Will You Forgive?

Will you forgive?


How about Hitler?

Charlie Manson?

Andrea Yates?

How about Dylann Roof?

Everyone who did you wrong?

Osama bin Laden?

The guy who raped you?

The babysitter who molested you?

Will you forgive?


No exceptions?

No ands, ifs or buts?

Once and forever?

Will you forgive the ones who stole your money?

Your bicycle?

Your innocence?

Your naïveté?

Your country?

Your father’s country?

His father’s country?

Your mother?

Your father?

Brother or sister?

Even if you get nothing for it?

No money.

No glory.

No fame.

Will you forgive?

Simply because Jesus looked you in the eyes?

And asked you to forgive?

And for no other reason

than that He said it was the right thing to do?

His eyes showed that He knew of what we are all capable.

Of all of which we are all capable.

Then He forgave those who scourged Him.

Who beat Him,

and who lashed Him.

He forgave those who slammed spikes through His wrists.

And through His feet.

Who. Nailed. Him. To. A. Cross.

As He bled, suffered …

understood …

He forgave those who spat on Him,

as He dragged His cross through the streets.

He forgave you and me.

He looked past life, and into eternity, and

He forgave you and me.

For everything.

Will you forgive?


Every man woman and child who lives?

Who ever lived?

Will you forgive them?

Only because He asked you to?

— xPraetorius


The Shooting in Oregon: The Left Immediately Says: “How Can We Exploit This Atrocity For Our Political Benefit?”

— Oh, and this is an “NPR Watch” feature too — 

It’s exactly how the left immediately reacted to 9/11: How can we exploit this for our political benefit? It’s how they react to anything.

So, there’s another shooting. This time in Oregon at Umpqua Community College. And, as expected, America’s left reacts in exactly the same perfectly knee-jerk, cold, cruel, calculating, self-obsessed, political way as always.

The left immediately does whatever it can to exploit any atrocity for political advantage, in support of its prime directives: (1) Obtain power. (2) Keep, consolidate and obtain more power.

They immediately deploy whatever means necessary — mainly lies, distortions and fabrications — to use the atrocity for their own advantage. They did it with 9/11, why would we expect them to do anything else in reaction to this particular atrocity?

I was listening to National Public Radio on the way in to work this morning, as is my wont. It was their fake news program called “Morning Edition.” Listening to NPR’s fake news programs is my way to keep up on how the hard-left thinks. The left, and NPR, take the fictions, distortions, omissions — the fakery — of their fake news very, very seriously.

So, of course, NPR came up with their usual stock of knee-jerk, uninformed, and manipulative propaganda:

  • “Oregon officials are searching for a motive,” they said. No mention of the fact that apparently accurate reports are that the guy was out hunting Christians and hated organized religion.
  • “Oh why, oh why… don’t we just have stricter gun laws?!?” NPR reported that President Obama said it. VP Biden said the same thing.
  • Further on in the feature, we heard: “Ten times more people are killed by gun violence in America each year than were killed on 9/11.”

A quick reaction to that one: Oh, really? More than 37,000 die in gun violence each year? I don’t think so! No, the number is closer to 10,000 and driven mainly by gang violence. Gangs are filled with people who simply ignore any gun laws, or any other laws, you might enact. Furthermore, gang members are in inner-cities, controlled for decades by the American left. You could make a far more rational case that any gun laws you would enact should outlaw gun ownership by anyone on the left.

  • Same NPR station on the same event, and again on what they call a “news show”: “We have one of these things (mass shootings) every week…” and off he went on a rant about getting more gun control. That “one every week” whopper passed uncorrected by anyone. Once or twice a year, maybe? Yes, yes, yes…one of them is precisely one too many, but when you allow lunatics to have firearms legally, pray tell, just what do you expect?

Some more quick reactions:

  • About the shooter’s motive: who cares? Who is ever going to “understand” the motives of a lunatic — except another lunatic?  There’s really only one thing to understand: the guy was crazy. A lunatic finds his motive wherever he chooses. A lunatic will seize on whatever excuse is then at the top of his warped mind when he decides to act on his lunacy.
  • Yeah… “let’s get stricter gun laws.” Let’s disarm the population in the face of the thousands of ISIS goons that President Obama has allowed into the country over the Southern border. There’s a great plan! I’m sure that the ISIS goons will be absolutely sure to observe our “stricter gun laws” when they sneak into the country. You and I both can imagine slope-headed, slack-jawed ISIS goon Abdul el-Cameljumper al-Suleiman getting across the border to kill him some Americans, and the first thing out of his lips are: “Let’s go find out what the local regulations are about gun ownership. We wouldn’t want to be out of compliance” Yeah. Okay.
  • Stricter gun laws? Wouldn’t it have been nice if one of those teachers or students had had a gun with him that day and just freakin’ taken out the lunatic? It’s just as wearying to have to pose that perfectly obvious rhetorical question each time there is such a thing, as it is to witness these times when some heavily-armed lunatic mows down unarmed or worse, disarmed people.
  • You know what? I’ll bet that if you reported just as heavily on those times where some lunatic gets taken down before he can begin a rampage — it happens you know — you just might get rid of these incidents almost entirely. If the kook realizes that when he tries something as in Oregon, there’s a good chance he’ll simply end up dead, without any notoriety whatsoever, except for being an idiot, you just might eliminate that particular motivation from the top of his whackadoodle noggin.
  • How about if schools around the country were to announce that they’re hiring armed security? Whether they actually do it or not. Might that deter some of these publicity-hungry, bloodthirsty lunatics? I’ll bet it would. I know, I know… the logistics are daunting. First of all, the lefty parents would all be up in arms and would make sure that it became loudly, publicly and widely known that they ultimately were not going to hire armed security. However, it seems as if it could work in some places. Heck, maybe you could prevent some lunatics from acting out just by announcing that “you’re studying the idea of hiring armed security!

Brief Digression: I know a guy who does not own a dog, but who has a “Beware of Dog” sign posted conspicuously in his yard anyway. I know another guy who has several cameras placed very visibly around the outside of his house. None of the cameras work…they’re just the outer casings that he bought on E-Bay for five bucks. However, he tells me that he is the only one in his neighborhood who has never experienced either a break-in, or a theft of property or vandalism or some such. He’s thinking of setting up a security consulting firm to sell and set up these things on the broader market. End of Brief Digression

  • That brings us to the real tragedy: Some time not long before the atrocity, the top guy at Umpqua Community College had considered hiring an armed security guard for the campus. He rejected the idea, on the grounds that such a thing would make for a “less safe climate” at the school, or some such horsehockey. It’s not unreasonable to speculate that the shooter had read about, or heard about, that very same refusal to hire armed security; that he had then chosen that particular school, confident that he’d meet with no armed resistance until it was much, much too late.
  • Just heard a good point on television: “Who stopped this guy? A cop with a gun.” Kind of answers my rhetorical question. What if there’d been a kid or a teacher with a gun — or an armed security guard — at the freakin’ beginning of the shooter’s rampage…?
  • A simple truth: If you could somehow manage to keep guns out of the hands of the American left, then you would empty the cities of guns, and the homicide rate, and gun violence rate, would plummet through the floor. Otherwise stated: the people prone to committing violence against other people, using a gun, are almost never members of any Republican or Conservative core constituencies. That’ll be worth repeating… over and over and over and over again.
  • Still otherwise stated: The right is about gun ownership in order to protect the people from gun-bearers, who are nearly all members of, or sympathizers of … the left. A significant portion of the left — gangs, criminals, racists, thugs, goons, muslims, etc — are all about gun ownership for themselves only, and so that they can do violence to others who, they hope, do not own any guns.
  • About the frequency of these things: they’re rare, very rare, and becoming less frequent. However, the media cover these increasingly rare incidents ever more hysterically, thereby giving the mistaken impression that they’re happening more frequently. Note that well. That’s how it always goes with these horrific incidents that the left politicizes in order to advance an agenda; in this case: the disarming of America.
  • Just heard on television: apparently the shooter had been diagnosed crazy, and had been in various parts of the mental health system much of his life. He was discharged (presumably under negative circumstances) from the army after a mere thirty days. He attended a high school for those with mental health issues. And yet, he purchased his firearms legally. Gee, I wonder which political tendency has been insisting that the only gun laws you need are those that would keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people.
  • I wouldn’t politicize this at all, except that Obama claims it’s the right thing to do. Okay, then let’s repeat it: if you could find a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who votes for, or sympathizes with the American left (aka: crazy people :) ), the violent crime rate would plummet. Through the floor. Because, yep, you guessed it, the Oregon shooter(2), like all mass murderers, did not fit the profile of Republican or a Conservative. Again.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Let’s be clear about the real definition of “politicize.” To “politicize” something is to exploit it dishonestly, solely for political benefit, regardless of the facts, truth, the real implications, or the reality of the thing being politicized. To politicize something is not to act in a noble manner at all, but rather to react in a self-interested manner, to benefit yourself or your agenda.

However, as soon as the left politicizes something like the Oregon shooting, it is irresponsible not to react in the same way. If you don’t, then you leave the framing of the narrative about the incident being politicized.

We on the right have always done that. We’ve held our political fire waiting for the left — who owns the communications vehicles of America — to open fire. In that way, we’ve always claimed a moral high-ground that nobody in America, apparently, cares about. The left fights really dirty. Not to respond in kind is to be perfectly irresponsible. It’s the future of America — therefore of the world as well — that’s at stake.

(2) – I’m okay with never giving the shooter’s name. That does two good things: (1) gives no notoriety whatsoever to the shooter, and (2) potentially spares the shooter’s family unnecessary pain and humiliation. They’ll have plenty of that as it is, just knowing what they know.


America’s Science-Loving Left

You know how the popular narrative is: the left loves science, while we on the right, we hick Conservatives, are all anti-science. We’re supposedly awash in our irrational superstitions that we’re willing to defend with our guns. And why? Because, you see, we on the right never accepted uncritically, unquestioningly, all the hoo-hah about “global warming.”(1)

But, what happens if we examine the narrative just a bit … Let’s see. Along comes Bruce Jenner, now legally “Caitlyn” Jenner. He says nothing more than:

“Hey, guys! Guess what: I’m a woman! Yep. Despite all the physical evidence, all the equipment, the narrow hips and wide shoulders, all the children for whom I contributed the sperm, the fact that I won the 1976 men’s Olympic decathlon, the fact that I’m 6’2″ tall, the fact that all the chemicals in my body prove unambiguously that I’m a man, the fact that any parts of my body that look even vaguely feminine are artificially made, well … yep, I’m really a woman! Have been all along! Oh, and if you don’t believe me, you’re a narrow-minded, mean, ol’ bigoted reactionary kook! Got it?”

And everyone on the supposedly science-loving left replied:

“Yep. Okay.”

So, let’s examine that a bit: Despite all the objective, fact-based, long-standing science proving perfectly uncontroversially that “Caitlyn” Jenner is really a man … all those supposedly science-loving lefties now unanimously believe that, you guessed it, he’s a woman! Just like that!

It’s as if I were to say that, well yes, I know I’m 6’4″ tall, but I’m really a short man. Why? Well, because I say so. Just that. Ignore the measurements and the size 14 shoes, and the 36″ inseam in the pants, and the 3X shirts, sweaters and sweatshirts that fit me just fine, I’m really a short man.

You and I both know that if I were to try seriously to make that claim, the supposedly science-loving left (1) would believe me!  Then, (2) they’d demand that you believe me, or else (3) they’d brand you a retrograde jerk.

If Caitlyn Jenner’s body were to be discovered several centuries from now, and the archaeologists were to place it on the dissection table, what would the science conclude about their specimen? Well, let’s see, I think we can probably figure it out. Hmmmm… 6’2″ tall, XY chromosomes, male hips and shoulders… The scientists will say, “We got ourselves a dude here.” (That’s how they’ll talk several centuries from now.) And, why will they say that? Simple: Science will dictate that they say that.

You know, “science?” That set of disciplines and study that use objective measurements, observation and mathematics to eliminate as much of the subjective as we can, in order to give ourselves the best possible chance of reaching a good understanding of reality? That science.

When Caitlyn Jenner came out with his strange assertion — I’m really a woman — he produced no scientific evidence whatsoever to support his assertion. There were no measurements, no physical anomalies … no science at all, that he could point to in support of what he said. He simply said it. That’s it. And our supposedly science-loving left accepted it uncritically and without debate. More to the point, they immediately branded you and me as narrow-minded jerks, if you and I expressed any kind of skepticism.

Back briefly to the science of “global warming.” Ignore for a moment that it was all “global cooling” just two short decades ago. Well, the science has shown that “global warming” has disappeared. Yep. Gone. There hasn’t been any “global warming” for almost a generation now. So, how did the supposedly science-loving left react to this real climate science?

Easy. Ignore it. And forget it.(2) No supposedly science-loving lefty says “global warming” anymore. As if no one had ever said “global warming!” As if they had never been apoplectic, purple-faced, spittle-flecked with rage, alarm and indignation, and in-your-face demanding that you stop consuming fossil fuels to stop global warming, or you will all die, as the waves from the rising, raging, rampaging oceans swallow you up!

All that apparently never happened.

Now that “global warming” is embarrassingly MIA, “Climate Change” is all the rage. Well, there’s some science for you. We have to stop climate change! Oh? Really? Anyone who ever takes a third-grade earth science class learns that the climate does nothing but change.

So, as regards the climate, our ever-so-intellectual, supposedly science-loving, American left has gone from irrational alarmism over “global cooling,” to irrational alarmism over “global warming,” to demanding action that we stop the climate from doing the only thing it has ever done: change.

The left loves science? Codswallop.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Which the left no longer accepts either. Because it disappeared.

(2) – Oh, National Public Radio, part of the left’s propaganda wing, still says “global warming” regularly, but they’re always at least a decade behind the times.

A Master Musician’s Masterful Performance


One of the most astonishingly wonderful solo performances on a guitar that I’ve ever been privileged to witness… and I’ve seen a few thousand. It comes from a great showman, a spectacular performer, and one of the finest guitarists who have ever lived, Tommy Emmanuel.

The last four seconds are four of the most delightful seconds you will experience in music. Heck, they’re four of the most delightful seconds you will experience in your life. If you don’t laugh out loud with the sheer joy and fun of it, then you just might not be human.

Remember, though, that he spends the previous seven or so minutes setting up those last four seconds with knock-your-socks-off-and-rock-you-back-in-your-chair, bravura guitar playing.

I was able to take in one of Tommy’s concerts when he was playing in Hartford. It was two hours of sheer delight. The man is a massive talent, with more energy than an atomic bomb, and more talent, technique, showmanship, joie-de-vivre and virtuosity than any ten other guitarists… combined.

And those last four seconds…

— xPraetorius

Aleksei Arkhipovsky — Balalaika Master Live!

Can’t get better than this!

Enjoy the efforts of a musical master on his instrument. It’s 41 minutes of gorgeousness… and Russian language. I defy you to do better than that!

— xPraetorius



More Balalaika Fun!

I hope that the last several posts I’ve placed out there have given you at least a tiny appreciation of balalaika music! If so listen to this!

Remember: it’s still just three string, two of which play the same note!

I speak Russian, so I can’t help you if you’re not understanding this.

However, the first couple of minutes are just a joyous expression of life. Definitely worth listening to.

— xPraetorius

A Genuine Demonstration of Musical Virtuosity

The great Aleksei (Alex) Arkhipovsky shows (here) what a master can do with three strings, two of which are the same note, on a balalaika. This is a balalaika clinic.

I apologize; the video is in French, and I speak French like a native, so it’s meaningful to me.

For those of you who don’t speak French, watch it and enjoy it for the moments of exuberant  virtuosity.

Oh, and enjoy the French! One of the greatest contributions the French have ever made to the world is the French language.

At 6:40, it’s some absolutely wonderful improvisation. If you’re paying attention, you’ll be absolutely astonished at the expressive possibilities of a mere three strings on a balalaika!

Enjoy! I certainly do!

— xPraetorius

Want to Increase the DEPTH of Your Understanding of America? Read This…

It’s Michael Barone’s really well- and clearly-written: Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation’s Future.

If, like me, you’re a staunch Conservative, you’ll find some seriously challenging viewpoints in this book.

If, like me, you’re a staunch Conservative, you won’t care at all, and will thoroughly enjoy the greater depth of perspective this book will give you.

If, like me, you’re a staunch Conservative, you enjoy seriously challenging viewpoints.

In this book, you’ll learn that Democrats aren’t all bad, and that Republicans aren’t all good. However, you and I knew that already.

We Conservatives might not have known, though, that Democrats, and the political left, did some things that were seriously good for the country.

Michael Barone’s exhaustive research has unearthed some important facts, and presents some extremely intriguing conclusions.

As familiar as I am with the violence, corruption and intellectual depredations of the left, there were some “bitter pills” for me in the book. As a result, I heartily endorse it for you as well.

We Conservatives need some “bitter pills” from time-to-time to keep our intellectual tree of knowledge healthy, strong and vital. Without challenge, we’d see ourselves grow as weak, pathetic and intellectually flaccid as the left generally is.

— xPraetorius


Just As We Have Long Been Insisting…

… “Liberals are done with debating

In the great online magazine, National Review, David Harsanyi makes the same point we’ve been making for some time: the left is not interested in actual debate. Harsanyi then goes on to detail a good number of the accusations, names, epithets and sneering abuse that leftists hurl at Conservatives caught supporting positions counter to those of the left.

What Harsanyi neglects to say is why leftists are done with debating.

The reason is simple: if the left were to engage in real debate, they lose. Nearly every time. If the left were deprived of sneering and insulting, they’d be reduced to near total silence, because their empty little heads are devoid of substantive arguments for all the major issues of the day.

Sadly, it is those selfsame hollow leftist noggins that fabricated, or caused, all the major issues of the day. All the major issues of today: abortion, environmentalism, income inequality, poverty, hunger, disease, unemployment, ISIS, terrorism, etc. are, without exception, either fabrications of the left (environmentalism, income inequality) or are actually caused by the left’s success at taking and keeping power (abortion, poverty, hunger, disease, unemployment, ISIS, terrorism).

— xPraetorius

Did You Know This?

This essay is an important one. It’s by the great Walter Williams, one of America’s great black Conservative thinkers and writers.

Here are some parts of Williams’ essay to whet your appetite:

The argument is made that the problems encountered by many black Americans are rooted in white racism, greed and income inequality. They are able to get away with these untruths because most people believe that what is seen today has always been. [Red emphasis added] A bit of history would belie such a vision.


As late as 1950, female-headed households were only 18 percent of the black population. Today it’s close to 70 percent. In the late 1800s, there were only slight differences between the black family structure and those of other ethnic groups. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households were two-parent households. In 1938, 11 percent of black children were born to single mothers; today it is close to 75 percent. In some cities and neighborhoods, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births is over 80.

Then there’s:

Faced with the evidence that black families were healthier at a time when blacks were just a generation or two out of slavery, at a time when there was far greater racial discrimination and there were far fewer opportunities, how much credence can be given to the legacy-of-slavery argument to explain today’s weak family structure? Does the effect of a legacy of slavery somehow skip five generations? [Red emphasis added]

There’s also:

Female-headed households, whether black or white, are a ticket for dependency and all of its associated problems. One of the best-kept secrets is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994. [Red emphasis added]

Wow! That one’s worth remarking on a bit more!  The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994. Holy mackerel! How could that be in supposedly “racist America?!?”

This is not what we’ve been reading or hearing from the left and from the Race Grievance Industry for decades now!

Social scientists do, though, agree nearly unanimously: if you restore the intact, father-mother-kids black family, you likely will reduce poverty dramatically… along with all the pathologies afflicting black Americans today.

Williams also writes:

Another devastating problem for blacks is the high unemployment rate in general, but particularly among black youth. Nationally, black youth unemployment is nearly 40 percent. In some cities, it is over 60 percent. But high black youth unemployment is entirely new. [Red emphasis added]  In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens was slightly less than that of their white counterparts — 9.4 percent compared with 10.2. During that same period, black youths were either just as active in the labor force or more so than white youths. Today black teen labor force participation is a fraction of that of whites. Even during the early 1900s, black males were either just as active in the labor market as whites or more so. [Red emphasis added]

Williams adds:

So what explains the employment statistics of yesteryear compared with those of today? Would one argue that the reason that black teens had a lower unemployment rate and higher labor force participation rate than whites was that there was less racial discrimination in the 1940s than there is today? [Red emphasis added] Would one argue that blacks had greater skills than whites in earlier periods? Whatever explains the differences, racial discrimination is not part of the answer. [Red emphasis added]

Williams finishes with a powerful haymaker:

I have only addressed three major problems confronting a large segment of the black community — family structure, illegitimacy and unemployment. Which one of them can be tackled by expending resources on what white people are doing or not doing? [Red emphasis added] The weak family structure and illegitimacy are devastating problems, but they are not civil rights problems and have nothing to do with racial discrimination. The black unemployment problem is different. Much of it is the result of the labor market’s having been rigged by powerful vested interests aided, perhaps unwittingly, by much of the black political structure. [Red emphasis added]

— xPraetorius

I Wonder Who’s Been Saying This All Along!

Here’s the Drudgereport headline: MORE EMAILS ‘FOUND’…

More of Hillary’s e-mails that were on her illegal private server have been found, that is.

You remember, right? All those e-mails that she had “erased,” and that everyone said were, therefore, gone? Those e-mails.

Yep. We said it. Here.  All the way back in March of this year!

They were never “gone.”

Not only did we say that the e-mails weren’t gone, we said also that they’d be easy to find.

Here’s a snippet from that post long ago:

Here’s why the media need to consult a computer expert from time-to-time: I’m hearing a lot of flat-out wrong things about the ability of Hillary Clinton to control these e-mails that live on her server at her Chappaqua home. The media are bemoaning the “fact” that Hillary can simply delete those e-mails from the server that lived at the Clinton’s Chappaqua mansion. Wrong! Or, more to the point: yes, she can delete the e-mails from her Chappaqua mansion’s server, but those e-mails reside in a whole lot of other places as well. Places where the long arm of even Hillary can’t reach them. And certainly not without breaking the law.

Look: she’s cornered now. Those e-mails are obtainable. Fairly easily. If she starts a wholesale deletion of incriminating e-mails, that’s easy to discover. If she tries to delete just a couple of e-mails, that’s easy to discover. The path that any e-mail took is easy to discover, and it’s easy also to obtain that e-mail on any of the many hops it has to traverse from her keyboard to the recipient’s inbox. It’s pretty simple: if there is an e-mail on any one of those hops, and not one on Hillary’s server, then she has broken the law.

— xPraetorius

Yet MORE Minutes of Sheer Exhilaration

Here are two of the finest musicians the earth has ever produced playing together.

I dare you to tell me what could be finer than to take this in.

For those of you, like me, who are really good musicians, you’ll understand the astonishing talent it takes to pull this off.

First of all, the “song” is Mozart’s “Turkish March,” by itself a challenging piece of music. It was written for piano.

However, the instruments in question are the guitar (Tommy Emmanuel) and the balalaika (Aleksei Arkhipovsky).

I exaggerate not in the slightest when I say that from 1:14 to 1:30 are sixteen seconds of some of the finest human accomplishment ever done.

The  coda is beyond delightful. Great and mighty musicianship, and showmanship, pulled off by supremely talented musicians, the likes of which the world is not likely ever to see again.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 9/25/15 (Part II)

I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) this morning on the way to work. It’s amazing how transparently not news, their “news” is. They do a morning “news” program, called “Morning Edition,” that’s supposed to be news, but is really just fake news.

This morning they did a feature on the murder sixty years ago of young Emmett Till, a 14-year old black boy in the South. Two white men were arrested for the murder, and then acquitted by an all-white jury at trial.

Now, I admit up-front that I don’t know the particulars of the entire Emmett Till story, except to say that it was particularly tragic — no 14-year old boy should ever lose his life… especially at the hands of another person. It’s a monstrous atrocity.

Also, in the middle of the piece, whoever was presenting it said something like: “The men said they killed Emmett Till because he had whistled at a white woman.”

NPR’s interviewees this morning were unanimous in their condemnation of the acquittal of the white men, by the all-white jury. There was no doubt in these commentators’ minds: the suspects did the crime, and were set free. Furthermore, all agreed, the suspects did the crime for racist reasons.

But, forgive me, please, for wondering about these few things:

  • Isn’t that why we have, you know, “trials?” A “trial” is what you do when you’re not sure that you know the answer to something. Heck, in America, you have a “trial” even when you are sure you’ve got the right person!

  • Built into the definition of the very word “trial” is the possibility that you will get a “not guilty” verdict.

  • Is anyone suggesting that we should go to a system in which we don’t have trials? There are such systems in the world: they’re in countries called: Third-World Hellholes. Should we just go down that route?

  • I don’t know what the evidence was that resulted in the arrests of the suspects. Was it overwhelming? The evidence against OJ Simpson was overwhelming, but he was acquitted. It happens. And, he just might not have done it. I don’t know. I know only what the media presented, and they are mostly corrupt.

  • The thing about the suspect saying that he had killed Emmett Till for whistling at a white woman…was that known at trial? If so, that’s pretty damning evidence. If not, then I presume that no one knew it at the time of the trial, and therefore that it was a non-factor in the trial.

  • The prohibition against double jeopardy in the legal system means that even if the suspect admitted he did the crime, he cannot be re-tried for it after an initial acquittal.

  • This assertion that one of the suspects admitted he did it after the trial is highly suspect. Really? Who, just acquitted of murder, then would admit — at any time, except maybe at the time of a deathbed confession — to having done the murder? Even a supposed racist who didn’t even think he had done anything wrong?

  • An acquittal at trial does not mean the suspect didn’t do the crime. It means only that the prosecutor didn’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the suspect did it. That is the burden of proof absolutely required by the Constitution.

  • Presumably the suspects entered “not guilty” pleas before the trial began. In other words, they said: “We didn’t do it.” Does anyone know that they did? If so, what’s his or her evidence. If you listened to the NPR story, there’s cause for doubt that anyone knows for sure who did it.

  • It seems pretty sure that the commentators that NPR called on this morning wanted a conviction only so that white people were punished for the death of a black youth.

  • As in the OJ case, some rational, sane observers noted that the country’s legal system is based on several premises, one of which is the aphorism that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish an innocent man. At least that’s the theory. Should we just abandon that in favor of whatever makes the currently favored group(s) happy? It is, after all, the main reason OJ Simpson skated.

  • And…aren’t we all entitled by the Constitution to a trial by a jury of our peers? If I’m a white suspect in a trial of any kind, what would be at all surprising about appearing before a jury of white people? Should we instead set about to making sure that we get a jury that will convict? Do we really think that American prosecutors — with a something like 98-99% conviction rate — aren’t getting enough “wins?”

  • What did happen in the whole Emmett Till murder and subsequent trial? I truly don’t know. However, in their incomplete, shallow, and manipulative — beyond the point of dishonesty — presentation of this story, NPR did do us all at least one service, as they and the rest of the Race Grievance Industry (RGI) regularly do: they highlighted just how not racist this country really is now! If the Emmett Till murder was a murder done by racists who killed the child because of the color of his skin, NPR’s focus on the story shines a bright light on several things: (1) the atrocity happened a very long time ago. (2) In light of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri and in the Trayvon Martin case, it’s possible that some of these landmark “racial incidents” didn’t actually happen as we think they did. After all, (3) the narrative is: “white people did violence to innocent, unarmed black kids (so this happens all the time).” It turns out that it’s a false, fabricated, made-up, fictional narrative… aka: a lie. George Zimmerman, the evidence overwhelmingly said, didn’t attack Trayvon Martin, it was the other way around. And Darren Wilson in Ferguson was not a racist cop killing an unarmed black kid, but rather a policeman defending himself from attack. What about all these other incidents? What else in the NPR’s and the RGI’s narrative about race and America is just … flat-out false? It’s time to investigate.

  • In order to have any kind of understanding of the story at all, these are all things that NPR was morally obligated to divulge to us. That they didn’t is all the proof you should need in order to know that you come out of an NPR fake news piece less informed than you go in.

  • I’m going to say something particularly dispiriting here: It’s hard to dispute the idea that in cases like the Emmett Till, or the Trayvon Martin, of the Ferguson, Missouri incidents, black Americans — not all of them, just the ones in the Race Grievance Industry — seemed to care only that a white person get punished. If in the case of any of these incidents some other white person had been arrested and convicted after the exonerations of George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, that would have prevented the riots and the violence.

  • Update:  I was writing the above after having heard the NPR piece. I then went home and did a search (here (1)) on the case and found out some things:

    • The “confession” was not known at trial, but apparently did happen afterward.
    • The details of the incident that prompted the atrocity are unclear, ranging from: Till went into a store and bought something and left, to: Till went into the same store, and accosted a married, white woman in the store in a mildly violent, but intimidating and sexual way. Obviously, though, nothing justifies the murder of the young man. Reporting him to the police maybe, but that’s about it.
    • The evidence against the suspects — one Roy Bryant and one J. W. Milam — does not appear to have been particularly overwhelming at the time of the trial. Lots of hearsay. Not that hearsay is insignificant, but it’s not dispositive. After the trial, the evidence was overwhelming, yes. Key word: “after.” The problem: my assertion about double jeopardy, above, is correct: If you murdered someone and are acquitted at trial, you can admit openly that you did it afterward and you cannot be charged, again, with the crime.
    • It appears likely that a couple of dirt bags who committed a heinous crime skated.
    • It appears equally likely that the fact that these were two dirt bags who had committed a heinous crime was not known at the time of the trial, resulting in the verdict that came down.

  • The Emmett Till story is horrible. So is the Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman story. It’s vital to note, however, that neither is one iota more horrible than the other.

  • It’s worth repeatingUnless you make the effort to go out and inform yourself, you always come out of an NPR fake news piece less informed than you go in.

— xPraetorius


(1) – The source is Wikipedia — hardly an objective source, but the material seems to be reasonably okay. I say “reasonably,” because the piece says obviously prejudicial things like (note our inline [red font] remarks):

In post-trial analyses, blame for the outcome varied. Mamie Till Bradley was criticized for not crying enough on the stand. The jury was noted to have been picked almost exclusively from the hill country section of Tallahatchie County, which, due to its poorer economic make-up, found whites and blacks competing for land and other agrarian opportunities [complete, unknowable speculation!]. Unlike the population living closer to the river (and thus closer to Bryant and Milam in Leflore County), who possessed a noblesse oblige toward blacks according to historian Stephen Whitaker [more completely, unknowable speculation!], those in the eastern part of the county were remarkably virulent in their racism [still more unknowable speculation!]. The prosecution was criticized for dismissing any potential juror who knew Milam or Bryant, for the fear that such a juror would vote to acquit. [An important requirement of the prosecution is that they make intelligent decisions in the case. People are imperfect.] Afterward, Whitaker noted that this was a mistake as anyone who had personally known the defendants usually disliked them. One juror voted twice to convict, but on the third discussion, acquiesced and voted with the rest of the jury to acquit. [This happens all the time; nothing unusual here. It’s a well-known — and approved of — behavior of juries] In later interviews, the jurors acknowledged that they knew Bryant and Milam were guilty, but simply did not believe life imprisonment or the death penalty fit punishment for whites who had killed a black man. [I believe this too. As stated! I believe also, for example, that the death penalty is not fit punishment for a black man who kills a white man. In other words, I believe that the death penalty is never a valid punishment, for a lot of reasons that exceed the scope of this essay.] This is somewhat disputed by later interviews with two jurors who stated as late as 2005 that they believed the defense’s case, that the prosecution had not proven that Till had died, and that it was his body that was removed from the river.

A Key Word: “blame.” A key concept in American justice, whether it be in the North, South, East or West, is that no trial ever, ever, not ever, not once, never, never once ever has a foregone conclusion. Never. A foregone conclusion completely, utterly and absolutely obliterates the legitimacy of any “justice system” ever conceived, rendering it a mockery.

Therefore there can be no “blame” for a verdict that you don’t like coming out of a trial of any kind. Period.

It all boils down to one crucial thing: In America, the prosecution is absolutely required to prove to the jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that the suspect did the crime. Absent such overwhelming “proof,” the defendant walks. Every time.

You and I might not like it, but I can tell you one thing: you’ll like one whole heckuva lot less a system in which the verdict of a “trial” is in place before the “trial.”

America places that heavy burden on the prosecution for a very, very, very good reason: all other systems of “justice” in history had it reversed: the defense had to prove the innocence of the defendant.

Our system guarantees some disappointing outcomes: Apparently guilty people will walk free.  The other way guarantees vast injustice as people are unable to prove that they are innocent. In the Soviet Union, when there was a crime, they used to round up all the likeliest suspects and shoot them all. That way they were pretty sure that “justice” had been done. But, a whole heckuva lot of injustice had been done as well! Is that really what we want here in America?

NPR Watch (9/25/15)

I was listening to National Public Radio’s local affiliate — WNPR — when on came a re-run of something called “The Colin McEnroe Show.” It’s a local show with a local, lefty (of course!) host, and this dude talks about things generally pertinent to the day’s news. His focus is usually cultural/political.

This time one of his topics concerned the white male poet who used an Asian female-sounding pseudonym to publish a poem, Why? No one would publish his work as a white male poet dude, but as an Asian woman, they would! He had submitted his poem to 40 different publishers as a white male dude, and been rejected each time. However, as soon as he submitted the poem as an Asian woman, Pow! Published.

See if you can guess what perspective went totally unexplored by the host and his guests on the  Colin McEnroe show.

Needless to say, McEnroe had on his show a whole bunch of people who (1) ripped the white male poet dude up one side and down the other, and (2) exulted in the fact that apparently there were a whole bunch of internet trolls who also ripped the white male poet dude up one side and down the other. Why, they said, it was appropriation, cultural appropriation of the worst kind! They were upset that the guy got his poem published, not to make some larger point, but — horrors! — just to get his poem published!

This last, by the way — getting poems published — is something that poets do try to do from time to time.

One of McEnroe’s guests was, indeed, an Asian woman. She was, of course, particularly offended. “As an Asian woman,” she began (as leftists always do), and went off on some rant that headed almost directly into the “he’s a racist” (of course!) place.

In there, though, was a moment when the Asian woman (I think it was she) confessed that she was vaguely disturbed that there were actual indications that what the poet dude had said — “I couldn’t get my work published as a white dude, but I could as an Asian woman” (roughly) — was true!

They went back and forth for a bit, and all were unanimous: the white male poet dude, who used an Asian woman-type pseudonym was a jerk, and probably a racist jerk.

So, what perspective did they miss? Why the easiest one, of course! How do you explain, then, that it’s good when a minority anything — poet, writer, singer, mortgage applicant, artist, sculptor, snorg-peddler — passes himself off as a white man to get a job, get published, buy a house, win a contract, sell a product or service?

Here’s how: You see, he was defeating the evil system at its own game! He was striking a blow against discrimination! Universally on the left that person is hailed as a great and courageous hero, who had taken on an evil system and beaten it using its own rules against it.

But, let some white guy do exactly the same thing — the only difference being the color of his skin — let him beat what seems to be an obviously racist system in the poetry publishing world, and what a scoundrel he is! And a racist scoundrel at that!

There was no discussion in the show of (1) whether the poem was worth publishing. The Asian lady seemed to indicate that it might have been, by confessing that there is racial discrimination — apparently against white male poets — in the publishing world. (2) There was no discussion of whether that was okay! Presumably because that would put such an obvious contradiction out there that even a leftist could see it! And wouldn’t be able to defend it, even with the fog-speak at which the left is so adept.

Brief aside: Did you ever notice that the only ones who actually have to police every word that comes out of their mouths are on the left? It’s not “abortion” it’s “choice.” It’s not “racial discrimination,” it’s “Affirmative Action.” It’s not even a “fetus,” it’s “fetal tissue.” Or “uterine contents.” The list of euphemisms the left is forced to use to disguise the reality of their beliefs is dauntingly long.

Here are the only possible conclusions one can draw from listening to the left blather on and on, in their small and large whack-a-doodle echo chambers in the media:

  • Racism is good after all! As long as it’s the right kind of racism.
  • Beating a racist system is okay only when some people do it. When others do it — like white male poet dudes — it’s racist and wrong.
  • Racial discrimination is good! If it’s the right kind of racial discrimination.
  • Beating the system by playing it off against itself is okay only if some people do it. Not, though, when white male poets do it.
  • The left is perfectly willing (1) to concede that there is racial discrimination in the publishing world, and (2) to leave that racial discrimination in place.
  • This is exactly the same thinking as that which the left condemn so operatically all the time. It’s thinking straight out of the Jim Crow South in the 1950’s and ’60’s, and out of the eugenicist 1920’s.(1)
  • Taken to its logical conclusion, this is apartheid. The system in South Africa where a minority overtly discriminated against the majority. We used to take a dim view of apartheid.

Never, ever, ever, in a million years, expect the left to say something commonsensical, or fair, or intelligent, or just, or correct like: “Hey, if the poem is good enough to be published, it shouldn’t matter who wrote it, it should be published! Period!”

Why? Because that would produce disparities in who publishes what and when. And that notion would be extensible to other disciplines as well:

  • Hey, if he’s fit for the job, he should be hired no matter his race! (Bye bye, Affirmative Action — aka: racial discrimination in employment and university admissions)
  • Hey, if his music is good, it should be played no matter his race!
  • Hey, if his book is good, it should be read, no matter his race! (a bunch of dead, white, male masters’ masterpieces would enjoy a renaissance in academia, and a bunch of contemporary literary schlocks and frauds would disappear.)

That’s why the left is quite happy with some kinds of racial discrimination.

The left will never be satisfied until all of America is one big Procrustean Bed.(2)

— xPraetorius


(1) – The only distinction between the various periods is in how leftist racism manifests itself. In the 1920’s the eugenicists were quite open and honest in their belief that blacks were an inferior race, and that for the good of all society, blacks should be bred or sterilized out of existence. In the 1960’s, leftists were still openly racist, and instituted laws and controls — called “Jim Crow” and “segregation” — so that whites didn’t have to associate with blacks at all. While in contemporary America, the left still believes that blacks are inferior, but that belief has gone underground, and now shows itself in government programs that all but shout out the left’s belief that black Americans simply can’t make it, in the now overwhelmingly non-racist America, without massive assistance from white Americans.

(2) – Procrustean bedor procrustean bed

1. a plan or scheme to produce uniformity or conformity by arbitrary or violent methods.

Origin of Procrustean bed: after Procrustes, the bandit from Greek mythology who stretched or amputated the limbs of travelers to make them conform to the length of his bed.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.

MORE Minutes of Sheer Exhilaration!

Right here.

Sorry, this is just delightful. You’ll hear instrumental virtuosity, Beethoven, Christmas, Pink Panther, Frank Sinatra and more.

There’s not much more you could ever ask for! It gets astonishing, over-the-top and through-the-roof at the two-minute mark.

Enjoy the Christmas reference at 3:33! Do yourself a favor and remember the name of Aleksei Arkhipovsky. One of the finest instrumentalists in the world today.

I’m a really good guitarist, and I can’t remember when I ever heard a musician exude greater expressiveness, and sheer fun and exhilaration, than Aleksei Arkhipovski does with his balalaika. It’s an entire show between him and his instrument. It’s as fun to watch his pixie-like face as it is delightful to listen to his balalaika.

You can’t have more fun than this, even on the golf course. I’m serious. I know, I know… pick yourself up off the floor. It’s undignified.

— xPraetorius

Four Minutes of Sheer Exhilaration!

Right here.

This is simply astonishing.

All kudos to the phenomenon that is YouTube, that permits me to find the output of master musicians such as Aleksei Arkhipovsky. (When I was learning Russian, “Aleksei” was my student name.)

There’s a really funny story — for later — associated with that.

— xPraetorius

Next Time You’re Tempted to Disparage the West..


  • that the hundreds of thousands of bedraggled humans streaming out of the middle East aren’t trying to go anywhere else.

  • that if there were no “west,” then the hundreds of thousands of bedraggled humans streaming out of the Middle East would simply stay put where they are.

  • that there is no other alternative anywhere else in the world for genuinely oppressed people.

  • that nowhere else in the world — nowhere — is there a “refugee crisis,” consisting of hundreds of thousands of humans trying to get in… flinging themselves into rough waters, or entrusting their lives to cutthroat smugglers, just to get there. That is a “problem” of the west, and only of the west. You can tell a whole lot about a place simply by whether people are trying to get in or out of it.

  • that it has been this way for a very long time. Remember the Vietnamese “boat people?” These were people who, after the Vietnam War, flung themselves into the ocean on ramshackle craft made practically from twigs and matchsticks, hoping against hope that they’d somehow drift to America. Preferring to drown in the ocean than to live in the “new” Vietnam, newly conquered by bloodthirsty Communist goons.

  • that the “west” consists of a bunch of flawed governments that were set up by flawed people, but that have established the best, the freest, the most prosperous, the most merciful, generous, altruistic countries the world has ever seen. The Western White Man is much-maligned in the world today, but he set all this up. He shaped the “west” in such a way as to provide the very freedom so many take advantage of now to malign him. You can’t criticize others in other areas of the world, for the simple reason that they will kill you. No one in the world is trying to get into any country that was not set up by westerners, aka that much-maligned bogeyman: The Western White Man.

  • that the very idea of “anti-slavery,” and “anti-racism” is the invention of that selfsame much-disparaged Western White Man. The abolitionist movement came from his brain and heart, and resulted in the elimination of slavery in many places around the world.

  • that the vast, overwhelming majority of the people trying desperately to come here are… non-white.

  • that the west, in recent history, has liberated billions around the world from real oppression. Mainly in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe (from Nazism and Communism), but also in South and North America (from slavery in the U.S. and elsewhere, and by taking in millions of impoverished people from South and Central and Mexico).

  • that no other area of the world has liberated anyone from real oppression.

  • that no other area of the world has done so much for the world in so little time.

  • that the only question, in the face of any crisis is: “What will the ‘west,’ principally the United States, do to make things better?”

  • that when anyone poses that same question about any country not of the west, they have to re-phrase it as follows: “What will [fill in: Russia, China, Iran, other] do to further their own interests at our expense?”

  • that there are hundreds of thousands stuggling desperately to come to the west and to the United States. Do you doubt that the number who want to be here is in the billions?

  • that for all the “west’s” flaws, there are still those hundreds of thousands trying to get in. It’s worth repeating: “You can tell a whole lot about a place simply by whether people are trying to get in or out of it.

— xPraetorius

This Is REALLY Sweet Too

A wonderful crooner — Helmut Lotti — sings with a whole bunch of kids.

There’s a moment when one of the kids, a young girl, sings with Lotti.

It’s really sweet, and I suspect she’s his daughter. So much the better! It’s a fun and pretty song — almost hypnotic! — and a well-done video.

Of such moments is life made way more than worthwhile.

Helmut Lotti is a crooner of some note in the world, so he can manufacture such sweet moments for himself. However, you and I, who are less renowned, can do so too. It just takes some imagination. And not worrying about whether there are crowds around to acknowledge it all. :)

— xPraetorius

Drudge Headline Prompts Daydream

The Drudge headline: Holy See flag to be raised outside UN…

Sane people the world over daydream that after the Holy See’s flag is raised outside the corrupt, decrepit, left-wing, hyper-atheistic United Nations, the Holy Father might go in and give a great, rousing right-wing speech, condemning abortion, socialism, heavy-handed government, secular humanism, atheism, and all the other agents of mass death still running around the countryside and the rest of the world.

— xPraetorius

Ineffably Sweet

This here.

This brought tears to my eyes. I’m a massive bear of a man. I’ve hit baseballs more than 450 feet, golf balls more than 300 yards, bench-pressed more than 300 pounds, carried freakin’ pianos downstairs, and upstairs, single-handedly, but nothing reduces me to tears more than those things that remind me of my first-born son, who’s no longer with us, or my daughter or second-born son who are.

The above-linked video brings me back to the days when I was a new dad.

Those were indescribably precious days.

When I used to put my daughter to bed, I’d tell her a story of my own devising.

Over the years, I must have told her more than 3,000 stories, all made up on the spot. When she grew up into the beautiful, intelligent, poised, wonderful young woman that she has become, she exhibited one particular characteristic: she loves to read. She still loves stories. She loved Harry Potter, and later the Twilight series, and many, many others. She loves how these stories move, and writhe, and tie themselves up in her brain, only to unravel, exposed to all, when a crucial component reveals itself.

My son is six years younger than his sister. When I was putting him to bed each evening, I’d sing him to sleep. Today, at 15 years old, he stands taller than his 6’4″ tall dad, and he exhibits one particular characteristic: he’s the singin’-est kid you could ever imagine.

He’s always humming or whistling or singing quietly something. And he’s always pitch-perfect. Note-for-note. He loves melodies, and how they interplay, dance, build, rise and resolve themselves in his mind.

As he hums, I watch his eyes as he watches the notes leap and cavort in the songs. His eyes move, and dart around following the frolic. He loves this escape. His life has not been emotionally easy, and this infinitely variable dance is great escape for him.

I flatter myself that it’s a gift that I gave him way back when, when I sang him to sleep each evening.

What you do when they’re young affects them for the rest of their lives.

Read to them, tell them stories, or sing with them. It counts. A lot.

— xPraetorius

Don’t Say “Man!” (Part II)


A crackpot university somewhere has decided that words containing the word “man” in them, as if designating a “man” of some kind, are to be verboten on campus.

Hence a mailman — whether he’s a man or not — is no longer a “mailman” but a “mail carrier.” “Mankind?” Nope. “Humanity” or “humankind” or some other word. And, of course, “Freshman” would go away, in favor of “First-year Student.”

We covered that a bit in this post here.

My fantasy:

After the policy is announced, a bunch of guys (has to be guys) goes around using all sorts of politically incorrect terms. They have to do it correctly: They should avoid things like the “n” word, because though it’s not illegal, it does offend, and it brings down the wrath of all of America on the user’s head(1).

These college dudes need to be on a relentless crusade to bring more politically incorrect students to their ranks. They need to launch a vast campus crusade to squash political correctness on their campus, and to spread the effort to all other campuses in America. So finally, I’d love to see freshmen and freshwomen running around saying things like:

For Girls:

  • Freshbabe
  • Freshwench

For female profs:

  • Profbabe
  • Profwench

Never say these things in public where you can be heard by the topic of your fun-poking.

How about:

  • White students embracing “cracker?” So, white Freshmen would call themselves, unofficially of course,  “Freshcrackers.”
  • And for white male or female profs: “Profcrackers”
  • Students could assign themselves cracker ranks:
    • Freshmen = Saltines
    • Sophomores = Soda crackers
    • Juniors = Triscuits, and of course:
    • Seniors = Ritz

Then there’s:

  • Sophomorebabe, or sophbabe
  • Sophomorewench, or sophwench
  • Juniorbabe
  • Juniorwench
  • Seniorbabe
  • Seniorwench

I’d have a list of things to call boys and male profs, but you can call them anything you want, and you’ll get away with it just fine. That’s no fun.

However, if you want them to join the fun, you could use things like:

  • Freshboy
  • Freshservant (to be used by anyone sophbabe and above.)

For male professors:

  • Profboy, profservant

Attach “babe” or “wench” or “boy” or “servant” onto the end of any university title and use it. (but not in public)

You might wonder why I suggest the word “servant.” Simple: your parents’ tax dollars, or their after-tax dollars, pay these people. They’re supposed to work for you. Period.

However, you could also use anything like:

  • lackey, flunky, menial, assistant (I like “profassistant”), butler or maid, (“Profbutler?” “Profmaid?” Perfect!), deputy, serf (“serf:” Better than perfect!), or how about: “man” as in “profman!”

Put these things on posters and paste them all over campus in daring midnight guerrilla word attacks. Overnight, flood the campus in political incorrectness. Don’t get caught, but if you do, deny everything:

I was just out for an evening constitutional, Mr. Campus Police Officer, Sir, and I found this pile of really offensive posters. I was just going to the dumpster to discard them. Then, I was going to go straight to your office and report the outrage.

Is there a notoriously idiotic feminist (but I repeat myself) professor, who has said some particularly stupid thing? Put it on a poster that says something like:

Profmaid Sozzlenoggin said today: ‘All men are nothing but zangle-brained flortle grebs.’ Can you believe what idiots teach here?”

Then sign it:

Signed: Guerrilla Freshbabes of the University of Buffalo(2)

Never let a moment of politically-correct university-sponsored or -supported garbage go unanswered. Go underground. Don’t get caught! When you go out, be prepared to spend the night outdoors — they do close the dorms after a while each night.

The goal is not to offend, harm, hurt or cause pain, but definitely to puncture vastly over-inflated egos.

Enjoy yourselves with it! You’d be embarking on a great and noble effort to restore real freedom to academia… but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fun. Make it colorful. Be creative. Have lots of fun with it. Remember, you have the chance to deflate a bunch of hyper-pompous, over-the-top arrogant, super-petty, egotistical, self-obsessed, megalomaniacal, tiny-brained and even tinier-souled, would-be-tyrant egos.

Life is meant to be fun!(3) It will be fun to bring political correctness down. And it’ll be important.

Just imagine those huge, fat, bursting egos, inside those teeny, tiny brains going Pssssssssssffffffffssssssfrfrfrfrfrfrfrfrsssssssfffffffffssssss… as they wilt to the ground.

This is fun!

— xPraetorius


(1) – It’s a practical consideration. You need to be free to do this. And there truly is no need to be rude. This doesn’t change the truth, though, that it should be permissible, if frowned upon, to use the word. One day, in these pages, we will use start to skewer these truly offensive sacred pigs.

(2) – Fill in appropriate university name here.

(3) – Just a statement of personal opinion here. I strongly believe it to be true, though. Especially for those who live in day-to-day fear of their lives, or who worry every day about where their next meal is coming from. Life is really meant to be fun for them. That it is daily stress, worry, and frequently agony, for billions around the world is a massive tragedy for which there is no excuse in the 21st Century.

Don’t Say “Man!”

A crackpot university somewhere has decided that words containing the word “man” in them, as if designating a “man” of some kind, are to be verboten on campus.

Hence a “mailman” — whether he’s a man or not — is no longer to be a “mailman” but a “mail carrier.” “Mankind?” Nope. “Humanity” or “humankind” or some other word. And, of course, “Freshman” would go away, in favor of “First-year Student.”

You and I have long been aware of the disappearance of all “firemen,” who — whether they were men or not, as the vast majority of them were, and are — were replaced a long time ago by “fire fighters.”

The crackpot university spokesdoofus (not a “spokesman,” of course) said something to the effect that: “People are no longer aware of the term ‘man’ as referring to all people, so we have decided not to use the term anymore.”(1)

Bunch of whackadoodle, lame-brained, half-witted piffle, produced by what remains of the brains of a gaggle of bedraggled, dried-out, wheezing, drugged-up, washed-out, reactionary, old, Lennon-glasses, wispy combed-over, hippy gas-bags, seeking late-autumn-of-their-lives validation in the fever swamps of political correctness.

Here’s what should happen now. Some sparkly-eyed freshman at the university in question should go into one of his classes and say to his professor:

“Professor: I have to tell you, I’m mad as hell about this idiotic policy about using the word “man.” Do you agree with the policy? And, if so, are you going to mark people like me down, who say or write, for example, “mankind” in class? I need to know this, because if you do agree with the policy, then you’re probably too much of an idiot to be any kind of a teacher of anything.

“It’s not my responsibility to dumb down my word usage for the less literate among us. Rather, it is their responsibility to learn new things… like the meanings of words. It used to be that we came to universities like this one to learn new things, not to be indoctrinated, or bullied into giving away our basic freedoms.

“If you agree with this hyper-moronic policy, then you’re literally saying to me that if I submit a paper to you that (1) contains a word whose meaning you and I both know, and (2) if that word is appropriately used to mean the correct thing in my paper, and (3) it is not a dirty word, and (4) it is not a swear of any kind, and (5) it is correctly spelled, but (6) that word is “mankind” or “freshman,” or “mailman,” then you will take points off my paper.

“If you agree with the policy, then that would show you to be far too stupid to be a teacher, and would disqualify you from ever standing in front of a classroom again, in any context. You should then go find a local Stop & Shop who could use a bagboy — oops: bag-person — because you obviously don’t have the intellect to do anything that would require thinking.

“Professor: we live in America, where it used to be that we had something called “free speech,” which was once a powerful tool in protecting us against the tyranny of half-wits like the ones at this university who would pretend that they have the power, or that they have the moral right to tell you and me what we can say and when.

“To Hell with that!

“So, professor, how do you feel about the policy?”

— xPraetorius


(1) – This is a paraphrase. I’m not sure how the announcement came out, but what I have described is at least the correct meaning of the university’s intent.

Response To: “What If…”

I rarely respond to the contribution or contributions of one of our stable of writers here at TPWG, but felt compelled to do so this time.

In this post here, my new friend and colleague FreeThinker said something that rankled a bit for me. She said:

Hi, all! I’m FreeThinker, and I’m back with another post. It’s been a while, and I apologize for taking my time in putting together these posts. My only excuse is that I’m a busy girl. Anyway, I caught a headline on the DrudgeReport and I read the linked article and felt the need to comment on it. After all, I’m a black woman and the moron who did the stupid stunt I talk about below makes me ashamed to be a black woman.

It’s the last part that rankled. FreeThinker is young and a wonderful thinker and writer, but I think she is wrong to feel ashamed of who she is.

It has long irritated me when someone says or does something stupid, and others then seem to say that all other people demographically like that person are somehow guilty of the same thing, or of wanting to say or do the same thing.

That tendency — the desire to ascribe the evil, the stupidity, the decrepitude, the dishonor of one person to all others like that person — is nothing more than laziness.  there is no one on Earth who is like anyone else on earth.

Find me two seemingly identical thisses or thats — two black men, two white women, two tall men, short men, rich women, poor children, successful men, failures, two whatevers — and I will find a thousand important differences between the two that render it completely impossible to predict the actions, responses, thoughts, feelings, beliefs of one of them, by looking at the other.

Every time.

I’ll stop at a thousand such differences, because I’ll be tired at that point.

I’m a 50-something, quite large, white dude; FreeThinker is a younger, much smaller black lady. Our thinking and perspectives are certainly influenced by those most superficial of characteristics — they’re influenced by all inputs, and those are inputs — but not governed by them.

I’ve recently felt the temptation to be stung by having someone accuse me of something merely because of who I am in the most superficial sense.

In duking it out with various people in the Race Grievance Industry  (here and here, for example), I found out just how stupid it can be to pretend that one can know anything about how someone thinks merely by knowing the color of his skin, or some other trivial input.

Lately there has been a spate of women fabricating false accusations of sexual assault against men on college campuses. It’ll pass, and leave behind lots and lots of needless wreckage. The Duke Lacrosse Team, Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham cases come quickly to mind. These scams came to nothing, but have led nevertheless to a general atmosphere of accusation and suspicion against innocent young men at colleges all across America.

I understand FreeThinker’s temptation to take on herself the guilt of those false accusers, because she is young and black and the latest false accuser is a racist young black woman at the University of Buffalo (here). However, I wish she would not.

The only reason FreeThinker is, I think, bothered by this on a personal level is that she worries that others will think she is the same as the racist false accuser. If others do think that, then that stupid conclusion is on their shoulders, and nobody else’s.

I know, I know, I know… it means that in interacting with such people, one has to overcome that person’s immaturity and lazy, shallow thinking, but that will always be true.

If someone ascribes to you the characteristics of someone else, solely because of, for example, how you both look, then your interlocutor is revealing her superficiality to you up-front. We should thank her for revealing it so early in the interaction!

I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it’s true. To paraphrase another great apothegm: “The lazy, shallow, and superficial we will always have among us.” We still have to deal with them. It’s a noble mission to help them to become less lazy, less shallow, less superficial.

FreeThinker, however, is not at all lazy, shallow or superficial (my humble opinion: She’s brilliant!) and need feel no shame if someone else is. Just as we don’t get to claim any extra credit when someone else does something spectacular, nor do we get any discredit when someone else — anyone else — does something ridiculous, or racist, or evil, or idiotic.

There, I’ve said my piece. The rest of FreeThinker’s piece (reminder: here) is completely, utterly and totally wonderful. :)

— xPraetorius

What If…

Hi, all! I’m FreeThinker, and I’m back with another post. It’s been a while, and I apologize for taking my time in putting together these posts. My only excuse is that I’m a busy girl. Anyway, I caught a headline on the DrudgeReport and I read the linked article and felt the need to comment on it. After all, I’m a black woman and the moron who did the stupid stunt I talk about below makes me ashamed to be a black woman.

Here’s the Drudge Headline: “Black student admits hanging ‘White Only,’ ‘Black Only’ signs near school bathrooms, water fountains

Here’s the original piece to which Drudge linked: EAG News.

Read the piece and you find out that when the signs were discovered, there was outrage! Outrage, I tell you! Meetings were called, convocations were convoked. Statements were issued, fear expressed, etc., etc., etc. All went just about as you might expect if you’ve been paying attention at all.

Here’s the beginning of the article:

BUFFALO, N.Y. – Cries of racism broke out across the campus of the University of Buffalo this week when students found Jim Crow-esque signs in a building on campus.

Someone had posted “White Only” and “Black Only” signs near several bathrooms and water fountains in Clemens Hall.

“It brought up feelings of the past of a past that our generation has never seen which I think is why it was so shocking for us to see,” Micah Oliver, president for the Black Student Union, tells ABC 27.
More than 100 students turned out to a Black Student Union meeting to discuss the signs.

“There was fear expressed, anger, disappointment – all of that,” according to Oliver.

Then… oops:

Ashley Powell, a black graduate student, stood up in the meeting to admit she had hung the signs, claiming it was part of an “art project,” The Buffalo News reports.

We learn further that Ashley Powell, yet another false accuser on a university campus, doesn’t care that she’s a fraud. Because, you see, she said:

I apologize if you were hurt, but I do not apologize for what I did. Once again, this is my art practice. My work directly involves black trauma and non-white suffering. I do not believe that there can be social healing without first coming to terms with and expressing our own pain, rage, and trauma.

First of all, does anyone in America really believe that black “pain, rage and trauma” are being left unexpressed? Seriously? It’s all you hear about anywhere nowadays! And it’s been that way all my life!

Try to think of one day in the past, oh, I don’t know, three decades, where you haven’t heard or read at least one news/social media/pop culture/PSA/article/opinion piece/this/that which wasn’t mentioning racial grievances in some way.

All of Powell’s “pain, rage and trauma” are being expressed against a backdrop in which we see – in the very same above-linked article — this:

It brought up feelings of the past of a past that our generation has never seen which I think is why it was so shocking for us to see

Anyone see the key idea here? It’s not a trick question: “A past that our generation has never seen.” Powell is bringing up things that her generation has never seen. Meaning America got rid of all that stuff. A long time ago. Forcefully and unambiguously. And Powell’s generation will never see such signs posted in America again… except by frauds like herself.

It’s a safe bet that the only racial grievance Ashley Powell actually has, her only reason for pain, rage and trauma, is that she has no racial grievances. She needs a way to get some cheap publicity so she can tie into the easy life of the Race Grievance Industry. There’s no easier way to the good life of the race grievance activist than through some fraudulent publicity stunt that accuses innocent white people of fake racism.

This blog said it too (here), where they posed the question: What, Finally, Do The RGI Want?:

Simple — Four things:
Revenge for wrongs against their ancestors, both long ago and more recently (in the form of slavery, past discrimination, segregation, Jim Crow and other grievances)
Free stuff (as a component of their revenge)
Emotional and intellectual validation for all the effort they’ve put into fabricating the complex edifice of imaginary white racism they’ve built
Built-in excuses for failure

(h/t: xPraetorius)

That sounds like Ashley Powell all over.

If Powell had any real integrity as a person, she’d take her moment in the media sun for a month or so — invited on MSNBC and CNN and ABC to discuss all her “pain, rage and trauma,” — and then come out and say something like:

I really did all this to see what would happen to me. Let’s face it, my signs, my art project, accused a bunch of people of something of which they were not guilty. And, to the shame of this country, and of the media, and of The University of Buffalo, you all did nothing to me.

What if it had been a white kid who had hung those signs? You all would have drummed him out of the University, and you’d be discussing not whether to bring charges, but what charges to bring. People would be telling gleefully about how the kid’s future was  ruined, how he no longer even had a future.

Rightfully so? I don’t know. Seems excessive to me fora few stupid posters. Everyone can, and frequently does, grow up, change his mind and learn new things. The point is that if it had been a white kid who had done this, his next at least ten years would be really tough ones. But it wasn’t some white kid. it was me.

I did it. Me. And all of a sudden, as the result of a cheap publicity stunt that anyone could do — if he or she looks like me, that is — I’m a celebrity? Now, I’m a famous “social justice activist?” For having done a fraud? For having pretty much lied? Here’s the inconvenient, harsh truth: If “social justice” is all about accusing a bunch of innocent people of something which they’re not guilty of, then “social justice” is nothing but rubbish.

It was the same thing with the con artist who accused the Duke Lacrosse team of rape, and the fake Rolling Stone rape accuser. Those people are criminals, yet they’re still roaming the streets free as a bird. What I did with the signs was legal, — let’s face it, all I did was hang a few signs — but it was criminal, too, and despicable and ugly. And here you are celebrating me! You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Ashley Powell would say all that if she had one ounce of personal integrity, but I’m betting that she won’t, and that she doesn’t.

— FreeThinker

Found This — A Sign of the Times

That brief, insightful comment — “In the world liberals have created…” — came from a blog that I discovered here.

This blog is a mother lode of reports on the corruption of the media, academia and pop culture. I’ve been enjoying its features and the insightful blurbs that accompany links to the story of the latest media depredation.

Here’s another of their observations:

Nothing worse than watching two wrinkled old leftwing blowhards stroke each other in public.” — Priceless!

Back to the first feature, though. One of the striking things about this was the Comments section. Not a single commenter (granted, there were only 24) suggested that this was simply no big deal.

Apparently, the 13-year old kid had tried to kiss the 14-year old girl “on a dare.” Horrors! We’ve never heard of anything like that before, eh? The only proper reaction to that kind of thing is as follows: “Hey, Mikey! (my guess as to the boy’s name) That’s rude and uncalled for. Cut it out. Next time you get a detention. Now go back to class.”

Let’s say that “Mikey” tries it again — tries to kiss “Annie” (my guess as to the “victim’s” name) and gets caught again. Here’s how his detention should go:

Mikey goes to the Principal’s office. The school day ends, and everyone except the Principal goes home. The Principal sits down next to Mikey and says as follows:

“Look, Mikey, what you did was rude and dumb. However it wasn’t anything worse than that. So, don’t do it again. That’s what I have to tell you as the Principal of this school, and by the way, it’s all true. So, cut it out.

“Now, I’m going to tell you what I need to tell you as another man in America. Listen up, and listen good. We used to live in a free country, the freest country that has ever been in all of history. It’s still pretty good here in America, but it’s getting a whole lot worse. Fast. This thing you did — kissing Annie — will get you thrown in jail if you’re in college. [Mikey looks stunned.]

“Yep. Jail. [Here the Principal doesn’t let Mikey recover from his shock] So, this is the time you need to learn that there are a whole list of things you might do as a kid that are completely harmless; things that hurt no one, and that do nothing worse than annoy the person you do them to. But these things can land you in jail, for no other reason than that our country is going through a really stupid phase called “political correctness.”

“You need to be aware of this, because you’re a kid who obviously is willing to do things that break the rules. [Mikey starts to protest, but the Principal hushes him]

“Hold on… don’t talk, Mikey. It’s important to be a person who breaks the rules, really important. But: only some rules. Not all of them, just some of them.

“Every person who ever did anything that improved life for all people, who ever made things better… was someone who figured that the way things are is not good enough. So, he broke the rules. He pushed all the boundaries and all the limits.

“You, [the Principal points at Mikey] need to know which rules to break. How do I know this? George Washington broke “the rules” and became “the father of our country.” He broke rules that he knew would lead to his death if he failed in his purpose.

“You have to make that decision in case you decide to break the rules. What are the consequences if you’re caught? When you know the  consequences, do you still want to break the rules? Washington did. But he knew what might happen. But he figured it was worth it to break those rules.

“Jesus broke the rules too. And that did lead to His death, which was just one step on the path to his breaking the ultimate rule — the rule that death is final — and to triumph completely over death.

“Now, that’s breaking the rules … in real style! But, look at what He had to go through before He ultimately triumphed. If you’re willing to go through that, then you have a whole lot of flexibility in terms of the rules you can break.

“You, Mikey, broke a stupid rule. It was a rule for which if you were to get caught you could suffer for the rest of your life, and for what? For a stolen kiss? Please! If you’re going to break a rule, break a rule that’s important to break, and that you’re willing to suffer real consequence for. A rule that’s worth breaking.

“I’ll tell you right now, it actually is important to break the rule you broke, but not how you broke it. The consequences for you could have been that you suffered for decades for having done nothing all that wrong.

“That would be tragic.

You need to break the rule in a different way. You need to break the rule that says you won’t talk witheringly, and derisively, and disrespectfully, and scornfully, about rules that are really stupid, until you’re able to get these stupid rules eliminated.

“You’re 13 years old. When you can understand what I just said, then you’ll be old enough to understand just how you can break the “Don’t Kiss Annie” rule. And how you can, and should, break other stupid rules, and customs, and practices, and limitations that you will, I promise, see all around you.

“Otherwise, if you’re not willing to go to jail or die a horrible death, then stop trying to kiss Annie on school grounds. Got it?”

[Mikey sits there, jaw agape, silent]

Principal: “You’re dismissed.”

This brief session with little Mikey, and any similar follow-up sessions, would do a whole lot to seeing that Mikey doesn’t break any more silly rules of decorum, and that he then becomes a fine, upstanding, productive, and genuinely progressive, member of society. Breaking — and eliminating — stupid, moronic rules like: “Don’t Try to Kiss Annie on a Bet.”

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 9/15/15

I was listening to National Public radio on the way in to work this morning. I heard too much to remark on in depth, so here’s a “survey” of some of their silliness.

Item 1:

So-called “democratic”(1) socialist Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, gave a speech at generally conservative Liberty University.


  • The students gave him a respectful hearing.
  • This stands in really stark contrast to the reception frequently given to Conservative speakers at leftist universities.
  • Conservatives are interested in hearing other points of view. Especially points-of-view that challenge their own. Leftists generally are not interested in points-of-view that challenge their own.
  • We call leftists who are interested in challenging their own ideas: Future Conservatives.
  • Sanders said: “Fifty-eight percent of all new income goes to the top one percent of wage earners.” Sanders did not say:
    • Why that’s even a bad thing.
    • What in the world is “new income?” Sounds a lot like “income” to me.
    • A simple truth that anyone with a third-grade education would know: the only economic system under which anyone could even think of generating anything that even remotely could be called “new income” is in: free market capitalism. Period.
  • This all came in the context of Sanders’ continuing effort to combat “income inequality.” Have you ever noticed how neither Sanders, nor anyone else on the left, has ever said why “income inequality” is a bad thing? Here’s another word for income inequality: opportunity.
  • If you think that you and your family are doing just fine now, and should never do any better, then you should support reactionary dinosaurs like Bernie Sanders who support feudalism, which is another word for socialism.
    • Ready for another word for socialism: “income equality.” With “income equality,”(2) you never have a chance to improve your lot, because your income has to be equal to that of others. What’s your incentive to invent, to invest, to innovate, to improve things, processes, procedures? You know, the things that might generate “new income?” Why bother: you’ll get no “new income” from it. Because, you see — at last! — we’d have “income equality!
    • Sorry, I can’t see anything good in income equality.
  • The only way to have “income equality” is to have it imposed. People are simply not of equal ability, productivity, ingenuity, cleverness. Some simply will, whether anyone likes it or not, be better at what they do than others.

Item 2:

North Korea says it intends to launch a satellite soon. Japan has “urged” North Korea to avoid provocative acts.

Apparently the rocket carrying the so-called “satellite” would pass right over Japanese territory, thereby turning the “satellite launch” into actually a ballistic missile test.

Remember, thanks to Barack Obama, North Korea is now a nuclear power.

If their ballistic missile test is successful, Hawaiians and Californians might want to think about moving somewhere else.


Sooooo… why should North Korea “avoid provocative acts?

Does anyone honestly think the Obama Administration would do anything about it?

Unless Japan is ready to go it alone against North Korea, there’s no reason under the sun why North Korea shouldn’t just go right ahead with its launch.

Hint: Japan is not ready to go it alone.

Item 3:

Hungary has closed off its border with Serbia, the border through which muslim “refugees” were streaming in order to escape war and all else in their homelands.

NPR is treating that as if it’s some horrible thing that Europeans might consider denying these “refugees” asylum.


Oh? Why? How are the rest of the European countries which have large muslim populations doing with them? How are all those nice muslim “refugees” “assimilating?” Oh yeah, that’s right. They’re not assimilating.

ISIS has said that it would be inserting many of its followers into the tides of so-called refugees coming to the west. Does anyone think that they won’t do that? That should disqualify the refugees from coming here, or anywhere in the west… immediately.

Look: these are muslims. Nothing against them as people… no, wait. They’re muslims! So, yes, that counts heavily against them … as people.

Someone did a survey recently, and some astonishing, disgusting, ridiculous, jaw-dropping percentage of all people who call themselves “muslims” either sympathize with, or openly support, ISIS.

These people are animals. They’re like little piranhas, except more brainless and less decent. ISIS and its sympathizers are brainless, bloodthirsty psychotics. Name something positive that can come of accepting tens of thousands of these lunatics into any civilized country, anywhere.

Imagine if these were people streaming from a country where a huge percentage of the people openly sympathize with Nazism. Would it be okay then to take in these “refugees?”

Of course not!

Oh, that’s right. These are people coming from a country — Syria — where a huge percentage of the people openly sympathize with Nazism.

— xPraetorius

(1) – Socialism is, by definition, anti- and non-democratic. Socialism is something that must be imposed from the top down on the backs of the people.

(2) – Aka: feudalism. Or serfdom. Incomes were largely equal under those primitive systems. And under socialism.

There’s Hope

There’s always hope. The unbelievable happens… all the time.

Things which, when you look at them from the outside, appear absolutely impossible.

I look to one story in particular to back that up. It’s the story of a 1960’s racist. He was a cold, cruel, violent, little man with a big name and a determined purpose. He was absolutely going to resist those like Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached about judging a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

He was a completely retrograde reactionary who did the unthinkable. He questioned his life, his purpose and his thinking. As a result, he turned his life around and embraced liberation, freedom and his fellow man.

He grew up.

In so doing, Eldridge Cleaver proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is always hope.

While a young leftist, Cleaver was also a virulent racist. Cleaver had murdered and raped, defending his rape of black women as “practice,” while asserting that his rape of white women was an appropriate “insurrectionary tool.”  When he abandoned the left, he renounced his support for murder and rape, as well as the rest of his racist, violent, hatred-filled youth and adulthood. He never stopped trying to grow, to be better than he had been.

All Eldridge Cleaver’s later life he paid personally, in great emotional turmoil, steadily striving to exorcise the demons from his time as a leftist, and to atone for his crimes.

Cleaver ended his days, too young, in 1998, at 62 years of age in California. At the end of his life, he was a Christian and a committed Conservative Republican, having publicly supported and voted for Ronald Reagan; the very President he had denounced only a few short years earlier.

The American political landscape is filled with leftists who grew up, abandoned their reactionary past and their superficial thinking, to become committed free-market capitalists, and frequently Christians. Jerry Rubin (of “Chicago Seven” notoriety), David Horowitz, one of the most influential right-wing thinkers and writers in the world today, come quickly to mind. And, of course, Eldidge Cleaver.

Much of the Conservative movement was founded by former leftists who had simply grown up, and abandoned their simplistic, dead-end, leftist thinking.

People tend not to go the other way, from right to left, for the simple reason that growing up usually brings more intelligent thought, and that inevitably leads away from the left.(1) This brings up the necessary cautionary disclaimer: Growing up is optional in America today. The Democrat Party and it’s electoral success demonstrate that clearly.

However, the complex, but ultimately positive, example of Eldridge Cleaver provides proof: There is always hope.

— xPraetorius


(1) – The few exceptions tend to prove the rule. David Brock “switched” from left to right, not out of conviction, but because he’s gay and figured that he’d  find greater acceptance on the left. He’s since become a caricature of his former self, and a mindless stooge of the Hillary Clinton camp.

The GOOD Part About the Donald Trump Phenomenon (Part II)

In this post I covered a very good thing that we Republicans/Conservatives should be able to take from the strange candidacy of Donald Trump: Ignore political correctness, and never, ever, ever be offended. Ever.

In this post, though, I’ll cover what to do if you’re a Republican/Conservative taking fire from Trump. It’s simple, and roughly the same message as in the above-linked post: Welcome it, enjoy it, have fun with it.

Trump’s diatribes should be considered the rough equivalent of “friendly fire.” We Republicans/Conservatives should consider it as such, and treat it as such.

For example: Remember when Trump disparaged Carly Fiorina’s looks?

Well, Carly had a great opportunity there!

If I’d been Carly Fiorina, I’d have responded with:

Trump’s right. Let’s face it, I’m past the springtime of my youth, I’m past my physical prime. I used to be pretty attractive, thank you [smile, and wait for the  applause to subside] but that’s gone now. Happens to the best of us. Not that I regret it. I have a wonderful, sweet husband, who saw me through some really tough times, and two spectacular step-daughters of whom I could not be more proud. Guess this old dog did pretty well!

However, just between you and me, I don’t think that looks are all that relevant to a Presidential campaign… I mean, look at Richard Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson… or, Donald Trump [wait for applause to subside]. And let’s face it, Governor Jindal’s characterization of Mr. Trump(1) is not that far off. [wait for applause to subside]

[Perfectly seriously] However, Mr. Trump is an old, past-his-prime, dyed-haired, priapic, diarrhea-mouthed, viagra-swilling old coot. [smile, and wait for the applause to subside] You should expect that the prematurely senile would focus on irrelevant things like my looks. [smile, and wait for the applause to subside] I mean, sometimes I have trouble telling him apart from Donald Sterling.

[then the coup de grâce] And I’d love to invite him to [mention cool, local beer joint here] to knock a few back and laugh about all this [pause] and discuss the issues… you know: important things? Relevant things?

Remember — never forget — that when your opponent goes low, that is an opportunity(2) for you to go high — loudly, cleverly, ostentatiously, witheringly high — and make the low-goer appear like the moron that he or she is.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Jindal said that Trumps looks like someone with a squirrel on his head. :) In keeping with the topic of this post, Trump should welcome this characterization and respond as I’ve suggested above.

(2) – Life is nothing more, nor less, than an unending series of opportunities.

The GOOD Part About the Donald Trump Phenomenon

Don’t be offended.


That’s the lesson to take from Trump’s “candidacy.”(1) Trump is never offended. Someone takes a shot at him and he takes ten shots back at the shooter. Someone insults him, and he says nothing more than, “Oh well, here goes…” and he un-freakin’-loads on the would-be insulter, questioning everything about him, including his ancestry, faith, convictions, honesty, trustworthiness, intellect, height and (for cryin’ out loud!) looks!

And Trump’s position in the polls rises and rises and rises and rises and rises and rises and rises and rises and rises and rises…

Do you think, just freakin’ perhaps, that Republican voters are sick and freakin’ tired of namby-pamby, pantywaist Republicans responding to Democrat slander with snorg like, “Well, I wouldn’t sink to that level. I think it’s unfortunate that so-and-so has seen fit to descend to that level of discourse.”

You think? You freakin’ think?!? You don’t know it?!?

And it’s not “unfortunate” — it’s a freakin’ corrupt-media-fueled travesty! You know it and I know it.

Freakin say it!

All while the Republican/Conservative loses the next election, wondering why the voters thought they couldn’t “trust him,” didn’t “like him” and thought that he “wasn’t like them.”(2)

It’s to that lesson — to which Trump is pointing us — that we Republicans/Conservatives should be paying close attention. It’s to that lesson that the Trump phenomenon has relevance.

If a Democrat candidate for President, or a leftist commentator or pundit calls a Republican or Conservative a name, as he or she inevitably will, the Republican/Conservative should respond with:

Why should I care one tiny bit what a witless, old throwback to the sixties, who wouldn’t know an original, or worse, a discredited idea, if it whacked him upside the head, thinks about me?

One thing we Conservatives should always, always, forever be is: impossible to offend.

Very, very seriously: Why should we care one eentsy-teentsie-weentsy iota what a bunch of witless, old throwbacks to the sixties, who wouldn’t know an original, or worse, a discredited idea, if it whacked them upside their collective heads — ie: the American left — think about us?

Let the left get all self-righteous and whiny. Let them blubber about “he said this!” or “he said that!” Tell them to “Grow up and get a life.” Call them the sniveling, little crybaby, pantywaist, effeminate, namby-pamby cream puffs that they are.

If the Republican/Conservative were smart, he’d plow forward with his thinking, which should be something along the lines of:

Whenever anyone resorts to this brainless name-calling, he admits he’s out of intellectual gas. Anyone who’s really confident in his ideas and thinking can’t wait to try to persuade people! If he’s really thought it through, then he can’t wait to overwhelm people with the breathtaking clarity of his logic, with the scintillating ratiocination that got him to where he is today, and why you too should be there with him! The guy tossing around the insults and the personal attacks is admitting openly that he can’t beat our thinking or our ideas.

In calling me a snorg-faced, flergle-headed zargleborgit [repeat the hypothetical insult] Morton Tinklemeister [name the hypothetical insulter] is simply confessing, in front of us all, his own ignorance and the emptiness of his thinking. Let’s face it: he’s admitting that he himself worries that he’s wrong.

[Now, psychoanalyze him a bit] This is typical of those who think like him. They don’t think it through, so their “arguments” such as they are, wilt like week-old lettuce in the face of the simplest of questions or scrutiny.

[And, the coup de grâce, with emphasis] It’d be one whole heckuva lot worse if Tinklemeister thought well of me. Then I’d know I’m doing something very stupid, and something very wrong!

You have to rattle it all off fast so as to get it all out in one breath, and not let the media personality interviewing you cut you off. All while putting in the appropriate dramatic pauses and making the correct facial expressions, of course.

So, what did we do here? We took an insult (snorg-faced, flergle-headed zargleborgit), from a moron and … we had fun with it. We most definitely were not insulted by it. Rather we looked at it as an opportunity for some serious fun at (our insulter) Morton Tinklemeister’s expense.

Call it political jujitsu, call it whatever you want… I suggest we call it: “fun.”

If you play ping pong at a certain very high level, as I do, you understand that there are few things as gratifying in life as returning a hard shot from your opponent, then winning the point.

Honestly? Insults from the left are not analogous to hard shots in ping pong. We — you and I — should view the jeers as mis-hit lobs that barely clear the net and bounce high. To mash those past your opponent, or down his (metaphorical) throat, is gratifying too!(3) :) I don’t think I’ve lost a point like that in more than three decades of competitive table tennis.

Bottom line: Never let a gratuitous insult go unanswered — mash it back down your opponent’s, or the insulter’s — throat — but, don’t ever, ever, ever in a million years … be offended.

The very, very good thing we can take from Donald Trump’s candidacy is: ignore Political Correctness entirely.

Say what you mean; mean what you say. When the left whines, tell them to go whine somewhere else, where there are IQ-deprived, sniveling wretches willing to listen to them — like CNN or MSNBC, or NPR.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Trump is a pure media creation. In the media, what are you going to get him on that he won’t immediately turn around and jam back down your throat? Divorce? Whatever. Reagan was divorced and became the greatest President of the 20th Century. Infidelity? The media loved (and love) Clinton. Racism? One word: Obama… the most racist President in history, with the possible exception of Woodrow Wilson. Rudeness? Clinton again. And Obama.

(2) – He’s not — like the voters, that is — he’s freakin’ running for President. How many people in your immediate circle are doing that?

(3) – Can you tell why I’m particularly good at ping pong?


Much Ado About No One

It’s been, what, six months? — I’m only guessing because I couldn’t care less — since the announcements of the changes in employment of three people: David Letterman, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert(1).

I haven’t stopped hearing about all three of these truly trivial personalities ever since the first announcement.

Honestly, in my experience, never has so much meaningless blather been bandied about over three such inconsequential people. Seriously, six long months of obsessing over … truly no one of any real substance, meaning or actual importance whatsoever.

Wonder where it’s coming from?

The ones who were by far the most ridiculous, the most gushingly brainless in their reactions, were the ones who consider themselves the most cerebral: National Public Radio, MSNBC, Public Television, etc. They all wasted hours and hours and hours of mindless “analysis” on the three hyper-conventional, thoroughly pedestrian, aggressively safe comedians/liberal commentators.

Safe? Yes, safe. If you’re an entertainer in Hollywood, nothing is less bold, less courageous, less envelope-pushing, less rebel-like, less transgressive…nothing is safer than to be a liberal commentator. Stewart, Letterman and Colbert spent all their time and all their effort doing and saying things that they knew pushed no boundaries, would offend no one they cared about, would receive raucous applause and cheers, were not dangerous or daring in any way.

Think I’m exaggerating about the over-the-top, excruciatingly long coverage of these three insignificant people? Care for a little thought exercise?

Item 1: Ask yourself this: if Rush Limbaugh — an actually consequential public person(2) — were to announce that he’d been named to replace, oh, I don’t know, Craig Ferguson, tomorrow, how much time do you think the media would spend on it?

Item 2: When William F. Buckley died, the old media spent maybe two days on the story of the life and passing of one of the most consequential thinkers, writers and media personalities in American history.(3)

And why?

Simple: the vast majority of the liberal media — which is to say the vast majority of the media — fantasize about being the next Letterman, Colbert or Stewart.

That’s just sad.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Did I spell their names correctly? I don’t know, and I couldn’t care less.

(2) – Rush Limbaugh, officially an entertainer just like the subjects of this piece, is considered to be one of the top ten most influential voices of American Conservatism in the past century. Many put him at the top of the heap. While Conservatism is an intellectual movement, before Rush, its expression consisted almost exclusively of written publications. Limbaugh gave Conservatives an actual audible presence in America.

We’ve often stated a painful truth in these pages: Margaret Thatcher’s bromide that “the facts of life are Conservative,” is obviously true. To which, we added the reason the left is successful: “but society’s white noise is leftist.” Rush Limbaugh came along and guaranteed that the white noise would not be unanimously leftist.

Furthermore, his example exposed another great truth about America: there is a vast appetite for broadcast Conservative thought in America. Limbaugh’s example produced other influential Conservative commentators, who, without Limbaugh, would likely be toiling in obscurity today: Hannity, Ingraham, Liddy, Malkin, Coulter, Beck, Levin and more.

(3) – You and I both know that they were really high-fiving each other and shouting “Good riddance!” behind the scenes.


Ipso Facto

We all know it; it’s an undisguised, unhidden, open secret: the left and their “ideas” are stupid.

The left, counting on the dishonesty of the media and the inability, or unwillingness, of the American public to keep up with it all, doesn’t even try to disguise it, openly advancing their agenda through fraud, corruption, bribery, whopping lies.

Increasingly, if you’re uneducated, ill-informed, ignorant, couldn’t find Florida on a map of Florida, abuse substances, couldn’t reason your way out of a soggy paper bag,(1) then you’re more than 99% certain to be a non-voter, or worse, a Democrat voter.

If you never graduated from high school, belong to a union, are a single mother, are on welfare, SNAP, or other form of handout, if you have a low IQ, and are unable, or unwilling, to read, then you are almost certain to be a Democrat sympathizer, or worse, voter.

In short: The Democrats own the stupid vote.

The Democrat Party Presidential candidates of this year, like all previous Democrat Party Presidential candidates in the past century, are falling all over themselves to show how they’re just like all us “everyday Americans,” who, they assume, exhibit all the above-mentioned characteristics.

Obama did it; multi-gazillionaire Clinton does it; mass-murderer sympathizer Sanders does it, and destroyer-of-cities O’Malley does it. I admit, I have to agree with their conclusion about themselves.

Democrat voters are stupid, the Democrat candidates are unanimous in their insistence that they are all just like their voters, ipso facto…

— xPraetorius


(1) – Some would suggest that all this indicates you have an Ivy League education.



This is what we have said that we should be doing for a very long time.

Sabo, the anonymous generally right-wing “street artist” has said some very, very good things. Here’s one:

The reasons we’ve been getting our clock cleaned by the left is we brought pillows to the fight, while they brought brass knuckles.

Yep. That’s on the nose!

Sabo also said:

Bush the Younger was elected President and the claws came out in Hollywood. I lost my friends along with a great deal of peace. It was not a good time to be a Republican in Hollywood. There was no place I could go where I wasn’t punched in the face by some sort of art defining who I was for being a Republican. Evil, Bigotted, Homophobic, Out of Touch, Rich, Greedy, on and on. And then I snapped. Why was the Left allowed to define me and where are the dissenting voices from the Right setting the record straight? Creatively speaking, no one.

I believe the Right has a great message, sadly the only people telling it are those on the Left and they do a damn fine job making us look like a** *oles and what do Republicans do about it, NOT A DAMN THING!!! F**k it! I guess it’s just going to have to be me, I thought. My aim as an artist is to be as dirty, ground level, and mean as any Liberal artist out there, more so if I can. Use their tactics, their methods, appeal to their audience, the young, urban , street urchins with a message they never hear in a style they own. My name is SABO, I’m an UNSAVORYAGENT.

Here’s his web site. He takes the great P.J. O’Rourke one step further, and he learned the lesson of the equally great Andrew Breitbart: We Conservatives won’t get anywhere acting conservatively. We’re radicals; the only ones trying to bring about real, meaningful positive change in America. Lots of it.

Sabo has understood all that, and is rude, crude, loud, unabashed and unapologetic.

very much used to be in the camp that said: “We can’t sink to the same abysmal level of discourse as the left,” but that ship has now long sailed. We’re surrounded on all sides, by the rude, the crude, the ugly and hostile, the crashingly stupid, all presented as “mainstream” and “normal,” and worse: “true.” And still worse: “education.”

Well, one does have to live in the context in which one lives. Sabo certainly does. His message above is the same as mine in this post:

Here’s the bottom line: We [on the right] can’t save this country if we allow the other side, the side trying to bring it down, 20 free points before every game even begins. Worse, and read this well: it is absolutely irresponsible not to counter the left’s fraud and corruption, with the scorn, derision, contempt, mockery, ridicule and disdain they so richly deserve. We need to say that the “ideas” of the left wouldn’t withstand the scrutiny of a third-grade civics class. We need to be able to pose the question: Is Hillary Clinton just stupid? Is Barack Obama just stupid? Did the left have any compunctions at all about questioning the intelligence, honesty, integrity or character of anyone on the right? No.

— xPraetorius

xPraetorius Apologizes! (Part II)

This is a day for soul-cleansing! As is any day, really.

In this post, I apologized for repeatedly making a slur in many of the pages of this blog. Well, in the interest of the aforementioned soul-cleansing, it’s time for me to make yet another apology.

Here goes.

Also in these pages I’ve referred to the leadership of the Democrat Party as morons, idiots and half-wits. This was wrong. As in the slur linked above, this smear denies to an entire group of people their very humanity, and the basic presumption that they’re good and decent people, who are sincere in their beliefs and convictions.

So, here in public, clearly, openly and sincerely, I apologize to morons, idiots and half-wits everywhere. At least you’re not bad people. Well not all of you… some of you are Democrats.

— xPraetorius

xPraetorius Apologizes!

In several instances in these pages we’ve referred to the combatants and leadership of ISIS as “gibbering baboons.”

As those of you who follow this blog know, I’ve been unshakably firm in my conviction that when you recognize that you’ve done something wrong, you should sincerely, clearly, immediately and publicly apologize.

I believe in that principle for a lot of reasons, but first and foremost because in doing wrong, you may have harmed someone and that’s a circumstance that you should rectify immediately in the interest of the very human imperative to improve the world for your having been here.

Most humbling, in making and repeating these slurs, I violated my very own advice to you all to “Think It Through.”

A core value of this blog and its writers is humility. We consider that the healing greatness and purifying power of humility are much too lacking in America today, being swamped by a tsunami of chest-thumping, crude, egotistical self-obsession and pride. We wish not to participate in that destructive trend.

Furthermore, such smears as the one above have the effect of making others think that you consider an entire group less than what or who they are merely because of the group to which they belong.

Such aspersions and vilification suggest that you would deny the targets of your slander their proper place in the world as individuals, separate and distinct from all others, and endowed with all the same gifts and rights as anybody else.

And it’s wrong.

So, here goes: From the bottom of my heart, and here in front of the world, I apologize sincerely to baboons everywhere. You’re a perfectly fine species of ape, and it was wrong of me to compare you to the vastly inferior members of ISIS.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch (9/9/2015)

These NPR People are … IDIOTS!!!

I was listening to National Public Radio on the ride home from work today. It was their fake news program called, laughably, “All Things Considered.”

On the radio came David Folkenflik, NPR’s “media reporter.” He was talking about the fact that FOX News Channel’s parent company has just bought National Geographic and all its media outlets.

It was then that Folkenflik let loose a couple of howlers proving that (1) he has no idea what he’s talking about, and (2) on NPR, they simply repeat Democrat Party talking points and  call it “news.”(1)

Before that though,  Folkenflik introduced his theme: Needless to say, at the thought of FOX News Channel’s parent company buying National Geographic, the environmentalist left would have a cow! Heck, they’d have a blue whale! What would Rupert Murdoch do with National Geographic, the environmental alarmist magazine with all the beautiful nature photography?

Then Folkenflik uncorked his howlers. He said worriedly that people feared that National Geographic was now in the hands of the owners of FOX News, where, “they don’t like mainstream science, and some of them even deny climate change!

That’s not an exact quote, but the meaning is the same, and the last part  — “some of them even deny climate change” — is exact.

Where to begin with that pile of twaddle!  Let’s see… might as well begin at the beginning.

Thing 1: The only time the commentators of FOX News have pronounced themselves in any controversial way at all on “mainstream science” is when they comment on the ongoing discussions about “global warming,” and “environmentalism,” and “climate change.” Otherwise, there have been no FOX News Channel disagreements whatsoever with any “mainstream science.”

Now that global warming has disappeared, the Arctic ice cap is increasing, has been for some time now, maybe Al “Chicken Little” Gore needs to invest in sweaters and parkas! The Antarctic ice cap has been increasing for a while too.

Environmentalism, it turns out is not at all “mainstream science,” but is composed nearly entirely  of junk science, made by junk scientists and other frauds.

Real science, made by real scientists, is turning in disgust from environmentalism and demanding that climate scientists submit to the rigors of the actual scientific method. Remember: it was once the consensus of “mainstream science” that the earth was flat too.

Thing 2: And, says, Folkenflik, those FOX News commentators “even deny climate change!” This one is so stupid that it proves that talking to the left is, indeed, like talking to a cinder block. Except that the cinder block gives you more thoughtful interaction.

Once again, for the one hundred thousandth time: anyone who ever studies this stuff knows one fundamental, basic, rock-solid fact. So solid in fact, you could almost (almost!) call it “Settled Science”: The climate does nothing but change.

No one on FOX News denies Climate Change. Ever. In third-grade science class you learned (or you used to, before the left completely politicized all the schools) that the only thing the climate does is change.

If you were to go up to The Climate and say, “Yo, Climate! Whatcha doin’?” It would look at you quizzically and say, “Why do you ask such a stupid-head question like that? You know full well what I’m doing. I’m changing. It’s all I do! It’s all I’ve ever freakin’ done! Now, go ‘way.

I’ve listened to all of them on the FOX News Channel. All the commentators know this simple truth about the climate. They’ve all said it, and many of their guests have said it, many times.

Folkenflik’s alarmed assertion — some of them even deny Climate Change! — does prove several things: (1) NPR’s people don’t actually study or think about, or research the issues on which they “report.” They’re ignorant. (2) NPR hopes you don’t know this, so they try their level best to present what they do, really well, in order to disguise the fact that they have no idea what they’re talking about when they present it.

Time for a personal story. I used to work in a financial services company. A very big financial services company. I worked with a guy who was intelligent, articulate and well-spoken to the point of being really glib. Let’s call him Jim (not his real name). Furthermore, Jim exuded confidence. As I worked with Jim, he steadily rose up the ladder until he was one day a Director in the IT area.

One day, Jim and I did a presentation together. He had his own presentation, and I had mine. Mine was practiced, polished and effective. I’m not being immodest, I’ve been presenting in public for decades, and I’m good at it. Jim’s presentation, however, was amazing! I never use that way overused word lightly.

Jim was breezy, funny, relaxed, friendly, brisk but not hurried, animated and  at the same time calm. His tone was conversational, but businesslike; confident professionalism oozed from Jim and from his presentation, while all along he made you feel as if he were your best friend.

It was an effective, bravura, expert presentation.

Afterward, I approached Jim in his office and complimented him on his performance. I told him that he’d done an excellent job, and boy! could he do a public presentation! He looked me square in the eyes and said it was all a load of cr*p. I was more than a little taken aback, I had to admit. When I asked him to explain, he said that it was all presentation, and no knowledge. Not that what he’d said wasn’t true, he hastened to add, it was just that he, Jim, had no idea what he was saying!

Still taken aback, I asked him, “Well then how do you know what you said was true?”

“Because,” he answered, “my developers tell me it is.”

Jim’s relaxed, earnest, quietly energetic manner hid something: he’s been getting by on his glibness all along. Jim was glad to admit it and was quite candid about it.

That’s NPR — all presentation, no knowledge of what they’re actually talking about. Someone tells them, though, that what they’re about to say/report is true, so they say it.

However, they’re really idiots.



  • If you’re nothing but a media reporter, and you talk confidently about a science topic in which you have no expertise, pronouncing judgement on others who disagree with you, what are you?
  • If you confidently, earnestly, energetically, authoritatively “report” on a topic when you have no idea what you’re talking about, what are you?
  • If you then do that, with the idea of convincing others that (1) what you’re saying is true, and that therefore (2) they should believe as you do, what are you?
  • If your job is to take what others shove into your hands and read it, without thinking about what you’re reading or saying, what are you?
  • If you spend a good chunk of your life deceiving thousands of listeners in pursuit of an ideological agenda, what are you?

I take it back. I was wrong.

They’re idiots and scoundrels.

And frauds

— xPraetorius


(1) – We’ve given NPR “news” the correct name: Fake news — just like Jon Stewart.


Biden Mad as H*ll

At himself, apparently…

Here’s the Drudge headline: 

Just who does he think has been in charge for the past more than six years?

— xPraetorius

A Truly Fine Man Leaves the NFL

Tim Tebow bows out. Probably for the final time.

It’s a real shame.

The NFL could use a man — could use many men — of real, strong moral character like Tim Tebow.

— xPraetorius

There’s Art, and Then There’s Hogwash

In this essay, the great Andrew Stuttaford reviews a piece of “art” commissioned to go in front of the European Central Bank. Here’s a picture of the thing:


It’s the tree with the ball in the middle and the beach ball-looking thing near the top.

Here’s some more “art” by the same “artist,” a certain Italian dude named Giuseppe Penone. I particularly appreciated the pile of unidentifiable snorg in the left foreground:


Here’s what maestro Penone says of his work:

“The indistinct nature of the marble encloses infinite millennial existences compressed by the relentless weight of gravity, existences supported by the pure white calcium that has structured its form. The whiteness of the calcium envelops our thoughts, appears in our smiles, articulates our movements. The marble belongs to us, nurtures and sustains and attests to our existence. A tree trunk of marble, of calcium, encloses in our thought, the carbon, the plant, and the plant the mimicry of the color of the bronze, the green of the foliage and the trees, the flow of matter ….where courses the subterranean life of the world. ”

In justifying spending the nearly one million euros on the tree shown at top, a Central Bank spokesdrone said:

“It is not about decorating the headquarters, it is about helping the cultural world,” a spokeswoman said, citing European Union treaty article 167, which states that the union will contribute to “the flowering of the cultures of the member states”.

She added: “Public institutions in many countries have the obligation, or are encouraged by guiding principles, to commission works of art when they construct a new building.

“In times of austerity we think it is important to spend money on art because it is a unifying theme between countries.”

Andrew Stuttaford responds to it all with:

I don’t know what is worst about this; the condescension, the arrogance, the waste, the eurobabble, the characteristically dodgy legal rationale, the jabber passed off as erudition or the junk passed off as art.

Stuttaford makes the point that the European Central Bank wasted a bunch of money on a pile of junk. His point is on the nose. Works of “art” like the tree are not meant to do any actual good — if we can agree that further enriching an already rich purveyor of schlock junk called “art” — is not of real benefit. These things are meant to feed the voracious egos of rich European technocrats.

I have no problem with further enriching the rich, but when we spend a million euros let’s get something for it that produces five, ten, 100 million more euros, thereby enriching everyone.

Tax breaks, for example.

In one sense I admire the artist Penone. He certainly knows his target market! He knows that rich, powerful European Democratic Socialists want to be thought of as sophisticated, worldly and most of all, deep. Penone’s flapdoodle above, about what his “art” means, is certain to appeal to the vast and vainglorious ego of the typical ECB technocrat.  Sure enough, they shelled out nearly a million palourdes for the junk.

Nothing is a more articulate expression of the ECB’s, and all the EU’s governing bodies’, inability to manage wealth than that tree.

The other expression of that financial ineptitude: people rooting about in dumpsters for their next meal in Greece, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal… the decay and increasing decrepitude of the entire western side of the European continent.

I dunno, maybe Penone can produce art, but he’s chosen not to anymore, in favor of getting rich by ripping off the many fat, rich, stupid, hayseeds that abound in the “art world,” and at the ECB, which is itself plundering the European people.

— xPraetorius

Hmmmmm… On Men and Women — What to Make of This?

Item 1:

I was conversing with a woman at work the other day. We were talking about horses and horse racing. I know very, very little about either, so a good deal of our conversation consisted of my asking questions and listening to the answers.

We were talking about the great American thoroughbred racer American Pharoah (<– yes, that’s how they spell it.), the three-year old Triple Crown winner. My friend mentioned a five-year old female horse who has a good chance of challenging American Pharoah in October’s Breeder’s Cup race.

I brought up the fact that I’d heard of other female horses who’d been wonderful racers too — Ruffian comes to mind — and asked my friend why there weren’t more.

Her answer was really interesting. She said that, well, females can be great horses, and great racers, but they usually tend to get all girly and feminine. They’re hormonally different, she said perfectly matter-of-factly. She added further that when male horses get startled or challenged, their first instinct is to fight and to charge forward at the thing that’s startled them. The females’ first instinct, she said, is to shy away and to go “Eeek!” ( <– my friend’s word) Also, the fillies and mares tend to be a bit smaller, and while there are great female racers, like Ruffian, there just aren’t all that many.

Item 2:

I’ve also conversed with my friend the veterinarian about animals, and she also makes no bones about it: the females of just about every species of animal — large or small — are very different from the males, and are a lot easier to deal with in her job. The females are generally easier to subdue, not as strong, generally smaller, easier to operate on, and they come out of surgery better and more calmly. My friend the vet used the same terms as my friend at work: The females of the various species are just, she said, more “girlish,” more “feminine.” The males, simply, fight more… in most or all circumstances.

Sounds a lot like pure biology.

Item 3:

Watch the various nature specials on television. I used to be an enthusiastic watcher of them all. Until, that is, I realized that their agenda — for every dadblasted, frustratingly maddening show! — was to pound home the hogwash that humans are a huge problem in the world. Because, you see, we’re destroying the animals’ habitats, and ravaging the planet. Every single animal ever portrayed in these shows is “endangered,” whether there are freakin’ zillions of them or not.

Well, while they were busy hammering home that agenda, the left and environmentalists forgot to tell the nature show hosts to hammer home a feminist agenda as well! Because all those shows pointed out the vastly different behaviors between the males and females of the species. Of all species.


Take a look, for example, at how all those oh so great and noble big cats operate — like the recently departed Cecil, for example — if you want an example of where western feminists should think they’re desperately needed!

Interestingly, I’ve never once heard a single one of these shows try to make the case that all the apparent “sexism” in the animal world is even remotely a bad thing.

To the contrary, they always point out quite naturally — as if it’s as normal, and desirable, as can be — how the differences in the sexes’ behavior shows how the animals act cooperatively, in a logical, common sense division of labor, to help the species survive.

But not for that other animal: You and me.

We’re supposed to believe that every animal with two sexes in the world exhibits dramatic differences between the sexes … except humans.

All the differences between the male and the female of the human species are, you see, nothing more than “social constructs.”

Everywhere else in the entire freakin’ world, the two sexes are as different as can be, and that’s a really good thing.

But not for humans.

All just a bunch of social constructs invented by those nasty-wasty men to keep the womenfolk down and in their place.

No one ever says, by the way, how that could even happen, if, after all, male humans and female humans are all just the same. How did we men win? How were we dudes even able to get those big, strong women down, and under our collective thumbs, and then to keep these collossi of society down — and under our collective thumbs?

No mention either of why on earth we men didn’t just keep it that way!

I mean, let’s face it… feminists — with all their we’re-oh-so-powerful, and hear-us-roar, and special-needs, and waaaaaahhh-he-looked-at me, and whine about micro-freakin’-aggressions this, and whine about patriarchy that — feminists are … as annoying as H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks!

And kinda pathetic.

So, again, why didn’t we men just keep ’em down and shut ’em up.

After all, if you listen to the feminists, we had ’em down where, so they say, we wanted ’em. Why on earth did we dudes just let ’em the heck up?!?

Were we men (1) reallywhole heckuva lot nicer and more enlightened the whole time? Did we simply decide, when women started to complain in earnest — ’round about the time labor-saving, free-time-making devices came along — to say, ummmmm… Okay, fine?

Or, as seems just as likely, were women (2) simply not all that oppressed to begin with?  Were they just acting, as all species with two sexes always have, and likely always will, according to certain commonsensical divisions of labor that help the family, and therefore the species, to survive?

Or, (3) both?

Between you and me, I was there, I saw the whole thing. I’m going with #3.

Furthermore, I’m figuring that feminism was nothing more than a fraudulent excuse for a leftist power grab all along. You can’t get a whole bunch o’people — a whole bunch o’women — all in a lather with a clarion call to arms, to go out in the street and demand that we Improve Things That Aren’t All That Bad!

No, you have to convince women that they’ve been squashed, lo these many decades, and that it’s all men’s fault, as they conspired to keep the evil patriarchy in place, and continued to oppress women.

If you do that you get just a whole bunch of women going, “I’m buying into that! Looks like a whole bunch of goodies coming my way!” While, you get a whole bunch of men too — the ones for whom chivalry is still a strong component of their character. A surprisingly large bunch, I might add.

But, if you want women to continue to demand action that only the government can produce, you have to continue to paint a lurid picture of violence, rape, harassment in the workplace and on the streets, of regular, every-day, under-every-rock and ’round-every-corner trauma for the American, for the western, woman…

Western women who are really, on the whole, the most pampered, mollycoddled identity group in the history of the planet.

Serious Question: what real threat do western women face today? What real threat have they faced in the last century? Oh, don’t get me wrong, there are jerks, morons, psychos and lunatics out there among the ranks of men, but the vast majority of men are no threat to any woman on the face of the earth in any sense whatsoever.

You and I both know that.


Like the Race Grievance Industry, the Feminist Grievance Industry has had to discern their great bogeyman — “sexism” — in obscure, shadows-filled corners, where only those with the proper indoctrination, and the decoder ring, are able to see things.

Invisible to all but the properly educated adepts, these terrible, menacing, rage-filled and violent oppressions are perfectly unknown to those women and men who are required to live their lives in a much more reality-based way in today’s society.

The “genius”(1) of feminism is that they sold all that invisible codswallop(2) to America. They sold all the nonexistent, unseen, unknowable stuff, as all very real, and just waiting to strike any woman, at any moment of her life.

Likewise, early and later feminist propagandists had serious skills in the “art” of convincing people of the largely absurd.

But otherwise they were halfwits.

They couldn’t have survived in a society that demanded that they actually produce a good or a service that society needed.

As had been required in previous decades and centuries.

The feminists, though, were halfwits with real communications skills, and American educations. In other words, they were perfectly positioned to thrive in a self-obsessed, navel-gazing, whimpering world that valued the ability to toss off glib nostrums that sound intelligent, but are completely specious.

Feminism is one of the most destructive thought trends ever to raise its ugly head in America. Worse, feminism was just yet another of those many leftist movements that were born, and continue to flourish in America, precisely because the lot of the American woman was so darned good.

American and western feminism, and feminists, never faced any threat of any kind of serious consequences or pushback from any corner — governmental or otherwise. Western men basically all rolled over immediately and entirely, and allowed feminism to transform America and the west into a kindergarten full of whining, simpering, politically correct, fragile, infantile milquetoasts, who curl up in the fetal position at the merest hint of real life.

Feminism’s success resulted not from the intelligence of its ideas, the clarity of its vision, the wisdom of its thought, but rather the lazy, namby-pamby, effeminate, indifference of western men.

Don’t take this wrong.  This is not an indictment of women. Rather, this is an indictment of western men. Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

When feminism came along and accused all men of being largely brutish, violent power-hungry clods, we men said and did nothing in our own defense.

It was a grotesque, brutish slander — since it was especially directed at a group who, when given the chance as in America, to establish a whole new country, had established a society that specifically had not oppressed women.

Oh, there was oppression of women in society alright, but not discernibly more than that of men. In all early societies, real life consisted of a whole lot of “oppressions.” As Thomas Hobbes said, “the life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” When people talk about the bear outside, or the wolf at the door, it’s because those were very real dangers in the pre-19th and -20th  Centuries.

America of the late 19th Century had largely abolished the solitude, the poverty, the nastiness and brutishness of life, and was well on her way to getting rid of its shortness. For all Americans.

Note: we didn’t send the womenfolk out to fix the wolf or bear problems. Not because we were “discriminating against women,” but rather because of two things that everyone knew quite well at the time: (1) we wanted — needed — the problem fixed — our family’s very life was on the  line, and (2) we knew that to send the man out to fix it represented the best strategy to get it fixed. 


Still, all research into early American history shows a society well on the road to advancing the rights of all people, without regard to race, sex, religion or anything else for that matter(3).

Now, though, we’ve reversed all that. Where there was not discrimination before, we’ve instituted discrimination by actual government policy. Where we were advancing as a country down the road of pretty much equal treatment for all, we’ve now established a society that actively abuses, and punishes well-identified demographic groups for the tiniest infractions.

Don’t believe me? Think I’m exaggerating? Do a little thought exercise with me.

Scenario #1: Imagine yourself saying something just slightly disparaging about white, heterosexual men in general. “You know, men can be jerks. They’re insensitive, unfeeling, unthinking — except with the little head, ha ha ha — and sometimes they’re really stupid.”

Scenario #2: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about women: “You know, women can be jerks. They’re insensitive, unfeeling, unthinking — except with their hormones — and sometimes they’re really stupid.”

Scenario #3: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about black men or women: “You know, blacks can be jerks. They’re insensitive, unfeeling, unthinking — except with their hormones, ha ha ha — and sometimes they’re really stupid.”

Scenario #4: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about a gay person

Scenario #5: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about a hispanic person.

Scenario #6: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about a muslim.

No need to noodle it over too long. Scenario #1 would have no effect whatsoever on your career, while Scenarios #2 – 6, would sink your career completely. You’d possibly be forced to move, and take on a whole new identity.

Don’t believe me? Google “Tim Hunt.(4)

That’s the society that men’s timidity has brought about. Our cowardice put the inmates — the feminists, and the rest of the grievance goons — in charge of the asylum: society.

Is it reversible? Heck, anything’s reversible in society! Just wait a generation, and it’ll all be different. Is it reversible without massive societal dislocation, is The Real Question.

I don’t know the answer to The Real Question. But it’s a lead pipe cinch that you and I, dudes, can’t sit on the sidelines anymore.

Or else it’ll only get worse.

— xPraetorius


(1) – “Genius” is in quotes because I subscribe to the idea that “genius is never destructive.” Not sure who said it, but it makes sense to me. It allows me to exile people like Hitler and Stalin — who surely had incredible talents, and “accomplished” much — from the ranks of those whom I consider geniuses. There is, in my mind, no such thing as an “evil genius.”

(2) – The Race Grievance Industry (the RGI) has had massive success in selling imaginary racism to America as well. For example: “institutional racism,” “systemic racism,” “internalized racism,” “subtle racism” and more.

These are all examples of unseeable, invisible, unmeasurable, unknowable, and indiscernible racism… except by those who are specially attuned, who are “properly” educated, who simply see it better than we, and who have the decoder ring. In other words: the RGI.

Or by those who are simply paranoid. Or, worse: those whose livelihoods are dependent on discerning racism in America where it doesn’t exist.

See here and here for example. I’ve pointed you to the oeuvre of two firm, unshakeable, true believers in unprovable, invisible, unknowable, likely nonexistent racism.

(3) – See, for example: Obergefell v. Hodges.

(4) – I googled it for you. I even found a left-wing source for you. It tells the story, along with pathetic, typically left-wing “rationales(5)” for Hunt’s exile from polite society.

(5) – In quotes because there’s nothing rational about it.

So Much Talent in ONE Place!

Here: Tommy Emmanuel & Frank Vignola & Vinny Raniolo Swing 39 Swing 42

They even let Vinny Raniolo — one of the finest rhythm guitarists who ever lived do a very tasty solo! Of such joyous self-expression by astonishing masters of their instrument is a happy afternoon of YouTube Listening made!

A great moment — among many great moments — is right at 4:00 in the recording. At the end when the three great musicians break into what seems like an impromptu little dance, if you aren’t laughing with delight, you just might not be human.

The riotous fun, the tip-top, but easy-seeming, virtuosity, the seamless chord changes, are all a feast for the ears. Better if you can watch it too, though, just to see the sheer delight the guitarists are getting from it.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch (9-3-15) (Part II)

In a different conduit, another communications channel, some have criticized this “NPR Watch” post here as having tinges of “racism.”

I had to laugh. Anyone who knows me, and only cursorily knows my past and history, has not even one eentsy-weentsy, teeny-tiny, hint of an iota of a doubt whatsoever that there isn’t a racist bone in my body.

The passage in question is Item 2 of the above-linked post. The part where I told of some European official or another who was upbraiding other European leaders about their reluctance to allow tens, hundreds, of thousands of mainly muslim refugees to come to their countries.

This is what torqued off those who have criticized the post:

If you’re a European leader, and you don’t recoil in revulsion as soon as you hear that one or more muslims is scrabbling to get into your country, then you’re either (1) stupid, or (2) ignorant, or (3) you don’t have the best interests of yourself or your country at heart.

Pray tell, just how on Earth is that even the tiniest bit racist? Are those who, apparently, bleat, “Racist!” at just about anything under the sun, suggesting that muslims are all brown people? Or, as the current crashingly stupid, politically correct term would have it: “People of color?”

Because they’re not. All brown, that is. They come in all colors, and they all assimilate equally poorly into any civilized — ie non-muslim — country in which they settle(1). Because of their belief system.

It’s obviously one whole heckuva lot more racist to assume that all muslims are brown people! The accusations of “racism” are themselves coming from where racism really lives: on the left.

So, to clarify a bit: Any muslim of any color at all who converts to Christianity should be allowed to follow the legal immigration path.

In America we used to deny entry to this country to people who were Marxists all the time. Or Nazis. Or other scum. We used to understand that these were simply bad people. Now, of course, we make the scum tenured professors at major American universities.

France has learned to its deep sorrow that muslims don’t assimilate, and now there are vast areas within France that non-muslims — ie: French citizens —  can’t enter without serious fear for their lives.

In this post here we pointed out a simple truth: Want to bring about peace and prosperity in the world? It’s simple: get rid of socialism and islam.

Well, here’s a related truth: Want to bring about peace and prosperity in your country? It’s simple: get rid of socialism and keep muslims out. All muslims. Of any color whatsoever.

— xPraetorius


(1) – We made the point that there has never in the history of the world been a successful islamic or socialist society.

a Little Bit of Heaven

If you’re a guitarist like me, then this will be an hour and sixteen minutes of pure Heaven for you. If you’re a really good guitarist (like me, I might add :) ) then it’s even better.

Tommy Emmanuel — whom some call the finest guitarist who ever lived(1) — talks about the guitar, his guitar, guitar in general, and more.

If you don’t believe in God(2) after this, then you should look into your heart and question your own existence. I mean, it’s possible that you’re simply not paying attention … or that you don’t exist. :)

But I do … and  I’m an excellent guitarist, and I loved this recording. Especially at 11:30 into it.

— xPraetorius


(1) – A nonsense concept. Totally subjective. To say, however, that Tommy is one of the best who ever lived,  is simply, clearly, obviously … true.

(2) – And I mean God — not that Tommy is somehow anything more than a humble human being who developed his God-given talents to a magnificent level. I should note that Tommy is a devout Christian who would be absolutely horrified at the mere suggestion that someone would think that he’s anything more than a humble human being. :)

Your Sister is in Jail

Your Sister is in Jail


In addition to the below, read the rest. Breathtaking clarity of thought, cutting through the intellectual and moral clutter that is today’s all-accepting society. All-accepting, that is, except for all the old, solid, well-known truths:

Spare the twisted rationale about oaths requiring us to violate conscience. Your prosperous, secure, rights affirming country was founded by people who ran screaming from Europe so they could obey God and conscience without incurring the wrath of the state. Do not attempt to fall back on subtlety and “nuance,” the rebel’s code word for “actually, we can do whatever the hell we want.” “Nuance” got us slavery supported by Bible-ignorant church people. Moral clarity and fidelity to God’s word got us emancipation and blood-soaked abolition.

Sides. They’re real and they matter. Choose you this day whom you will serve. When Jesus Christ, who you confess as Lord over your life confirms his Father’s ancient definition of marriage…


Do yourself a big service and read the rest, then do yourself the most important service and think honestly about it.

— xPraetorius

Originally posted on Glass Planet:

But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than any human authority…”

The ink was barely dry on U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s order sending Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis to jail for following in the apostles’ footsteps, obeying God rather than man before the Minutemen of the “me too! I’m good just like you!” faction of Christ’s Holy Church took to the interwebs to declare their solidarity with the pitchfork waving mob. It is not my purpose to go down any of the gazillions of rabbit trails, logical and otherwise that sprout like toadstools across the manure-rich landscape of social media after the rain of such schadenfreude laden storms. Lots of people have all the time in the world to enjoy their ideologically drunken bar fights, thump their chests in worldwide anonymity and go to bed more convinced than ever of their extreme righteousness. God bless…

View original 342 more words

NPR Watch (9-3-15)

More patent ridiculousness overheard on National Public Radio on the morning of 9/3/15

Item 1:

• Vice-President Biden wants to give everyone 14 years of “free education.”

Just some quick thoughts on this:

  • Background: Vice-President Joe Biden gave a speech in which he said that he’d like to give everyone in America at least 14 years of “free education.” He said that we give everyone 12 years of “free education” (public schools) now, and that that’s just not enough. We need, he said, to give everyone 14 years of that same “free education.” He proposed to do this by mandating that the taxpayer — you and I, and your kids and grandkids — pay for two years of community college after high school.
  • Point:Free education” is a nonsense phrase. There is no such thing. We learn this very, very early in our lives. The first time our parents say, “No.” when we ask for something in the toy store. Something that is actually free, costs no one anything. Just because someone didn’t pay for it doesn’t mean that no one paid for it.
  • Point: This is indicative of how the left thinks.  Some, it seems, actually believe that there’s all this free stuff around just waiting to be picked up and given to those who want it, or say they need it, or say they should have it for whatever reason.
  • Point: The left thinks it’s just okay to lie to you and me, and pretend that there even exists such a thing as free education.
    • Or worse: the left, the ones who largely rule our country, are so stupid that they honestly believe education can be free. You remember all those members of the teachers’ unions protesting because they were paid too much, don’t you? Yeah… I don’t either.
    • Or even worse: The left thinks it’s okay to lie to you and me, and they’re that stupid.
  • Point:  Still worse: the left thinks that you and I are really stupid; that we’ll swallow the really stupid lie. Many of us do. We call them: the base of the Democrat Party.
  • Point: Some know the truth, though: the “free” stuff is always by far the most costly, because it’s not free, but rather paid for by looting the public who, if they don’t willingly pay the freight — their taxes — they’ll go to jail.
  • Point: “Free” education is worse than a nonsense phrase, it’s a lie. A Big Lie. The worst thing is that the Free Education lie loots the general store of honesty in the country. This may be Biden’s, and his party’s — and the American left’s — greatest atrocity: participating in, and helping to solidify and spread, this particular Big Lie; and in diminishing the sum total of honest discourse in our country.
  • Serious Question: What does it say about NPR that they broadcast the story uncritically, without correcting Biden’s nitwittery?
    • Serious Answer: They’re either stupid enough to believe the Big Lie, or they’re participating in spreading the Big Lie, or both.
    • Or they’re stupid enough to believe the Big Lie, and they’re spreading it, and they believe you and I are stupid enough to believe it all.

Item 2:

• European official blasts European leaders for not taking in hundreds of thousands of migrants — based on picture of drowned 3-year old Syrian boy.

  • Background: The European official in question (I don’t know his name; I was driving at the time) was enraged at the thought that European leaders were having reservations about taking in all the refugees from all the savagery in the Middle East.
  • Point: The first thing I noticed in this awful story: the European official in question assigned no blame to the leadership of the countries that are hemorrhaging all these refugees. There wasn’t even the slightest mention of these people.
  • Point: The names, Assad, ISIS, Rouhani are the names of scum-sucking dirtbag mass murderers. They are the direct cause of the flood of people streaming out of the Middle East trying to get into the relatively(1) more prosperous countries of Europe. The indirect cause of the current flood of people streaming from the Middle East is: indulgent westerners afraid to tell the world that people like Assad and the thugs of ISIS are inferior and need to be removed, forcibly if necessary, from power.
  • Point: If he wasn’t aware of it, the above-mentioned European official should be: things are not going at all well in the countries the guy was castigating.
  • Point: Let’s consider just how well these mainly muslim immigrants are assimilating into the countries where they end up! Not!
    • Related Point: If you’re a European leader, and you don’t recoil in revulsion as soon as you hear that one or more muslims is scrabbling to get into your country, then you’re either (1) stupid, or (2) ignorant, or (3) you don’t have the best interests of yourself or your country at heart.
  • Point: Of course NPR used the example of an Iranian guy who converted to Christianity in Iran. Iran kills Christian converts, so if the Christian convert guy is deported back to Iran, he’ll go back to a death sentence. Sorry, he’s simply not the typical refugee coming to Europe from the Middle East.
  • Serious Question: Whom does NPR think they’re fooling with these stupid, shallow, patently ridiculous features?
    • Serious Answer: You.

— xPraetorius


(1) – “Relatively” being the key word. Europe is in serious economic trouble, and declining. If you’re the leader of a European country, and you see your country sliding downhill, and you then see hundreds of thousands of people coming from Middle Eastern countries trying to get into your own, you might suggest that they wait a bit until your country gets back on its feet too. The people coming from the various Middle Eastern hellholes don’t have “a bit” to wait.

NPR Watch (9/4/15) (Part III)

Yesterday, National Public Radio gaveth and gaveth. We already remarked on their syrupy “commercial” for a Joe Biden Presidential run here and here.

In the afternoon and early evening, NPR has a fake news program called “All Things Considered” (we gave this program its proper name here.).

In yesterday’s program, they were talking about the long-sputtering economy. One of NPR’s fake reporters (I’ve forgotten his name and was driving, so couldn’t write it down) said that there are many who think that “the economy should now be taken off life support.” Roughly direct quote. The term “life support” is, though, directly from the feature.


Life support? Really? Freakin’ Life support?!?” 

Holy mackerel! I thought we’d been living for years now in the sun-drenched, green highlands of the Great Obama Recovery!!!” At least that’s what the media have been yammering for more than six years now!


All this time, the economy’s really been on “life support.”

I’ve long written about all the happy talk about the economy that’s been going on since Obama’s been President. It’s happy talk that would not happen at all if a Republican President were managing the very same economy.

I’ve also pointed out that, despite the ridiculous happy talk, you and I can see through it if we but choose to pay attention.

For example: When was the last time you were sick and spent six years in “recovery” before you were actually recovered, and operating normally? Well, an economy is the very same way. It is absolutely not a good thing for an economy to be “in recovery,” and not “recovered,” for six long years.

The only possible conclusion — from the media’s very own six-years-long happy talk reports — is that the economy has not been “in recovery” at all!

Meaning what? In what condition, exactly, is the economy?

Well, you and I both know that if the economy had fully recovered, we’d never hear the end of it from the media. So the economy has not “recovered.”

Furthermore, there are serious signs of grave economic problems that the media hardly ever mention, that will raise their ugly heads soon enough: (1) the permanently unemployed, and (2) the number of people taking government — taxpayer-funded — handouts. Those numbers are through the roof, and signal grim times ahead.

The Democrats are betting that these particular effects of their policies will detonate long after their policies have long been in effect and are irreversible. I’m speculating that the Dems hope the effects will detonate during a Republican President’s administration(1).

The NPR “reporter” said that our economy was “on life support.” Can an economy on life support also be “in recovery?” Well, I guess it can, but it should also be noted that, by definition, an economy that is both “on life support” and “in recovery” is at the very least subsisting in a pretty grim condition.

There is an actual definition for the term “recession,” and it doesn’t encompass the current economic situation. Recession simply means an economy that is going backward, receding. However, an economy that is in horrible condition, but not going backward, is not in “recession.” Small comfort for those forced to survive in the horrible economy.

There has been growth in certain areas of the economy — high-tech, for example — but those areas are not where the majority of American people have applicable skills. Hence the increasing number of permanently unemployed.

So, here’s the truth, a truth that I’ve never heard mentioned — not even once — in the media: An economy that starts in a great, healthy place, then goes into recession, then recovers from that recession, is worlds better off than an economy that enters recession from a position of weakness, then begins a recovery.

It’s this second condition — a weak economy that entered recession during the second half of the George W. Bush Administration — that we have in place now in America. That economy, Bush’s economy, was headed into recovery through the natural forces of American economics, when Obama took over the Presidency and immediately slammed on the brakes with massive regulation (Obamacare and more).

Obama was unable to stall completely what could have been a great recovery — the American economic machine is an awesome thing to behold if it’s allowed to work — but he was able to divert it sufficiently, to allow for a vast expansion of takers to exist and survive. The number of Food Stamp and other taxpayer largesse recipients is through the roof. 

Yet the media continue to tout the great, apparently never-ending “recovery.” A recovery that will immediately transform itself into grim economic times the moment a Republican becomes the President of the United States.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Here’s some interesting speculation for you conspiracy theorists out there: Anyone in the know understands that the combination of the permanently unemployed, and largely unemployable, along with the population of takers, will bloom into a full-blown crisis sometime very soon…likely in the next Presidential term. Is someone on the left actually trying to torpedo the Hillary Clinton candidacy to allow a Republican President to inherit what would then probably be an unmanageable economic crisis? Democrats know quite well how to manage such “unmanageable” circumstances — how not to “let a serious crisis go to waste:” Use the crisis to build a permanent Democrat voting coalition that would make American democracy meaningless. Republicans would try to solve the crisis, and if the Dems have their way, be unable to, making for the above-mentioned permanent Democrat voting bloc.

NPR Watch (9/4/15) (CAUTION: Some cold talk here) (Part II)

In this post here, we told of how National Public Radio (NPR) exploited the death of Beau Biden, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden, to make a mawkish “Run-Joe-Run” commercial in the guise of a “news” feature.

The younger Biden passed away from brain cancer last May, and if you’ve been paying attention, you’ve heard something about that particular family tragedy ever since.

I hasten to add that I understand the Vice-President’s pain for reasons of my own. And I completely understand the desire to obtain the sympathy of others. More to the point, I can thoroughly relate to the temptation to (Warning: cold term here) “milk it.” For as long as possible.

<BEGIN Digression>

The problem is the dishonesty of the media. Let’s not be overly sentimental about one thing: as much of a doofus as the Vice-President is, he’s a fairly canny politician, or at least has a canny team of advisers. He says the right things that make our overwhelmingly corrupt, left-wing media corps purr. So they give him a pass autimatically.

There’s an important reason for which the current Republican crop of politicians is vastly superior to the Democrats. From bottom to top. It’s because every single prominent Democrat in a leadership position in America has had at least one scandal that would have completely exiled any single Republican candidate from politics. Permanently. 

Doubt me? Okay:

  • Biden: When it came to light in the 1988 Presidential primaries that Biden had committed plagiarism in college, that would have been enough to end the career of an Republican politician. Biden bowed out of the primaries, but went right back to the Senate, then on to two more unsuccessful Presidential campaigns, and his current prominent post.
  • Obama: The remark about 57 states, the remark about the seas receding, Obamacare, the economy, and many, many more.
  • Bill Clinton: Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, dozens and dozens of others
  • Hillary Clinton: Just cattle futures. As with her husband, there are dozens of others.
  • Barney Frank: His boyfriend ran a prostitution ring out of Frank’s Washington home.
  • Nancy Pelosi: Suspected of steering business to big donors and her own husband.
  • Harry Reid: Faces possible criminal indictment for intervening on behalf of his son Rory with the Department of Homeland Security. Reid, however, is known to have been corrupt for a very long time, but has been the recipient of the benign neglect an adoring media corps.
  • The above are current lions of the Democrat Party.
  • There is a long list of Democrat politicians, who have been under the cloud of scandals that would have immediately sunk any Republican politician, but who survived. Want some more names? John F. Kennedy (rampant womanizing). Lyndon Baines Johnson (massive election fraud), Edward Kennedy (homicide, more), Robert K. Byrd (past high official in the KKK) …

Contrast the fact that Democrat Party leaders usually survive scandals that would sink any Republican, with a sampling of the treatment accorded Republicans:

  • Congressman Mark Foley sent several suggestive (and gay!) e-mails to some Senate pages. Gone. Out of politics permanently.
  • Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akin made a remark about rape that actually turned out to be true, but that was awkwardly expressed. Pilloried in the media, his overwhelmingly favored candidacy was torpedoed and he has not been heard of again.
  • Christine O’Donnell, Senate candidate for the set vacated by Biden had an extremely brief flirtation in high school — about a day! — with witchcraft, which, when it was exposed, sank her candidacy.
  • Trent Lott suggested that Strom Thurmond would have been a better President than Truman when Thrumond had run as a Dixiecrat. He was kidding, and it was said in a private forum. Gone. Contrast that with Robert K. Byrd, highly-respected long-time leader in the Democrat Party who had also been a long-time, high-ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan. There is no indication whatsoever that Byrd’s membership in the Klan slowed his ascent to the highest reaches of power in the Democrat Party one iota.
  • Remember how the press made a weeks-long brouhaha centering on an alleged “bullying” incident more than 50 years in Mitt Romney’s past?

And more.

What does that all mean? Simple: The Democrats never get rid of their mediocrities, their intellectual lightweights, even their murderers and corruptocrats! This means that the Democrat Party is the quintessential mediocritocracy(1).

Republicans know what the media landscape is, and police themselves and their party accordingly. In the resulting  crucible of Republican Party politics, anyone who exhibits the slightest hint of something even remotely embarrassing or — heaven forfend! — politically inconvenient or incorrect, is gone. Out.

While the Democrats protect, promote and defend their dead weights to the highest ranks of their party.

I’ve gone a bit far afield here, but there was a reason for the digression: To point out that, by the very nature of the political process — the process that the thoroughly corrupt media corps invented, and which they manage and oversee — the Democrats have become a party awash in mediocrities at the very top, while the Republicans are heads and shoulders above them intellectually, morally and ethically.

<END Digression>

To return to the topic: Vice-President Biden has been living out his grief in public for several months now, and one has no choice but to wonder whether it’s so as to leverage his family’s tragedy to contribute to an upcoming Presidential bid.

Yes, Biden loves to hear himself talk(2), and there’s surely an element of truth to it when Biden says things like “my soul’s pretty beaten up now,” but anyone not trying to exploit the tragedy would have said something more like, “I’m just not sure I’m ready to do this. I’m sure you understand.” And left it at that.

If any Republican high official were to try the same thing as Biden, he knows he’d be greeted with slightly sneering commentary suggesting that his behavior was … unseemly, and he wouldn’t even try.

— xPraetorius


(1) – “Mediocritocracy” – def.: Rule by the mediocre. In such a system, the more mediocre one is, the better one’s chances are to prosper and succeed. By contrast, the more excellence one displays, the worse one’s chances of success. The Democrat Party is a quintessential mediocritocracy

(2) – Really loves to hear himself talk. He’s legendary for his loquaciousness. I remember watching a Senate hearing years ago, and Biden was questioning someone. As he droned on, it became evident that he had long lost the train of his own thinking. Did he stop? Nope. He simply hopped another train, and off he went. He went on and on and on and on, until the actual question was long lost. When he finally stopped, the stunned target of his question could only stammer that he didn’t know how to answer.


NPR Watch (9/4/15) (CAUTION: Some cold talk here)

Important Note: This is an essay about an NPR feature this morning, not about the emotional turmoil of Joe Biden; hence the reason for the analytical tone.

I was listening to National Public Radio this morning, and heard something that startled even me. It was on their morning fake news program called: “Morning Edition.”

They were talking about whether or not Joe Biden was going to get into the Presidential race. I think they’re rooting for it, frankly.

The “news” was that Biden was thinking about it, but just wasn’t sure that he or his family had the emotional energy to do it, given that his son Beau Biden, had passed away last May from brain cancer.

The entire feature consisted of the announcerette, Renée Montagne, telling in somber, super-dignified tones, of Biden’s struggle with the decision in light of the recent tragedy, and then a clip of Biden telling of how he had to be sure that he and his family had the emotional energy.

As Biden neared the end of his short statement, quiet, reflective music began behind Biden’s speaking. It gradually became louder as Biden finished, at which point Montagne came back on, and in tones generally used only at presidential funerals, made some closing remark or other.

First: This thing about Biden agonizing over the decision to run for President hasn’t been news for a very long time now. Second: I have nothing but sympathy for Biden’s family tragedy, but he’s been doing nothing but talk about it in public for months.

It’s not that it’s all that unseemly — the loss of a child is a heart-wrenching blow from which no one ever fully recovers — but this living out his grief in public for months is rather unusual.

I understand craving sympathy — I’ve been there — but at some point you need to become just a whole lot less public about it. Not because you need less sympathy, but rather because America has no choice but to get on with its work.

Things are not good out here in America. It’s unbelievably hard for skilled and unskilled workers to find good employment, and more Americans than ever have lost hope of ever finding work again, and have dropped out of the workforce entirely. This is reality in the America that Joe Biden has helped to fashion.

Both Biden and NPR know this, and the transparent attempt to work over American heartstrings, with the contemplative music, and the hyper-affected funeral voice(1) struck me as jarring. When you’re the Vice-President, it’s just not supposed to be all about you.

It was much less a fake news feature disguised as real news — NPR’s usual offering — than it was a frankly transparently schmaltzy commercial.

It was a message — “Look how much the Vice-President is suffering, and look how very much he still wants to serve us all.” — that has been out there in editorial form for a very long time. This was the first time, though, that I heard anyone try to present it as “news.”

It was a clue. NPR is for Biden. They’ve recognized that Hillary’s candidacy is fatally flawed, and potentially mortally wounded, so they’re doing what they can to get Joe to run.

Let’s be frank: Both Hillary and Biden are intellectual featherweights. NPR’s agenda, however, would be simply to answer the question: “Who can be most trusted to continue Obama’s Presidency?” They appear to have answered that question for themselves: Biden

One more quick thing. Let’s just say that Hillary runs and wins. The demographics are for it. It could happen(2). NPR understands that with Hill-Billy in the White House again, there’ll be nothing but scandal and hearings, and Bill groping anything in a skirt, as far as the eye can see.

NPR is hoping for Biden.

— xPraetorius


(1) – “Hyper-affected voices” is the descriptive thing that best characterizes NPR. All their voices are caricatures of normal voices, and they use their studiedly thoughtful-, pensive-, reflective-sounding voices to try to hide the fact that their “news” is fake. The other best descriptive thing to explain NPR is: “style over substance.”

(2) – The Trump phenomenon just might have changed that dynamic entirely — and for years to come. Many more are now quite aware that the influx of millions of unskilled migrants to this country inevitably exerts real downward pressure on earnings — across the board. Trump has singlehandedly jackhammered that understanding — and heightened awareness of illegal immigrant crime — into the American psyche.

NPR Watch (9-2-15) (CAUTION: Frank Talk About Sex — Rated PG)

I was listening to National Public Radio on the way to work this morning. Their morning fake news program — Morning Edition — had a feature on the famous “20% of all women experience sexual assault in college” narrative out there.

It was always ridiculous, fake and fraudulent, so the media believed it lock, stock and barrel. Then it was thoroughly debunked, and even the most craven of the media — NPR — had finally to admit that it was all a fraud.

With a lot of weasel words and hemming and hawing this morning, the NPR reporterette told of the ridiculous questions, of the scam analysis of the fraudulent questions, and of the off-the-charts exaggerations that led to the 20% statistic.

For example: one boorish young man threatened to break up with his girlfriend if she didn’t have sex with him. According to the “analysts” of the study: That was sexual violence.

[Personal aside: Frankly, the jerk did his girlfriend a favor. She should need no further proof that the dude was a jerk and that she should dump him as fast as she could. If, however, she didn’t dump him, then the jerkish guy just got the only piece of information he might need to conclude that she was a perfect idiot if she stayed with him! No matter what, it would be quite a telling, if rather tawdry, incident … but not sexual violence.]

Back to the NPR feature. In the studies cited, in many analyses, a mere appreciative glance qualified as “sexual violence.”(1) NPR told of a high school study which indicated that one in four girls was the victim of sexual assault.

Holy Mackerel!

Again, though, in the details we learn that any unwanted attention from a boy became “sexual assault” in the eyes of those “analyzing” the study results.

“Still,” concluded the intrepid NPR reporterette — after conceding that the studies were fraudulent, and useless, and told no one anything relevant or important at all — “there’s a serious problem out there.”


The only possible conclusion one could draw from the NPR feature, and from all these so-called “studies,” is that you could not possibly draw any conclusions from the NPR feature and all these so-called “studies.”

One statistic is out there though: There is less sexual assault on college campuses than there is in the surrounding society. It’s pretty well-known, but I don’t have the source at my fingertips. You’ll just have to look it up.

The point, though, is simple: Sexual assault is not a major problem in society itself, so it’s likely not a serious problem in college either.

Just one more example of a simple truth: You come out of a session with NPR’s fake news less informed than you went in.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Though NPR didn’t mention this example — or many more — that have made their way into the public’s awareness. More examples: a wolf whistle, an admiring comment — both considered “sexual violence,” or “sexual assault.” I’ve long made the case that if these things are sexual violence, then there is no “sexual violence against women” problem, but rather a “sexual violence against men and women problem.”

Personal note: I used to be an underwear model in France while in college — it helped provide fun money during my junior year — and I experienced all these aspects of “sexual violence” many times… every day, in fact. I’m straight, but wolf whistles came my way from gay men all the time.

Also, I was groped, fondled, propositioned, leered at, and the recipient of unsubtle sexual suggestions all the time. The only thing that never happened to me was forcible rape. At the time I was 6′ 4″ tall and a well-muscled 210 pounds. My nickname was “Thor.” Any five of my then girlfriends combined couldn’t have forced me to have sex with them. Several, persuaded by friends, alcohol or whatever, did try it though, and it … ummmm… didn’t work.

Bottom line: as far as the conclusions from these “studies” are concerned, I’ve been the “victim” of “sexual violence” thousands of times. Yet, I know that I’ve been such a victim maybe only half-a-dozen times, with none of them traumatic, and half of them being unwanted attention from gay men. The underwear modeling world is an ummmm… interesting place, to say the very least.

Want to Bring About Peace and Prosperity Around the World? (Part II)

In my previous post, here, I suggested that we could bring about peace and prosperity around the world by eliminating only two things: Socialism and Islam. Here are some additional comments:

• If everyone in the Middle East were to convert to Christianity today, all fighting in the Middle East would end … overnight. The only delay would be as people took the time necessary to confirm that such a glorious thing had actually happened.

• If all government leaders were to announce that they were going to base their economies on several simple principles — (1) free and fair elections with regular, peaceful turnover of power, (2) free markets, (3) limited central government ability to intervene in the lives of the citizenry, (4) unrestricted free speech, (5) robust, well-defined protection of private property rights — all disputes over territory — both at the local and national levels — would vanish overnight.

I hear you, I hear you… “But, but, but, all wars are fought over either religion or territory!” you say. Nope. The territorial wars are fought because the government (the king, or the dictator, or the whatever) said that he wanted more land, and he did everything he could to whip the populace into a frenzy of nationalistic fervor to support his ambitions… not the people’s. the people generally want only to be left alone.

And: Wars fought by Christians have all been wars of self-defense…yes, including The Crusades, which were fought to roll back Islamic hordes which had already conquered Spain and Portugal, and were moving on the rest of Europe. You can look it up.

• Socialism is feudalism, is slavery, is fascism, is serfdom, is communism, is nazism, is authoritarianism, is monarchy, is totalitarianism, is indentured servitude… all systems in which some central authority exerts control over the lives and destinies of the people(1). It’s in this way that wars of aggression are launched — when a single person, or a few people, can order around millions.

• In a free market society, which is, by definition, a democracy, power is diffuse, not centralized. No strong authority exists to decide to become all dictatorial and expansionist. Oh, capitalists want to be expansionists, but there are lots of them, so there’s plenty of competition for money and territory. In a dictatorship, there is no such competition preventing the central authority from doing pretty much whatever it wants to do. Like start wars of aggression.

• Finally, no democracy has ever started a war of aggression in the history of the world.

Get rid of socialism — in all its forms(2) — and get rid of islam, and you eliminate all exploitation of one person by another in the world, and you get rid of all incentive for any country to launch a war of aggression against another country, and you eliminate the ability of a would-be megalomaniacal tyrant to launch wars of aggression.

In short, you would bring about peace and prosperity in the world — peace overnight, and prosperity in a generation.

Not saying that would be easy! :) But, it’s all you have to do.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Islamic fanatics trying to conquer the world make no bones about the fact that they will institute a socialist state in which there will be none of the freedoms we in the west take for granted. I coined the terms: “Socialislam” and “Fascislam,” because they more correctly describe the governmental system of islam — its governing philosophy, its ideology.

(2) – Feudalism, slavery, fascism, nazism, authoritarianism, serfdom, communism, totalitarianism, indentured servitude, monarchy…