Top 5 Stones Songs

In response to a friendly challenge to list my top five Rolling Stones songs (up through the album Some Girls (1978), I had to resort to extreme measures to get it done. Mainly this involved creating what I called a "megahit omnibus" to take the top spot. These are the major rock hits that the group is famous for, to wit:

1. "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" (1965)
2. "Honky Tonk Woman" (1965)
3. "Street Fighting Man" (1968)
4. "Jumpin' Jack Flash" (1968)
5. "Gimme Shelter" (1968)
6. "Midnight Rambler" (1970)
7. "Brown Sugar" (1971)

These lucky seven songs clogged up my works because:

1. Uniqueness: no rock group has ever put out a list of massive power songs of this size.
2. Indiscernibility: my inability to discern quality differences between these songs.
3. Dominance: these songs are so huge I would be unable to get to all the rest of the great things the group did.

On this basis, I argued that I would make my number one choice this megahit omnibus* (essentially a seven-way tie). So, my list went as:

1. Megahit Omnibus (1965-71)
2. "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (1969)
3. "Wild Horses" (1971)
4. "Angie" (1973)
5. "Faraway Eyes" (1978)

HONORABLE MENTION: "Out of Time" (1966)

COVER: "Love In Vain" by Robert Johnson (1969)

BONUS TRACKS: "Time Is On My Side" (1964); "Something Happened to Me Yesterday" (1967)

PRO TIPS: "Waiting on a Friend" (released in 1981; started in 1972) and "Start Me Up" (1978/1971)

All in all, I included 17 songs when the challenge was to limit it to five. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

---

*granted absolution upfront for my dalliance, I was later chided as not having really completed the assignment at all (imagine that).

Remarkable "Garden"

Johnny Mercer tunes aptly serenade the remarkable 1997 film Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, and not just because the murder at the core of the actual story occurred in the Mercer Savannah homestead. Mercer's beautiful antebellum town with its amazing characters also provide the springboard for this movie. 

The Deep South setting makes it truly remarkable that:

1. A Californian, directed it.
2. His daughter, born in Santa Monica, plays the love interest.
3. Some guy from New Jersey delivers the perfect Southern gentleman.
4. An Aussie creates an exceptional Southern lawyer.
5. A refined Brit makes a freaky Southern redneck.

Where Clint Eastwood got his sense of the South and its manners, outside of his many roles in Westerns, is anybody's guess. This film may show his true talents lie in directing.

Kevin Spacey was born to play Jim Williams. He was also born in New Jersey. How does a New Jerseyan play a Southerner to such perfection?* Maybe his roommate at Northridge Military Academy was from the South. Or the Julliard School really is worth the money.

Jack Thompson deserved an Academy Award for playing Southern lawyer, Sonny Seiler — and he's Australian. Remarkable.**

The actual "lady" who stole the book still steals the movie.

Casting real-live people as themselves in motion pictures, no matter how talented, can be a little risky. But not every real-live person has the talents of The Lady Chablis. She steals the movie in her very first film role.*** Truly remarkable.

Dorothy Loudon as the dotty Serena Dawes and Michael Rosenbaum testifying as George Tucker remarkably prove the old adage that there's no such thing as a small part in acting.****

And Irma P. Hall as Minerva is a piece of cinema history.

These actors, delivering themselves or carefully-developed characters for us to enjoy, largely serve as set pieces for one of the most remarkable courtroom scenarios in American cinematic history — somehow a cross between To Kill a Mockingbird and My Cousin Vinny. 

The most remarkable thing about this remarkable film is how it survived its lead actor doing his best to single-handedly destroy it. Mr. Cusack was making another movie, apparently, while repeatedly rolling his eyes upward like a nervous tic. As one of four films he made in 1997, maybe he just didn't have time or inclination to prepare like the other actors did, deciding rather to wing it. 

With this super-talented, prepared crowd — giving us an acting seminar on the screen — that seems a poor choice indeed.

Stand With the Generals

Two of the greatest army generals the world has ever known had faults. They also had great strengths, or we wouldn't have a country — or a university that means so much to so many.

A university is about learning, and it's about teaching values. Changing the name of Washington & Lee University would create a new school, based on different values than those the two eponymous generals imparted long ago, e.g.:

• Courage
• Wisdom
• Steadfastness
• Generosity
• Loyalty
• Fidelity

What would be the new values?

A new school built on yielding in the face of adversity, giving in to the heat of battle, and selling out friends cannot stand long. Appeasing the mob now makes not a firm foundation for the future. Placing popularity over reality and prioritizing the immediate over the timeless are foundational values doomed to fail.

The mob is never satisfied; it cannot be appeased.

Offer up Robert E. Lee today and the mob will come for George Washington tomorrow. One day the mob may even come for you. What will be your defense if you yield this time?

Stand with the generals and save the school. Stand with the generals to learn an practice the values they imparted. Stand fast, hold that line. Only in this way will the core values the assure a brave future for the school we love hold.

Prophets or Charlatans

The following of "prophets" for political news and predictions is new to me. My friend Tom says it all started in 1999. Another friend, Jim, has being doing it since 1993.

Prophets to me are out of the Bible, or maybe ancient history; certainly not a real part of contemporary politics. But we are in "unprecedented times", or so they say, so maybe we need them to make sense of things. 

What is a prophet

The Merriam-Webster definition leaves a bit more room for consideration:

prophet noun

1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations: such as

a) often capitalized: the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible

b) capitalized: one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will.

2: one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight, especially: an inspired poet

3: one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR

4: an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group

(As a poet, of course, I'm tempted to apply definition #2 to myself.)

Other than definitions #2-4, one does not simply declare himself to be a Prophet in the capitalized sense. But that's what this new crop of political prognosticators seems to be doing. Color me dubious.

Close to home, we have a certain Kevin Hoyt of Bennington, Vermont who has been putting videos out predicting the course of future political events as relates to Donald Trump retaining power. In one he declares "the raid" has happened, putting 100 prominent Democrats in handcuffs, including the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo, and Chuck Schumer. His source, he claims, was deep within British MI6. Does anyone really believe that, I asked Tom and Jim. No, of course not. And yet the videos keep getting sent around, especially by a third friend, Victor, who seems really taken in by all this. 

Then there's Bo Polney, disgraced predictor of gold prices, now resurrected as cryptocurrency salesman. Ten seconds of audio-only sampling of a video Tom relayed and I knew he was a charlatan. Asked point-blank by the interviewer if he still stood by his prediction that Donald Trump would remain in power he replied that to change one's mind was akin to going over to the dark side. His prophetic, God-based, biblical time read tells him Trump has a seven-year window in the light and that's that.

False prophets

Yet another friend, Donna, states a true Prophet must be right every time or he loses the much-vaunted designation. Applying such a seemingly common sense stricture to this crop of political prognosticators suggests that few of them fill the bill. In fact, if none of this comes to pass regarding Trump remaining in or returning to power, they must be regarded as false prophets indeed.

Hopes have been re-pinned on a March-April window for something happening, perhaps supernatural, to restore The Donald to the White House. I post this here as fair marker in advance of this new deadline so as to say, in my own way, "your prophecies must come true or you cease to be prophets."

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Much of interest stands out when pondering America's Most Misspelled Words state map of 2018 from Google Trends. Consider the states whose residents cannot spell "beautiful" without a Google search:

1. Arizona
2. Arkansas
3. California
4. Colorado
5. Illinois
6. Indiana
7. Massachusetts
8. North Carolina
9. Virginia
10. Washington
11. Wisconsin

Are these Google searchers seeking terms to describe their surroundings, attract a mate, or describe an automobile?

It should not surprise that people from Connecticut don't know how to spell "sincerely" — or that West Virginians stumble on "apparel". Even knowing the ingenuity of Vermonters, one might worry about their inability to spell "solution". 

While Kentuckians are trying to figure out what a "schedule" is, the nouveau riche in Florida struggle to spell "hors d'oeuvres". 

• Why should Maine-iacs desire to spell "Connecticut" so often? 
• Why would the people of landlocked North Dakota wish to buy a "yacht"?

Most interesting of all, perhaps, is why the people of Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas are suddenly so interested in spelling a word "first attested" in the 1940s.* According to the film that popularized the term, Disney's 1964 Mary Poppins, it is "something to say when you have nothing to say."

Perhaps that solves the mystery. 

SEE ALSO: 'Resume,' 'Beautiful' and 'Fiancé': The Hardest Words for Americans to Spell by Each State

---

*Oxford English Dictionary

Measuring Climate Thoughout the Biosphere

The biosphere (or ecosphere) — which measures about 12 miles from top to bottom — represents the sum of all the Earth's ecosystems operating in the atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water), and lithosphere (earth) physical dimensions of the planet. The biosphere has existed for about 3.5 billion years.

Creating a comprehensive energy-in/energy-out model for properly measuring climate change involves temperature monitoring and weather activity/event monitoring in every area of these dimensions.

Related questions to climate scientists, therefore, include:

Lithosphere (earth)

Given that:

• 95% of the world’s population is concentrated in just 10% of the land surface*
• half the planet's population lives on just 1% of the land
• half of the world's population lives in urban areas**

Questions:

1. How are we capturing temperature data from less- or unpopulated areas of the Earth?
2. How are we accounting for the effect of human activity — e.g., heat captured by buildings and pavement, incineration gases, pollution, etc. — when monitoring temperatures in populated areas?
3. How are we monitoring temperature in higher ranges (mountains), in deserts, and in other difficult terrains, i.e., Antarctica?
4. How far down into the earth (crust) are we taking temperature readings?
5. How are we monitoring and factoring in the energy of tectonic movement, earthquakes, etc.?
6. How is the energy/heat of volcanic eruption accounted for?
7. How is the energy in the Earth's "core" factored in?

Hydrosphere (water)

Given that oceans:

• cover approximately 71% of Earth's surface
• comprise 90% of Earth's biosphere
• are less than 5% explored
• have total volume of approximately 320 million cubic miles
• have an average depth of nearly 2.3 miles

Questions:

1. How are we capturing temperature data from the unexplored 95% of the world's oceans?
2. How are we monitoring temperature in lower levels of the world's oceans (down several miles) and in the coldest areas, i.e., the Artic and Antarctic regions?
3. How are we capturing the energy of water and wave movement in the world's oceans?

Outside of oceans . .

1. How are we measuring the temperature of freshwater bodies, e.g., lakes, rivers, ponds, creeks, etc., around the world?
2. How are we capturing the energy of water and wave movement in freshwater bodies around the world?

Atmosphere (air)

Given the Earth's atmosphere consists of a . .

• number of layers that differ in properties such as composition, temperature, and pressure — each of the layers having a different lapse rate, which defines the rate of change in temperature with height — e.g.
• troposphere (up to 11 miles high) is the lowest layer, where three-quarters of the atmosphere's mass resides and the layer within which terrestrial weather develops
• stratosphere (up to 22 miles) contains the ozone layer and is where most of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun is absorbed
• mesosphere (up to 53 miles) is the layer where most meteors burn up
• thermosphere (up to 430 miles) contains the ionosphere region where the atmosphere is ionized by incoming solar radiation

Questions:

1. How are we capturing temperature data from each of these levels of the Earth's atmosphere?
2. How are we capturing the energy received, released, or deflected with events, activities, and movement in these levels of the Earth's atmosphere?

And finally . .

1. how are all of these temperature readings being combined to create a worldwide average temperature?
2. how are all the world's weather and other events that involve energy in the three biosphere dimensions being factored into this average?
3. how are the energy and movement related to the rotation of the Earth, and their impact on climate, factored into this analysis?

---

*from a 2009 European Commission Joint Research Center map in World Bank World Development report.
**from a map was created using gridded population data compiled by NASA.

On a System to Measure Climate Change

H₀: Human-generated C02 causes significant climate change.

We are unlikely ever to test such a scientific hypothesis properly. An effective, comprehensive biosphere energy-in-energy-out model would require substantial scientific understanding we do not currently possess. The timeline for measuring climate change is itself measured in billions of years and human activity that might affect it is only a minuscule portion of that — and the very tail end. 

But, we might still wish to develop a system for measuring climate change, and how rapidly it seems to be progressing toward some unliveable zone, to alert the citizens of the world to related danger.

Or, we might wish to develop a system for measuring climate change simply to counteract persistent efforts to connect human activity to dangerous change — with related efforts to control human behavior and economic activity — with the purported aim to save the world and its inhabitants from climate catastrophe.

Without such a system, which establishes an agreed protocol with governments and NGOs worldwide to . .

1. put climate activity today in historical perspective with earth's experience millions and billions of years back.
2. provide for consistent and even measurement of all relevant levels of the atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water), and lithosphere (earth).

. . predictions of future catastrophe not based in any sort of scientific reality spin hysteria on conjecture founded only in speculation — becoming an out-of-control catastrophe-spinning machine which has no way of being reeled back in.

To this end, one of two outcomes of investing the time and money in developing such a system might suffice:

1. debunking the purported between human activity and climate change, or at least
2. defusing the related catastrophizing

It would likely be far less expensive than the alternative: massive governmental intervention in our lives and economic activity. Or transplanting ourselves to another planet.

We might also develop a better understanding of how natural events affect climate — volcano eruptions and "volcanic winter", for example — and how we might apply developing technology to mitigate their effect.


SEE ALSO:

• "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics" by Joe Weisenthal; Business Insider, July 30, 2009.
• "Understanding the Global Warming Debate" by Warren Meyer; Forbes, February 9, 2012.
• Global Warming, Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD. blog.
• "Denying the Catastrophe: The Science of the Climate Skeptic's Position" by Warren Meyer; Forbes, October 15, 2010.

Justified Idiocy

Amidst all the writing, acting, and directing brilliance on display in the FX series Justified (2010-2015) lies a considerable amount of idiocy.

The entire show might be regarded as nothing more than a vehicle for delivering violence — including creative forms of torture — to the screen, so much so it seems like a fetish of the writers. 

The endless standoffs, like something out of a cheap Western, are made no better by the silly patter — generally enumerating alternatives for how things will turn out depending on what the bad guys do.

As Eli Wallach's character Tuco classically said in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (1966), "When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."

Precisely.

But far and away the worst idiocy of the Justified series is the main purpose of so many of these standoffs: trying to determine where somebody is. 

1. Isn't it the job of the U.S. Marshal Service to find people? to always know where they are?
2. What about using tracking technology — e.g., GPS, smartphones, other devices.
3. How does anyone know where another person is without following or tracking him?

As the always interesting Wynn Duffy says at one point, when somebody accuses him of giving a false location for somebody else, "I told you where I saw him last, not where he is now."

Exactly.

But then, if the good guys only spent as much time tailing and locating evildoers themselves, we wouldn't have so many intensely fascinating standoffs.

Nature Rears Her Head

Helen Fisher, PhD

Biological anthropologist, Helen Fisher, appearing on Krista Tippett's On Being show —available as a podcast, but broadcast this morning over Vermont Public Radio — certainly felt like a setup for the standard "man-bad/woman-good" narrative of most every program put out over NPR airwaves.

But biology was given us by Nature, and anthropologists are trained to study human behavior as it is — not as women might have it be. So even a female guest being prompted by a female host to agree that all the problems of modern mating fall to the failings of the men, Nature comes to the rescue.

Fisher's professional bent in life . .

1. starting as a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, and
2. now a Senior Research Fellow at The Kinsey Institute, and
3. a Member of the Center for Human Evolutionary Studies in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University

. . and all of her other observations of Life along the way just would not let her veer too far from the realities of Nature.

Tippett, whose show promises "a new discovery about the immensity of our lives" each week, reveals that as a woman in her 50s, surrounded by so many wonderful single women, she just can't find men who match up. 

Proclaiming herself to be a big supporter of men, Fisher retorts that when she hears young, professional women say essentially the same thing as Tippett, she tells them that they're picky. She assures the show host, and the female audience, that there are as many amazing men out there as women.

We don't understand men, Fisher says. While we've spent decades trying to understand women, we've spent almost no time at all trying to understand men. Men are just as romantic, she says, exhorting women everywhere that "we have to get over this idea that men are fools."

Fisher meets young men in NYC all the time who think and feel — and who want to be loved. To emphasize her point, she rounds out by paraphrasing a poem by Ted Hughes: "men and women are like two feet; we need each other to get ahead."

Even in the heart of feminized NPR, broadcast on a Sunday morning to the People's Republic of Vermont, Nature rears Her head.

SEE: "This Is Your Brain on Sex" with Helen Fisher; interview On Being With Krista Tippett; April 5, 2018.

Justified Accents

Late to the Justified series (FX 2010-15) bandwagon, I thought I'd express my admiration — and disapprobation — for the Southern accents on the show. First the surprises:

• Timothy Olyphant, lead gunslinger, does a very believable Southern accent, complete with the proper inflections, intonations, and gestures — though he was born in Hawaii and raised in California (and is a Vanderbilt descendant). 
• Jeremy Davies, who won an Emmy for his portrayal of bad guy Dickie Bennett, was born in Michigan — but moved to Kansas when still young (which might help).
• Damon Herriman, who essentially steals the show as Dewey Crowe, a fully actualized Southern U.S. hillbilly — was born and raised in Australia.

Then the egregiously horrible:

• Raymond J. Barry as Arlo Givens, Olyphant's father in the show, betrays his Long Island, New York background with a perfectly terrible attempt at a Southern accent.

Most of the rest of the cast have non-surprisingly authentic Southern accents, because they actually are from the South. Walton Goggins was born in Alabama and raised in Georgia, where Joelle Carter is from. Margo Martindale is from Texas, as is Natalie Zea.

Timothy Olyphant as Raylan Givens

ORIOLES: 2018 Could Be a Hard Season to Watch

A number of clues suggest the Baltimore Orioles owner may be pulling the plug on the current team, perhaps to rebuild completely in coming years. The team:

1. Only signed superstars Manny Machado and Jonathan Schoop to one-year deals under threat of player arbitration.
2. Did not replace Buck Schowalter as manager, despite a spectacularly bad finish to the 2017 season.
3. Have not matched to slugger acquisitions by rival Yankees (Giancarlo Stanton) and Red Sox (J. D. Martinez).
4. Added middling to mediocre pitchers to the bullpen in the offseason.

Shifting Machado to short might be viewed as a way to enhance his value for ultimate sale. 

Keeping Schowalter, despite an end-of-season collapse that would have sacked the great Casey Stengel, is hard to justify for a team seriously intending to contend in 2018. Perhaps the current manager is seen by Angelos as the best steward for the great unraveling of the team he plans — allowing the biggest contracts to expire, hoping to start up again with high draft picks, low-cost newbies, and prospects from the famous Orioles "farm league".

We can't expect Angelos to show his hand on this. Witness what happened to Mark Cuban recently when he admitted his Dallas Mavericks were tanking intentionally.

This could be a very hard season to watch for those of us who suspect the owner's pulling the plug on the team — and for those who don't.

Determining a Winner in Virginia

A modest proposal for determining the winner in the 94th District Delegate race in Newport News* — which may affect the balance of power in the Virginia House of Delegates** — consists of an essay-writing challenge. 

Both candidates would be asked to provide their best answers to the following:

1) Virginia Founding Fathers — (33 points)

How will your actions as a representative in the Virginia House of Delegates for your district emulate the highest ideals of the Founding Fathers from the Old Dominion*** — as expressed in their writings, political debates, and contributions to our nation's founding documents?

JUDGES: Daughters of the American Revolution local chapter. 

2) Gas Pipelines Through Virginia — (33 points)

Describe how the two natural gas pipelines being proposed to run through the Old Dominion will help the state and your electoral district.

JUDGES: Chambers of Commerce from across the state.

3) Preserving Lives of Future Virginians — (33 points)

How will you apply the power granted to you in your position in the Virginia House of Delegates to preserve the lives of unborn Virginians, protecting them from dismemberment in their mothers' wombs — their baby parts being sold to the highest bidder — while preserving the physical, mental, spiritual, and moral constitution of future Virginia mothers?

JUDGES: Virginia Council of Churches.

RULES: Candidates shall have 24 hours two prepare answers to all three (3) essays; essay scores shall be based on composition, content, and construction; candidates shall receive one point each for signing their names; if the essay scores again result in a tie, the incumbent shall retain his seat.

---

*The tie of 11,608 votes each to Democrat challenger Shelly Simonds and incumbent Republican Delegate David Yancey to the Virginia General Assembly David Yancey leaves it to the State Board of Elections to determine the winner by drawing names.
**A Simonds win makes it 50-50 Democrat seats vs. Republican.
***Jefferson?

Willie Watson Folks the House

Higher Ground 11.2.17

Watching Willie Watson do his solo show for the second time at Higher Ground in South Burlington last night, I was impressed by the change in his performance in two short years.

The last time he came through town he was greener to his new life as a solo performer with Folk Singer Vol. 1 — following a breakup with Old Crow Medicine Show.

Since then he's added stage presence.

He's added schtick. He tells stories, so capably Arlo Guthrie kept coming to mind. Ketch Secor, his former bandmate, and Dave Rawlings — his producer, friend, and fellow bandmate currently — kept popping into my head, too.*

His singing is better, not that it had much room to grow. I hailed him as one of the all-time folk music greats the instant he went solo, right up there with Pete Seeger and the rest.

His opening song ("Leaving Blues"?) from Folksinger Vol. 2** was a revelation. Who can render a folk song any better than that?

---

*and my friend from college (sorry, Larry).
**the first volume did indeed come out with "Folk singer" as two words and the second volume is titled "Folksinger" one word.

Build the Wall of Perception: It's the Smart Move

U.S.-Mexico Border Wall

The big problems with the much-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border are that it:

1. Takes time to design, approve, and build.
2. Costs a bunch of money to build and maintain.
3. Spoils the scenery.
4. Disrupts natural flows.

Air, water, and wildlife have a natural flow, after all. One day it might even be necessary to move a number of human beings across the border (either way) for military or humanitarian reasons.

An extended physical wall is also difficult and expensive to update and upgrade over time. 

What a wall doesn't protect us against

Most importantly to this discussion, a physical wall along the Mexican border does not protect us against those who illegally:

1. Go around the wall.
2. Tunnel under the wall.
3. Fly high above the wall.

In fact, it encourages exactly this sort of evasion.

Enforcing existing laws creates a wall

We have prevailing laws that protect against illegal immigration — and protect us from related misbehavior. When properly enforced these laws create a "wall of perception" that says to those:

1. Thinking of entering the country illegally, "Don't!"; and
2. Who are already here illegally, "Leave!"

The effect of building this wall of perception is already clear. In the few months since the installation of a new president in the Oval Office in January 2017, a national leader intent on reducing illegal immigration and enforcing related laws, unwanted traffic across the Mexico border has dropped 70%. 

Enforcement protects us everywhere

A physical wall along one border does not. Instead, it encourages entry somewhere else along our many border miles elsewhere:

1. Our Lower-48 states share a 3,987-mile border with Canada to the north, and
2. A 1,538-mile border surrounding Alaska.
3. The length of all our shorelines totals 95,471 miles.*

These are exposed national border miles that a wall along the Mexico border does not protect — and which those deterred by such a wall are further encouraged to try.

Enforcement of the laws works on those who evade a border wall, while continuing to press on already-resident border jumpers. 

Technology adds to the wall

Instead of building a solid, unbroken border wall, towers packed with detection equipment might be spaced along the Mexican border:

1. The towers would be connected underground by above- and below-ground (tunneling) detection devices. 
2. At the top of each tower would be drone platforms (some tethered**) for continuous surveillance runs and immediate-response to alerts.
3. Detection devices would be positioned at top of towers for help with low-flying aircraft — including drones. 

Other robots can used to aid interdiction, too.

Protection that relies on technology can be upgraded easily as science progresses. And use of surveillance technology adds to the sense that somebody's watching at all times. Such technology can be developed and tested along one border and subsequently applied elsewhere.

The smart move

Build the Wall of Perception by enforcing prevailing laws and applying technology appropriately. It's the smart move.

---

*The National Ocean Service reaches that enormous number by adding together all the inches of exposure around our Atlantic, Pacific, Hawaii, and other shorelines.
**Persistent Aerial Reconnaissance and Communications (PARC) drones stay up in the air indefinitely, and fly up to 500 feet from base, attached by a microfilament that transmits power and data.

Claiming Scalps With Fake News

When the Left decide they want to eliminate someone from relevance in the socio-political sphere, they use fake news. Here are the steps they use to destroy someone:

1) Spin something out of nothing

Start with a wisp of something that can be spun into something BIG. Spin it in such a way that it will predictably whip up an emotional storm. Best to:

1. Use a word that is an un-deconstruct-able flashpoint, one that can't be argued against without the arguer losing his position in society (e.g., pedophilia).
2. Label from the standard Leftist list: e.g., racist, sexist, homophobe. 
3. Ensure there be no actual, factual basis for the charge, that it's been spun into something completely, dimensionally out-of-touch with all reality.

In the latter phase of the scalping, when the emotional froth is winding down and cooler heads try to unravel the initial accusation, it is critical that they have no way of taking it apart factually—because no factual basis exists for it. With absolutely no factual basis to support the charge, denials add weight to it.

2) Foment an hystericalized tsunami of fake news

Whip up a frenzy in the public using the fake news media network—otherwise known as the Leftist Media Bloc—to create a fait accompli destructive force that not only can't be stopped. Make it appear so massively powerful, and moving at such a speed, that no thinking person would try to stop it.

3) Claim your scalp

By the time the hysterical tsunami recedes, and the flopping fish and sand and debris do not add up to a substantial basis for the initial charge—the job, position in society, and life contentment of the target has been irremediably destroyed. What was created without a factual basis cannot be turned back by checking facts, putting things into perspective, and considering the actual harm the target was guilty of. 

4) Repeat

How I Went from #NeverTrump to #TrumpPossible

I was #NeverTrump, mainly because he's not really conservative. His natural instincts are all Leftist: trade protection, infrastructure investment, using government power against critics, etc.

What appear to be his conservative traits are actually those of right-wing Leftist dictators, e.g. nationalism. Starting with his seeming love for Putin and his tactics, he has a thing for Leftist strongmen, perhaps seeing himself in that mold.

Then there's the rest of the Russian stuff.

As Election 2016 progressed, however, a hopeful (necessary?) three-phase process materialized in my mind: 1) Stop Clinton; 2) Check Trump; and, 3) Get to Pence.

1) Stop Clinton

This necessity became clearer with the growing certainty that Hillary Clinton was an IMPOSSIBILITY. Perhaps, it occurred to me, this "orange-haired Jesus" was sent to us to stop her.

Could anyone else have done it? Unclear. He did. Step one accomplished.

2) Check Trump

Next step was to check the elected Trump. The checking of a president should happen naturally with the system of checks and balances designed into the Constitution. Media check the president. His own team checks him. Impeachment proceedings check the president, as well as what's written in the 25th amendment.

The "A"-word can certainly check the president in a big way, but even to discuss it borders on the illegal. Don't think it's not on everyone's mind, though.

3) Get to Pence

Whatever natural terms Trump might serve, Pence has an excellent chance of being his party's nominee to replace him the next time around—and he has a good chance of becoming the next president. History shows vice presidents often rise to the top spot, but not so much via the ballot box.*

They get there more often when the president is removed for some reason.

Perhaps the president becomes unfit for office due to illness or other reasons (see above). Maybe he decides he's had enough. The vice president is first-in-line for succession, and Mike Pence is that person at the moment.

And he's a true conservative, one who's served in Congress—and as governor of a state.

The first step has been accomplished, and the second is underway. Trump's team, especially, seem to be having a checking effect on him.

The final step of getting to Pence is a question mark, of course. With a president who has a sometimes mysterious hold on much of the American voting public, who can really say when he might let go of power?

---

*the vice president has been nominated 100 percent of the time in the five elections since 1960 that have had at least one vice president running (Gore/Quayle were both 2000), and a vice president won these elections 40 percent of the time; the close and controversial Nixon (1960) and Gore (2000) elections, if gone the other way, would up the win percentage bigly.

Harmful Racism

An accusation of racism these days is equivalent to banishment from society. To be banished from society someone needs to have committed significant harm. Thoughts and speech about ethnic or racial traits do not by themselves cause significant harm.

They do not qualify as harmful racism.

Does everything qualify as harmful racism?

Racism that causes actual harm occurs when one's views on the color of skin—and how it affects human traits and behavior—substantially affects another's ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Thoughts on behavior of those with differing skin colors—perhaps drawn from a lifetime of experience and observation—do not by themselves qualify as harmful racism. Comments that result from such thoughts and opinions do not either.

Humor based on ethnicity or skin color is not harmful racism by itself. Making comments about positive traits of those of different races—blacks are better athletes, Indians are better mathematicians, French are better cooks, Italians are better lovers—do not qualify as harmful racism.

Harmful racism requires harm

Thoughts, words, and jokes that incite something ugly—mob action, violence—qualify as harmful racism. When thoughts, speech, and jokes lead to someone not being able to capitalize on an economic opportunity—getting a job, advancing in a career, etc.—that qualifies as harmful racism. If someone is unable to pursue happiness—by living in a certain neighborhood, sending his kids to a certain school, or spending his money where he wants to—that qualifies as harmful racism.

If a man cannot receive the best healthcare available for himself, or his family, because of his race that is harmful racism.

Harmful racism requires power to harm

Most people who engage in thoughts, comments, or jokes that deal with matters of ethnicity or race cannot cause harmful racism. That's because most people lack the ability to cause substantial harm to others. Only those with power of life, liberty, and happiness over others can actually be guilty of harmful racism; only they have the ability to cause substantial harm.

Someone in a position of power to cause harm to others, who makes comments that deal with matters of ethnicity or race—but whose actions benefit (or do not harm) those he's commenting about—is not guilty of harmful racism.

Freedom of speech releases racial tensions

Suppressing ethnic humor, comments on race, or even thoughts related to differences between people of different races and ethnic backgrounds may lead to substantial harm to those of different races. When such thoughts, words, and humor are suppressed it can build up to something harmful.

Allowing people to think, speak, and joke freely—the marks of a free society—can lead to a lessening of racial tensions, and changes in racial thinking. Freedom of thought and speech gives others a chance to: a) discover what people are actually thinking around them; b) engage in meaningful, helpful discussions; and, c) laugh about racism—thereby releasing some of the potentially dangerous social and political tensions that surround the issue.

Transgender Bathroom Use

One of the horrible truths reality will present you with if you decide to go through with a sex-change operation is that the entire rest of the world may not immediately adjust to your new gender status. Your life may get a bit more complicated on various fronts, one of which is bathroom use.

If you thought you could undergo such a complete changeover in your life without suffering some consequences, or that others would be so sensitive to your every need that you would never encounter difficulties, you were either suffering great delusions—or were not properly informed or briefed before you began your transition to another sex.

As it is, when you go to a public place, and are worried about bathroom use, you have a number of responsible options you can employ:

1. Hold it in—this might work if you have a large bladder (or intestine), especially if you do a little planning (see following option).
2. Go before you get there—use the facilities where you live, or somewhere between where you're coming from and the public place you're going to. Convenience stores, gas stations, shopping malls tend to have single-person restrooms; it's your job to find and use them.
3. Use a single-person restroom—many public places have single-person restrooms for anyone to use, and if you're the only one in there and you lock the door behind you, life goes on.
4. Use a restroom reserved for those with special needs—what used to be called handicapped bathrooms, or those set aside for disabled people, are designed to be used by all those with "special needs". You now qualify in this category: you have special needs and may now use Federally-mandated public restrooms.
5. Ask someone to stand outside—a time-honored tradition for special bathroom use, one that's been used by parents, coworkers, and friends since time began, is to have someone stand outside the facility to fend off other users.

Of course, you could always use the facilities as anyone else would, by doing your best impression of a person of the proper gender for the facility, not intentionally drawing undue attention to yourself, being as unobtrusive as possible, and not making anyone uncomfortable around you.

For the most part, nobody's paying too much attention to you (sorry). You're not being excluded, you're barely being noticed. Your not being marginalized. Your rights are not being infringed. It's just that few even care you're there—if you behave like a responsible person.

So you don't need to make a Federal case of it, create a victimhood movement, accuse the rest of us of intolerance and bigotry, or burn the whole world down around you. You can instead behave in a responsible manner, take your life in your own hands, and make the best of things.

You were the one who decided to change your gender, adjusting to the world as it is now on you.

SOURCE: "Bathroom Bigotry", The Catechesis of Caroline; February 25, 2017.

Right from Left

Adolph Hitler, leader of the National Socialist Party,¹ was an unabashed Leftist. He regarded himself as even more of a Marxist than the ones in Russia — because of his willingness to do by force what the Bolsheviks would leave to evolution. Benito Mussolini, founder of the National Fascist Party in Italy, and thereby inventor of fascism, was with the Italian Socialist Party until they threw him out — because he wanted Italy to fight in World War I. He and Italy were Hitler's main allies during World War II.

National SOCIALISM, "right wing" of Leftism

"Right wing" of the Left

The Left consigned what they regarded as the unattractive traits associated with their world Socialist movement — authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, attendant racism — to their own "right wing". Those who were cast to the right were the "conservatives", the ones who wanted to hold on to the old ways, who thought of nation first.⁴

Socialism leading to Communism was meant to be a global transformation, making nations, borders, and wars unnecessary. 

As one who combined nationalism with Socialism, together with hyper-militarism, Hitler and his party were cast in the "right wing" of the Left.² The greater the belief in absolute state power over every aspect of human life, the farther to the right one is consigned.

Left conflates "Right" with "Conservative"

As the Left pushes unattractive attributes of Leftism to its "right wing", and these traits are defined as "conservative", a conflation has occurred between the "right wing" of Socialism — all about absolute, brutal governmental power, eradication of religion and faith, and elimination of human rights — with American Conservatism — about minimal governmental intervention, guidance from above, and individual rights.

Ultimately, the "right wing" horrors of Nazism — the extreme "right wing" of Socialism and the Left — got projected onto Conservatives — whose beliefs are exactly the opposite, and whose values actually the greatest threat to Leftism. It was American conservative values, in fact, came to the rescue when Leftism reached its logical conclusion of complete destruction of people, society, and (almost) the world.

Assigning the most unappealing traits generated by Leftism to the principles that most threaten its exists seems an excellent way of killing two birds with one stone.

American Conservatism is in nobody's "right wing"

American Conservatism is the central core of political and social values — the ones being attacked by progressivism and radicalism. American Conservatism arises from common sense, a natural understanding, natural law, and a regular moral code. It is the social-political view that naturally develops if you grow up on a farm, go to church on Sundays, raise a family, and start a business — or simply work all of your life.

American Conservatism is at the center of the political spectrum where the Left represents maximum governmental control and the right is Libertarian — or the least governmental control. American Conservatism is in nobody's "right wing".

"We're not of the Right. We're not of the Left or the Right, we're Constitutionalists. That's their lingo."

Mark Levin (May 8, 2020)

American Conservatives misunderstand

If the Left classifies American Conservatives as being on the Right, and that has terrible associations historically, why accept the classification?

Maybe American Conservatives simply don't know what Conservatism is fundamentally, and are not familiar with the historical roots of the left-right paradigm. They don't know right from left, in other words. In this way their continuation of this false dichotomy arises from their own ignorance.

Perhaps American Conservatives have not considered, an have no accounting of, the enormous damage this misunderstanding does in terms of confusion, assignment of foul Leftist outcomes to themselves, and political and propaganda value.

American Conservatism saved world from Left's "right wing"

American Conservatism was developed over here and in direct opposition to what our forefathers experienced of European tyranny. It would later be the values of American Conservatism that would save Europe from the ravages of the Left's "right wing".

American Conservatism is something quite different from the Leftist traits the Left wishes to distant themselves from by projecting onto it. In fact, it's the opposite.

SEE: Conserving the Core, Right-Wing Socialists, Not Conservatives, Political Spectrum Redrawn, and Leftism vs. American Conservatism.

---

1. "Nazi" is the German abbreviation, representing the pronunciation of Nati- in Nationalsozialist.
2. assignment of nationalist-militarist tendencies to the "right wing" of their movement by Leftists might derive naturally: the right arm is considered stronger. Maybe this rightward assignment got conflated with the right vs. left construction from pre-revolutionary France.³ 
3.  where the royalists sat to the right of the king in the legislative chamber, the Jacobins to the left.
4. see Stalin in Power: the Revolution from Above, 1928-1941 by Robert C. Tucker for more on this.

Conserving the Core

It's time for American conservatives to throw off the "right wing" appellation projected on them from the Left. The projection of what they don't want to see in themselves, e.g., nationalism, militarism, racism—and which they relegate to their own "right wing"—has successfully destroyed the conservative "brand".

Complete disconnect . .

American conservatism has nothing to do with the "right wing" of the Left, the disconnect being clear in a number of ways:

1. American conservatives are in America not in Europe: the assignment of unattractive characteristics of the Left to their "right wing" occurred in the European Left, based on their socio-political model.
2. American conservatives are conserving the American Constitution: a unique document in the history of government, the U.S. Constitution was not only written in reaction against European experiences of those who came to America, but it design a system of limited government with a protection of individual rights unseen anywhere in Europe.
3. American conservatives have never sat to the right of the king in parliament—and have never had a monarchy at all.*
4. American conservatives believe in a government guided by a divine power: the European Left, and as projected into U.S. Leftism, believe in the state transplanting any sort of divine power (God).
5. American conservatives believe in limited government: the "right wing" of the Left—characteristics of which has been projected onto American conservatives—believes in an all-powerful state.

To restate, American conservatives are conserving a form of government that reacts against the government their forefathers experienced "over there" in Europe, a form of government which holds within it the ability to counteract the evil goals (and results) of the European Left.

The center must hold . .

American conservatism is at the core, the very center of the socio-political system.

1. American conservatism believes in limited government placing it in the center of the government power/control spectrum, with libertarians to the left (weaker) and the Left to the right (stronger).
2. American conservatism is based on natural law, common sense, a natural understanding of things, and facts—which are at the core of human life.

American conservatives are in no one's "right wing", unless assigned there by the Left. It is the values and institutions being conserved by American conservatism that are being attacked by progressives (slowly) and radicals (quickly). These values are at the core of our American system of government and must be conserved.

The center American conservatives conservatives must hold or the progressives and radicals succeed in destroying all that is good and right about living in this great land under God.

---

*The orientation of Left vs. Right originated in pre-revolutionary France with royalists, who sat to the right of the king, and the Jacobins who sat to the left.

SEE: Right-Wing Socialists, Not Conservatives, Right from Left, Political Spectrum Redrawn, and Leftism vs. American Conservatism.