Most sociological debates have nuance, dead ends, gray areas and “trolley car” like choices. This does not. This is SO easy to get right.

Just a few short years ago a man who “identified” as a woman was able to make a mockery out of NCAA Division One Women’s swimming by thoroughly dominating biological girls in his signature event.

The specter of 6’4” Lia (nee William) Thomas towering over his legitimately female competitors at the awards podium looked like a scene straight out of South Park. But Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s savage parody is no match for real world silliness.

I most certainly am no fan of President Trump, but I was hoping that his election portended that We The People were largely done with some of the worst silliness that has emerged over the past decade from the way-too-far-left. But this issue of trans women in women’s sports stubbornly will not go away, despite the fact that roughly 80% of people think trans women should not compete athletically against women.

This debate has taken on new life because a WNBA player had the temerity to suggest that biological boys should not be allowed to compete against biological girls in sports. Really. That is why this issue is showing up in our newsfeeds again.

The predictable forces are chastising Sophie Cunningham, calling her all of the pejoratives they rustle up whenever anyone commits the sin of disagreeing with them. In short, another trite and tiresome spectacle.

In a world where so many issues are hazy and gray, this is not one of them. And it is depressing this has not been relegated to the scrap heap of history.

The very existence of women’s sports owes itself almost exclusively to male puberty. That natural biological process confers athletic advantages so pronounced and obvious that post-pubescent athletic competition between males and females is inherently unfair.

If male puberty did NOT grant these advantages, there would never have been a need for women’s sports. Men and women could compete alongside and against each other and nobody would think twice about it.

But male puberty DOES grant these advantages. I don’t know why, but it does. To deny it is to deny biology.

Women’s sports had to be invented because without it, there would be next-to-no opportunities for high-level athletics for women.

Because of women’s sports, females now have just as many opportunities as males to compete in high-stakes athletics.

To allow men who have gained the advantages of male puberty to compete against women because they *identify* as female is nonsense on stilts. I am not denying what they identify as. What I am denying is that they are fairly able to compete alongside and against women.

I have heard learned people try to argue that a couple of years of hormone therapy can mostly negate puberty’s physical advantages. That is more nonsense.

In order for any therapy to erase the advantages of male puberty, it would have to actively reduce 30-40% of a person’s muscle mass, physically SHRINK their heart, purposefully make their bones less dense, sharply decrease their lung capacity and do several dozen other things that would have a deleterious impact on the body.

Any doctor prescribing a therapy that does those things to a human body should be jailed. NO ethical doctor is going to do something that would essentially destroy a healthy body.

The changes conferred by hormone therapy are largely cosmetic. They have some impact, of course, but not nearly enough to erase what happens during male puberty.

There are probably some reading this who will conclude that I am a “transphobe.” That’s because they are not bright people. The social forces that keep trans women out of women’s sports are the same ones that prevent me from playing Little League baseball.

One is no less a “trans woman” if they are prohibited from playing women’s sports. That’s because eligibility for women’s sports is based on biological sex, not the gender with which one identifies.

The defense that there are very few trans women playing in women’s sports is not a defense. The frequency with which something wrong occurs doesn’t make it less wrong. And it certainly doesn’t make it right. That is a silly argument made by silly people.

The devil on my shoulder envisions a wicked scenario. Five very good boys high school basketball players suddenly announce they identify as girls in California. By that state’s rules, all they need to do to get on the girl’s team is “identify” as a girl. And with that state’s open-enrollment for high schools, they decide to join the same high school and play on the girl’s hoops team. They crush every team they play and win the state championship in a laugher.

As they are getting their state championship trophy and being called “stunning and brave” by the way-too-far-left, they announce to the world that they no longer identify as girls. They then laugh and leave the arena.

I know this would be embarrassing to the girls they stomp on the court, which is why I don’t really want this happen. But I fear it make take an absurd demonstration like this to properly demonstrate the absurdity of this effort and forever put it to rest.

Every Fourth of July I usually try to take a least a few minutes noting where our nation has been, where we are and where we’re going. It sort of the equivalent of spending a little amount of time focusing on the “True Meaning of Christmas” each December.

This year that tasks takes on additional meaning as the United States of America marks a quarter of a millennium as a nation-state.

In spite of the increasingly-polarizing and rancorous nature of these modern times, I’m happy to report that a sober analysis shows we still have MUCH to be proud of.

The United States of America was the world’s first large-scale experiment with representative Democracy. Yes, there were other nation-states with elected legislatures in the past; but the United States was different in many significant ways.

The nation was fomented in revolution. It was the natural extension of the Age of Reason where, for the first time, people began to question by what right Kings ruled. What started with the Magna Carta in 1215 had boomed in the intervening centuries, fueled by the printing press and increased literacy, fundamentally transforming Western Civilization.

It also extended to religion, where centuries of challenges to the rule of the Roman Catholic Church had resulted in Protestantism and a whole witches brew of other denominations and sects.

These Age of Reason concepts had been largely limited to academic circles, coffee shops and other such settings where well-read people exchanged theories and thoughts. But to apply it on a national scale? That was its own kind of revolution.

But the key element in the formation of the United States was summed up in three words in the preamble to our Constitution. “We the people.”

This was a nation founded because of US, the rank-and-file, the serfs. Its foundational documents went through great pains to cement the protection of basic rights as its cornerstone.

Conversely, the rights of The State (Monarchy), were reined in everywhere possible. In short, this nation was formed by giving a big fat middle finger to the very thought of the State’s supremacy over the individual.

You can argue that it was elites of the day who were largely responsible for drafting our founding documents, and you would be correct. But these “elites” were yearning for the same thing the serfs of the Middle Age longed for. The freedom to choose one’s own destiny, to succeed or fail, and to be ultimately responsible for their own life, property and happiness.

Has it worked? I would submit that the overwhelming amount of evidence offers an emphatic “YES.”

Despite the bellyaching of the perpetual victim class, there has never been another nation where someone had a greater chance of moving upwards in terms of social class. No other nation has created as many “rich people.” And that is to say nothing of the advances (technological and other) that have come from Americans.

The fact innovators can keep a larger percentage of the fruits of their labor has helped spur much of the innovation. If you know that most of what you produce will be confiscated, you are less likely to go through the trouble of producing something exceptional. That is human nature. And the economic system that drives the American economy recognizes this and rewards this. There are far too many people who favor an economic system that pretends as though human natural does not exist. Or that it exists and must be altered.

The great irony of the United States is that we managed to survive a long time despite the fact we fell WELL short of our own lofty ideals. The view that “all men are created equal” was most certainly radical. And it also most certainly did not cover ALL Americans. It was fairly amazing that, for more than 70 years, we denied the humanity of millions because of the color of their skin. There was no way this experiment was going to work very long with this glaring incongruity in place.

We paid a steep price in blood in the process to make that right. And even though there is still more work to do, I think we can safely say that we have ensured such a glaring and obvious oversight will never happen again.

Will it last? Nothing lasts…especially in an era where information and resources are swapped and traded at an exponentially greater rate than at any point in world history.

But I predict the entrepreneurial spirit that is an integral part of the United States’ DNA will keep us on top for the foreseeable future.

Our business and social climate has allowed the US to dominate the internet and related industries. If China had assumed control over the lion’s share of electronic communications, the US might already be sliding into also-ran status. But they didn’t and we’re not.

I do not doubt my liberal friends when they say they love America as well. But like with so many other things, our definitions are markedly different.

For too many people, the biggest benefit of “America” is in its allocation of eleemosynary goods and public resources. They see our greatest good as those tangible things that can be offered by the state. They see the State as a great tool to dish out goodness.

That would be fine and dandy; but the state does not CREATE any of those good things. They are obtained from We The People. That is fundamentally different from the concept of sharing with a neighbor in need.

It is also ultimately unsustainable. It goes back to the old argument, Do we measure success by how many people are receiving Government aid; or by the number of people who no longer require it?

When I think of “America,” I think of a bold socio-political experiment that---serious bumps aside---has worked out FAR better than anyone could have imagined. A nation that has become great and powerful not because of government; but because of our “system” of government. A nation born in rebellion, forged in hard times, and one that will ultimately survive because it is about US!

If you’ve read this far you’re either bored or troubled. :) Happy Fourth! Happy 250^th, my fellow Americans!

Thomas Sowell may be the best at this. His pithy one-liners will be repeated until the end of time because...well...they are damned good. His warning about “giving authority to people who pay no price for being wrong,” will be just as good advice in 3535 as it is today. Timeless.

I have been thinking of another Sowell quote the past couple of days as the city and county I love and have called home for six decades on this beautiful blue marble moves towards the precipice of what can only be described as a metamorphosis.

The Danville-Pittsylvania Regional Industrial Facility Authority this week signed a local performance agree with Stack Infrastructure, a Denver-Colorado data center developer. Their plans call for a “digital infrastructure campus” at the Southern Virginia Megasite at Berry Hill. It would encompass nearly three-thousand acres, compromising most of the land in the largest mega site on the East Coast.

The phrase “game-changer” seems ridiculously inadequate to describe the scope of this announcement. It is transformative. Estimated local tax payments are (give or take) three billion dollars over the next thirty years. That is roughly 120 million dollars a year that Danville and Pittsylvania County will split.

Right now, the county is in the middle of drafting a 26-27 budget. They are having to increase the real estate tax from 56 to 62 cents per hundred dollar value---and they will STILL come up about four million dollars short.

Now...imagine how this budget process would be different if there were a 60 million dollar tax contribution from the digital infrastructure campus. Supervisors could, in theory, completely ELIMINATE the Real Estate tax and STILL have millions left over.

Does that sound like a good thing to you? Because it sure as hell sounds good to ME!

Getting back to Sowell, the quote of his that has stirred in my brain is this one.

• “There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs.”

This is perfect. This is mature. This is the realization that for every action, there is a reaction.

Of *course* building a project of this magnitude is going to cause issues. A project 1/1000th of its size would also come with issues. That is unavoidable.

Yes, this campus will use water. No it will NOT suck the Dan River dry, as many alarmists insist. It will use less water than Dan River Mills used at the height of its production. According to a JLARC study it will use less water than most large office buildings. It will use less water than your favorite golf course uses to keep the greens green.

The “nattering nabobs of negatively” that Danville is infamous for have had a field day on data centers. To hear them you would think we are building a hazardous waste incinerator/industrial hog slaughterhouse next to a nursing home and on top of an orphanage.

There are people who would honest to God refuse to endorse this because it might create some problems. Newsflash...EVERYTHING causes problems. Any change creates a new situation that has to be dealt with.

So yes, this campus will bring changes. That’s kinda the goal of a mega park, isn’t it? We’ve spent about 200 million dollars getting this land ready for the “Big One.” And here it is.

There was ALWAYS going to be something very big at Berry Hill. We didn’t get all dressed up for nothing, right? And among the dozens of potential large-scale industrial uses that could have come, a data center campus is one of the quietest, cleanest and most sustainable options.

One drawback is job creation. Berry Hill was built and marketed with large employment projects in mind. The campus has pledged 2,500 jobs. If those 3,000 acres could have been occupied by, say, 8-12 large industries, we could be looking at employment totals of over 10,000 or more.

That brings us back to the concept of “tradeoffs.” Sacrificing job creation for an insane amount of investment is a tradeoff. And it is up to us to decide if it is a fair trade off.

And I say...it most definitely is.

Think about it. To generate this level of taxable investment, Pittsylvania County and Danville would have to recruit 50 Microporous-sized announcements. We would have to recruit 113 Avio Rocket plants. So while the raw job totals are a bit short of the original goal, that is MORE than made up for by the fact that each locality will eventually collect an average of 60 million dollars in tax revenue each year. And that is the floor, not the ceiling.

In its own odd way, the concerns remind me of the cautionary tales while Danville voters were weighing a casino. We were assured that Caesars would bring crime to Danville---as if we didn’t already have it.

People were concerned about rising property values. Well, yes. That is the consequence of economic success. It beats the hell out of having property values decline, I assure you.

“They’ll never spend that kind of money or hire that many people!!” This is an evergreen uttering of the nabobs. My answer is always...”OK, then explain to me how having thousands of jobs and billions of investment a BAD thing?”

Basically, I tell people that whatever bad things this campus brings will have to negatively offset annual local tax payments of sixty million dollars to BOTH the county and city that I love. That is a high bar.

Even with the tradeoffs, this is an all-time no-brainer.

Lets do this!

The SPLC began work in the 1970s. They were instrumental in the fight against the remnants of the Ku Klux Klan and other tangential hate groups that still wielded WAY too much influence in the United States.

For about a decade or more they provided legal and logistical support to help marginalize these hate groups to the point where they quickly became laughable shells of their former selves. They were mocked and ridiculed into a well-deserved obsolescence.

Sometimes the worst thing to happen to noble causes is success. Once the law and everything else is on your side, what’s next? There are no more impressive dragons left to slay.

What often happens is that, in order to stay relevant, the cause will create NEW dragons. They will take what in the past was considered a nuisance and play it up to the point where they are still needed to offer their righteous dragon-slaying services. For a price.

In the mid-1980’s, the SPLC quickly morphed into a cause looking for a problem. With dwindling numbers of actual hateful groups they had to move the threshold of the definition. Very quickly, “hate groups” now included far-right western land rights activists who had nothing to do with hate and everything to do with libertarian views on property ownership.

But that wasn’t enough to pay the bills for the SPLC. In order to keep raking in donations, they needed bad guys. And if none were readily available, they must be created.

The SPLC employed a business model that should be familiar to you if you are a fan of The Godfather, The Sopranos or any of the other great artistic depictions of the Mafia. Outside of cinema, it is called “extortion.”

A close friend of mine was the Regional HR manager for a large office supply company in 1998. Two employees had filed a civil rights suit against the firm. I will be charitable and call the claims, “implausible.”

My friend got a call from the SPLC. The caller assured them the suits would magically disappear if they made a generous tax-deductible contribution. My friend told them to pound sand, and the suits were later laughed out of court.

As the years went by and actual racism became more difficult to find, the SPLC dropped all pretense of being an impartial source of information. The people and groups they added to their much-ballyhooed “hate map” were comical.

I wrote this in 2016 about the SPLC:

• “In 2015, for example. the group caught well-deserved criticism after it put Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson on its “extremist watch list,” citing the one-time presidential candidate’s “anti-LGBT views.” Later, in 2016, the SPLC labeled women’s rights activist, female genital mutilation victim, atheist, and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali an “anti-Muslim extremist” because she opposes Islamic extremism. The British activist and extremist-turned-counter-extremist Maajid Nawaz was placed in the same category.”

• “The left-wing advocacy group lumps pro-family and pro-Israel organizations with actual neo-Nazis. The SPLC will slap the word “extremist” on just about anything so long as it’s right-tilting.”

• “And the Mainstream Media will gleefully cite the SPLC’s stamp of disapproval as irrefutable truth. “[Right-Wing Organization], which has been named a “hate group” by the SPLC, blah blah blah” has been a far-too-frequent result of this incestuous relationship.”

With the supply of hate continually falling well short of the SPLC’s insatiable demand, they upped the ante. Financial records show them actively funding the very hate groups that they targeted. The fact that they used chicanery to try and conceal these dealings shows that they knew exactly what they were doing.

Simply put, the SPLC secretly paid racists to do racist things in their racists groups while the SPLC conducted in fundraising drives based on that racism.

This is akin to Norton creating computer viruses in order to sell more software.

We will hopefully find out during the trial the extent to which the SPLC enabled high-profile events like the infamous Charlottesville Unite the Right rally.

Of course the ultimate victims in all this are those who want to eliminate the remaining legitimately racist persons and institutions that plague us. The SPLC has made this infinitely more difficult by fueling distrust and doubt.

To be perfectly honest…the answer is no. I do NOT enjoy seeing photos or videos of ICE agents arresting illegal immigrants. Of course, I am not particularly fond of watching police arrest ANYONE. It’s not that I want no one to ever be arrested. It’s just that I am not interested in seeing it. I’m not a voyeur.

But do you know what ELSE I did not enjoy watching? Millions of people being allowed into this nation illegally over a four-year period. Video of President Biden’s operatives cutting down physical barriers that local officials had erected in border towns, trying desperately to staunch the flow of illegals into their small towns.

Compounding that, I did not enjoy being assured by our noxious former Homeland Security Director that this was absolutely NOT happening, and that I was a bigot for thinking otherwise.

I also did not enjoy the intentional obfuscation by Democrats of illegal immigrants and *all* immigrants. They wanted to make you think the super-friendly landscaper from Guatemala was being hunted down by masked bandits, despite him being a naturalized US citizen.

Sorry, folks. The overwhelming evidence is that ICE’s primary targets are indeed, here illegally. And the vast majority of them have been convicted of crimes. And I’m not talking littering.

Are there going to be mistakes made? Of course there are, given the sheer scope of the issue. And where discovered, these mistakes need to be immediately rectified and persons quickly compensated.

I have already shared my thoughts about the lonely idiots who feel it is their birthright to physically impede LEOs while they are in the middle of one of the most dangerous parts of their job. They are all the proof you need that too many people have WAY too much free time.

Let’s be blunt. The prior administration allowed at least ten million people (conservative estimate) to enter this nation illegally. And yes, I say “allowed.” They could have staunched the flow at any time. Indeed, they did exactly that when it looked like the issue would harm them in the election. They could have done that at any time but they chose not to. It was not until the issue was seen as politically harmful that something was done about it. That is repugnant.

Why? We all know why. If these immigrants were coming in and voting Republican, Biden would have had a legendary border security apparatus.

And to be brutally honest, many entities on the left rubbed it in our faces. They openly bragged about ignoring immigration laws. And of COURSE they spit out the “racist” canard anytime someone pointed out that this was indeed illegal and counter-productive.

The most sickening ones were those who evoked Christianity to try and shame people into adopting their position that any national border was immoral and you were going to hell for supporting any level of immigration enforcement.

So while I get no joy out of seeing illegal immigrants arrested and detained, I also know that you cannot let ten million people into the nation illegally and expect the process of rectification to be seamless and uneventful.

The administration of justice by government is something that should be done grimly and without fanfare. Be it inside a courtroom, a holding facility, a maximum security prison or in a parole office.

Fun and games are for elsewhere. This is serious business. This is one of the most solemn duties of a free nation, not a chance to gloat like your favorite sports team just won a title.

One of the first things done by majority Democrats Wednesday when the Virginia General Assembly began their 2026 session was to pass a Joint Resolution to redraw Virginia’s Congressional Map.

If that seems odd to you, that’s because it is. The Constitution calls for those lines to be redrawn once a decade, immediately after Census numbers are released. Of course, there is nothing in the Constitution that *forbids* a state from re-drawing those lines whenever they want.

That fact has prompted some Republican-led states to redraw their maps in an effort to create as many GOP-majority districts as possible. This is done through the magic of gerrymandering.

I am going to assume that most of you know what this is and how it works. If not, here is a link that explains it fairly succinctly.

These efforts have been encouraged by Republican President Donald Trump to increase the likelihood that Republicans keep their majority in the House of Representatives. Right now that edge is as slender as it can be.

While this is perfectly Constitutional, it is also wrong. This is a naked power grab that is NOT designed to benefit We The People. It is all about political power. Indeed some states (Indiana) with majority Republicans have rightfully told the President to shove off when it comes to this effort.

Ah, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Democratic-led states then began their own campaign to re-draw lines before the 2026 elections to eliminate the few districts in their states that are GOP-majority.

Funny. I was brought up to believe that two wrongs don’t make a right. I guess these guys didn’t have the advantage I had of good parenting. Oh well.

Here in my home state of Virginia, where Democrats are now firmly in control of the General Assembly and the Governor’s mansion, the Democrats are almost two-thirds of the way through an effort to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing them to re-draw Virginia’s Congressional districts in time for the 2026 midterms. They arranged a special session last fall so they could pass the amendment a first time. During this year’s regular session they are poised to pass it a second time, as is required, before the issue goes to the voters.

But there is another angle here in Virginia. In 2020, Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved a Constitutional amendment to take Congressional redistricting away from the General Assembly. The vote established a redistricting commission whose job it is to redraw those lines in a non-partisan manner. The panel is made up of equal parts Republicans and Democrats. In 2021 they deadlocked, sending the issue to the State Supreme Court. They adopted a map that was actually not too shabby. It was certainly non-partisan, which was precisely the goal of establishing the redistricting commission in the first place.

Former Chatham State Senator Charles Hawkins, one of just a handful of politicians whom I actually respect, told me repeatedly that redistricting was politics at its worst…and it brought out the worst in everyone. He said the process was your classic “smoked-filled room” with backdoor dealings and pitiless grabs at power. He said watching the process was sickening.

And so the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginis grew tired of the once-a-decade bloodsport from two parties who ONLY goal is raw political power. We ended it. Lawmakers proved they were wholly incapable of performing this function in a manner that represented all Virginia, so We The People took that away from them. By a wide margin, I might add.

Now Virginia Democrats want to undo what We The People demanded. And the ONLY reason they want to do it is…wait for it…raw political power. Rank-and-file Virginians will not benefit from this. The only ones who benefit are leaders of one of the two political tribes that exist.

This would be a bad idea even if voters had rejected the redistricting commission. But when you add it in, it turns this in to a naked partisan power grab that cavalierly pisses on the will of the people in order to score temporary political points.

To top it all off there are prominent Virginia Democrats who are BRAGGING about getting a chance to pass a map that creates only one GOP-majority district. The reliably-execrable Sen. Louise Lucas issues seemingly-daily tweets salivating over the prospect of being able to draw a map that offers all of the spoils to her tribe.

Once this fetid pile of dung passes the General Assembly and is duly ratified by the brainless algorithm who now resides in the Governor’s mansion, it will go to We the People in a referendum this spring.

I hope the people of Virginia take this wonderful opportunity to tell partisan hacks that we will NOT let you undo what we did five years ago. You stink. You lost the power to perform this duty because you used it to put party over people for decades. And I will be damned if we are going to put it back into your hands.

It is rare that we get a chance to so clearly repudiate the political class. This is an opportunity to shove their partisan wet dreams back into their collective faces and remind them that they work for us…not the opposite. And they have damned sure never forget it.

Let’s do this.

I've had several people ask my thoughts on this week's tragedy in Minneapolis. OK. Here's my two cents, probably worth much less.

Was the officer justified in firing? I don't know. And neither do you. He did not have the luxury of video views from multiple angles, enhanced, zoomed and replayed a thousand times before making his decision. He had milliseconds. Sometimes the answer to this question is easy and obvious. This is not one of those times.

He will have to be judged based on the same legal and departmental criteria any other law enforcement officer would be subject to in a similar incident.

But this is what my brain keeps going back to. It is what I like to call the Law of Reasonable Expectations.

If I tried to impede an LEO who was making an arrest, it is reasonable to expect they would physically stop me.

If I aimed a two-ton vehicle at them, it is reasonable to expect I would be shot, or somehow neutralized to make sure I didn’t have a chance to do that.

That's why I do neither of those things.

To wit: I philosophically oppose random sobriety checkpoints sometimes conducted by State Police. I believe they are a violation of basic human rights. They ignore the presumption of innocence that we are supposed to enjoy under our system of jurisprudence.

But if I drove my car into a VSP checkpoint to blow my horn and generally disrupt the troopers from performing their perfectly-lawful duties, I would not be helping anyone or anything. There is no potential good that would result from a stunt like that. All I would be doing is making things worse for everyone. And I would be needlessly putting myself and others in harm's way. And the checkpoint would continue.

Such a stunt would be silly, reckless, foolish and just flipping stupid.

There is a time and place for everything. In the middle of a tense arrest is neither.

The evidence is clear that this woman was part of a semi-organized effort to physically thwart ICE officers in the performance of their legal duties. There is NO good that can come from such actions. ICE is not going to relinquish anyone in their custody. They're not going to pack up their van and go home.

Indeed, the actions of zealots like these makes it impossible to debate the issue in any meaningful way. And yes, this is an issue that is worthy of debate. The wise allocation of limited public resources is ALWAYS something we should weigh.

For what it is worth, I do NOT think the resources we are spending right now on ICE enforcement is the highest and best use of our resources. I would prefer more time and energy be spent uncovering fraud and making sure we don’t have to return violent criminals to the streets because we lack the capacity to house them.

I also know that driving my car into the middle of an ICE operation is not going to get anyone to agree with my views on the proper allocation of public resources. Indeed, such childish actions will more than likely have the very opposite effect. It will force those who DO support such policies to dig in their heels and stifle any potential debate on the issue.

Ultimately there are only two ways to persuade people. There is force. And there is reason.

I know which I prefer. And I am pretty sure it is the same one YOU prefer. And it applies to both when I am being persuaded or am the one doing the persuading.

Under the umbrella of reason are common tactics like logic, facts, emotional appeals, flattery, empathetic listening and a thousand other anodyne things.

Under the force umbrella lies some of man’s worst tactics. Coercion, blackmail, disingenuous framing, lies, financial pressure, omissions, misrepresentation and much more. It also includes the darker uses of force...such as the administration of pain and/or discomfort.

Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee for Attorney General of Virginia, favors force over reason. That fact alone should disqualify him from ANY political office. Hell, it should disqualify him from having authority over any living creature.

But it *uniquely* disqualifies him to be our next Attorney General. That is the Commonwealth’s “Top Cop.” It is a position that, if occupied by a vicious ideologue who sees pain as a legitimate means to make people vote the way he likes, can be used to spread a lot of pain. And lots of discomfort.

Yes, the joke Jones told his colleague in the text message about former House Speaker Todd Gilbert, Hitler and Pol Pot was silly and ignorant. But it was just that. A joke. I’ve seen variations on this a thousand times with different names. It is dark humor, to be sure, but humor nonetheless. And certainly it is humor when it is restricted to a text swap among friends.

But Jones’ other comments are simply indefensible. And more than a little evil.

Cavalierly referring to the two young children of a political opponent as “little fascists” is simply going too far. Again, I am willing to offer a certain amount of grace because of the platform...a private text to a friend. But this crosses the line. Indeed, this was where the recipient of Jones’ texts tells him to cut it out.

Rather than taking the hint, Jones doubled down. He went to the next level when he expressed a desire for the children to die in their mother’s arms. Wow.

I have been VERY angry at people over the course of my six decades on this blue marble. I can say without a doubt that I have NEVER been angry enough at someone to wish something like this. Not just that the kids die...but also that they die in such a manner as to cause the greatest possible amount of anguish to a woman who’s only sin is to be married to one of Jones’ political opponents.

The recipient of the text scolded Jones and ended the conversation. But evidently Jones’ bloodlust had not quite been sated. No, he picked up a phone to call the colleague. In following up on his wish for the kids to die in their mothers’ arms he shared his justification for the wish. It is only when people experience pain that they change their politics.

As the risk of hyperbole, this is the most chilling and evil thing I have ever heard from a modern politician. To a libertarian like me, it is kryptonite...a garlic-soaked crucifix. This is a major-party candidate for a state-wide office saying without equivocation that he PREFERS force to reason to accomplish his political goals. And not just “force” in the abstract...but very personal and painful force. Anguishing levels of pain. The kind of pain one carries for the rest of their lives.

Now...try and imagine the mischief that an Attorney General who favors pain over persuasion could bring to bear in an effort to get people to do what he wants.

Government’s number one job is to secure and protect individual liberties. The foundation of this relationship relies on the basic trust of We the People. Since we cannot monitor the things that occur by the hour in Richmond and Washington we are forced to place a great deal of trust in the people we elected to carry out those duties.

The social contract is broken when someone who wants to deliver pain to half the population is elected to a position where they can most certainly bring the pain. If the social contract is broken, there are no rules and there is no society.

Jay Jones must not be our next Attorney General. If he is, I don’t know what happens next. But I *do* know that his existence as Virginia’s top solicitor will damage our social contract. To what extent, I don’t know.

From a political standpoint, I honestly think Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger would pick up a few votes if she rescinded her endorsement of Jones. They only people who’s votes she is securing with her continued support are people that are going to vote for her anyway. Ceding the AG race because your party unknowingly nominated a monster would win her a lot of centrist votes. Right now a lot of those votes are in the balance, waiting to see if Spanberger is going to be a reliable party toad, or an independent thinker who places Commonwealth over party.

I hope she makes the right choice. That way if she wins, I will at least have a Governor that I can respect, even if I don’t always agree with her politics. That would be a refreshing change.

As for Jones...just leave. Disappear. I would suggest getting professional help to do something about the sociopathic views you have adopted. But I doubt it will make a difference.

Of course I had heard of him. Very few people who dabble in modern sociopolitical discourse could have missed him.

But I honestly knew little about him, apart from his being a conservative commentator. That’s because, as a middle-aged fart, I was not his target audience. His movement, Turning Point USA, was birthed on college campuses with his peers. Astonishingly he was only 18 when he began this movement and it blossomed into a national force under his leadership.

Because of all that, any impression I had of him was obtained through osmosis. I knew he was an unabashed Christian who touted traditional conservative values in both fiscal and social matters. I likened him a bit to Ben Shapiro...conservative nerds with a head full of facts, coupled with an ability to relay those facts in an understandable and relatable manner. That is a very difficult combination to master.

But I also noticed something else. Or rather, something that was missing. Volume. In the clips I came across he was never screaming or yelling. He never seemed to be out of control---or even close to it. He commanded his delivery and his body language like a much older person who was quite comfortable in his own skin.

Another thing I noticed was his willingness...even his *eagerness*...to bring his message directly to likely-hostile audiences. He actively sought out those with different opinions. Not to demonize or argue...but to debate. To exchange ideas.

Yes there are many clips with him smugly outperforming some woefully-overmatched college student with brightly-colored hair. But there were also clips of him engaging respectfully with better-prepared liberals in these same venues. Indeed he seemed to get energized when he was verbally sparring with an intelligent opponent. In an age where political punditry too often rewards the loudest lout in the room, this stood out precipitously.

Charlie may have been our last chance of having honest dialogue about our issues. He was not the one-dimensional, cartoonish villain the people on the left made him out to be. He was willing to talk. He was willing to listen. He routinely went into the proverbial lions den to debate.

He was not some firebrand praying for violence or saying provocative phrases just to get a rise out of people. He was an old school social and fiscal conservative who targeted his peer groups for debate, meeting them where they were.

He was shot not because he was a white supremacist Nazi. He was called a white supremacist Nazi to give deranged young progressives a permission structure to do what one of them did last week.

Neither is he the flawless demigod that some are making him out to be. Whatever martyr status that is conferred upon Kirk needs to recognize that. Yes, he said some things that gave me pause. But when you consider that he was a public speaker who spoke often in his 13-year public career, that's going to happen. One of my old college professors pointed out that if you speak or write long enough, eventually you are going to say or write something stupid. The fact that there are only a handful of statements attributed to Kirk that I strongly reject suggests he had a pretty darn good batting average, all things considered.

Here is the deeper problem from all this madness. History strongly suggests that the movement which forms in the wake of his assassination is NOT going to be as friendly as graceful as Charlie was. Best I could tell, he was someone who honestly tried to channel the better angels of his nature in sharing his views.

His replacements will be FAR less interested in such manners.

Like it or not, there are a LOT of people who felt that government and the media were teaming up against them for the past two generations or so. They felt that both entities regarded them with contempt. In 2016 they found a Champion for their grief in Trump.

Of course COVID then happened, and the timing produced a longing for normalcy in a good part of the electorate. They found normalcy not in the mercurial Trump, but in a way-past-his-prime Democratic warhorse Joe Biden.

Instead of governing as a moderate and reuniting a fractured nation, Biden (or more likely, his inner circle) chose to double down on the same posturing and policies that created the Trump phenomenon in 2016. Miraculously, they created a climate where a now-convicted Trump could do the impossible, win a Presidential election after losing one and not accepting the results. Wow!

I opined last fall that the election was shaping up (for better or worse) as a Referendum on Woke. That worried me. Because Woke might win.

For definitional purposes…Woke is more than your standard left-leaning beliefs. Wokeness is the pseudo-religious doctrine which teaches that all inequality (real or imagined) is the result of past culpability, not contemporary personal behavior or conduct. There is no chance that personal choices, individual health, or one’s character plays any role. It is a nefarious and poisonous philosophy and worldview that divides all of humanity into a collective binary of noble victims and demonic oppressors.

Woke insists that people be judged by the color of their skin and not the content of their characters, or the merits of their achievements and abilities. Woke demands that a confused man be allowed to share locker room and other intimate facilities with women---and the women who question it are the bad guys.

Wokeness flies in the face of crucial assumptions of liberal democratic politics — the tradition of toleration, the morality of individual freedom, the separation of public and private, the idea that legislating morality is wrong.

Our choices in November perfectly reflected the Pass/Fail Society we created. We were offered the option of fully embracing wokeism and all of its poisonous tenets...or rejecting them in favor of something that was perhaps a bit mean.

I trust the message got through.

Most people will silently put up with woke shit in everyday life, but only if it remains in the halls of academia or Starbucks lobbies. Oh, they may chortle and/or roll their eyes, but they will otherwise be undaunted and uninterested.

But if you force them to choose, you will not like the outcome.

A lot of people in the middle saw Trump and his associated BS as merely distasteful. They also saw Wokeness and it's allies as incompatible with their view of this nation.

Last fall’s surprising election result had a lot to do with the fact that Kamala Harris was utterly talentless as a national political candidate. California should have been her ceiling.

But she was also (correctly) viewed as the DEI candidate. Her very existence on the ticket owed itself to the principles of DEI. If you don’t like that, then you can blame Biden, who made no secret that he was selecting his running mate based primarily on immutable characteristics. It was the perfect distillation of the limitations of woke ideology.

The election post-mortems have shown Gen Z men turning for Trump in a BIG way. That is entirely unsurprising.

How did they expect young men to react to constantly being told their ancestors were the source of all evil in the world? That the best they could aspire to was being an “ally” and tearing everything down and replacing it with a system that STILL held them in utter contempt?

Two generations of liberal women and woke men posing as teachers and school administrators and other leaders of youth wanted to shape the next generation in their images…but instead ended up repulsing them and creating staunch opponents.

Many of these guys came of age during COVID lockdowns. Some had to endure DEI struggle sessions where everything they valued was denigrated and called “progress.” They were constantly pestered with pronoun demands, chided for so-called micro-aggressions, heard silly and vapid land acknowledgements.

After a while, they stopped fearing being cancelled and said, “screw it.”

Donald Trump was the vessel they chose to express their political and social frustrations. Whatever else Trump may be, he was NOT another adult instructing them to “check their privilege,” or “be less white,” or to do something about their “toxic masculinity.”

I am increasingly seeing the Trump Presidency as a national course correction that HAD to happen. DEI and its bastard cousins are simply incompatible with any notion we have of liberal western democratic government ideals and ideas. They cannot co-exist. I think we came quite close to the edge.

Now at some point over the next three-plus years Trump will grossly overstep and make a ton more unforced errors, giving the Democrats a viable shot at taking Congress in 2026 and maybe more in 2028.

But I truly think the worst of Woke is behind us. The Democratic Party seems to be slowly shedding this poisonous cloak...and we will all be better off once they do. It would be nice to have a Presidential election where we didn’t all have to collectively hold our noses as we fill in our ballots.

The major social issues that led to the rise of 20th-century progressivism have been more-or-less solved. If not fully solved they have most certainly been rendered comparatively impotent. At the VERY least we can say these issues are not nearly as pervasive and common as they used to be.

Child labor and lynch mobs are things we read about in books. Almost all of our natural and scenic sites are now protected by a National Park system, or are similarly protected at the state level.

The food and drink we consume is far less dangerous than was the case a century ago. Our buildings are better built and are infinitely more likely to survive natural calamities. The cars we drive are many times safer than the ones we used just a generation ago.

Our air and water is a thousand times cleaner than it was 50 years ago. People have practically-unburdened access to education today as compared to a century ago. And believe it or not, there has never been a period in human history where people of all economic categories had better access to health care. And the health care we receive is far superior to that of our grandparents, regardless of your age.

Of course in all of these things there will always be SOME level of oversight required for consistent improvement. But treating each and all as existential crises leads to a gross misallocation of public resources of time, energy and money.

What contemporary racial discrimination that still exists is not comparable to the systemic, pervasive and widespread evil of racism that Congress was asked to legally prohibit in 1964. As such, it does not warrant similarly-sized responses from the federal government. Acting like we are still Selma-Alabama circa 1962 is foolhardy and counter-productive.

Once upon a time, American labor Unions dove head-first into very real concerns about workplace safety and the fundamental relationship between workers and management. Now that most of the change they championed has been codified into law and administered under federal agencies, what’s left to do? I’m sure there are issues remaining, but none of them warrants the responses that were needed a century ago.

Sometimes the worst thing to happen to noble causes is success. Once the law and everything else is on your side, what’s next? There are no more impressive dragons left to slay. What often happens is that, in order to stay relevant, the cause will create NEW dragons. they will take what in the past was considered a nuisance and play it up to the point where they are still needed to offer their righteous dragon-slaying services. For a price.

Labor Unions' energies went from workplace safety to putting in systems that make it impossible to fire even the laziest worker. The Civil Rights movement has redirected efforts toward reparations and punishing anyone who said the n-word as far back as the Ford Administration.

The women's rights movement changed their focus from women to abortions and man-bashing. It was at this point that my Mom, a bra-burning OG feminist, abandoned the movement. Paraphrasing her, "All these little bitches want to do now is hate men and kill babies."

The mainstream Gay Rights movement moved from "tolerance" to "acceptance" to "endorsement" in a span of thirty years. The Trans Rights movement needed less than a decade to make the same jump.

What we are left with in the contemporary progressive agenda is a move from issues of great moral and political significance like equal rights for African-Americans to less consequential issues like making sure the confused crossdresser can shower with your wives and daughters without legal sanctions.

Walter Russell Meade once released a brilliant dissertation on how social reform efforts deteriorate as they achieve success. He pointed out that to raise the percentage of young Americans attending college from 2 percent to 20 percent is a significant achievement. To extend it from 40 percent to 60 percent costs much more and accomplishes much less in terms of raising social productivity.

The law of diminishing returns is a thing.

Say what you will about Jerry Falwell...and I most certainly have, with him living an hour north of my home. He formed the "Moral Majority" in the late-seventies to promote what he saw as a dearth of morality in the nation's political arena. In the late 80's he purposefully disbanded the movement. He said their had accomplished their main goals, and staying alive for the sake of existing would turn the cause into something different from it's original purpose.

You can also argue that there are a number of other illegal activities that should be prioritized by federal law enforcement entities. And I would agree.

You could also point out that many of those being rounded up are not getting Due Process. That is a somewhat murkier issue since traditionally deportations have been treated as administrative procedures rather than a criminal process. But it is more than fair to point it out.

But you cannot argue that the Government is "acting lawlessly" when they arrest, detain and deport someone who has made the choice to enter the U.S. illegally.

The entire "ripping families apartment" canard is useless since that is precisely what happens thousands of times a day when an adult is arrested on most any other felony charge.

Like it or not, Trump made enforcement of immigration laws a priority of his Presidential campaign. And he won. And he replaced an administration who (in my opinion) purposefully allowed millions to come in illegally primarily because they saw them as a reliable future voter base.

I keep going back to this unmistakable fact. If I illegally entered Canada, I would look pretty damned silly if I acted indignantly when they arrested me and sent my fat ass back to the United States. Same goes for any other sovereign nation on the planet that I entered illegally. And I don't think anyone else would feel differently.

I also keep going back to something else I have openly asked about for a quarter-century. If I were a legal immigrant who jumped through all of the hoops needed to become a full-fledged US citizen, I would be INCENSED at those who purposefully avoided that process---then insisted that they not be punished for it.

Tell me, why should the US be the only nation-state on planet Earth that is NOT allowed to enforce immigration policy?

Finally, I am trying to intellectually reconcile protesting the deportation of illegal immigrants by proudly waving the flag of the nation you don't want to be sent back to. And I am failing.

Its true that the anticipation is often better than the event; but few things were better than getting my license, climbing into that piece of crap '74 Comet, and being able to come and go as I damned well pleased. No more waiting on Mom or Dad or Aunt Julia...no more hoping that someone else was on time. If I was late for baseball or football practice, it was MY fault, not someone else's.

This feeling of freedom was so intense that I reflect back on it when people ask me about my Conservative/Libertarian views. I remember well the helpless feeling of waiting on someone else to determine my punctuality---of having someone else responsible for my freedom of mobility. I remember that feeling and don't want to revisit it

It is that feeling I wish to avoid if/when a doctor has to perform a major procedure on me some day. I don't want to experience that feeling of helplessness again when/if a stranger breaks into my home. I want no part of that "victim" mentality anytime someone in Washington makes a major ruling that ultimately impacts my ability to have a say in my destiny.

I am reflexively distrustful of any entity that can impact my liberty...especially when that entity is (for the most part) unaccountable. My default setting is to give them no more authority than is absolutely necessary.

• The money I earn belongs to ME and not the government. I can decide how to spend my money far better than can people who have never met me and have no idea of what my needs may be. I cannot believe that ideals like this get so little traction in the national consciousness. I REALLY cannot believe that ideals like this get attacked by some. — Chuck Vipperman, 2019

The best thing about my libertarian philosophies is that they require nothing that would impact your individual freedom. If you want to help the poor, I will not stop you from working overtime and donating your last penny to the charity of your choice. If you want to help someone who cannot afford health insurance, I will not stop you from buying it for them, or raising money to do so. If you want start a commune where everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else, my philosophies will not prevent you from doing so. Unfortunately, I would not have comparable options under the regime that a Statist would favor.

One of Thomas Sowell’s greatest quotes ponders the stupidity of putting important decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. That is a natural requirement of political philosophies that de-emphasize the individual at the expense of the collective. If I’m going to be damned, I want it to be for something *I* did or did not do. If things go poorly for me, I want to be able to look in the mirror to find the primary source of blame.

• “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you...” ― Samuel Adams

That’s not exactly “Stop the Presses”-level news. Hey, I root for the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Detroit Tigers. Anger is my default setting. Right after “disappointment.”

I also make the mistake of dabbling in the world of online political and social debates. That’s no way to keep the blood pressure down, for sure.

The Gaza-based terrorist group Hamas killed more than a thousand innocent Israelis on 10-7-23, parading many of their dead bodies through the streets of Gaza where their “civilians” cheered as if they had just won the World Cup.

If that were all they did it would still be MORE than enough to demand a deadly counterstrike and other bold measures to weed out this medieval death cult.

I will not go into details here but there are copious first-hand accounts you can read on what happened that fateful day, and what has happened in the subsequent 15 months to those unfortunate enough to be taken captive. Or “arrested,” according to the Filthy Hamas Book of Euphemistic Definitions.”

In addition to violating every possible war crime, it violates any sane human being’s sense of dignity. I’m not sure if our language has a word that goes beyond “barbarism,” but that is the only word that could suffice.

The recent hostage exchange/cease fire deal STILL gave Hamas a chance to disabuse us of the notion that they were just a gaggle of terrorists who also happened to be the duly-elected leaders of Gazans. But to the surprise of very few, they did nothing but re-enforce the view.

Last week Hamas put on a public spectacle while releasing Eli Sharabi. A gaunt-looking Sharabi was forced to stand in front of two masked Hamas terrorists who were holding automatic weapons and forced to read a statement about how excited he was to be able to go home and see his wife and daughters. Then the gunmen laughed. That’s because no one had told Sharabi during his 15 months in captivity that they had killed his family and he had no one waiting for him at home.

It is doubtless this hope of seeing his family again gave Sharabi fuel to survive his ordeal. To take that away from him just before releasing him is a level of cruelty that simply cannot co-exist with decent humanity.

Hamas upped the theatrics earlier this week when they released the remains of four hostages they claim died in captivity. (See photo below) Spectator Columnist Steven Miller wryly called it, “Jewapalooza.” It was a f*cking party with hundreds of Palestinian “civilians” dancing and singing as four coffins were brought forth of a stage that featured a large backdrop image depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a demonic figure. Also, the coffins listed the “arrest dates” of the deceased.

After the party was over the remains were eventually turned over to Israel. And a funny thing happened during the autopsies. Doctors determined that 4-year-old Ariel Bibas and 10-month-old Kfir Bibas were not killed by an Israeli airstrike as claimed by Hamas, but were instead brutally beaten to death by terrorists during their first days of captivity in the Gaza Strip. It also showed there were efforts made to conceal that damage and replace it with other evidence more consistent with a “rocket attack.”

But it gets worse. Not included in the coffins was the body of Kfir and Ariel’s mother, Shira. Her DNA did not match that of the remains that were placed in her coffin. The remains appear to be those of a Palestinian Jane Doe.

In addition to being a flagrant violation of the agreement that began this latest round of activity, it is also just more gratuitous cruelty from a reprehensible gaggle of maggots. Those who love her will now be tortured wondering if she is still alive and is still suffering. Was she sold into slavery? Was her cause of death the type which could not be concealed from professional forensic scientists?

It is highly unlikely we will ever know.

I’m a tough old bird with 35 years in the news business. To last that long, you have to learn to keep information at arm’s length. You cannot let it crack your professional “personal space” and begin impacting you emotionally. I am saddened to say that I have been unable to do that this week. I am as angry as I have been in years. I am angry as I can possibly be when the subject is something I don’t personally know and love.

I do not arrive at this conclusion easily because I know what it means. I am endorsing the absolute annihilation and eradication of Hamas from the face of the Earth. A group so thoroughly and grossly evil cannot exist next to polite people. Occasionally, you have to cull the herd. This is one of those times.

I don’t say this with any glee. A workable peace would be a FAR better solution. But Hamas has offered no evidence that they are interested in (nor capable of) peace. Quite the opposite. Their very foundational charter explicitly calls for the elimination of the state of Israel.

How do you negotiate with people who deny your right to exist? The answer is, you don’t.

Hamas has been given every opportunity to demonstrate that they are more than just bloodthirsty barbarians…that they can lead a group of people into a new future. But they have failed every opportunity.

And yes, I realize the irony of my calling for their destruction while attacking them for wanting to do the same with Israel. Well, I don’t care. I did once. Now I don’t.

We have allowed these cockroaches to dictate the rules of engagement for more than a generation and they have proven to be nothing more than mendacious murderers. Even with all of the evil Hamas has exhibited, the IDF STILL went through remarkable efforts to try and keep civilians alive...even those civilians who were holding hostages and actively supporting terroristic activity. They see mercy as weakness, so I do not believe we should offer them any.

Again, this is NOT the conclusion I wanted to arrive at. I fancy myself a Christian of some sort and I honestly try to emulate Jesus. Some days I am successful but many days I am not. And yes…when I ask that essential question, “What Would Jesus Do,” I am pretty sure he would not come to the same conclusion I have.

I have no idea what this means for my mortal soul. That is WAY beyond my paygrade.

We can talk about Israel later. And yes, I am going to grant them a certain amount of grace because of the circumstances. We must always conduct introspection, lest we become the same monsters we are fighting. But that process cannot begin so long as Hamas exists.

Even positing a two-state solution in light of recent events should be enough to get the person suggesting it ignored and ejected from any bargaining table.

Once Hamas ceases to exist, then and ONLY then can we begin a sober look at Israel. Hamas’ continued existence is an affront to humans across the planet. And yes, I am going to take it one step further.

If the past 15 months has shown nothing else, it has shown that the concept of a “Palestinian Civilian” is largely a myth. How many hostages were held by “civilians?” How many “civilians” made damned sure they got out and cheered when the bodies were paraded around slowly in the backs of Toyota pickups? How many “civilian journalists” turned out to be de facto Hamas PR hacks?

That is why when the hard work of ending Hamas is done, those doing it cannot be too terribly concerned about “civilians.” That’s because, with the exception of the young children, there are none. Or at least there are not enough to justify the half-measures the world insists Israel take.

Good people have some grim work to do. And no one looks forward to it.

DEI is NOT one of those topics.

“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” as it is euphemistically named, is a worldview that replaces the basic tenets of “good and evil” with “oppressed and oppressor.” And EVERYONE is either one or the other. It replaces colorblindness with racial obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with demonization. Persuasion with shaming. The rule of law with mob rule.

In its most basic form, DEI links racism, race, and power into one entity. It sees this entity as omnipresent in all of western culture. It sees liberal democracies as forever stained with the original sin of slavery, and (therefore) in need of dismantling, not just repair. It views the very foundations of western thought like rationalism, constitutional law, and legal reasoning as evidence of racism. DEI thus became an academic's way of rationalizing and defending their OWN racism.

As Charles Cooke points out in National Review, “One can either have a legally color-blind society in which we are regarded as equal by the government, or one can have DEI, affirmative action, privilege hierarchies, and the rest. And, in America, it is the former course that is guaranteed.”

It is easy to see the appeal of a theory that touts “institutional” and “hidden” racism as the biggest contemporary issues. As overt racism became a thing of the past, DEI acolytes were left grasping for flimsy evidence. They achieved this either by expanding the definition of racism or by making outrageous statements to keep up their narrative of perpetual oppression.

The flurry of activity in Donald J. Trump’s first days of office included a spate of Executive Orders to weed out DEI at the federal level. To the President’s credit, the EOs do more than just say “DEI – Bad.” There is some specificity that attempts to strip even the residue of the ideology from all levels of the federal bureaucracy.

Specifically, it seeks to end the use of “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences”; to “terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements”; and to “enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws.”

Yes, there will be DEI wonks that are re-assigned to benign-sounding titles, but DEI is now dead as a foundational threat. And good riddance.

But there is more good news. Trump’s executive order also tells public education systems and institutions of higher education that if they don’t comply with the Supreme Court’s anti-affirmative action ruling from 2023, their federal funding could be stripped.

Of course, it was the ivy-covered halls of academia was where DEI found its first and full flowering. Those working at colleges and universities instantly understood that DEI requirements included the adoption and promotion of a set of political and social views. They also corrected assumed that in order to advance in their careers, they must demonstrate fealty to these vague and ever-expanding demands and to those people who support them. Failing to comply, or even expressing doubt or concern, was risking one’s career.

Far too often we heard the standard vacuous polysyllabic pablum used by these “learned” people in explaining and promoting DEI. It was akin to a secret handshake that allowed DEI professionals to identify each another. It is an insular language that confirms someone’s membership in a fetid, racist club.

The "diversity statements" implemented at college departments were nothing more than a secular Profession of Faith. An Apostle's Creed for mendacious and mediocre grifters.

In the inevitable contest between the amorphous tenets of DEI and a university’s commitment to free and open exchange of ideas under the aegis of longstanding academic codes of conduct, DEI won by a wide margin for well over a generation.

Of course it was really nothing new. The DEI framework has been used for decades to prey upon collective white guilt. It utilized a tragic bait-and-switch. White Americans who care about equality and justice were dragooned into advancing an illiberal agenda. If they questioned any part of it, they were told to, “check their privilege.” This usually cowed them into immediate obsequiousness. Because they are legitimately concerned with equality, the LAST thing they would want to do is be seen as a dreaded “oppressor.” No good person wants to be seen as a racist and many were willing to go the extra mile to make sure no one could hang such a disparaging sobriquet on them.

A dear friend of mine was human resources director with a mid-sized company in the late eighties. Two African-Americans had filed a discrimination claim against the firm. To put it charitably, their case was very thin.

Two weeks after the suits were filed, my friend got a call from a regional representative from Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. The caller assured my friend the suits would magically disappear if his company made a tax-free donation to the coalition. He did not. And both suits were laughed out of court.

But as colleges churned out DEI-tainted graduates, it’s filthy tenets began to seep into the world of private business. This may break the heart of the SJWs who worship at the DEI altar, but here is the ugly truth. Companies implemented DEI not to “heighten their collective consciousness.” Nor were they in place to educate or train the workforce. They were nothing more than a risk management tool to protect the company. When the inevitable lawsuit gets filed regardless of merits, the company could tell the jury about all the DEI steps it took. Paying “trainers” or “facilitators” was insurance against liability. That’s it.

Many employees saw right through it and all it produced was anger, resentment and drops in production and morale.

Well, now they don’t have to worry about that as much, thanks in part to this week’s executive orders. And this racist cottage industry is on the ropes.

• “DEI is multilevel marketing for angry little people with postgrad degrees.”
  ---Chuck Vipperman, 7-12-22

Of course the Government has little control over what private companies can do with regards to DEI…and I would have it no other way. But to the extent that they can discourage the practice, Trump is. His orders prohibit federal contractors from employing the poisonous tenets of DEI. If they do, fine…no more sweet Government contracts for you. That should end any debate.

The DEI Cult’s catechism is that treating people without regard to race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation, is wrong. They demand the dismantling old “systems of oppression” in the name of “equity”—or, equal outcomes. If that means discriminating in favor of protected classes, and against others, so be it. It’s a poisonous philosophy that flies in the face of our western concepts of freedom. It simply cannot co-exist.

Trump cannot lay sole claim to the metaphorical scalp of DEI. If there is a single person who can, it is Christopher Rufo. The freelance writer noticed the post-Floyd tidal wave in the summer of 2020. A lot of previously-laughable social engineering theories were suddenly becoming not only mainstream, but rapidly adopted.

Rufo was very upfront about his methods. In short, he took a page of the playbook that liberals had perfected generations ago. He sought to own the definition of DEI, to freeze it, to isolate it, and to villainize it. Sound familiar? That means you are familiar with Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

His original focus was on Critical Race Theory. That is a teaching pedagogy that incorporates the principles of DEI and transfers them into the classroom. Whereas DEI set guidelines for hiring and staffing, CRT did the same for teaching the nation’s children.

I have often wondered if there was no pandemic going on when George Floyd was killed, (Yes, he was killed. Don’t @ me) would concern over CRT ever have fully developed? It was remote learning that largely exposed it. Parents who were suddenly privy to more of their children’s schoolwork began noticing some very unsavory things being taught and discussed. This gave rise to a wave of concerned parents who went to their School Boards to demand answers. Suddenly, meetings attended only by a few staffers became full-scale battle royales with screaming, police arrests and more.

Rufo took notice of this and came to the same conclusion I did. CRT was bad. CRT was wrong. CRT could not continue. The battle naturally led him higher up the food chain to turn his sights on CRT’s mother---DEI.

It was bad enough for mid-level managers to have to endure meetings and training sessions where they were told to “diminish their whiteness.” It was another thing when similar slop was visited upon our children. Predictably, an Army of Mother (and Father) Bears formed and took on his philosophy head-on. Rufo gave the movement a good guide and moral clarity. He helped immensely.

In the intervening months we have seen all but the most liberal school districts jettison this philosophical poison. It even led, in my opinion, to the election of previously-unknown Glenn Youngkin as Governor of my home state of Virginia. Evidently Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe’s assertion that, “parents shouldn’t be telling schools what to teach,” was unpopular when the schools were choosing to teach envy and perpetual victimhood, masked as virtue.

Simply put, DEI is incompatible with our foundational principles of individualism, limited government, and liberal democracy. It creates indoctrinated adherents who can’t think --- only emote.

“Failure is never final,” the old saying goes. Well, neither is victory. It is clear that DEI’s threat as a baseline national social policy no longer exists. But so long as there are people and ideas who will benefit from being judged on immutable characteristics as opposed to merit, then there will always be efforts to utilize this poisonous philosophy.

So let’s be vigilant. But let’s also not forget to give ourselves a well-deserved pat on the back and to pour out a 40. This dragon has been slain.

Monday morning featured a couple of news items that warmed my bones as Southside Virginia deals with about an inch of snow…something uncommon but not unheard of in these parts.

My trusty desktop booted up with popup news flashes about Justin Trudeau resigning as PM of Canada. A secondary popup told me that Congress had certified the November Presidential Election with none other than Kamala Harris presiding over the session.

It’s midday but I feel like having a Hoyo de Monterrey cigar and a sip of Knob’s Creek bourbon.

Trudeau was/is the epitome of the contemporary leftist/socialist preening prick. This smiling, smarmy arsewipe cemented his legacy two years ago with the way he dealt with fellow countrymen who had the temerity to protest his wonderful policies.

Trudeau did not bother to merely oppose the truckers who opposed his draconian COVID policies. No. He also actively dehumanized them. He called them every filthy name in the book while avoid having to sully his sterling reputation by actually, you know, talking with Canadian citizens with whom he disagrees.

His ire was not constrained to the protestors. He brought his petulant name-calling to the floor of the House of Commons when he chided a representative who supported the Convoy by assuring the Jewish lawmaker that by supporting the convoy she was also supporting "Swastikas" and "Nazis." That's because a few bad flags had been seen amongst the tens of thousands of people. Seriously, he said that.

Evidently being progressive human excrement involves a lot of “blood libel” accusations against Jewish people.

The same preening weenie who literally took a knee and prostrated himself before protestors he liked in the summer of 2020 (George Floyd), immediately morphed into the totalitarian monster he is when the protestors’ views were at odds with his.

It wasn’t enough that he opposed the truckers and demonized them. He also froze their bank accounts and made them financial non-entities. He treated them worse than Canada treats convicted murderers and rapists…all because they defied President Weenie Boy.

Trudeau’s pathetic posturing continued well after COVID was relegated to page two news. Like so many in the US, this son of a bitch tried to convince people that he did not do the things people were protesting. In his own words, he just used “incentives” to convince people to take the COVID vax. Of course, if you didn’t comply with his “incentives,” you faced government-imposed sanctions. So it wasn’t technically “force.” It was just, you know, “incentives.” Like, Tony Soprano offered “incentives” to “encourage” convenience store owners to do certain things.

• “If anyone doesn’t have a legitimate medical reason for not getting fully vaccinated — or chooses to not get vaccinated — there will be consequences” Trudeau, 8/17/21

Of course, his heavy-handed way of dealing with the truck convey was merely a part of the total shit package that is Trudeau. His statement on the death of Cuban President Fidel Castro was a perfect example of leftist apologists who revere Communistic Dictators, but spew venom at domestic opponents who disagree with them. If I wanted to parody the modern-day left, I'm not sure I could have done a better job.

• “It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President. Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century.”

A larger-than-life leader? Yea…most dictators are. Mostly because they must run the lives of so many to be a dictator. It is also interesting that Trudeau noted that Castro “served” his people for a half-century. Funny. It sure as hell appears to me that the exact opposite was true.

• “A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.”

I will stop short of invoking Godwin’s law here and simply note that history is littered with revolutionary orators who were very bad people. As for improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation. Wow. This is undoubtedly why people from across the globe flock to Cuban Universities and Medical Schools to earn degrees that are unrivaled worldwide.

• “While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “El Comandante”.

A controversial figure. Yes. Much like Pol Pot was controversial. Stalin was also controversial. And Castro had a curious way of expressing love and dedication to the Cuban people---what with the murders, secret police, dissident jailings and other massive human rights violation. Other than that, he loved them, I tell ya!

Trudeau was the walking talking embodiment of the smug, flippant, maliciously cowardly liberal who is so utterly convinced of their righteousness that they avoid all debate and contemplation about their ideas and ideals.

To hell with him.

This man was absolutely political and social poison four years ago.  Today, he is President-Elect of the United States of America.  Only Lazarus’ comeback was more impressive.

I have made my disdain for Trump clear here and in other forums.  But unlike most of the people who didn’t vote for him, I don’t see him as a Nazi/Antichrist/Devil. I see him for what he is.  A loudmouth with poor leadership skills but some decent-enough ideas for what makes America unique and worth saving.

I think I am safe in saying that this political comeback had less to do with Trump’s savvy and more to do with the toxic dunderheads who opposed him.  I pray that God gives me enemies as stupid as the ones who have battled Trump.

Four years ago, following the chaos of COVID, voters decided that a way-past-his prime political warhorse was a safe alternative to the mercurial Trump. And so it was that retread Joe Biden bumbled his way into the White House, practically running an entire campaign from a Delaware basement.  He beat a motley crew of woke and weird Democratic challengers and emerged as the most-palatable alternative to Trump at a time when America was craving a bit of normalcy.

But there was something missing.  Biden’s consciousness.  It became obvious to the large percentage of American adults who have witnessed elderly loved ones decline in their later years. The Emperor had taken off clothes.  Biden’s brain was past its expiration date.  And it was NOT going to get better.

The mainstream media dutifully covered for their favored politician for the past three-and-a-half years. They had not been this incurious about White House affairs since, well, the last time one of their favored politicians served as Commander-in-Chief. Stories about President Joe Biden’s lack of sharpness were relegated to right-wing media.  That was purposeful.  If the sanctified mainstream media ignored something and you could only find it on Daily Wire or The Blaze; then the haughty denizens of the Mainstream Media could cavalierly dismiss the information as “right-wing propaganda.” Anytime there was a video of their hero wandering off and shaking the hands of invisible people, they immediately picked up the “deep fake” talking points that their Democratic masters issued to them and dutifully disseminated them with an impressive mixture of ferocity and discipline.

Then the debate happened and they could no longer carry the water. The media turned faster than a WWE heel and worked 24/7 with top Democratic brass to get Biden ousted from the race.  It was a furious three-week blitz of leaks, off-the-record and deep background sourcing and uneven presentation.  It was Watergate 2024.  Reporters who had been running cover for the White House, wholly incurious about Executive Branch affairs since January of 2021, turned into rabid journalistic animals---spitting out deep background information like it was 1974.

Of course, they then pointed to this sudden focus on Biden’s mental health as evidence that they were unbiased all along.  I offer no hosannas to the mainstream media for doing their job for three weeks.  That’s because they acted, as usual, entirely out of their own self-interest.  They didn’t pursue truth for the sake of truth.  They pursued truth because it was the best way to make sure their favored candidate wins in November. If that goal could have been attained by maintaining their Obama-era levels of incuriousness, they would have done so.

Predictably, once Biden dropped out, the media stopped covering his cognitive health as it pertained to his abilities to carry out the functions of a pretty important job for the next six months. The subject that dominated news coverage for weeks suddenly was no longer a story, even though the subject was still gainfully employed as leader of the Free World.

That is when they embarked on one of the most nakedly partisan full court press efforts the media has ever attempted.  Even editors of Pravda were likely uncomfortable with the obvious cheerleading undertaken by our “unbiased” press.

For the following six weeks, the press’ “coverage” of Kamala Harris made softball look like roller derby. We saw deep dives into her cooking skills, conversations with Girl Scouts and a number of other non-controversial settings. After the nomination came the coronation at the Democratic National Convention. Kamala waited two months before she faced a single hostile question from a reporter.  The press was so far in the bag for Harris, and so universally repulsed by the prospect of a second Trump presidency, that they were gladly accepting the role of “side chick.”

Who could blame Harris?  She got six weeks of the most laudatory press coverage any Presidential candidate has ever received.  Why in the world would she want to risk anything by answering pesky questions?

Well, she did.  And it bore out what we knew all along.  She was a boring sub-mediocrity who was playing a part.  She was an avatar.  A symbol.  A marketing creation.  She had no political skills, no PR acumen and no ability to be anything other than an awkward billboard. The qualities that sunk her as a candidate in 2020, like having the charisma of a turnip, sunk her again in 2024 when she concluded that she was not going to be able to surf the “Joy Waves” long enough to last to the General Election.

The selection of Fey Weirdo Tim Walz as a running mate was just one of many horrible decisions her handlers made.  And they have their own anti-semitism to blame.  They were wary about having someone as “Jewish” as Josh Shapiro on the ticket.  Never mind that he is the popular Governor of a crucial swing state that Harris HAD to have in order to win the election.  No.  He was a Jew who actually did Jew-y things.  And that would be at odds with the filthy maggot Palestinian protest wing of the Democratic Party.

Of course, that bloc eventually turned on Harris anyway.  They’re flighty, those smelly terrorist-lovers.

Harris the 2024 candidate could never quite reconcile with Harris the 2019 candidate.  It was an amazing thing to witness as she tried to shed everything she said a mere five years ago. She pledged to sign the Green New Deal. She talked up radical bail reform. She encouraged donations to a bail-reform group that released violent criminals, including sex offenders, back onto the streets. She entertained the idea of restoring voting rights even to confined terrorists. She refused to rule out packing the Supreme Court. She wanted to defund the police. She announced her pronouns.  She was committed to every fashionable left-wing cause in a brief era of left-wing hysteria.  Of course, Harris dropped out of the 2020 Democratic Presidential race before a single vote could be cast in a primary.

But her dutiful stenographers in the mainstream media were more than willing to try and gaslight the public that this career California progressive had somehow (very quietly) transformed into a moderate Blue Dog Democrat over the past four years.  A CNN reporter insisted that Biden NEVER announced he was looking for a minority female when considering his VP pick in 2020.  Never mind that we all heard it and called it a dumb move.  No, now that this information could negatively affect their preferred candidate, the media insisted it never happened.

We also saw Axios swear up and down that Kamala Harris was NEVER appointed “Border Czar” by President Biden.  Sure, she was given the lead role on border issues and migration…but totally NOT a “Czar.

GovTrack went so far as to stealth-edit a 2019 report they did, based on votes, which concluded that Kamala Harris’ was “the most liberal Senator.”  They just waved their magic wands and made it disappear.

“Gaslighting” doesn’t even begin to adequate describe historic revision this brazen, this in-your-face. It was fascinating to watch, but ultimately it was repugnant.

Turns out we were right when we said she’s an empty-vessel opportunist who will adopt whatever positions are convenient to her at any given moment.

The bottom line was obvious from the get-go.  Harris was/is/always will be a deep blue California progressive.  She is hostile to American ideals of color-blindness and equality of opportunity, favoring instead the poisonous concept of “equity” that means achieving equal outcomes, as she herself has repeatedly put it.

Of course she’s a devotee of the 1619 Project, which trashes the history of the country she wanted to lead; and a fan of its architect, the odious Nikole Hannah-Jones.

She endorsed the divisive, unworkable, and unjust concept of reparations, although she was predictably vague about what it would entail.

She bragged about having ensured access to gender-reassignment surgery for California prisoners when she was the state’s attorney general, and she was an undisguised extremist on abortion.

The only notable policy proposals she made (“I have a plan for that” is NOT a policy proposal) were either ripped off from Trump (no tax on tips) or straight out of the Soviet Union (price controls on food).  Oh yeah, there was the brilliant proposal to add $25,000 to the value of every house in the U.S. by offering a $25,000 credit to first-time homebuyers.  A freshman ECON major could eviscerate this idea after a six-pack.

I wrote several months ago that the election was looking more and more like a referendum on Woke, for better or for worse. Harris exemplifies so many of the things we associate with “Woke.” Remember the "Drag queens for Kamala" promo video? Hell, she announced her candidacy on Rupaul's show. She checked all of the intersectionality boxes. She consistently touted far-left positions. There is not a “woke view” that she had not adopted or conspicuously supported. From Affirmative Action to DEI to CRT to defunding police to supporting BLM rioters.

Harris was *literally* the DEI candidate.  The primary reason she was a major-party Presidential candidate was her melanin content and her chromosomal arrangement. If you don’t like that, blame President Biden.  He was very forthright about favoring a minority female for his running mate in 2020.  Don’t like being called the DEI candidate?  Then don’t make it patently obvious that gender and skin color were prominent factors that led to your advancement.

The Democratic Party, the Media, Academia, Hollywood and the other usual suspects so desperately wanted a female Obama. Instead they got a B-list actress who could do little more than memorize a few spoon-fed lines and regurgitate them like so much pablum.  She looked and sounded like the well-programmed product of a Madison Avenue marketing campaign, a mile wide and an inch deep. And many voters saw right through it.

She was so awful that enough people decided a loudmouthed, uncouth con artist who is an actual convicted felon and who (in my opinion) encouraged supporters to physically-thwart a Constitutionally-mandated activity on 1-6-21 was the better choice of the two.  Think about that.  You have four years to marinate in that stew.

All of this could have been avoided if enough Democrats had convinced Biden two years ago that one term was plenty.  But no.  Pride proceeds a fall.  They tried Ridin’ with Biden until the engineer could no longer keep the train on the tracks.  And they were forced to turn the controls over to a never-will-be-ready-for-prime-time cipher.

I didn’t vote for Trump and neither like nor respect him. I have some policy agreements, but I think he brings the worst leadership qualities the office has ever seen.  But his win is making the our WORST people miserable.  And I am having a Schaudenboner.

The problem with Pete Rose is…I want to come to a different conclusion than I do.  In a sport full of tragic heroes, Pete’s tale remains one of the hardest to reconcile.  The good and the bad are vast and obvious.

There was so much to admire.  Through sheer determination and grit, a man of very average athletic ability was able to practically WILL himself to be a star baseball player. He had little power and no real speed. But he had a commitment to the craft of baseball that was unrivaled.  He once said, “I’d walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball.”  And no one doubted him for a second. In an era where players were sometimes seen as pampered and aloof, no one doubted Rose’s passion for playing a little boy’s game at full tilt.

This iconic photo tells the entire story of Rose. Yes, his vanity led to face-first slides (He once said the newspapers LOVED to snap that kind of picture), but he also did it because he felt it made him get to base faster.  Anything for an edge. That was Pete Rose.

One of the more remarkable traits of Rose’s career was his versatility.  He is the ONLY major league player to play more than 500 games at four different positions (OF/2B/3B/1B). And he was an all-star at all four!  He won a World Series at two of the four positions! His versatility allowed the Reds to work in some great bats (Tony Perez, George Foster) who might have otherwise struggled to get plate appearances in the days before the DH.  His move to third base to clear the way for Foster created the 75 and 76 Reds, two of the best teams in baseball history.

Equally remarkable was his longevity. Despite putting it through abuse, he took care of his body enough to be an effective singles hitter well into his forties.  His 4,256 MLB base hits will be hard to top.  Yes, Ichiro had more professional hits…but if you include Pete’s two years in the minors (which is also professional baseball) then Rose comes out on top again.

To a young man who grew up baseball crazy in the seventies, Rose was a superstar. He wasn’t the best hitter, was a below average baserunner and hit few homers.  But he was pure fucking *baseball.*  He found a way to win most every time.  His 44-game hitting streak in 1978 was some of the most exciting baseball of that generation.

But he bet on baseball.

In an era where everybody and their brother has a Draft Kings or FanDuel account and can quote you the latest point spread on every game on the schedule, this doesn’t seem like a very remarkable thing.  Well, it is.

Regardless of whether your realize it, one of the biggest parts you enjoy with any sporting event is the ultimate unpredictability of it.  It is unscripted.  You may THINK you know how a game will go…but you do not.  No one does.  It is being determined by a billion variables over which you have ZERO control.  That’s a key component of the excitement.  The outcome has not been pre-determined by a team of writers, massaged through a team of marketers.

Under-girding this lovely unpredictability is “integrity.”  In order to get the maximum impact from a sporting event, one must have faith that everyone involved in the drama is trying to do their absolute best. Where that is absent, there is no “competition.”  Then it becomes professional wrestling. Or, worse yet, politics.

Major League Baseball almost died three separate times in the 19^th century because of ubiquitous gambling.  It nearly died after a “fixed” World Series in 1919.  That is not surprising. Spectators wagering on outcomes is one thing.  But when the participants are involved, then there is no “integrity.”  And thus, no drama.  Without drama, what you are watching is glorified calisthenics.

Because of this, Major League Baseball spent decades drilling into players’ and officials’ heads that gambling was a no-no.  It was written into every Major League contract.  Signs were posted everywhere in Major League clubhouses.  Teams and management attended seminars each year reminding them of this.

Even with this constant drumbeat warning about the dangers of wagering, Pete Rose made the conscious decision to ignore it. There is no dispute that he bet on baseball games involving the Cincinnati Reds, the team he managed, between 1986 and 1988.  That he always bet on his team to win makes no difference.

Rose *voluntarily* accepted a lifetime ban because he knew the evidence that he gambled on games was overwhelming. And yes, that ban includes Hall of Fame membership. 

And to be brutally honest, Rose behaved like a dick for many years after his suspension.  On several occasions he scheduled signing events near the Hall of Fame during induction week to make sure that he was able to make his case to TV cameras.  For the longest time, he actually denied doing the very thing to which he admitted.

I will stipulate that Rose, evidently, came to regret his actions.  For that, I applaud him.  It was a long and arduous journey I’m sure. And certainly it was better late than never.

Rose’s hit record still stands, as it should. His name and numbers are forever etched into baseball history, along with his World Championships. He is part of the essential fabric of our national pastime.  He will NEVER be forgotten.

But he bet on baseball.  And that should also never be forgotten.

I take zero pleasure in Rose not being in the Hall of Fame. But it seems to me to be an adequate sanction for violating baseball’s Cardinal Rule.

Harris has been a major-party nominee for well over a month and has given NO press conferences, no challenging interviews, answered no adversarial questions...nothing. Her policy "announcements" are given by surrogates, or leaked by friendly anonymous sources to their willing stenographers in the mainstream press.

Even her website is short on policies. But it DOES feature 9 different gender options you can choose from. (See below, courtesy New York Post)

It doesn't take a political expert to ascertain Kamala Harris' politics. It is the same as she has had the past 35 years. She did not quickly transmogrify into a blue-dog Democrat over the past month. Not a chance in hell. She was/is/always will be a coastal progressive. Period. That is hardly surprising since she rose through the political ranks in what is most certainly America's most liberal metropolitan area. She could not have won anything in San Fransisco without being quite progressive.

But I find it insulting that not only is she trying to convince me she has had a political epiphany over the past few weeks that would rival The Grinch’s in sheer magnitude, but also that she is using other people to communicate this modern miracle without saying a single Goddamned word on her own.

This is like a high-stakes troll campaign. It is an experiment to see just how far a candidate can ride another candidate's vast unpopularity. It is a thought experiment that is trying to determine if enough people will vote for the equivalent of a cardboard cutout if the other option is seen as sufficiently gross.

The sad part is, it may very well work. It may be that in a few months we will be swearing in a candidate who has said next-to-nothing about their political goals and priorities, running on a campaign that is no deeper than, "I'm not him." Of course, we will assuage ourselves with the knowledge that the culinary preferences of our new Commander-In-Chief are well-known.

The kicker is that each side had a chance to nominate a halfway-reasonable candidate and they would be mopping the floor with the other one right now. Candidate D. Normie would be a welcome contrast to Trump’s bluster and bombast, while candidate R. Normie would be a refreshing alternative to a cackling progressive who cannot be bothered with boring stuff like answering questions from the plebes.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I can't stand Trump and will most certainly not be voting for him. For the third straight cycle all Democrats had to do to get my support was to nominate a candidate slightly less loathsome than Trump. And once again, they have failed. That is the equivalent of missing a four-inch putt. On three consecutive occassions!

I won't jump on the hyperbole train and claim that either nominee will auger the end of the Republic. But neither of them will make the Republic a stronger, better place either. We will be worse off no matter who is taking the oath on January 20th.

This morning, news outlets began reporting that Kamala Harris had selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate. Evidently the choice came down to Walz or Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

Walz is perfect for the Democrats. He espouses every last modern-day iteration of "wokeness" in terms of policies. But he tries to present himself as an "Aw Shucks" moderate.

Well, if Harris is going to win this election she will have to convince a sizeable number of people that the Democratic ticket is not off-the-rails progressive. That is a problem when you have a Presidential candidate who campaign on such a platform in 2020, and a Vice-Presidential candidate who had codified such ideas into law the past few years.

So whaddya do? You deploy your psyops team, also known as the Mainstream Media. The talking points were issued this morning, and the reliable information nodes are dutifully distributing it with an impressive amount of ferocity and discipline. Just like they always do.

There are dozens more examples today of "journalists" utilizing "folksy," or some permutation of the word. Pictured here are just a few.

We don't have "news" any longer, people. We have entertainment entities that serve up emotional comfort food for their intended audience. They also follow orders and act as a de facto PR arm of a major political party.

I will continue to point this out so long as they continue to claim to be neutral arbiters of truth. Doesn't look that that is going to stop anytime soon.