Silicon Valley Redneck

Prediction (or, no matter who you vote for, the Government gets elected)

The Donald's first official act as President - he'll have the papers to hand at his inauguration, all ready to sign - will be to pardon Hillary.

For all you who fondly believe that Donald will clear the gouk's nest cleverly, forget it.  He's the Clinton family's backup plan.  (Johnson is their backup, backup plan.)  His set of government-connected cronies will prove to be the same as theirs, and if he actually tries to make any significant changes, the Deep State will interpret him as damage and route around him.

Bender's second-favorite catch phrase applies here.

Hm. The misreporting was worse than it seemed.

Details here.

The story that was making the rounds yesterday, wherein a purported journalist described in detail his experiences in visiting a gun shop and firing an AR-15, was obviously bogus in many respects.  Smell of sulfur?  Really?  And, while it's been a couple of decades since I fired one of those things, I'm quite certain that the recoil of an AR-15 won't bruise your shoulder no matter how wrongly you hold it.  Seriously.  The effective recoil is practically in Daisy BB gun territory.  His terrifying account was clearly fantasy.

Well, it turns out he was lying about pretty much every other aspect of his visit to the gun shop, too.

Flashback.  Early 1990s.  One of the columnists for the San Jose Mercury News told of his experience with a group of local shooters.  They took him somewhere out in the hills to shoot at a variety of targets, including balls of aluminum foil tossed in the air to be shot at with rifles.  When he asked where the bullets were ending up, the guys gave him a blank look.

On the BBS (this was the pre-Internet days) a couple of days later: an account of the same outing as told by one of the shooters.  Basically, everything after "some guys took me shooting last week" was a lie.  They had in fact taken him to the Los Altos Rod and Gun Club, where there's a range staff, and they're very particular about safety; the shenanigans he described would definitely not have been tolerated there.

When contacted for an explanation of where this bizarre fantasy account had come from, he explained that he'd initially written it up just as it had happened... but the editors had made him change it.  Because the honest account didn't fit the paper's official perspective.

 

In other news, more young people now get their news from social media than from TV.  This, presumably, is meant to be a Bad Thing.  But, given that newspaper news has been wildly inaccurate (even when not outright dishonest) for decades, and TV news is even worse... maybe this is an improvement?  At least there isn't a cartel controlling the content, no matter how hard Facebook and Twitter may try.

Some animals are more equal than others

As hinted at in the previous post, the rulers of California regard the property of the Important as more worthy of protection than the lives of mere commoners.

Another fine example of the stratification of society currently in the news is the tale of the Stanford Rapist.

You can't punish an up-and-coming member of the aristocracy as you would a common thug!  Class solidarity forbids it!

Equal protection of the laws?  A republican form of government?  Mere words!  The ruling elite must be protected at all costs!

(And, should you cast a critical eye on the words and deeds of the elite, you'll quickly come to the conclusion that most of them are quite stupid, and incapable of managing their own lives competently, never mind the lives of everyone else.  But they're the ones who know all the right people.  Plus, they have the dirt on each other.)

Ruling-elite privilege is hardly a new thing; look at any society in any era.  But this is mighty blatant, for a society which was founded on the rejection of royalty.

The Stanford incident puts me in mind of the Moriarty of that novel I'm not writing.  (Back in the summer of 2011, I thought I might have a go at the NaNoWriMo thing. I had a Concept for a short, snappy, brightly-colored textual comic book.  Trouble was, when I started outlining it, I ended up with many pages of bullet points calling for vast, sweeping back-story arcs that wanted to grow into a 600-page Victorian novel even before the actual story could get started.  Also, that November ended up being quite a busy time.)  The villain, like the hero, is 42 years old, and went to the same high school, though they'd been completely unaware of each other.  The highlights of his character and early development:

---

Portrait of the Villain as a young man.

•  Jack was everything Charlie was not.  Captain of the football team, voted most likely to succeed, always got the girl, football scholarship to an Ivy League school, degrees in business and in law.
• Not only did Jack always get the girl, rumor had it that on some occasions the girl had taken exception to this.  The college administration had hushed up the first incident because there was an important game coming up... and once they'd covered up the first rape, Jack had all the leverage he needed to get anything else hushed up, too.
• All through his life, no one had ever said no to Jack and made it stick.
• Jack had an uncle on his mother's side who had been a long-serving U.S. Senator, until he died about two years ago.

---

It goes on from there, to his career in Mergers & Acquisitions, and his dealings with international crime syndicates.  Inevitably, at the conclusion of the story he escapes to plot another day.  Thing is... when I wrote that, I assumed I was just picking up on an exaggerated stereotype.

But, for all the exaggerated statistics, false rape accusations, and spurious claims of "rape culture"... there are very real predators out there.  All too often, it turns out the community was covering for them.  This case springs to mind.  Then there's the sudden outbreak of allegations regarding that guy at the onion-router project.  Also: one local community with which I've been out of touch for several years suddenly developed a case of what sounded, at first, like SJW safe-space babble.  Came a clarification: over the years, there had been cases of actual sexual predators hanging out with the group, and a recent incident had highlighted the need for dealing with behavior that was almost, but not quite, in call-the-police territory - rather than carefully pretending it didn't happen, as has been the custom.

And need I mention the Clintons?

But never mind how the Important People are largely above the law.  We must combat White Male Privilege, such as that enjoyed by the guy who picks up your garbage on Monday morning.

Ah, California...

... and the Ninth Circus.

According to the latest ruling, it's perfectly fine to restrict the carrying of handguns in public to those who:

• have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense
• work with valuables or large amounts of money

Now, just a doggone minute, here.

Last I heard, the basic rules for use of force held that deadly force was only acceptable for defending oneself or another person, and not for defending property.

But it makes perfect sense to restrict the means of defense to those who need to defend property, because... um... hello?

Underlying moral philosophy, anyone?

Break out the tinfoil!

For quite some time, I've held that if the Democrats were halfway smart, they'd throw the 2016 election so that the upcoming collapse would happen on the Republicans' watch.

Also, for a lesser time, I've suspected that The Donald, being a good buddy of the Clintons, was just in the Republican primary to make a mess of things and do as much damage as possible to the eventual nominee.

Now, Don Surber notes that Scott Adams perceives (without facts to back it up) that Hillary is not at all well.  (One of Surber's commenters notes that sudden weight gain could be a side-effect of Prednisone).

So, the new grand unified conspiracy theory?  Trump really is in it to win, and he'll take the general election after Hillary drops out for medical reasons... but he'll operate as a Clinton proxy.

Hey, having a Clinton proxy with an R after his name would be great, wouldn't it?  The Clinton machine would get all the goodies, and the Republicans would get all the blame.  Win!

Somehow, I find this implausible.

From a piece on What The Democrats Gotta Do Now:

He’d also have to somehow reach out to a new version of the party that is out there waiting to be born. It is a yet-to-be-defined mashup of Black Lives Matter; pro-immigration activism; non-European cultural consciousness; tolerance of all religions, lifestyles and genders; genuine urgency about the fate of the planet; confidence in technology, social media and the sharing economy; and skepticism about America’s right, power and duty to lead the world.

Would that include Evangelical Christianity, hillbillies, and men?

Yeah, yeah: tolerance for murderous Islamist fanatics is one thing; tolerance for good ol' boys, quite another.  Obviously we must tolerate ISIS, but not the NRA.

Also, "urgency about the fate of the planet" and "skepticism about America’s right, power and duty to lead the world" would appear contradictory.  Unless the former is a code phrase for unilaterally crippling our own economy?

A poem for the season

The Bison

By Hilaire Belloc

The Bison is vain, and (I write it with pain)

   The Door-mat you see on his head

Is not, as some learned professors maintain,   

The opulent growth of a genius’ brain;

   But is sewn on with needle and thread.

 

Making the rounds again

Mandatory voting!

This is clearly a good idea, because apathetic and low-information non-voters, if only they could be compelled to vote, would surely vote Democrat, just as the Florida voters too stupid to mark their ballots correctly should obviously have been counted as voting for the Democrat.

Hint to Democrats: are you really, absolutely certain this is an argument you want to be making?

Really?

In case there was any doubt

To any who were paying attention, it's been obvious since she was Mayor of SF back in the 80s that Dianne Feinstein is a Fascist.

And yet California elected her to the Senate, and, despite everything, she still keeps getting re-elected.

Well, now she's calling for censoring the Internet, to remove, among other things, all copies of The Anarchist Cookbook.

Double-take.

Yes, that Anarchist Cookbook.  The pile of crap so wildly inaccurate that it's commonly believed that the CIA had a hand in writing it, with the goal of encouraging anarchists to blow themselves up or poison themselves, or at least to waste their energies on super-weapons that just won't work.

Ayup.  Fascism and aggressively malignant ignorance go together.  Not only does she not realize that the book in question is less than useless to terrorists, but she completely fails to comprehend that the Internet is international, and large parts of it are completely outside U.S. jurisdiction.

Unless she's proposing to bomb servers where offending content is hosted... or create a Great Firewall of our own?

GOP strategy 2016

1. Wait for Hillary! to get the Democratic nomination.
2. Plaster Hillary!'s face and voice all over YouTube.
3. Win!

Srsy... the Dems expect to get the youth vote again?  Their strategy clearly involves keeping the low-information voters in the dark.  In the YouTube era.  When, no matter how appallingly stupid the Republican leadership may be (and don't get me started...), all it takes is one guy with time on his hands to collect video clips, assemble a bunch of 30-second "meet the old SecState" spots, and spread them around.

(Wait, she's only 67?  When she's not carefully packaged and stage-managed, she looks and sounds a lot older than that.)

Social Justice Warrior claims to be mentally ill

So she can't be blamed for anything she's said or done, apparently.

Apparently she also "was" a racist.  Was.  Riiiight.

This is one for the DUH! files.

If you actually know anything about anything that the SJWs get bent out of shape about, look at the claims they make that fall within your area of expertise.  Do they have any connection to reality?  Are these the statements of a person who is not mentally ill?

Of course not.  And it's not just lefty SJWs, of course.  From frat-house gang rapes to satanic daycare centers to peasants being turned into newts, there's never been a shortage of madfolk to make outrageous claims.  The mad tales that serve the interests of the current rulers are taken seriously (at least for public consumption).

And so we hang the old woman who gave young Nellie the evil eye, and the Church inherits her cottage and lands.  And, in these more civilized days, tech companies buy indulgences for not having the approved ethnic and gender balance, and then treat themselves with a course of leeches.

Remember the Maine!

FERGUSON ERUPTS

Yeah.  Was all primed for it, and this stuff sells newspapers (and/or eyeballs).

The mainstream press has been setting this up all along.  Even after evidence supporting the cop's story started dribbling out, serious, professional columnists for well-established publications were asserting as fact that the deceased* was murdered by a cop while attempting to surrender.

The spirit of William Randolph Hearst is alive, if somewhat attenuated.

When you ponder who might benefit from unrest and war, remember who distributes the divisive propaganda, and observe that they also profit from covering the tragedies they help to incite.

And they don't even need stealth warships.

* Invariably referred to in terms which implied a harmless child.

Of shirtstorms, catcalls, and building codes

Two related items have grabbed the Internet's attention in the last few days: the foofaraw over a garish shirt, and the attention a curvy young woman attracted while walking through certain areas of New York City.

The catcall video: Surprise!  Some lower-class men can be rude, by the standards of the privileged classes.  This is of course completely unprecedented; in all other times and places, surely the lower classes were unfailingly polite to their betters.

The shirtstorm: Curiously enough, some creative people don't have the specific set of social skills and conventions-of-the-week to mix well with the modern clerisy.  This is absurd, as surely they can take time out from painting masterpieces and landing spaceships on comets to attend finishing school, and the weekly and annual refreshers.

We seem to have acquired a collection of classes - ruling, chattering, and academic - drawn from the wealthy and privileged ranks of society, and completely unaware that anyone outside their bubble even exists - or, when they're forced to notice, their reaction is that such people ought not to exist.

Which brings us to that third item.  Building codes certainly serve a good purpose; if I buy or rent a building, or take a job in one, I do want assurance that it's been built to proper standards, and duly inspected and certified as structurally sound and fit for use.

And yet: Many jurisdictions insist that building codes apply to structures that will be occupied solely by the builder, and make violations (including failure to secure the government's blessing) a crime.  So, buy a cheap bit of land out of sight of anyone, build a shack from scrounged materials, and live in it alone, without modern amenities, and just for that you become a criminal.

Back when we had that big recall election in California, and anyone with a few bucks and a few dozen acquaintances could run for Governor, I toyed with the idea of running on an Evil Overlord platform.  One of the planks was this: I planned to eliminate poverty in California though a system of regressive taxes which would force the poor to move out.

Alas, this notion has now gone mainstream, backed by a submerged version of the sentiment commonly misattributed to Marie Antoinette: "The peasants have no bread?  Well, can't they eat cake?"

The ones who make the rules, and who define (with ever-shifting social conventions) Polite Society, simply can't imagine any lifestyle other than their own, let alone anyone wanting to live that way.  Homesteaders, hillbillies, carnies, artists (the talented kind, not the rich and famous kind), or even the workmen who keep the cities running but can't afford posh penthouses: those people, if we must notice them at all, are scary!

The same attitude, by the way, is behind the Affordable Care Prevention Act, whereof the premise is that everyone is entitled to, and must have, the sort of comprehensive health plan to which the professional classes have become accustomed, and details of how the lower classes will pay for such a thing are of no consequence.

We must force everyone into the same mold!  Full conformity of lifestyle and opinion (apart from certain approved deviations for members of certain approved groups) must be attained!

Because we simply cannot tolerate the presence of Unmutuals in our society.

Beware paralytic shellfish poisoning

'Cause yesterday's election was a freakin' red tide.

(Not here in California, but the California Republican Party was basically useless twenty-some years ago when I first looked at it, and since then has deteriorated to the point it's not even a credible scapegoat.)

Look for escalating insanity from the blue tribe, especially with regard to actions to be taken by the lame-duck Senate.  Last chance for Blue nominees to the Supreme Court; how much pressure can be brought on aging Justices to retire immediately?  Will the lunatic fringe shout "Wolverines!" and call for the assassination of a few Justices, so their replacements can be rushed through before the red dawn of the new Senate?

Not that the change of party in the Senate is gonna make that much difference, really, what with the Imperial Presidency, the quasi-independent Fed, and the Deep State running amok.  Remember: no matter who you vote for, the Government gets elected.

Though maybe the Ear Leader will get discouraged - hey, it's the first job he's held for more than two years, right? - and call in sick to spend the rest of his term golfing, or perhaps resign so that he can run for Queen of the Space Unicorns, or something.

Which would leave us with President Plugs, but at least everyone realizes he's an imbecile.  Right?

Afterthought: If the blue team had any sense, they'd have lost intentionally, leaving the red team in charge when things fall apart completely.  I think, however, that Hanlon's Razor applies here.

Huh. Not as close as I'd thought.

So, Scottish independence lost, 45 to 55.

If this is anything like correct, there were huge incentives for the referendum to fail.  As in The Powers That Be could not, under any circumstances, allow it to succeed.

But I'd expected it to be rigged to fail by just a hair, to create political leverage for the Scottish political establishment.  Maybe more people than expected actually voted No?

WTF hypothetical of the day

Spotted here:

"What if I'm out walking my dog and someone attacks me because she's right here producing a date rape drug," questioned neighbor Karen Cox. "I don't feel safe anymore."

What is this I don't even...?

Quick, send that neighbor to the legislature.  She makes as much sense as the average politician, i.e., less than none.

Out-of-state...

Fun Senate campaign (via Borepatch).

Features a totally generic campaign ad, perfectly delivered.

The Indiegogo site notes the huge amount of out-of-state funding for both the "real" candidates in the Senate race in question.

Which leads to the question: why not?

After all: while, in principle, a Senator ought to represent the interests of his* state, with the vast expansion of central power, basically every federal office affects everyone in every state.

So, really, between the national implications of any campaign for any federal office and the effects of party-based organization of the legislature, is it any surprise that these races draw money from all over?

(They have implications for China, Russia, Ukraine, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, too, but none of the candidates are accepting donations from those places.  Officially.  Right?)

And of course there's nothing whatsoever wrong with local grassroots groups taking the Bloombucks, and the centrally-written agenda that comes with them....

* Yes, "his"; if you go back far enough that this might actually have been the case, women didn't even have the vote yet. (Do not assume I'm implying a connection.)

On the checking of privilege

Now Patterico's linked to one of these things, noting how pointless it is.

Had I rather more idle time and inspiration, I might throw together a privilege-check quiz aimed at those most likely to invoke the catchphrase.

A few sample questions:

• Have you ever had a job from which you could be fired?
• Have you ever had a job providing a product or service which the customers could choose to buy, or not, without compulsion?
• Have you ever had a job at which your performance could be objectively evaluated?
• If you lost your temper, would your behavior be automatically excused on the basis of your sex or ethnicity?

Anyway, you get the idea.  There are plenty of people out there in real positions of privilege, often acting on behalf of, and shielded by, the State.  Those who throw around casual accusations of privilege are often members of this group, or aspire to membership.

The idea that yer basic working stiff is privileged brings to mind an old Jewish joke....

Not sure about the 'scientific' part, either

Article here, found via Slashdot:

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

Um.  It's supposed to be a republic, not a democracy.  Not the same thing.  A true democracy is not consistent with a Constitution that constrains government powers, because

Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

(My, how useful that magic phrase is!)

So, try this one: it's an oligarchy, not a republic.  This is even worse, because the government is supposed to be subject to well-defined, published, and well-understood laws, and in fact it has a longstanding practice of interpreting those laws out of existence when they don't fit the agenda of the ruling class.

And just watch the collectivists (I should know; I was one of them, back in my college days) proclaim that their agenda is what the Median Voter wants, and that we need even bigger government, plus some form of divine intervention, to make it happen.

In fact, big-money oligarchy is the inevitable result of centralized government with power to mess with the economy.  Were the Tenth Amendment in effect, there would be little incentive for businessmen to buy the federal government.

It's not just Intuit, of course.

Yeah, so, surprise, surprise: Intuit, purveyors of fine Turbot Axes, have been engaging in rent-seeking, helping block changes to the U.S. tax system that would make taxes simpler and filing easier.

But looks at the dire consequences all around, should the tax system be simplified!  The complexity creates all those jobs for tax accountants, tax preparers, tax attorneys, financial planners with expertise in tax avoidance, and of course IRS employees and their state counterparts.

If it suddenly got simple, all those people would be out of jobs!  Think of the terrible blow to the economy!

Big Government: breaking windows for prosperity since... er... the Dawn of Man?