Guard Dog

Finished cleaning out the townhouse. The tenants left on the 19th. I got lucky. Two tenants over the three years I had it. Both nice families and both left the place in good shape. Most rental stories don't end so well. I'm having the place repainted as promised to the buyer and a few minor repairs. We're closing on the 29th. I'm getting out of the rental business after this.

Sorry to hear that Malc, I know how terrible that is.

I still fail to see how anyone figures the election was "hacked". So a bunch of russian bots and trolls were spreading disinformation on social media and other parts of the internet. Seriously who believes anything they read on the internet? Suppose I told all of you my entire back story was fake and I'm really a FBI agent working with INTERPOL in a joint investigation to ensnare Malcador & Volo (who are both the same person BTW) for criminal sarcasm and trolling for dwarves to be added into ALL rpgs ever made (including ones not in a fantasy setting) and of course mail fraud and money laundering? And you know it MUST be true. Someone you don't know just wrote it on the internet! But then again people still fall for the Nigerian Prince and catfish scams. You can't fix stupid.

Now reading this: It's ok so far. Murder mystery, nothing special. Interesting enough to keep me from putting it down, vanilla enough not to really like it. Started this one last night. A bit more my speed

I wouldn't bet on it. Paul Krugman said it yesterday. As far as Obama not leaving office it was not thrown around by serious political or media, just the fringes. And of course "people you know". From what I've read the only President in recent memory who wasn't happy when his term ended was Clinton. Free cigars and interns? That guy wanted to stay! But this is a thing that comes up around here every two years and has very little merit. Another nugget of propaganda thrown around to convince people to vote by telling them the people of opposite political inclination are their literal enemies waiting for the chance to take over everything and bring about 1000 years of darkness, etc. Suppose Clinton won in 2016. Aside from Goresuch what would be different? Assuming Kennedy did not want to retire with Clinton in office? Spending has gone up? Check Still fighting in Afghanistan, Syria, 180 other places around the world? Check. ACA still a thing? Check Immigration status quo? Check Tax Cut? Well, that would not have happened. Clinton thinks that's HER money not YOUR money. Otherwise.... can't think of much. If the Dems take over the House which they are likely to do, then they will control what gets funded and what does not. So they will be in a position to STOP things but not DO things. So you are likely looking at two years of status quo until 2020 when we put all the dice back in the cup and shake them up again. But status quo appeared to be just fine to the Republicans in the House after the initial flurry last year. So again... not much will change. Personally I hope they do take the House. I always sleep better when the government is divided.

Paul Krugman (living proof that a nobel prize is about as valuable as a participation trophy) says if the Dems win Congress in two weeks Trump won't "accept" the results. This again? What does he think Trump can do? I remember some folks saying Obama would not leave office when his term was up. I don't think anyone in the US was happier to see January 20th 2017 than Barak Obama was. It is ironic, the very people bemoaning the toxic political atmosphere in this country are the ones fomenting the very thing they complain about. It's like they want to create a "situation" just so that can be right that a "situation" was brewing. The wort part of all is it's all just a show. A farce. The winner of the Giants - Falcons game tonight will have a greater impact on the world than the winners of the 2018 midterms.

Two hunters are in the woods and stop to take a piss break. While they are taking care of their business one of them is bitten right on the **** by a snake. The afflicted hunter panics and says "What am I going to do?" His partner pulls out his cell phone and immediately calls 911. After describing the situation the EMS operator tells him "You are going to have to suck the poison out" The hunter hangs up his phone and turns to his stricken friend "What did she say?" The snake bitten hunter asks "That you're going to die"

Let's see.... my great, great, great (father's, mother's father's, mother right... something like that...) was black. All other ancestors were white. Therefore, I'm black! Woo hoo! Wait... now I have to worry when I get pulled over??? This sucks! In all seriousness congrats to Elizabeth Warren, she had an NA relative 6-10 generations back. That makes her an Indian I guess. Hey if men can be women and women can be men just because they say they are then she can be an indian too. I'm sure the Mashpee will be happy to let her buy a house on their land in Nantucket. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html Besides I feel like Tom Brady today so I'm Tom Brady now. So if y'all will excuse me I'm going home to surprise Gisele. Boy will she be surprised to see me!

You see how pernicious bias can be Pidesco? You are already politically predisposed against him politically. Then you see a story like that that is plausible on it's face and mixes a heavy dose of supposition and just enough truth to avoid a libel charge and the target audience accepts it easier because in reinforces and justifies the predisposition. I know people who would as easily accept the other story.

Sorry, I had that confused with something that happened here in TN. You're right. I corrected it.

SUCH POSTMODERN NEO-MARXISM REEEEEEEEEE OK, hypothetical question. I just posted an article that categorically states Donald Trump accepted a huge back channel bribe from Saudi Arabia to not make a big deal over that reporter. But the article was from Mother Jones. Do you believe it? Or that Hillary Clinton not only ordered the hit on Vince Foster, she actually shot him herself then put the pistol in his dead hand. But the source is The Blaze. Do you believe it?

Source on that? https://t.co/LTQ6d1sMwM ""In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman." The Boston Globe Source is memory from two years ago. I read a hell of a lot of newspapers and books. I don't remember where every single nugget of info comes from. And I didn't say she benefited from doing it, only that she did it. Supposedly. I also couched that with IIRC. Meaning the gray HDD cell that fact is stored in may have been corrupted by insomnia and booze.

You have a scientific background, so I don't need to remind you that studies are generally the only way we can reliably reach objective conclusions about reality. It's entirely possible that those studies are somehow flawed (relevant in light of the Sokal 2.0 thing a few pages back), but I wasn't able to find anything better. I suppose I can't say your original statement was strictly wrong, as you said the violence "seems" to be coming all from one side. It certainly "seems" that way, if you deliberately choose sources like Fox News and exclude anything with an iota more journalistic rigor. My point was simply that it's really not. If we're not taking facts into consideration, we might as well go full-on flat earther. And it's funny that you think we're so diametrically opposed ideologically. The only significant contention point I can think of is the importance you ascribe to the right to private property in the scale of fundamental rights. On my specific comment I was thinking less about things like charlottesville and the white sheet social club and their other brothers the attifa and more about the attack on Rand Paul (correction, I had this confused with a thing that happened here in TN two years ago, not realted), the attempted murder of Steve Scalise and a number of Republican Congressmen at the baseball game two years ago and a few other things in that vein. It's hard not to contrast the way the out of power Republican supporters reacted to Kagan & Sotomayor's nomination and the way the out of power Democrat supporters have reacted to Goresuch and Kavanaugh. Kagan and Sotomayor were perceived to be at least as hostile to things near and dear to the red voters and Trump's pick's were to the blue voters. But there were no protests, no threats, nothing like that. That I remember at least. The thing political leaders need to remember is there are people out there whose wrappers are a little loose and gravitate towards the fanaticism that politics sometimes engenders. When those people are being told the other side are their literal enemies and want to kill them and harm them (both of which were done in the Kavanaugh circus) it's not a surprise when one locks and loads and goes hunting. The Democrats (politicians) do not want to inspire violence. They are not monsters. They DO want to fire up the base to vote. The problem is as political leaders they need to do that without encouraging people to think different political opinions are an imminent threat to their very lives. Trump could do with that lesson also. And the point of data and studies. I am very much fact driven. I believe in concrete an verifiable things. The speed of light in 3,00000000 m/s and I KNOW that is true. When you get into things like social science facts become more fluid. Since the guy that shot up the baseball game was not actually affiliated with any political group that action could be dismissed as a regular crime rather than a politically motivated one. The attack on Rand Paul dismissed an a dispute between neighbors even though the suspect himself taunted Paul with political comments during the attack. Data can be couched and manipulated in numerous ways to say what the collector wants it to stay. Few studies are completely unbiased. Most I've found begin with an outcome in mind and try to make the data support the desired outcome. Unfortunately I've leaned that the hard way in my current job. Philosophically you and I are different on a lot of things. As you pointed out most arise from the conflict of the rights of the individual over some notion of common good etc. Which of course leads to what the role of the government in a society and the what the individual owes to that society where I suspect we'll find little agreement. On other individual right I know a few we agree completely. Don't get me wrong, you are a very intelligent guy and I enjoy trading posts with you. And I'm not trying to convince you I'm right and vice versa. Just pointing that out. I suspect you would also be a lot of fun to drink booze and talk sports with. So if I'm pointing out examples of a thing it's fair game to refute the examples. Don't think I'm using sloppy web searches and presenting the results, a handful of newslinks as concrete proof that a thing is so.

IIRC Warren put that she was native American on a job or grant application when(forget which) she was in her 20's. People lie (or embellish) on those things for preferential treatment. Fast forward 40 years later and she's running for Senate and that application gets dug up. So she is presented with two options: Come clean and admit she lied 40+ years earlier Stick with the lie, no matter how preposterous it is. She opted for door #2

most democratic governments aren't limited to two parties. which may be why 40% of US citizens never vote, they're eager for option C or D but it doesn't really exists. That way, 'correction' wouldn't have to be so drastic every time. You hit the nail square on the head. They saddest part is there ARE other options. The problem with "third parties" (even though most races field 4 candidates of more) is that people are always told "they can't win" That is only true if people think it is. If people voted for third party candidates they WOULD win. And one win helps another and another and another. One thing the Democrats and Republicans agree on (one on many, many things) is to deny ballot access and debate invitations to Libertarians, Greens, etc. The message you hear over and over is "Voting 3rd party is throwing you vote away" and is the same as voting for the party you are supposed to hate. The two parties are well invested in their fostered hatreds. One of the biggest motivations for voting these days is to defeat the alternative rather than vote FOR anyone. It got Trump elected. So they compel people to choose the "lesser evil". But all you get is evil that way. Sauron or Saurman? Pick one! That Aragorn guy? He's third party, he can't win! Don't throw your vote away!

https://qz.com/1182778/the-far-right-was-responsible-for-the-majority-of-extremist-killings-in-2017/ https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising?t=1539535571134 https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/08/21/which-ideology-has-inspired-the-most-murders-in-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil/ This is data, and it bears repeating that the plural of anecdote isn't data. What prominent Democrats have called for Trump's assassination? Honest question. It's good that you have at least amended your view that violence all seems to be coming from one side—even if you accept that perpetrators can be placed anywhere in the normal political spectrum. This isn't a study. It's a conversation. That wasn't data, it was examples. You and I are not going to convince each other of anything. We are and will always be opposite on almost everything from a philosophical standpoint. But that isn't the objective. The conversation itself is the objective. So please keep you observation on what is data and what is anecdote. The credibility of news sources and content in in the eye of the beholder. (speaking generally not to the specific stories you linked).

So, a Democrat and Republican walk into a bar and... https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/10/patriot_prayer_flash_march_cal.html BTW I thought a fireball was 2 oz of Dekuyper's Hot Damn schnapps, 1 oz of Absolut 4 oz of club soda with a few dashes of good tobasco stirred well with ice?

No one has exclusivity on violence. The difference is one is being encouraged by their favored party.

Unless the side you're referring to is the "violent" side, then I'm afraid you're dead wrong. edit: wait, wait. Is this one of those times when we argue that nazis are actually left-wing? ou tell me: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/calls-for-civility-after-vandalism-violent-clashes-outside-gop-headquarters-in-new-york https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/410566-clinton-you-cant-be-civil-with-a-party-that-wants-to-destroy https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/antifa-protesters-portland-traffic-riot/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/sen-rand-paul-blindsided-kentucky-home/story?id=50933869 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kentucky-democrat-reportedly-jokes-about-rand-paul-assault-he-can-be-beaten https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/25/ted-cruz-restaurant-brett-kavanaugh-protesters/1419181002/ http://www.startribune.com/rosemount-educator-on-leave-after-tweeting-kill-kavanaugh/495903561/ Of course some of this is all hat and no cattle. But I never once heard any prominent Republicans call for Obama's assassination. Or for Elena Kagans. Or Sotomayors. Of that their children should be kidnapped and raped. No one ever shot up a field of Democrats playing baseball. Or assaulted one in their home. Not saying there is no violence from the right. There definitely is. But generally the right leaning leaders are not calling for it. Not so the other way. Nazi, left wing, right wing... what it comes down to is are you so determined to have power over other people you are willing to hurt them or kill them to get it? Plain to see where that is going in this country at least. As for me I am a firm believer in the Non aggression principle. But I am also a firm believer in actively and forcefully defending myself.

It seems to be coming from one side really. I told someone once that if they really wanted to build a proletariat utopia in the US they should do it the old fashioned way: start a civil war. I promised them they would be obliged if they wanted one. Let's face it, Americans are a contentious bunch. We're not happy unless we fight each other every 150 years or so. On that note: https://nypost.com/2018/10/12/can-our-modern-house-divided-remain-one-nation/

Yep... the worst political system in the world... except for all the others

Historically speaking the out of power party has a good year in the midterms of an admin's 2nd year. They will likely take over the House by a slim margin or leave the Repubs with a slim margin. hey will likely not take the Senate. The math is unfavorable. If the do take the House they will paralyze the government and we can look forward to two quiet years of gridlock and public sniping until 2020 when we get to do this all over again. Hey, I love gridlock. People bitch about the government not "getting things done" but when all the government does is f--k things up, not getting THAT done is a blessing that should be appreciated.

Yes, the government does have some functions to perform. I'm no anarchist. In fact there is an excellent point by point guide of what those functions are: https://usconstitution.net/const.html Strangely enough I don't recall reading about things like OSHA, the Dept. of Education, etc. I DO recall a part about all powers not specifically assigned TO the Federal Govt being reserved to the states and the people. IMO (and in in that of James Madison) the Federal Government is doing way too much.