Men are dipping their WHAT into WHAT???

Now and again one comes across something so egregiously stupid that one can't quite grasp it for a moment.  One sits, reading the words or watching the video, and thinking, "This absolutely cannot - can't possibly - be true!"  Sadly, all too often it is.  (Follow the links below at your own risk!)

A groundbreaking 2013 study of how mice can taste with their testicles has resurfaced online. And now social media bozos are testing the theory, first published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by dipping their genitals in soy sauce for the latest bizarre TikTok trend.

The study was apparently rediscovered by TikTok user Regan, who challenged male social media users to “please dip your ***** in something [because] it’s for science and I must know.”

Go figure: TikTokers were eager to lend their scrotums to science. One viral response — posted five days ago by user Alx James — depicts an intrepid gastronomer basting his **** with soy sauce (don’t worry, he doesn’t show the actual application) while sitting in his car with takeout grub. James says he was inspired by the portion of the study that claims “the amino acids inside soy sauce can also be detected by the *****.”

James also claims his testicular taste test was a success. “Oh my God, I can taste the salt!” exclaims the ecstatic experimenter, adding “that’s ridiculous” before the clip ends.

Needless to say, the viral vid racked up more than 800,000 likes and 9,000-plus comments from the peanut gallery. “When I was younger, I thought in 2020 we’d have flying cars but no it’s just guys dipping their junk in soy sauce,” mused one social media pundit.

. . .

James wasn’t the only one to conduct the unorthodox experiment. Social media guru GayGod (a k a YouTuber Matthew Lush) seconded Alex’s findings in another viral vid, claiming to his 966,000 followers he could detect the soy sauce and orange juice.

However, much to some medical professionals’ chagrin, there’s no evidence “to back up any claims that men (of any species) can actually taste things through their junk,” Dr. Kieran Kennedy told Men’s Health.

There's more at the link.

Y'know . . . when my momma and poppa raised me, they taught me a few things.  One of them was that the good Lord gave me a tongue for a reason (well, for several reasons, actually).  One of them was to taste my food.  They didn't have to tell me that no other organ was designed to do that.  I kinda figured that out for myself!  I worked out quickly enough that my nether regions were designed for other purposes.  Initially, they involved diapers and the filling thereof.  Later . . . well, later things got more interesting!

Be that as it may, I have never felt even the slightest temptation to dip my nether regions into anything except water - preferably warm enough that it doesn't cause their rapid contraction (not to mention retraction).  I have better uses for soy sauce and orange juice.  They involve gastronomic utility and digestion.  They do NOT . . . oh, never mind.

I'm a man of faith, so I do have a ready explanation for those who do these things.  As the late, great Samuel Johnson put it (according to Boswell, anyway), "Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat".  And no, he wasn't referring to a Toyota Prius!




Peter

More F-4 Phantoms at work and at play

This year the Japan Air Self-Defense Force will be retiring the last of its F-4 Phantom aircraft.  It's one of the last Air Forces to operate the veteran type, which was a mainstay of the Vietnam War in the 1960's.  It's always had a reputation as a demanding aircraft to fly, but one that repays piloting skill with superb performance.

A Japanese videographer has produced a couple of fascinating videos of the JASDF's Phantoms over the past year or so.  We've seen them in these pages.  Here's his latest offering, filmed in slow motion at very high resolution.

It's amazing to think that the F-4 first flew in the year that I was born, yet some upgraded examples are still in front-line service.  That's more than I can say for myself!




Peter

"The problem with small self defense guns"

That's the title of an article in Shooting Illustrated.  (It's also a topic I've addressed in these pages from time to time, as regular readers will know.)  Here's an excerpt from SI's article.

[Some of] the biggest obstacles to shooting subcompact guns well [include] the grip size, recoil control, sight system and trigger system. Some you can improve upon such as the sights or trigger. Subcompacts are notorious for having poor combat-style sights. As these subcompacts grow in popularity, sight manufacturers continue to adapt to consumer trends and offer upgraded options. The trigger is a bit more challenging. Few subcompacts come with a smooth trigger; many have a heavy and long trigger pull that requires a decent amount of time to master. Again, as consumer trends increase so too will aftermarket options for drop-in replacement triggers. A caution on trigger upgrades. Avoid any product that can compromise the internal safeties in any way. Be cautious in your selection. If it sounds too good to be true—you know the rest.

This leaves us with grip size and recoil control. By their nature, subcompacts are small. The smaller size makes them easier to conceal, but hard to hold and shoot well. I find some are better to grip than others.

. . .

Recoil control is a difficult subject to talk about using the printed word. It has to be experienced. The lighter frames and shorter slides will mean the recoil impulse can be more noticeable or pronounced.

. . .

Shooting subcompacts does not have to be fraught with discomfort. The challenges you face are manageable if you take the right steps. The first step is the hardest step, which is practicing more. We can all benefit from more practice, more training and more education ... When the whole firing line is shooting subcompacts, you get a great perspective. You can see the recoil impulse more exaggerated in some shooters. As you pay more attention, you begin to see who is applying good technique and who is not.

There's more at the link.  It's a good article, and I recommend reading it in full.

I can bring an evolving perspective to this subject, because as I get older and more decrepit (hand strength, eyesight, general flexibility and mobility issues, etc.), I find the smaller handguns more and more difficult to shoot well.  That's a serious issue, because I'm liable for every shot I fire in a defensive situation.  If I miss my legitimate target (the bad guy) and hit an illegitimate one (e.g. a passing stranger, or a kid on the other side of a house's wall), I'm legally liable for the consequences of my shot, whether they were intended or not.  The use of lethal force is all on me.  That being the case, I want to be as sure as possible that I don't expose others to harm, or myself to legal jeopardy.

I think there are several things one can do to minimize the risk.  One is to downsize the caliber/cartridge of one's carry weapon(s) to something one can manage.  I hate to admit it, but as my back deteriorates, the recoil of .45 ACP cartridges in sub-compact weapons is causing me more and more pain.  (That's not the case with full-size weapons that fit my hand better and absorb more of the recoil, but I can't always conceal them very easily in the heat of a Texas summer!)  Therefore, my pocket pistols have been downsized to 9mm Parabellum.  I don't like that, but reality outweighs my affection for the bigger, heavier bullet.

That's not the case with revolvers, however, because one can buy (or develop hand-loaded equivalents for) cartridges that recoil less, and are more manageable.  That's often difficult when shooting semi-auto pistols, because a certain amount of recoil energy is usually required to cycle the slide and load the next round to fire.  In .44 Special, for example, I really like Buffalo Bore's hard-cast full wadcutter round (and its equivalent in .38 Special).  I have no doubts at all about the effectiveness of that type of bullet (Jim Cirillo proved that the hard way as a member of the NYPD's Stakeout Squad), and it's loaded to a level that's manageable even in a lightweight Charter Arms Bulldog revolver.  I'm therefore able to keep shooting it, and intend to do so for as long as my body will let me control it.

Choosing grips for one's revolver that fill and fit the hand is another factor;  one can't always do that with a pistol, but aftermarket grips can make any revolver fit one better than the factory-standard units.  I've found that I can continue to shoot even relatively small .38 Special snub-nose revolvers by adding larger grips.  Yes, they make the gun physically larger, and thus more difficult to conceal;  but by choosing my clothing carefully, I can still hide them in a deep pocket, using a suitable holster to keep them in the right orientation for a rapid withdrawal if needed.  (I've come to like Pachmayr's Renegade grips [shown below to fit a S&W J-frame snubby] very much:  they fill my hand nicely, and give me the gripping surface I need to control and make best use of snub-nose revolvers, even ultra-lightweight models.  Altamont's snubby revolver grips are another good choice.)

Revolvers also take care of the problem of racking a pistol's slide, particularly for those with limited hand and/or arm strength and/or mobility.  They hold less ammunition, to be sure, but they generally hold enough to defend oneself, unless one gets into something rather more complicated than the average armed encounter.  Yes, that happens;  and yes, if it does, one's likely to be S.O.L. - but that's the case with pistols, too.  One does what one can under the circumstances.

Consider, too, the utility of having one's defensive weapons worked over by a good gunsmith.  An action job can lighten and smooth the trigger pull of a handgun, making it much easier to get good, accurate, fast hits.  Yes, that costs money;  and yes, while your gun is at the gunsmith's (which may be the case for several months, if they're booked up), you'll need to have access to a second gun to carry.  Borrow one from a friend, if you can't afford another one of your own.  (I keep a couple available for that very purpose.  What are friends for, after all?  In the same way, if you can afford to do so, keep a spare gun or two on hand.  You never know who might need one - and you might, quite literally, save a friend's life that way.)

Another very important part of the solution is to practice more.  Far too many people who carry a gun for self-defense shoot it relatively seldom, perhaps no more than once or twice a year.  That's not enough to master it.  Try to maintain a training regime of at least one visit to the shooting range every month, firing at least a box of ammunition every time.  (If it's hard to afford that much full-caliber ammunition, consider a cheaper training solution.)  Also, don't practice bad habits!  If you consistently aren't shooting well, try to find an instructor who can help you improve, then practice the better techniques you've learned.  There's no point in reinforcing habits that will get you - or, worse, an innocent bystander - killed!  Ask at your local shooting range about nearby instructors, or look online for more information.

Finally, if you just can't get comfortable with smaller, more concealable handguns any longer, it may be time to admit that you need to carry a full-size weapon.  They're bigger, fit the hand better, absorb more recoil, and are generally considered more reliable than their smaller counterparts.  Yes, they're less concealable:  but that's the trade-off you make to carry something you can control effectively in the heat of the moment.  You may have to accept a different style of dress or mode of carry, or not carry at all if the weather doesn't allow you to put on suitable concealment garments.  Sadly, sometimes we can't have it all.  That's just the way life goes.

Peter

From Australia to California, wildfires are a Big Brother problem

An article about the current wildfire crisis in Australia brought back echoes of recent comments about the same issue in the USA.

It is very obvious who the people are who should be held accountable for the current mess.

At the top of the list are the premiers and ministers responsible for land management, such as it is, and bushfire policy, and the public servants in their departments with jurisdiction over forests and national parks. State governments in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have palpably failed to do the most important job they were elected to do: protect the lives and livelihoods of their citizens and the health of their environment. And their public servants have failed to do the job they are being paid to do: serve the public.

. . .

Local government authorities are also high on the list of those accountable — and here again state governments bear responsibility, as they should never have allowed them to get away with the nonsenses we have seen coming out of town halls over recent years with respect to vegetation clearing and building approvals. Some premier or minister should have cracked down hard on this foolishness, and cracked down hard.

Of all the things that perplex me about the current mess the most significant is this: the blatant ignoring  by premiers, ministers  and agency bureaucrats of the warnings of bushfire scientists  that a disaster was imminent and, on top of that, their failure to study bushfire history.  Our climate, even the ‘pre-climate-change climate’,  our vegetation and the abundant sources of ignition mean that we are inherently a bushfire-prone country. And even on top of all that, our governments and bureaucrats have been provided, over and over and over again, with evidence that killer bushfires will occur in Australia unless pre-emptive action is taken.  Not just here, but in California, Canada, Greece and Portugal — anywhere in the world with hot dry summers, periodic droughts and flammable vegetation.

Yet despite the science, the evidence presented by bushmen, the dramatic history of this continent’s relationship with fire, and the findings of numerous inquiries, successive governments in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria over the last 25 years have consistently failed to prepare potential firegrounds in the expectation of the inevitable. Not only this, they seem to have actually go out of their way to make things worse: the cut-backs to fuel reduction burning, the closure of access roads and trails in national parks, the decimation of professional forestry and fire management expertise, the turning of the blind eye to the creation of residential subdivisions in capable of being defended, the funding of “research” in the universities that is aimed at making the job of the firefighter more difficult, and the erection of a complex bureaucratic edifices that hinder sensible bushfire preparedness and make fuel-reduction burning almost impossible.

. . .

And what of the greenies and the ivory tower academics from Murdoch, Curtin and Wollongong universities? The anti-fuel reduction burning academics have no understanding of practical bushfire management. They are misguided, misinformed and, by my reckoning, dangerously mischievous.  But they have not been running the show. The premiers, ministers and senior public servants overseeing the land-management agencies could have, and should have, simply rejected the academics’ green ideology and its foolish precepts. Bitter experience should by now have made it blindingly obvious that the green approach to bushfire management can end only in tears. Instead, those who shirked their responsibility to protect their communities kowtowed and pandered. They played political games — Greens preferences in inner-city electorates can make or break governments, don’t you know —  so they swallowed the utter bilge of academic theorists, people who have never in their lives had to fight a fire, let alone take responsibility for the design and implementation of an entire fire-management system.  In genuflecting before the intelligentsia (the word is used advisedly), our governments knowingly sacrificed the community and the bush. The phrase “criminal negligence” comes to mind.

There's more at the link.  It's sickening reading, from an author who's an expert on the subject.

Sadly, one wonders whether the Australian powers that be will pay any attention to his expertise.  If one is to take anything from California's example, one suspects not.

[Chuck DeVore, vice president of national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation] recalls that as a freshman California assemblyman in 2005, he visited forest product industry professionals in Northern California.  They told him of a "worrisome trend" that had begun many years before, where "both federal and state regulators were making it more and more difficult for them to do their jobs."  Mainly, the problem was that "[a]s timber harvesting permit fees went up and environmental challenges multiplied, the people who earned a living felling and planting trees looked for other lines of work."  As the "timber industry gradually collapsed," the "combustible fuel load in the forest predictably soared," because forest management professionals stopped "clearing brush and thinning trees."

The process of clearing forests in California had begun long before industrialization, with the native populations in California prior to the Gold Rush — but for different reasons then.  Photographic evidence of the Sierra landscape in the 1850s and 1860s presents "open fields of grass punctuated by isolated pine stands and scattered oak trees," largely because the natives "shaped this landscape with fire to encourage the grasslands and boost the game animal population."

When the Gold Rush took hold and California grew, forests were a vital resource for both construction and fuel.  "The landscape filled with trees," DeVore writes, "but the trees were harvested every 30 to 50 years."  Increasing federal and state regulation "disrupted" that cycle in the 1990s, however, "especially on the almost 60% of California forest land owned by the federal government."

. . .

The reason for the regulations curtailing logging and the use of biofuels as an energy source is predicated upon environmental concerns.  Specifically, "wood doesn't burn as cleanly as natural gas," and the "wood waste from timber operations" that used to be burned in biomass generators became scarcer.  As such, there have been mass closures in recent decades of the biomass generators that once provided readily available and affordable energy.  "What used to be burned safely in power generators is now burned in catastrophic fires," DeVore writes.

Again, more at the link.

Governments also skew local markets, forcing the providers of certain services to provide them whether or not it makes sense to do so - because they're pandering to the voters, not addressing reality.  Fire insurance is a good example.

It’s not that fires are more devastating in the natural sense. The problem is that human beings insist on putting their property in places where fires have long destroyed the landscape, over and over again.

. . .

The Los Angeles Times editorial board, for example, complains that “Land-use decisions are made by local elected officials and they’ve proven themselves unwilling to say no to dangerous sprawl development …”

But government prohibitions aren’t necessary. If people insist on building and selling homes in fire-prone areas, let them be the ones to cover all the costs. This includes the cost of fire mitigation and rebuilding after fire. This in itself would limit development in these areas.

And yet, while California pundits are complaining that policymakers aren’t doing enough, California politicians are actively taking steps to keep the market from correcting the excessive building in fire-prone areas ... California regulators prohibited insurance companies from dropping the homeowners’ insurance policies of homeowners in fire prone areas.

. . .

By stepping in to force insurance companies to cover these homeowners, California politicians are doing two things:

They’re continuing the cycle of encouraging homebuyers to buy homes in areas likely to fall victim to wildfires. At the same time, regulators are increasing the costs incurred by insurance companies, and this will likely have the effect of driving up the price of fire insurance for homeowners who more prudently declined to purchase a house in fire-prone areas.

. . .

In a more sane political environment, however, those who insist on living in the way of wildfires would have to assume the risk of doing so, rather than demanding politicians force the cost on insurance companies and taxpayers.

More at the link.

To me, the answer is simple.  Learn from history;  do what's worked in the past;  and ignore fake science and quasi-religious ideological shibboleths that simply don't address the real problem.  Furthermore, if an area is prone to natural disasters - be it fire, flood, storm, earthquake or whatever - let those who choose to live there bear the risk, and the cost, of replacing their losses.  Let them pay realistic, market-related insurance premiums, rather than state-dictated, artificially subsidized rates that jack up everybody else's premiums as well, even those living in safer areas.  Pain in the wallet will rapidly bring people to their senses.

On the other hand, I don't mind putting modern technology to work in helping to resolve the situation.  For example, an Israeli company has come up with a new water-bombing technology that should enable firefighting aircraft to operate more safely at night.  Here's a publicity video describing it.

The extra altitude allowed by this system should keep water-bomber pilots a whole lot safer - and that's a good thing for everybody.  More such inventions, please!

Meanwhile, I suppose it's unrealistic to say we should elect politicians with more sense.  That never seems to work, does it?




Peter

When birth certificates become a public safety issue

The law of unintended consequences appears to have struck again, this time in Colorado, where anyone can apply to have their birth certificate amended to change the record of their biological sex at birth.

If governmental policy allows IDs to contain false, misleading, confusing, or unverified information, a chain reaction of adverse societal consequences will result. Those formerly comfortable in relying on the information disclosed in IDs will be compelled to undertake their own costly, time-consuming, and difficult investigations in order to verify the true nature of the person presenting an ID.

. . .

Inability to rely on the accuracy of the ID information will be of serious, if not critical, concern to most of the population.  Examples of those adversely affected by government identification of males as females (and vice versa) are:

1.  Parents when vetting potential playmates for their children and when vetting the parents and siblings of proposed playmates.  Most parents would not consent for a teen daughter to go overnight camping with a teen transgirl.  Parents understand the adverse medical, social, and economic risks and consequences and the social contagion and indoctrination attending the transgender lifestyle.

2.  Parents when vetting potential babysitters and companions for their children and when vetting parents of such babysitters and companions.  Most parents would not consent for a teen transgirl to babysit a daughter nor permit their daughter to spend time at the home of a transgirl.

. . .

4.  Employers (especially medical providers) who desire to confirm the biological sex of prospective employees (when such is a legally permitted qualification).  A female patient requested a female nurse for an intimate procedure and was summoned by an “obviously male” staffer with stubble and tattoos, who claimed, “My gender is not male. I’m a transsexual.” The woman declined the procedure.

5.  Persons, for whatever reason, seeking relationships only with persons of the same biological sex or only with persons of the opposite biological sex, i.e., a male desiring to date and marry a female who can bear him a child.

6.  Persons considering intimate involvement wanting to know the biological sex of the sexual partner because of the extraordinarily high risk of HIV infection attending the transgender lifestyle.

There's more at the link.

It's time this pandering to transsexuals was stopped in its tracks.  They have the undoubted right to conduct their private lives as they please, just as you or I do.  However, when it comes to deliberate, officially sanctioned public deception, that's another matter entirely.  If I had a child who was placed in any of the situations outlined above, I'd be incensed (to put it mildly).  It's simply not acceptable, not legitimate, and neither ethically nor morally correct.  Disclosure of the facts is basic to trust.  If such facts aren't disclosed, and later come to light, trust is destroyed - not to mention the other potential consequences of such deception.

One hopes the people of Colorado will do something to overturn this insanely inappropriate and potentially dangerous policy.

Peter

The epithet "soy boy" may have some basis in reality

I've often heard metrosexual males referred to disparagingly as "soy boys".  I've heard the same epithet applied to those who regularly consume "gourmet" coffees from places like Starbucks and the like.  Now we learn that soy may, in fact, have some relevance to that.

The use of soybean oil has increased dramatically over the last few decades, to the extent that is has become the most widely consumed edible oil in the US and other Western nations. However, its rise has coincided with an alarming escalation in metabolic conditions like diabetes, insulin resistance, and obesity, and a new study indicates that this may be down to the way that soybean oil causes genetic changes in the brain.

. . .

Writing in the journal Endocrinology, the study authors explain that soybean oil was found to modify the expression of around 100 different genes in the hypothalamus, affecting processes such as metabolism, neurological disease, and inflammation.

Among the altered genes were some that are associated with schizophrenia, depression, and Alzheimer’s disease, although by far the most affected was a gene that codes for the production of a hormone called oxytocin.

. . .

Future research will now need to focus on determining which ingredient is responsible for these genetic changes, although study author Poonamjot Deol of the University of California, Riverside says that while many questions remain unanswered, some very concrete statements can be made off the back of this study.

"If there's one message I want people to take away, it's this: reduce consumption of soybean oil," she said in a statement.

There's more at the link.

There are a few foods - and vendors - in particular that one might want to reconsider after reading that article.

• If you enjoy coffee made with so-called soy milk, remember that it's not milk - it's "a stable emulsion of oil, water, and protein".  The more of it you drink, the more soybean oil you ingest.
• If you eat food made with so-called "textured vegetable protein" or TVP, the same consideration applies, because most TVP is made from soy beans.  I'm told Taco Bell serves a lot of food containing TVP - something to consider.  (It's also served a lot in school lunches, apparently, so you might want to check whether your children are eating more of it than may be healthy for them.)
• Many cooking oils labeled simply as "vegetable oils" have a high proportion of soybean oil in them.  It might be safer to buy "pure" vegetable oils such as olive, avocado, etc.

It's soytanly food for thought!




Peter

The lighter side of the dysfunctional apocalypse

I had to laugh at this video prediction of everything that can (and will) go wrong when the dystopian apocalypse finally happens.  It's so dire, it's funny.

Oh, well.  At my age, I don't have to worry about most of those problems - I doubt I'll live long enough to encounter them.  I'll leave them to my younger readers, who can write their own blogs (by then doubtless circulated on paper, rather than electronically) to describe them!

Peter

So much for the evil, racist, bitter-clinger gun nuts of Richmond!

Photographs taken at today's demonstration against Second Amendment restrictions in Richmond, Virginia.  All are sourced from various Web sites, and have been posted multiple times, so I don't know their origin.  If anyone took them and wants them removed, or a copyright acknowledgment, I'll be glad to comply.

And did you notice how much of the left-wing mainstream media went dead silent on the subject, as soon as it became clear that the protesters were basically decent, law-abiding citizens protesting legislative overreach?  They wanted to blare banner headlines about racists and white nationalists - few, if any of whom made an appearance.  Only Fox News covered the protest in any detail, for which kudos to them.

Peter

The Virginia crisis: where's the evidence of wrongdoing?

I'm obliged to Daily Timewaster for posting this video comment on the lead-up to today's protest in Richmond, Virginia.  The author makes some very good points.

He's right.  If a crime has been committed, or the authorities know that a crime is being planned, arrest those responsible and charge them.  Don't penalize the entire citizenry of a state for the alleged - but so far unproven - plans, crimes or motivations of a few.  That's not how the rule of law works . . . but then, in Virginia today, one questions how seriously the rule of law is being taken by the powers that be.  After all, they're changing those laws as fast as they can, so that yesterday's law-abiding citizen is about to be made into a criminal by the stroke of a legislative pen, rather than anything he or she has actually done.

It's not about the rule of law.  It's about the rule of ideology, and the imposition of the views of the ideologically "pure" upon those they see as the "bitter clinger" citizens of their state.

That's a recipe for disaster, right there.

Peter

Coming to a boil in Virginia?

Many commenters, including myself, have urged caution in the weeks leading up to today's VCDL "Lobby Day" pro-Second-Amendment protest in Richmond, Virginia.  We've pointed out that the newly-installed Democratic Party administration in that state has basically set things up so that they can't lose.  Any incident is going to be blamed on right-wing agitators, redneck rebels and "bitter clingers", and used as an excuse to implement even harsher repression against those who place a higher value on the Constitution of the United States than upon current politically correct shibboleths.

However, the other side has not been seeking to de-escalate things to a level of reasoned discourse.  Instead, they're doubling down on their determination to ram new laws through the state government to reinforce their domination and control - and to prevent it ever being democratically overturned.  2nd Amendment Daily News has more details.

Between November 18-21, 2019, just days after winning the majority, several anti-gun bills were pre-filed in Virginia.  These would criminalize ownership of AR-15s, outlaw ‘militia’ activity with the term now broadly defined, ban ‘high-capacity’ magazines and more.

Virginia voters - not just gun owners, but anybody who cared about the rule of law and checks and balances - were rightfully outraged.  More than 90% of the state voted themselves a Second Amendment Sanctuary.  News articles and Facebook forums were openly talking about voting out every single Democrat in the state in the next election.

The Democrats shot back:  they filed bills that repeal voter ID, would allow felons the vote, and more.  A LOT more.  Senate Bill 399 would give Virginia’s electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote.   SJ 29 would change election law so that the governor would be elected by majority of votes in congressional districts, not by statewide majority.  Basically, what D.C. says goes and the rest of you be damned.   SJ 14 would restore voting rights to convicted felons.  SJ 8 would allow felons and those declared mentally incompetent to vote.  SB 65 - Eliminates photo ID requirement for voting.  SJ 6 - Increases the term limit of the governor from 4 to 8 years.

So Virginians wised up. They’re not going to lose another election to dead voters, illegals, and felons.  They decide to start a recall petition for several key Democrats.  They’re not waiting for another election.  And they’re sure as hell not waiting two years for a sham rigged election if all these new bills become law.

But the Democrats aren’t playing a gentleman’s game, anymore.  They are in this for total domination, and they don’t have any scruples about playing in the mud!

Virginia’s Democrats replied swiftly.  They had Representative Paul Krizek introduce HB 842, a bill that changes how a candidate is recalled.  Instead of needing 10% of the prevailing vote to recall their seat, now you need 25%.  Oh, and instead of having 120 days to file all those petitions for a recall, they’ll only have 60 days.

If you live in Virginia, you’ve got some tough options in front of you.  You’re losing your state and way of life if these things go though.

If you live in another state, it’s time to wake up, and fast before you find yourself pinned like these Virginians.

There's more at the link.

That news still doesn't make me any more hopeful that today's protest will develop into anything other than a deliberate trap, set for Second Amendment defenders by the new Virginia powers that be.  However, it does illustrate just how determined the latter are, and how arrogant their approach is.  They're being utterly blatant and in-your-face to the entire state, and to the rest of the nation.  They've taken power, and they're doing their very best, by fair means or foul, to ensure that they never lose it again.

If they succeed, then, in so many words, what President Abraham Lincoln called "government of the people, by the people, for the people" shall indeed perish from the Virginia earth.  What's more, those responsible for the death of democracy in Virginia will do their best to spread it from there, and places like it, to the rest of these United States.

If it boils down to that, then what some are calling "Civil War 2" will probably become inevitable.

I hate to have to say that . . . but I've seen this before, in more than one country.  When one party or tribe or interest group or culture gains power over another, the temptation to make sure they never lose it again becomes overwhelming.  The other side reacts, and does their best to stop the rot before it's too late.  The result is inevitably chaos, disorder, and eventually bloodshed - sometimes on a massive scale.

I hope and pray that never again happens in the USA.  Sadly, there are those (on both sides of the political aisle) who don't share that hope;  in fact, they look forward to it happening, to "show the other side who's boss", or to "teach them a lesson", or any other specious excuse made by those who don't know the reality of which they so glibly speak.

Watch what happens in Virginia today;  and watch the progress of the anti-democratic bills that are in the pipeline in that state.  Virginia is now a harbinger for what's coming to this nation as a whole . . . whether we like it or not.

Peter

Sunday morning music

Here's a work by a Finnish composer of whom I'd never heard until just the other day.  It's the Third Symphony in F Major, Op. 40, composed by Erkki Melartin in 1907.  I find it reminiscent of Gustav Mahler's work.  The four movements are:

1 - Allegro moderato 00:00
2 - Andante 09:08
3 - Scherzo (Vivacissimo) 18:19
4 - Largo 28:34

Interesting music, and a nice change of pace from last week's rock memorial.

Peter

Saturday Snippet: "The Night Life of the Gods"

Thorne Smith was an American satirical author who flourished in the first half of last century.  Two of his books were made into successful Hollywood films, and his acerbic humor and biting wit made him a best-seller.  Many of his books are still in print.

One of my favorites among his novels is "The Night Life of the Gods".

Very briefly, Smith's protagonist, Hunter Hawk, and his light o' love, Megaera, bring to life a number of statues of the Greek and Roman gods in a New York museum.  They then set about introducing the now-living gods to modern city life.  The results are hysterical, to put it mildly.

One of my favorite scenes from the book takes place in a fish restaurant.  I'll let Thorne Smith describe it.

     The Olympus mob was foregathered at what is perhaps one of the world’s fishiest eating establishments. There might be places equally fishy, but certainly no place could get itself fishier. It far surpassed the sea god’s fondest expectations, for more fishiness per square foot was crammed into the shabby, antiquated room than he had ever believed possible outside of his spray-crested realm.
     The room was not lacking in personality. It had an atmosphere entirely its own. In it were to be found some of the smartest and most desperate fish eaters in the city — fish eaters in on the know.
     Whereas fish fanciers congregated at the Aquarium a few blocks south to gaze ineffectually at humiliatingly indifferent fish, the habitués of this river-front room — the real natural-born fish eaters of serious purpose and honest intent — came here with much heavier business in view. Their object was not merely frivolously to contemplate fish. Far from it. They came here to do something about fish, something positive and definite, something held clearly in mind. In short, to eat the things.
     One cannot tell by observing a person looking at a fish whether that person is genuinely fond of fish or thoroughly detests them — loathes them, in fact. The fish watcher might be doing either one of two things — gloating over the incarceration of the fish, or deriving enjoyment from the contemplation of their stupid activities. No such doubt can exist when observing a person eating fish. One can tell at a glance whether that person is sincerely fond of fish or is merely tolerating the fish until something less disagreeable turns up, such as tripe.
     The true fish eater never hides his light beneath a bushel unless it happens to be a bushel of oysters or clams. Fish eaters are frank about it. And if not extremely careful they can develop into terrific bores.
     The restaurant was redolent of fish. Outside, the streets were slippery with them — lined with fish markets. Pretty nearly every water-loving creature that ever swam, crawled, oozed, or drifted seemed to have settled in the neighborhood. In this district no fish need ever feel lonely. Few ever did, because most of them were quite dead.
     The Hawk party were seated at a large round table. There was ample elbow-room and a feeling of spaciousness. It was a table designed to hold a great many fish or one lightweight whale — as many as a party of ten could decently eat at one sitting. Perseus had placed his head beside his chair on the sawdust-sprinkled floor. He had done this because the negro waiter had refused to approach the table until the disconcerting object was out of sight. Mercury had laid aside his caduceus, and Neptune had slipped his trident under the table. Diana had left her bow at home.
     “To begin with,” began Mr. Hawk, “does anyone here want fish?”
     “The very word revolts me,” Venus declared. “This is no place for the goddess of love. I belong in a night club.”
     “Ask the waiter to bring us a cup,” said Hebe in a low voice, “and fill it from that flask you have on your hip. The gods are getting low.”
     Neptune was too bemused to answer his host’s question. His eyes were fixed on an ice-tank on the top of which reposed in horrid state a number of ill-tempered-looking lobsters. Unable to bear the sight any longer, the great man left the table and laid violent hands on two of the ugliest, most anti-social-looking crustaceans Mr. Hawk remembered ever having seen. With this wickedly animated pair of pliers he returned to the table and prepared to do battle with them there and then in cold blood.
     “Those damn things are worse than my snakes,” Perseus complained. “Look at the faces on them.”
     “I can’t bring myself to look at him,” said Diana. “He’s actually going to eat the things alive.”
     The negro waiter’s eyes were doing something good in the line of popping. “Gawd, brother,” he muttered to an associate, “that pitchfork-toting party is one tough gentleman. See him snapping at them great big green rascals.”
     “Would you mind going away to some secluded corner and fighting out your battles alone?” Venus asked her uncle.
     “Tooth against claw,” observed Mercury. “I bet on the teeth.”
     “What’s wrong with the lot of you?” demanded Neptune, sighting at the table between the jagged claw of one of his opponents. “I always tackle ‘em this way.”
     A few of the more advanced fish eaters in the room were regarding the sea god with attentive admiration. They had never tried lobsters quite so fully alive themselves and were anxious to see just how one went about it.
     Although aware of the attention Neptune’s impulsive action was attracting to the table, Mr. Hawk retained his self-possession. He reached over and quietly but firmly removed one lobster from Neptune’s grasp; then with his left hand he removed the other. The god was too astonished to protest effectively. The scientist nodded to the waiter.
     “Take these things outside,” he said, “and cook them.”
     Neptune gazed after the departing waiter in speechless indignation, then turned to Mr. Hawk. “What did you want to do that for?” he demanded.
     “Had I known previously,” replied Mr. Hawk quietly, “that you wanted to fight lobsters, I’d have made more suitable arrangements.”
     “But I always polish off a couple of live lobsters before I wire into the fish,” the god protested.
     “I was unfamiliar with your habits,” the scientist explained with a faint smile. “However, I think you’re going to enjoy these lobsters just as well. They’re delicious when they’re broiled.”
     “Are they?” Neptune exclaimed, his face brightening up. “I can hardly wait.”
     “You didn’t,” remarked Mr. Hawk briefly.

I highly recommend the book to those of a satirical bent.  You'll giggle a lot.

Peter

"I'll take 'Unlikely Movie Titles' for $100, Alex"

I was doing some shopping on Amazon.com the other night.  To my utter astonishment, one of my search terms returned not only goods for sale, but also a short movie titled "Kung Fu Wizard of Jesus vs. Undead Robot Nazi Werewolves".  A screen capture illustrating it looks like this:

What's more, it's billed as a comedy!  I haven't watched it, because my belief in Christ is an obstacle to making him an irreligious figure of fun.  Nevertheless, the title brings in so many tropes and story elements that it boggles the mind.  There's even another film in the series titled "Kung Fu Wizard of Jesus vs. Flying Saucer Monster".  (No, I haven't watched that one either.)

What unlikely movie titles have you come across that have made you do a double-take?  Let us know in Comments.

Peter

"There's more than one way to skin a cat" - illegal alien edition

The headline is an old saying from the 19th century that I still enjoy.  It's still valid, in almost every walk of life.  President Trump has just illustrated that in dealing with the invasion of this country by illegal aliens.

Donald Trump's policies to deal with the crisis on our southern border are working as intended. Mark Morgan, acting U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner, says that daily apprehensions of illegal aliens have fallen from about 4,000 at the height of the crisis to around 1,300 now. What's more, the 21-day average is less than 1,000 -- a 78 percent drop over the last year.

. . .

Fewer people are being stopped at the border because there are fewer people trying to cross. And the reason for that is the agreements the U.S. now has with Mexico and Guatemala.

. . .

Noting that Congress has done little to change outdated immigration laws, [Morgan] said that Trump took action and built relationships with Mexico and other Central American nations that now hold immigrants seeking to come into the U.S. until the government gives them the green light.

. . .

Limiting the number of those seeking asylum as well as cracking down on enforcement has done more to address the illegal alien problem than any other policy put in place by any other president.

There's more at the link.

I'm particularly amused by the way President Trump used the border wall as a distraction device.  Democrats in Congress frothed at the mouth, opined and obfuscated and obstructed, and did everything in their power to prevent him from building it.  He used their preoccupation with that single issue to bypass them in other areas, drawing other countries into helping to enforce US immigration law, and effectively substituting foreign policy, foreign aid (and the granting or withholding thereof) and border security enforcement measures for the wall, to the extent possible.  I still think much stronger and more comprehensive border security is necessary - given the cartels' control of Mexico, it's a genuine national security issue - but I have to doff my hat in admiration at how the President has used every tool in his toolbox to accomplish his policy objectives.  When blocked one way, he's used another.

There's still a long way to go - for example, getting rid of the millions upon millions of illegal aliens already on our soil - but this is a good start.

Peter

The Richmond protest: things are getting squirrelly out there

Last week I repeated a warning that's been sounded by many people whose judgment I respect.  The "Lobby Day" in Richmond, Virginia on Monday, January 20th, directed against the new anti-gun proposals and legislation being imposed by the newly-elected Democratic Party government of the state, is turning into a tailor-made opportunity for anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun, anti-freedom, pro-statist propaganda.  Those forces are already preparing the ground to portray all those who support the Second Amendment and enjoy the use of firearms as knuckle-dragging, proto-Neanderthal, diehard stick-in-the-mud unreconstructed Rebels who need to be taught a lesson.  What's worse is that some of those opposed to what they're doing are providing them with the ammunition they need.

Example:

Three men linked to a racially motivated violent extremist group have been arrested in Maryland and Delaware by FBI special agents.

The suspected white supremacists were believed to be on their way to a gun rights rally planned in Richmond for Monday, according to several national media outlets.

The FBI Baltimore Field Office confirmed that 33-year-old Brian Lemley, Jr. and 19-year-old William Garfield Bilbrough IV were arrested on Thursday and charged with transporting and harboring aliens. The 'alien' in question was 27-year-old Patrik Jordan Matthews, a Canadian national who was arrested on firearms charges.

Lemley faces a charge of transporting a machine gun and other firearms charges, including disposing of a firearm and ammunition to an alien unlawfully present in the United States.

A criminal complaint for the case charges Mathews with being an alien in possession and transportation of a firearm and ammunition to commit a felony.

The document indicates Lemley and Mathews used firearms parts to make a functioning machine gun, and allegedly tried to make a hallucinogenic drug as well.

There's more at the link.

I can already hear the screams of outrage from the usual suspects.  "How dare you demonize our righteous, legitimate, anti-leftist protest by associating us with such way-out-there, psychopathic, criminal creeps?"  Folks, I dare do so because you've just set up the perfect opportunity for creeps like that to gain publicity and exposure at your expense!  You've literally created the opening they need to crawl out of the mental and spiritual sewer in which they live, and smear their excremental thinking all over the body politic in the state of Virginia, and by extension the United States as a whole.  They'd like nothing better than the publicity they could gain by causing a disruption to your otherwise "peaceful" and "law-abiding" protest . . . and you're handing them the opportunity to do so.

If you want to bet that nobody else of that ilk is planning to show up in Richmond next week, I'll take that bet.  Stakes in advance, please, and in cash, held by a third party whom I can trust to pay me when I've won (which I will).

What's more, the new majority in the Virginia state government is openly challenging its opponents by enacting as many anti-gun laws as possible, in an in-your-face demonstration of their newly-acquired power.  They want a fight.  They're looking - begging - for a fight, because they control the high ground.  All the conditions in Richmond are in their favor.  They don't care that they're alienating almost half the voters in their state.  They weren't elected by those voters, and they don't give a damn about their opinions.  They're going to ride roughshod over their objections, and to hell with them all.  They're going to tax ammunition (as I predicted last week);  they're trying to restrict hunting by banning common practices like guaranteed success, or the use of dogs;  they're reintroducing old, demonstrably failed policies like "one-gun-a-month" purchase restrictions;  and they have plenty more plans in mind.  Whether or not such measures have ever worked, anywhere, or will work in future, isn't the point.  The point is the public signal they're sending.  "We are the new wave, we're in power, and all those of you 'bitter clingers' who prefer the old ways and your self-proclaimed Constitutional rights are just going to have to get with our program - or else!"  The question is already being asked:  "Is Governor Northam trying to start a second civil war?"  I believe that's very likely, to judge by his words and actions.  He wants a fight, on his terms, and he believes he can win it.

You even have the astonishing sight of a far-left-wing, progressive group like Antifa (or, at least, one chapter of it) planning to protest the same anti-gun laws as pro-Second-Amendment activists - an unlikely alliance on the face of it, but one that makes sense from their point of view.

Antifa Seven Hills, based in Richmond, are opposing the slew of gun bills introduced by the newly Democratic Legislature since November, because they say those types of laws are used primarily to criminalize poor people, minorities, and leftists — and to bolster law enforcement’s power.

“I think it’s been pretty important for us to focus on the fact that gun control in America has a legacy of racist enforcement,” said Antifa Seven Hills spokesperson James (who asked that his name be withheld to avoid getting doxxed online). “Like taking guns away from black people, because black people were perceived as a threat to property and the sanctity of the state.”

The local Antifa chapter’s engagement in this issue is another example of the resurgence of pro-gun leftists in America and yet more evidence that the gun-rights debate is growing increasingly politically diffuse and nuanced beyond simply being a GOP issue. Under the Trump administration and in response to the emergence of an emboldened far-right movement, leftist gun groups have surged. For example, the Socialist Rifle Association was formed in 2018 and today has over 50 chapters across the country. Similarly, Redneck Revolt, a leftist gun group that formed in 2016, claims at least 45 chapters nationwide.

“This is our fight as much as anyone else’s,” James, who identifies as an anarchist, added. “It’s our state, and we are left largely out of the debate. The presence of an armed left is not discussed, it’s not understood.”

Again, more at the link.

I'm willing to bet that many of those on the right of US politics will react instinctively - and very negatively - to the presence of Antifa in "their" parade.  One hopes they'll adopt the ancient and time-honored attitude that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and at least tolerate their presence.  However, I won't be surprised if they react violently to the proximity of those they instinctively regard as "the enemy".  I hope they won't . . . but I'm a realist.  There are too many out there who'll act before they think.  (That, of course, is precisely what the left-wing, anti-gun mainstream media is waiting for.  I don't need to predict the headlines.  I'm sure you can do that for yourselves.)

I'm worried that too many activists on the right wing of the US political divide are portraying events in Virginia as a "last stand for our constitutional rights".  It's not a "last stand" at all.  It's just another chapter in the ongoing struggle to maintain the vision of our Founding Fathers for the republic in which we live.  That struggle even before the Declaration of Independence was signed by those who pledged to each other "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to uphold the principles it espoused.  Many of them paid that price.  Why should we expect to have to pay a lesser one to sustain the same principles?

The thing is, those signatories took up arms in violent revolution only after they had exhausted any and every other possibility of obtaining a just resolution of their concerns.  We're a long, long way from that yet.  We're talking one state out of fifty, not the entire country.  Literally, let's not "jump the gun" in Richmond next week.  There are too many of our political, ideological and social enemies salivating at the prospect of using that protest to demonize, disrupt and denigrate our cause.  We'll do well to consider that reality, and pick a fight for reasons, and on ground, where we're more likely to succeed.

If you knowingly stick your hand into an operating blender, and it gets mangled, whose fault is that?  The blender's - or yours?

Peter

The great inversion: "deplorables" versus intellectuals

Eric S. Raymond wrote a very thought-provoking article a few weeks ago, analyzing how socialist and Marxist ideology has moved its support base from workers to intellectuals in both the UK and the USA.  Here are a few excerpts.

There’s a political trend I have been privately thinking of as “the Great Inversion”. It has been visible since about the end of World War II in the U.S., Great Britain, and much of Western Europe, gradually gaining steam and going into high gear in the late 1970s.

. . .

To understand the Great Inversion, we have to start by remembering what the Marxism of the pre-WWII Old Left was like — not ideologically, but sociologically. It was an ideology of, by, and for the working class.

Now it’s 2019 and the Marxist-rooted Labor party in Great Britain is smashed, possibly beyond repair. It didn’t just take its worst losses since 1935, it was eviscerated in its Northern industrial heartland, losing seats to the Tories in places that had been “safe Labor” for nigh on a century.

Exit polls made clear what had happened. The British working class, Labor’s historical constituency, voted anyone-but-Labor. Only in South Wales and a handful of English cities with large immigrant populations was it able to cling to power. In rural areas the rout was utter and complete.

To understand the why of this I think it’s important to look beyond personalities and current political issues. Yes, Jeremy Corbyn was a repulsive figure, and that played a significant role in Labor’s defeat; yes, Brexit upended British politics. But if we look at the demographics of who voted Labor, it is not difficult to discern larger and longer-term forces in play.

Who voted Labor? Recent immigrants. University students. Urban professionals. The wealthy and the near wealthy. People who make their living by slinging words and images, not wrenches or hammers. Other than recent immigrants, the Labor voting base is now predominantly elite.

This is the Great Inversion – in Great Britain, Marxist-derived Left politics has become the signature of the overclass even as the working class has abandoned it. Indeed, an increasingly important feature of Left politics in Britain is a visceral and loudly expressed loathing of the working class.

. . .

It would be entertaining to talk about the obvious parallels in American politics – British “gammons” map straight to American “deplorables”, of course, and I’m not even close to first in noticing how alike Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are – but I think it is more interesting to take a longer-term view and examine the causes of the Great Inversion in both countries.

. . .

Tony Blair it was who first understood that the Labor Party’s natural future was as an organ not of the working class, but as a fully converged tool of the international managerial elite. Of those who think their justifying duty is to fight racism or sexism or cis-normativity or global warming and keep those ugly gammons firmly under their thumbs, rather than acting on the interests and the loudly expressed will of the British people.

Now you also know why in the Britain of 2019, the rhetoric of Marxism and state socialism issues not from assembly-line workers and plumbers and bricklayers, but from the chattering classes – university students, journalists and pundits, professional political activists, and the like.

This is the face of the Great Inversion – and its application to the politics of the U.S. is left as a very easy exercise.

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

I think Mr. Raymond is spot-on in his analysis.  Think back to Hillary Clinton's offhand, throw-away, contemptuous "basket of deplorables" comment, and it sums it up right there.  She paid for that attitude at the polls, just as the Labour Party did in the UK last month.

Personally, I think we need a lot more deplorables in the USA!

Peter

"The future is stupid" - electric car edition

According to this meme (found on Gab), it certainly looks that way!

It's almost as good as a photograph I once saw of a non-hybrid model Toyota Prius (i.e. no engine - plug-in recharging only), driving along a road, with a gasoline-powered generator mounted on its towing hitch!

Peter

Can Airsoft and BB gun training translate to real firearms? You bet they can!

A few years ago, I recommended the use of BB and/or Airsoft handguns as an ultra-low-cost training resource, to improve skill with a real handgun.  I repeated that advice a couple of days ago in a new article.  After that came out, I was challenged by a few shooters who insisted that "playing with a toy" could not possibly translate to usable shooting skills with a real firearm, and that I was "sucking this out of my thumb".

I'm never going to persuade everyone:  but to those willing to watch with an open mind, here's about as much proof as you'll ever need.  In Japan, private ownership of firearms is just about impossible, and severely restricted even for those with enough "pull" to get a permit.  Therefore, the use of Airsoft guns as a sport has become very popular.  There are even organized tours from Japan to the USA to allow those who've never fired a gun, to shoot one at a range here.  Some businesses (e.g. in Las Vegas and elsewhere) actually make their living out of catering to the tourist shooter market (not only from Japan, of course).  Those who come over here having familiarized themselves with firearms using Airsoft "toys" tend to do OK.

Some Japanese take this to extremes, participating in Airsoft championships that are right up there with the top matches in the USA in terms of the demands placed on shooters.  You can see numerous videos of their efforts on YouTube.  One such competitor recently came to the USA after exposure to that level of shooting.  He'd never fired a real firearm in his life - only Airsoft weapons.  Watch for yourself how he did when handed a real Glock and a real AR-15 - and then tell me, if you dare, that Airsoft experience doesn't translate to real firearms with only a minimum of transition training.

I think that video proves my point fairly conclusively.  I'm nowhere near that young man's ability:  age and physical infirmity have taken my level of skill down more than a few notches from when I learned to use firearms the hard way, in the bush warfare environment of Southern Africa.  (I've written about Rhodesian-style "jungle walk" training before, most recently in this article.  If you get the chance to try it, do so - it's worth it.)  Even so, I benefit (and save a lot of money) from practicing with BB guns instead of real handguns.  The former cost me less than 1c per round fired, compared to 4c-6c per round for decent-quality .22LR, 16c-17c per round for the cheapest bulk-pack brass-case 9mm target ammo, and 25c-26c per round for the ditto .45 ACP.  Guess which option I can afford to shoot the most?

If I (or anyone else) can shred the center-face or center-mass area of a target, on demand, using BB or Airsoft weapons, what makes you think we can't do the same with something rather more useful for defensive purposes, given even a little transition training and practice - something I do at almost every range session?

I rest my case.

Peter

Remind me never to take that Nepalese bus . . .

Some driving experiences are not for the faint-hearted . . . including this one from Nepal.  The driver and passengers seem to take it in their stride, but if I'd been aboard, I'd have had immense problems afterwards getting the seat cushion out of my backside!

Peter

"Unsalvageable" humans?

An article in Taki's Magazine refers to some human beings as "The Unsalvageables".  Here's an excerpt.

Some of you might remember Anthony Stokes. He was a 15-year-old DeKalb County, Ga., hood rat with a bum ticker who kept getting passed over for a heart transplant because of his “high risk” lifestyle, which included burglary, weapons charges, arson, and neglecting to take his prescribed meds.

Seeing how donor hearts aren’t found on trees (or in Dollar Trees), doctors were reluctant to give a young crime lord in training one of the precious organs. So Anthony’s granmoms or auntie or whoever the hell was raising him went to the local civil rights shysters screaming racism. Social justice gorgon Tara Culp-Ressler, managing editor of ThinkProgress, ginned up a media campaign, which soon went national. Anthony was given his heart transplant in record time by doctors who were basically told, “Perform this operation or you’re Mengele.”

Anthony Stokes was now armed with a new, healthy heart with a kickin’ beat. He was also armed with a variety of handguns, one of which he used on an old lady whose front door he kicked in during a brazen home-invasion robbery. After shooting at his elderly victim but missing, Tony carjacked a passerby, ran over a pedestrian, and lost control of the vehicle, smashing full-speed into a SunTrust Bank sign, closing his personal account for good.

. . .

... one of the ugliest truths about mankind [is that] some people are unsalvageable ... Be it Jesus, the government, or any number of other icons, authors, or belief systems, most ideologues claim a savior for whom or for which nothing is impossible, including fixing the unfixable.

. . .

This denial of reality has forged a nation lousy with unsalvageables. I broached that topic last year regarding Baltimore. That city is an example of what happens when an area reaches what I call Critical Mass Unsalvageables (CMU). When you get too many unsalvageables in one area, the area itself becomes unsalvageable ... unsalvageables outnumber decent folks to such an extent, people with aspirations are dragged down and reformers are rendered impotent. That’s what unsalvageables do in large numbers; like hive-mind aliens, they instinctively terraform the environment to suit their needs.

There is only one sensible approach to an area that has been afflicted with CMU: quarantine. Give the people who by their own merits can leave as much help as possible to leave. And then wall that s*** up, figuratively if not literally.

There's more at the link.  The author goes on to discuss "unsalvageables" in the context of nations such as Afghanistan, and US involvement there.

There's a harsh, unpalatable, but also undeniable truth in the author's words.  I say that even though I'm a Christian pastor who's supposed to believe (and preach) that everyone, no matter how steeped in evil, can be redeemed by Christ.  That may be true in the spiritual sense, but it's not true in the physical, here-and-now sense on this earth.  I've served as a prison chaplain, remember?  I've seen feral criminals, deprived (through incarceration) of the ability to prey on the public, turn on prison staff and each other and prey on them instead.  It's instinctive with them, unstoppable and untamable.  They're innately vicious, predatory and self-centered, to the point where nothing and nobody else matters except that they get whatever they want, whenever they want it.  Their gratification outweighs every other consideration, and they don't care how they go about satisfying it - or who they hurt in the process.

Therefore, much as I don't like to admit it:  yes, there are human "unsalvageables" who are beyond our ability to rescue them.  I described some of them in my book on prison chaplaincy.  Their personalities are damaged, flawed or scarred beyond recovery, even though their souls may, by some miracle of grace, make it through the Pearly Gates to the kingdom of Heaven.  I don't know how God's mercy works:  I'm just grateful that it does, because I'm going to need an overdose of it myself!

As for "walling them up" or "quarantining" them:  I don't think that's practical, because they'll break out of any quarantine short of incarceration in prison - and some of them manage to do that, sometimes.  I've worked in prisons where escapes have occurred, even from a high-security penitentiary.  The time, effort, hard work and ingenuity inmates put into planning their escape would probably make them millionaires if they applied the same qualities to honest work;  but no, that's too much trouble for them.  They want all the rewards without having to labor for them - except, of course, the labor involved in stealing them.  They'll apply that same effort to breaking out of quarantine.  The concept of a walled city prison, illustrated in dystopian entertainment such as the movie "Escape from New York", simply won't fly in the real world.  There are too many ways out.

The only solution would be to execute the "unsalvageables".  I don't think any civilized society could tolerate that - not without destroying its own collective soul from the inside.

What's the answer to the "unsalvageables"?  I don't know . . . except to say that I don't want them anywhere near the society in which I live.  A basic regard for the safety and security of those around me requires their exclusion.  How to do that?  I don't know that it's legally, morally or ethically possible:  so the only alternative appears to be to make them so afraid to prey on others that they dare not do so.  Our present justice system doesn't even come close to that, and there's no likelihood that it will.

Perhaps, in the end, it all has to come down to Heinlein's famous dictum:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Peter