Cavilling for fun and profit–if someone reads your opinion.

Here’s a small sample of the daily essay headlines on Medium.com, and website for writers to establish a following: “Another kind of toxic masculinity.”

“Dear white people, please stop invading my space.”

“Sexist Halloween costumes show us how far we haven’t come.”

“The treatment of migrants likely ‘meets the definition of mass atrocity’.”

“Women shouldn’t have to be afraid of running for office.”

“Amazon is an even bigger threat to privacy than Facebook.”

“Dear men, I don’t owe you a thing.”

“The solution to feeling like life sucks, in a three minute read.”

“How Dating Men in Their 30s Compares to Dating Middle-School Boys.” (Spoiler: They’re very similar).

“You can just have sex with someone.”

“Please, Just Call Me Fat (correcting me when I call myself fat is another form of marginalization).”

“What Your Thinness Has Taken From You.” (I told you my reality as a fat person, but you weren’t able to hear it).

Cavil: to make often peevish criticisms or objections about matters that are minor, unimportant, or irrelevant. Synonyms for cavil: carp, fuss, niggle, nitpick, quibble.

Near Antonyms for cavil: applaud, commend, compliment, praise, recommend, approve, champion, endorse.

The point of writing on Medium is to have readers, the way to get readers is to start with a headline that attracts interest. The majority of the headlines sound to me like cavils or complaints. Is that what attracts interest? Has Medium and sites like it become the new alternative “progressive press”?

My favorite headline so far is: “The Progressive press is facing mass extinction.” The subheading is: “Deadspin, Splinter, and ThinkProgress are gone.” The willful blindness of someone who believes those statements is apparent in the essay (or op-ed?), some of which is reproduced here: The mainstream media is hopelessly neutral. Who’s left to check capitalism? When the mainstream press does cover contentious issues, it often paves over clear moral distinctions in favor of “impartiality,” something a leftist press has always understood is not a necessary prerequisite for journalism. People mostly assume that the mainstream media “leans left,” but that only really holds up if you hold that Fox News’s open calls for a white ethno-state are the center. John F. Harris, a founding editor of Politico, realized this in a remarkably self-aware column last week: The mainstream media is biased toward status-quo centrism, not toward “the leftTruly progressive or leftist publications don’t fall into these traps, but in doing so, they often violate the norms that most of the mainstream press adheres to. In short, as Alex Pareene wrote for the New Republic, they’re fucking rude. The problem with punching up — the core aspect of leftist writing — is that the people above you have all the money.

And the people with the money don’t tend to be all that leftist. Billionaires who do fund journalism, such as the Washington Post’s Jeff Bezos and the Los Angeles Times’ Patrick Soon-Shiong, aren’t putting money behind work that threatens their net worth — they own safe, mainstream publications. Pierre Omidyar’s support of the Intercept is the closest to crossing that line, but even then, a billionaire’s whims are fickle. It’s every progressive’s job to make sure their own press doesn’t get left behind.

Could it be that the MAIN REASON the Progressive press is facing extinction is that 1- they are liars, hypocrites and lovers of totalitarianism? Or 2- remarkably un-self aware? 3- Or both? I choose #3.

T(y)ranny follow up.

Everyone knows, devils don’t exist, but if they did…..

C. S. Lewis wrote The Screwtape Letters (1942) in response to one of Hitler’s oily tirades on the eve of the Battle of Britain. Hitler’s false pride, layered with obvious lies, had a profound effect on moral Lewis, an unabashed Christian ever since his conversion when he was 32 years old. Consisting of 31 letters, Lewis’s short novel is written by Screwtape, a major demon in hell, to his demon-in-training nephew on earth, Wormwood, whose job is to tempt a normal person and send him to hell. The letters lay out basic Christian principles and values, although turned on their head since they’re penned from the opposite viewpoint, as “His Abysmal Sublimity” explains to Wormwood what fools these Christians are and how easy it is to lead them astray. The Enemy that Screwtape refers to is the God of the Bible, or simply God. The Screwtape Letters illustrate clearly Satan’s plan, which is brought to life through leftist-progressive-totalitarian ideology.

First step, “marginalize true worship of God: If you can once get him to the point of thinking that ‘religion is all very well up to a point,’ you can feel quite happy about his soul. A moderated religion is as good for us as no religion at all- and more amusing.Second step, substitute “humanism”–worship of the created–for worship of the Creator. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience.Third step, eradicate (if you can) the Creator’s implanted impulses to define “good” and “right” in God’s terms: Be not deceived, Wormwood, our cause is never more in jeopardy than when a human, no longer desiring but still intending to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe in which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.” Fourth step, make it easy to go on the “wide path”: Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one–the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts, Your affectionate uncle, Screwtape.” Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Amazon owns IMDb, Internet Movie Database. In an effort to protect their “right” to post only accurate information about actors and actresses, they: conducted exhaustive background searches on a struggling, undiscovered actress; fought off a lawsuit; lobbied against a proposed state law; went to federal court to kill the law after it was passed. All that effort, just to preserve their right to publicly blast the personal information of women without their consent. All that effort, just to retain a policy that harms the careers of actresses, encourages revenge trolling, and prevents women from having control over their professional identity. Amazon/IMDb justified that effort, and those expenses, by repeatedly citing their unbreakable rule: “We never remove factually correct personal information for any reason.

According to David Cole at Takimag.com: In August of this year, trannies demanded that IMDb erase the “birth details” of anyone who “transitions.” Any factual biographical info that a tranny rejects because it represents his/her/its “old self” must be removed, the trannies insisted. Amazon/IMDb responded, “You betcha!” Literally, just like that, Amazon/IMDb said, “We’ll remove biographical info from the profile page of a tranny, even if it’s factual.”

Junie Hoang and dozens (maybe hundreds) of other actresses asked Amazon/IMDb to give women control over how their personal info is displayed. And again and again, Amazon replied, “We will not remove accurate biographical info even if the woman in question wants it removed, and even if the presence of that info harms that woman’s life or career.” But when trannies asked for a special exception just for them, Amazon/IMDb rolled over like a dog.

There’s no better proof that what trannies are demanding is not equal rights, but special privileges. The bigger question is, why did Amazon cave so quickly? Why did it spend untold hours and dollars fighting a woman (a nonwhite woman) in court, only to bend immediately to trannies?

Cole again: The transsexual agenda represents an all-out assault on the very notion of “normal,” and destroying normal is what the left wants more than anything. Amazon surely understands the importance of trannyism to the left, and the path of least resistance was to cave to the trannies’ demands. But to those who’ve made the annihilation of normal their singular goal, the decision by Amazon/IMDb represents more than just another instance of tranny favoritism. Amazon/IMDb has aped Wikipedia, which also has a policy that allows trannies to erase the history of their former selves. Wikipedia and IMDb are supposed to be encyclopedias, archives, reference works. They’re supposed to document and preserve data for the historical record. But whereas Wikipedia’s ideological biases are well-known and inevitable due to the site’s decentralized, “communal” nature (which ensures that the loudest and most fanatical trolls—I mean “editors”—prevail), IMDb is centrally controlled, and by a corporation that wields enormous power and influence.

The tranny cult isn’t just about warping present-day reality; it’s also about erasing the past. It’s about forcing us to believe not only that a man in a dress is a woman, but that he’s always been one. Gaslighting us Terminator-style by going back in time to erase the inconvenient past of people who have decided to “reinvent” as someone else. I choose to begin this post with The Screwtape Letters, because Lewis emphasizes that “The devil’s finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist.” And that he never did. But God’s Word says differently. The sower sows the word.  And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. Mark 4:15-16. The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. Luke 10:17-19. There are 49 references to “Satan”, 51 to the “serpent”, 18 to the “dragon” and 33 references in the Bible to the “devil”. 151 references in the Bible to a “personage” that doesn’t exist?

The two coming floods ain’t due to “climate change.”

Most of this information is courtesy of The Foundation For Economic Education, FEE.com. On January 31, 1940, Ida Fuller received a check for $22.54. She was the first person to retire under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) scheme, better known as Social Security. At the time of her retirement in 1939, she had paid just $22 in Social Security taxes, then she lived to be 100 (laughing all the way?), cashing over $20,000 worth of Social Security checks.

If she had only paid $22.54 in contributions, where did the $20,000 she received in Social Security payouts come from? It came, as it does now, from the taxpayers of the day. As of 2019, your employer deducts 6.2 % of your wages up to $132,900 a year, matches this amount, and sends it to the Social Security Administration (SSA). The SSA deposits this with the Treasury, which spends it and receives Treasury bonds in return. This is the fabled trust fund that guarantees Social Security. But all Treasury bonds are simply IOUs redeemable against the income of tomorrow’s taxpayers. When one of the Treasury bonds held by the SSA falls due for payment, the Treasury can only get the funds to meet this liability by taxing, borrowing (taxing the taxpayers of tomorrow), or printing money (imposing an inflation tax). In each case, what really guarantees Social Security is not the money you paid in but the earnings of today’s or tomorrow’s taxpayers.

Such a pay-as-you-go scheme could chug along well enough as long as there were lots of workers relative to retirees. When the program began, every 100 workers were supporting three retirees. But politicians being what they are–always generous with other people’s money–the benefits were expanded. Originally intended to cover only about 50 % of all workers, Social Security was expanded even before Ida Fuller received her first check to provide benefits for dependents of retired workers and surviving dependents. In the post-war years, Social Security grew further. Disability benefits, payable as early as age 50, were added in 1956, and during the 1950’s coverage was extended to other previously excluded workers, making it essentially universal. Congress soon passed across-the-board benefit increases of 7 % (1965), 13 % (1967), 15 % (1969), 10 % (1971), 20 % (1972), and 11 % (1974). In 1972, benefits were tied to the Consumer Price Index, yielding an annual “cost of living adjustment.”

As if this expansion were not enough, in 1965, Medicare was signed into law, establishing a heavily subsidized federal health care program for the elderly. Former President Harry Truman and his wife received the first Medicare cards without paying a cent in Medicare taxes. Like Social Security, Medicare is financed by a payroll tax of 2.9 % split between employer and employee, up from 0.7 % in 1966. (If you are “self-employed”, as I was most of my working life, you have no employer to split costs with, and pay the entire 7.65% S.S. and Medicare tax). Like Social Security, that money gets paid right out to meet current expenses, which were vastly expanded by passage of Medicare Part D in 2003. And like Social Security, such a pay-as-you-go scheme could chug along well enough as long as there were lots of workers relative to retirees.

Two things derailed that. US birth rates fell from births 3.65 births per woman in 1965 to 1.80 in 2016, and life expectancy rose from 68 in 1950 to 79 today. Together, this meant ever more retirees relative to the workers supporting them. By 2017, 100 workers were supporting 25 retirees. Let’s not mention aborting MILLIONS of potential workers fetuses. Over 75 years, Social Security has an unfunded liability of $13.9 trillion.

The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund could run out of reserves in 2026. Medicare’s second trust fund, for physician and outpatient services and for prescription drugs, is permanently “solvent” because it has an unlimited call on the general fund of the Treasury—the incomes of future taxpayers. Premiums paid by the beneficiaries will cover only about 25 % of program costs; the rest of the spending is unfinanced. Medicare’s overall unfunded liability over 75 years is more than $37 trillion.

By the expanding eligibility for and hiking the benefits of a pay-as-you-go system while at the same time having fewer children to fund it, the generations preceding that child have left a fearsome financial obligation. Either taxes will go up sharply for the workers of tomorrow, lowering their standard of living, or benefits will go down for the retirees of tomorrow, lowering their standard of living. One group is going to feel pretty angry. Hey kids–millennials, Gen XYZ, whose idea was it to have fewer kids? My generation made plenty of mistakes, but we were killed the “baby boom” for a reason.

That’s just one coming “flood”. Ugh, you mean it gets worse? Do any of my readers know someone know someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease? Does anyone not? Just imagine what a coming burden Alzheimer’s will be. Doesn’t require much imagination…just ask a family member. THE GOOD NEWS: WELL BEFORE GLOBAL WARMING DROWNS THE PLANET, YOU’LL BE THOROUGHLY BROKE AND YOUR PARENTS WON’T EVEN RECOGNIZE YOU AS YOU RAIL AGAINST THEM FOR MESSING IT ALL UP.

BUT GOD IS IN HIS HEAVEN, SOVEREIGN OVER ALL!

Handling insults gracefully builds bridges and self esteem.

Maybe not THIS funny….

I am 73, and walk funny, slapping rather than planting my left foot, due to a stroke over three years ago. I just read about a 65 year old man who was suing Staples for age discrimination. In his complaint, he said that numerous supervisors denigrated him specifically due to age, referring to him as, when talking to others, as the “old coot” or “codger”, and when he didn’t take the hint and retire or quit, they fired him for a trumped up theft of a co-worker’s lunch. He did and said nothing back while working, but sued when he was fired. A jury awarded him $15 million in punitive and compensatory damages.

When you are insulted, either to your face or within your hearing, how do you handle it? I am not talking about hypersensitive crap like “microaggressions”, “cultural appropriation” or “assumed racism”. I’m talking real insults! And not the dull, dumb, unimaginative stuff like “you suck” or “your mother is ugly” that spews from the mouths of genuine idiots. I mean the kind of insults that attack and target the things you are most defenseless, defensive, and offended by, like jokes about your weight, your disability, your intelligence, your sexual prowess…..you know, all the things that normal people realize are off limits….or should be. Many will take issue with my denigrating microaggressions, cultural appropriation or assumed racism. Before I comment, consider the popular definition of microaggression: “Everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership”. Whether intentional or unintentional???

Now I will offer a definition of the definition: “The propensity of overly sensitive or self-conscious people to find or take offense at every day comments or questions, by reading bad intentions into them; especially hurtful to those who feel left out of the privilege sweepstakes, or whose sense of privilege is less than that of the speaker. How exactly does a “nonverbal or environmental slight” ‘communicate’ anything, let alone “hostile or derogatory messages?” Can you read someone’s mind? Do you know their intentions, even when they don’t (the “unintentional” part)?

If my definition of the definition of micro aggression offended you, here is your first lesson in how to effectively put on your big boy, or girl, pants. Advice #1. Since a “microaggression” can be, by definition, “intentional or unintentional”, and since you don’t know whether it is, nor do you know what, if anything, the speaker meant, any reference to it, or your feelings about it, will probably make you look weak or foolish. That being said, there are ways to not only render the insulter foolish and embarrassed, but to cast you as the coolest head that was ever insulted, IF you are very certain an insult was intentional. Worst advice: “If you feel slighted, odds are you were. You’re not being too sensitive. That thing really did happen.” No, your feelings say more about you than the other person! That’s advice #2.

Advice #3. If the insults are name-calling accusations, like “racist” or “homophobe”, ask for a definition, pretending ignorance. “If I knew what a ‘homophobe’ was, I could own up to it, so would you grace me with a definition?” Note, you are not saying “I’m sorry, I don’t know what that is.” Don’t say “sorry” when you aren’t. Your statement implies you’re open minded enough to accept the insult, while challenging the insulter to define their terms—which will usually be embarrassing because they can rarely define them. In the unlikely event they can define the term, and you believe you really meet the definition, admit it. Be the big person….that’s power. Ask for forgiveness, rather than say you’re sorry. Sorry is about your feelings. Why should they care? But asking for forgiveness gives the other person an opportunity to be the big person also. You might even develop a friendship based on mutual respect. That’s the big prize!

Advice #4. Be creative by going their insult one further. One day I was walking in a park, my left foot doing its flapping routine. Then I sat down on a bench. There were three teenage boys observing me. They thought it might be amusing to mimic my walk a little, stealing sideways glances at me, as they took turns getting up from their bench. I wasn’t angry, I thought “here’s my chance for some fun.” I went over to them and said, “you guys are doing it all wrong, I flap every second step, you’re flapping every step. Watch me, here’s the right way to imitate.” They were totally embarrassed, hoping not to be noticed by families in the park. This advice is, turn the insult around by doing it better and treating it as something they should master.

Advice #5. Pretend you’re in the military, or on a team with a mission. There are no trigger words, microaggressions or excuses to sulk when your mission, or even your life, is at stake and depends on teamwork. Being focused on something bigger than your feelings—and what isn’t bigger—gives you the chance to put your momentary feelings and tendency to react on hold. Later, when your initial reaction has settled, you can talk it out, or more often, wonder what you were so upset about.

Subversive humor: A yearning for truth.

You too can own a Trabant!

Americans love political humor almost as much as “banana peel” pratfalls, cat antics and Russia’s drunk driver crash videos. We can make political jokes, and no matter how insulting they are, we don’t have to worry about going to jail. Just don’t wear a MAGA cap….unless you’re linebacker size, or armed in an open carry state. Not so in many other places and times. Arguably, the worst two places to make jokes denigrating political leaders or doctrine, during the post WWII era were East Germany and Russia, though China would be in the worst group in almost any modern era.

This joke about two East German communist leaders, Wilhelm Reinhold Pieck and Otto Grotewohl, for example, landed a man before a judge in 1956. Pieck and Grotewohl are visiting Stalin in Moscow. Stalin gives them a car. But when they want to leave, they realize the car doesn’t have a motor. Stalin says: “You don’t need a motor if you’re already going downhill.” Ha ha, I guess you had to be there. It must have seemed funnier while evading the Stasi. Here are 10 more jokes that were popular in East Germany, but were almost certainly too hot (or just too honest) for the Stasi, including several about the Trabant, the worst car in history (the Yugo and the Smart-for-two included).

  1. “Why do Stasi officers make such good taxi drivers? — You get in the car and they already know your name and where you live.” I am not sure that would get many laughs anywhere—it didn’t move my laugh meter.
  2. “What’s the best feature of a Trabant? — There’s a heater at the back to keep your hands warm when you’re pushing it.” Now that I find funny—involuntary laughs category.
  3. “Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Under socialism, it is exactly the other way around.” Clever, I think.
  4. “What would happen if the desert became a socialist country? — Nothing for a while… then the sand becomes scarce.” Funny, isn’t it you millennials?
  5. “Why do the Stasi work together in groups of three? — You need one who can read, one who can write, and a third to keep an eye on the two intellectuals.” Another one good for involuntary laughs.
  6. “The Stasi held a competition for the best political joke. First prize? Fifteen to twenty years.” They’re really cranking it up.
  7. “How can you use a banana as a compass? — Place a banana on the Berlin Wall. The bitten end would point east. (Bananas were scarce and deeply desired in East Germany, in contrast to West Germany, where they were ubiquitous.)” Picture it.
  8. A man-on-the-street poll was taken in three countries: “What is your opinion of the recently announced shortage of meat?” In the US, they asked, “What shortage?” In Poland, they asked, “What is meat?” And in East Germany, they asked, “What is an opinion?” Definitely an A.L. (involuntary laugher)
  9. “How do you catch a Trabi? — Just stick chewing gum on the highway. (An allusion to the Trabant’s weak motor.)”
  10. “Why did Erich Honecker get a divorce? — Because Brezhnev kisses better than his wife.” (Comrades always kiss each other on the cheek). If you don’t know who Brezhnev and Honecker were, you were either asleep in history class, or a generation or more after Baby Boomers.
  11. “Why do left-handed comrades always start the ‘comrade hug’ with their right hand? The left needs to be free to hold the knife.” Probably not very funny. I just made it up on the spot. If you aren’t laughing, then try this.

T(y)ranny Triumphant.

David Cole’s title, above, on Takimag.com is brilliant. What he writes about on November 5, 2019, I have pointed out months before (not to one-up him, it’s just a matter of what is uppermost on our minds when we write). On June 20, 2017, I posted “Compelled Speech Comes To Canada.” That was actually the title of Jordan Peterson’s objection to Canada’s Bill C-16.

OTTAWA, June 15, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Canada’s Senate passed the Justin Trudeau Liberals’ transgender rights bill unamended this afternoon by a vote of 67 to 11, with three abstentions. The bill adds “gender expression” and “gender identity” to Canada’s Human Rights Code and to the Criminal Code’s hate crime section. With the Senate clearing the bill with no amendments, it requires only royal assent in the House of Commons to become law. Critics warn that under Bill C-16, Canadians who deny gender theory could be charged with hate crimes, fined, jailed, and compelled to undergo anti-bias training.

Lawyer D. Jared Brown said, “Mandating use of pronouns requires one to use words that are not their own that imply a belief in or agreement with a certain theory on gender,” he added. “If you try to disavow that theory, you can be brought before the Human Rights Commission for misgendering (‘yet another new word for the postmodern lexicon of idiocy’) or potentially find yourself guilty of a hate crime. To sum up, on the subject of gender, we’re going to have government-mandated speech.”

Those who refuse to go along could be “brought before the federal tribunal,” Brown said. If the tribunal assesses a penalty such as a fine or “non-monetary remedy, such as a cease and desist order or an order to compel them to do something,” and the person refuses, “they will find themselves in contempt of court and prison is the likely outcome of that process until they purge the contempt,” he added. I HAVE TOTAL CONTEMPT OF COURT ABOUT THIS; I DARE THEM TO “PURGE” IT FROM ME. I’D BETTER NOT VISIT CANADA.

Inconceivable that “gender theory” can be compelled? Nope, not if you understand the lust for power, the t(y)ranny, that motivates such idiocy. David Cole sums it up: Why are trannies all of a sudden so damn important? Conservatives sometimes speak of trannyism as a cult, but they get it backwards. They write as if it’s the trannies who are in the cult. No, the trannies are a tool to put us in a cult, a process that starts by changing our names. Name changes “help effect a psychological ‘death’ to the old ego-persona.” A good cult leader always begins by assigning initiates a new name. So, now we’re all named “cis.” We’re no longer “normal,” we’re “cis.” We’ve been renamed. Why? Because to the left–THE SPIRIT OF TOTALITARIANISM– it’s all about seeing how much we’re willing to take. If they can make us accept a new name, they can pretty much make us do anything.

Feminism was supposed to be about making sure men don’t get to “control” women. Yet what greater control is there than the power to determine who is a woman? It’s no longer about “our bodies, our rights.” It’s about “if a man says he’s a woman, he’s a woman. Now shut up.” There is a prison cliché about how on your first day behind bars you’re supposed to beat up the biggest, toughest brute in the yard. Take out the most feared enforcer, and the joint is yours? It works, at least in identity politics. The feminists got knocked cold. This big, bossy demographic that has money and votes, and comprises the core of the Democrat base, has been laid flat. As men in lipstick dominate one female sport after another, women are sitting there and taking it like good little girls.

In February 2019, pro-tranny radical feminist Sophie Lewis explained in a New York Times op-ed why American feminists have properly caved to the trans agenda, while British feminists have proven resistant. American women, Lewis stated, have been “pummeled” into submission. Yes, she said “pummeled.” Beaten. And she wrote of the “pummeling” as a good and necessary thing that forced American feminists to see the light regarding trannies.

Lewis used the acronym TERF, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. That’s another example of the power of labeling. In reality, biological women who don’t hate being women are just….women! By coining the TERF acronym, or by the use of the prefix CIS, the trans ideologues try to make normality into a cult. She writes, “in Britain, TERFs are a powerful force. If, in the United States, the mainstream media has been alarmingly (really?) ready to hear ‘both sides’ on the question of trans people’s right to exist, in Britain, TERFs have effectively succeeded in framing the question of trans rights entirely around their own concerns: that is, how these rights for others could contribute to ‘female erasure.’ Many prominent figures in British journalism and politics have been TERFs; British TV has made a sport of endlessly hosting their lurid rudeness and styling it as courage; British newspapers seemingly never tire of broadsides against the menace of ‘gender ideology’.” At least the Brit media is good for something!

A feminist “intellectual” said women need to be beaten into accepting trannyism. And she said it in The New York Times. And nobody objected to terminology that, in any other context, would be seen as promoting violence against women. Hence the left’s use of trannies to destroy the feminist will. Feminism is a tactic, but in the end, even the harpies need to submit. The state needs to know that it can break the will of every identity group, even leftist-friendly ones. If the state can make us accept that a man is a woman, if they can make us redefine ourselves with a new name that means “not tranny,” then they can make us accept anything.

However, if that op-ed gives the impression that the tranny movement in Britain is weak, there are plenty of exceptions: the young student being browbeaten and then expelled from school because he dared insist that men and women are different (teacher pointing his finger, “this is an inclusive school!”), the whole girls class being locked out of their school because they wore skirts in defiance of the “unisex” dress code. THE SPIRIT OF TOTALITARIANISM SAYS, “YOU WILL COMPLY, OR YOU WILL BE ERASED.”

“Failed States”? How about failed lives?

Two days ago I wrote about the “Porch Pirate (PP) and Amazon.” What I didn’t reveal at the time was that the article in The Atlantic magazine was funded by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge.” The 8,478-word article on PP was written by Jane Smiley, and was part of The Atlantic’s project ‘The Presence of Justice’. Did it read like the PRESENCE of justice? How about the ABSENCE of justice? Or the PRESENCE of excuses?

PP in her own words: I did it maybe once or twice, three times at the most; it wasn’t like a new job I went into”—and that she sold just one of them, a set of storage bins, for about $20. (She also told the author she stole mostly in order to buy necessities, not drugs.) She thought the packages would be replaced by Amazon and other senders, so her gain wouldn’t be her neighbors’ loss. “That’s what eased my conscience taking someone’s property, because I’m not a bad person, it was just a bad choice,” she told me. “I was in a desperate state.” In August 2018, thanks to video evidence, PP was found guilty of 23 misdemeanor charges of petty theft, receiving stolen property, and mail theft. And though Potrero Hill is an expensive area in which to live, PP, again, received public assistance, including food stamps, so her claim that “I stole mostly in order to buy necessities, not drugs,” was implausible and contradicted by the testimony of her own sister.

What I left out before: San Francisco County courts have long referred many low-level offenders to rehabilitative programs while they are awaiting trial rather than have them sit in jail. This practice endlessly angers the victims of the property crimes, and concerns cops, too. “Our big request is for consequences,” said Commander Raj Vaswani, who headed the district responsible for Potrero at the time, adding that police typically only pursue an arrest if a person or a camera directly witnesses the package being stolen…. Three times, one of the victims walked up to the window at Vaswani’s station in the Bayview, the southeastern-most district of San Francisco, which is among the poorest, with high violent crime rates. The officers seemed underwhelmed by his package gripes, saying that petty theft is a cite-and-release sort of misdemeanor and asking, “What do you want us to do?” He responded, “Prosecute her,” referring to PP. They said that was the district attorney’s job.

Locking up low-level criminals won’t solve what [W. David] Ball, the Santa Clara University law professor, believes is the root cause of these crimes: poverty within astronomically expensive cities. “Everyone assumes that jail works to deter people. But I don’t know if I were hungry, and had no other way of eating, that that would deter me from stealing,” he said. Smiley quoted PP’s defense attorney, Brandon M. Banks, who says “PP had been caught in a web of surveillance, gentrification, and racism.” He said she was “low hanging fruit of the justice system”, meaning what? I say it means reams of video evidence, eyewitness testimony, including that of her sister, the presence of scores of stolen packages and mail in her possession…..yeah, “low hanging fruit”.

Smiley reports that “wealth and race disparities were obvious in the courtroom” where PP was tried, and the writer seems to think that “the criminalization of poverty and addiction” are “systemic issues.Really??? Where have we heard THAT before? Christopher DeGroot, in Takimag.com, opines: “In this sentimental confusion, Smiley is like any number of progressive ninnies, and there being an abundance of such enablers, it’s no wonder PP seems to have learned nothing from her crimes. Says Smiley: I visited PP in jail several times this past spring while she was waiting for another rehab program to accept her…. she continued to insist to me that she only stole a couple of times, and she seemed to feel worse for herself than for the people she stole from: “I never took anything that was somebody’s worldly possessions or anything that was personal…. I didn’t feel like it was that big to them.

We have heard the description “failed state” applied to countries like Somalia and Venezuela, among many others (virtually all in Africa and South America). That description is starting to apply to San Francisco and Los Angeles, perhaps the state of California (the HBO show Californication wasn’t about the breakdown of law and justice, but the term might soon take on a different meaning). Lest you fall into the trap of thinking I am anti-black, let me clarify: The root problem is the lust for power of white leftist politicians and their failed philosophies. In Minneapolis, in a neighborhood called “little Somalia”, the people, almost all Somalian refugees, both police their own when they do wrong and support them in doing right. Thankfully for them, the white politicians leave them mostly to their own devices. It should be noted and emphasized that most of their community leaders were anti-corruption dissidents who fled Somalia ahead of death squads. In that sense, those Somali-Americans are as much American as they are Somali, while the white leftist politicians are like Somali warlords who use laws like Muhammad Siad Barre used guns.