer bullets, or kids buying guns from a Texas Costco vending machine and bringing them elsewhere. The nature of the complaint is immaterial, especially when you explain the reality to them about their fear and they reply with “Oh. Never mind, then.” Although these comments get written up as “favoring gun control” by pollsters, the key takeaway is their first five words: “I believe in the Second Amendment.”

Americans, often based on a faulty understanding of the law thanks to the confusion of tens of thousands of conflicting laws and a sloppy news media, say they want gun control. However, if the vote came to repeal the Second Amendment, the resulting referendum would fail so badly that news media would talk for months about “How did the polls get this so wrong?”

At least we have reached the truth: the only way to increase gun control at this point is to repeal the Second Amendment. And the improbability of that would be laughable if more people understood the incredibly difficult processes to do so. But as long as the pro-control side is finally admitting the truth, the pro-gun side could also admit the truth: gun-control advocates have only themselves to blame.

If you’re pro-gun control, enjoy every day. Because the next day will likely provide you another setback.

*Maybe there’s one exception: bump stocks. People in favor of gun control argue that it practically automates a weapon; people against gun control think they’re a foolish waste of ammunition. Only an extreme minority of Americans want them sold with no restrictions, so introducing legislation to curb or eliminate bump stocks should be easy, right?

You’d think so. In Illinois, the support behind legislation to ban bump stocks was high enough that Republicans practically wrote the language to ban them. This was great, except Democrats in the State Senate—knowing the legislation would pass easily—promptly added a bunch of ridiculous and unconstitutional riders to the bill, assured that Republicans would now vote against it, or the governor would veto it, and thereby the Democrats could say “Behold! Even though the people of Illinois wanted to ban them, Republicans voted against it!” The Democrats found a way to automate a political weapon.

GorT has been watching excerpts of the “March for Our Lives” coverage via the local news and online sources and is concerned about the future.

First, let’s get this out of the way – who here wants schools, churches, movie theaters, etc. to be less safe? OK, seeing no hands, I’ll continue.

Second, we can have a whole debate over the Second Amendment, what various phrases and wording means and how it has been interpreted and legislated over the course of our country’s history. But I’m neither a historian nor a constitutional expert, so I’ll pass on that.

Third, has anyone seen anyone involved in this “March for Our Lives” advocate for the improved enforcement of the existing laws? And maybe ask for accountability when those in positions of enforcement fail to do their jobs? From everything I’ve read, it is likely that the Parkland, FL shooting could have been avoided with some better enforcement. We don’t need more laws.

Fourth, let us, for a moment, pursue the actions in the March For Our Lives petition:

1. Ban the sale of assault weapons like the ones used in some recent shootings  and ban the sale of high capacity magazines – then what? What about all of the EXISTING “assault weapons”? The petition doesn’t say anything about the mass confiscation of those. If you support such a confiscation, where do you draw the line in what the government can confiscate? Likely you’ll argue that they are confiscating items that caused large numbers of deaths. Ok, turn in your cellphone or driver’s license. Now. That combination is responsible for 4-5 times the number of deaths PER DAY than guns. I’m waiting….
2. Closing the “gun show loophole” – the petition cites “22 percent of gun sales in this country take place without a background check”. This has been largely rated as false, because it includes gifts (i.e. within a family) as part of “gun sales”. The number is probably closer to 13 percent. A large number of gun owners (on the order of 95+ percent) support increased and more “universal”* background checks. But wait, while we’re discussing background checks and these kids are touting that they will be voting, shouldn’t we make sure that the power to vote and make the kind of changes they’re talking about isn’t abused also? We should have universal background checks, or at least identification checks for every single vote cast. I listened to Hogg and others tout how powerful the ability to vote is…let’s protect that accordingly. Right?

Fifth, do not be snowed – these kids are, unfortunately, being manipulated by liberal, agenda-based, political lobbying organizations to include: MoveOn and Planned Parenthood (a group that conducted the aborting of over 800 potential future students PER DAY in 2016). These groups see this as a lynchpin voting issue for the 2018 midterm elections. They will not hesitate to manipulate and use these students, who are exercising their rights, for the purpose of political gains for candidates of their choice.

Sixth, for all the “democracy starts now” talk that Hogg and others are touting, they clearly need a better education in U.S. history. While we’re at it, if they think that the GOP is the issue here and they’re going to vote for democrats thinking they’d do something about the issue, let’s back up to the Obama administration:

• During his first term Obama didn’t call for any major new restriction on guns or gun owners
• Obama signed only two major laws that address how guns are carried in America, and both actually expand the rights of gun owners**
• His 23 executive actions after the Sandy Hook shooting were executive actions, not orders – and contained no new laws or regulations

A variety of democrat Congressional members are out meeting with students to include Pelosi, Sanders, etc. – all of whom were part of the majority party under President Obama’s first two years. They could have passed laws and regulations, outlawed bump stocks, restricted sales of high capacity magazines, etc. They didn’t. Have any of these kids asked them why? Seriously. Why didn’t they do so then? Because they, like many GOP representatives, are first and foremost concerned about their job. Which shouldn’t be their career.

All in all, this effort is fraught with disaster. It’s going to be problematic to criticize because that will be twisted into being “anti school safety” (see point one above). I’m all for pursuing school safety. Let’s start with the enforcement and then see if we really have a legislative issue.

* – by universal, we really mean a national-level background check so that individual state checks don’t fall through the cracks. Much like our voter registration should be.

** – the first allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks (replacing Reagan’s law that required them to be in locked glove compartments or trunks) and the second allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage (reversing a measure put in place in response to the 9-11 attack)