On All My Motions

As I mentioned the other day, I still maintain a solid curiosity regarding the different types of RVs, and the different lifestyles of the various practitioners. My keenest interest is in the Class B type, the ‘camper van’. (Some of those are actual converted vans, but in general they refer to something built on a van chassis for the express purpose of being a small RV that someone can live in.) I can’t wish for one myself, because there is no way Susan and I could manage in a space that small — our current Class C, one of the less roomy of such models, is enough for us but only just barely — but I’m fascinated by the very fact of living and traveling in such compact circumstances.

Last month, I happened to be out walking when one such arrived and backed into its new slot, and I stopped long enough to make some quick inquiries. The driver and his wife were pleased to answer my questions, and even invited me (unsolicited) to look inside. I did my best to keep it brief, but promptly went back to tell Susan about my encounter. Shortly thereafter, seeing that they were setting up a screen tent so they could sit outside in the shade, I prevailed on Susan to go out for a ‘walk’ of her own, just so she could meet them.

They welcomed us. For some reason the immediate conversations were between me and the wife, and Susan and the husband. And, for some reason, the issue of politics came up between me and the wife (call her Jeanne). We had already established that the two of them were from Ottawa, and Jeanne and I skirted very delicately around the edges, both of us cautious about broaching subjects in which we might find ourselves in emphatic disagreement.

The husband (call him Jerry) got a phone call, however, and stepped around back of the van to carry it out privately; Susan joined Jeanne and me, and after a few minutes of discussion among the three of us, we managed to establish that this Canadian couple was surprisingly conservative in their outlook, in contrast to the continuing leftward tilt of those who keep remaining in charge of that country’s governance. Since they were here visiting the U.S., they were quite interested in getting our take on the political climate of this country, and we were more than happy to offer our opinions.

Keep in mind: Susan and I are SO conservative, I have met exactly one person in my entire life that I knew for a fact was more conservative than I am; it was refreshing and welcome to find ourselves in animated discussion with a couple who not only didn’t disagree with us, but avidly wanted to know what we thought. And their primary concern was to how great was the likelihood we saw of an actual civil war here.

(I told them that I was less worried about that than I used to be … but that a little vigilante action here and there wouldn’t surprise me, as voters got fed up with seeing our laws systematically violated, and Antifa types attacking Tesla dealerships began discovering that AR‑15 trumps Molotov cocktail.)

We eventually went back to our own rig, and then the entirety of the following day was taken up with … with something else that I’ll use a subsequent post to cover. The following morning, when we woke, the space of our Canadian neighbors was empty; as it turned out, however, they had just taken their vehicle to visit a nearby state park, and returned in the afternoon. And, while we were still debating whether to go call on them again — uncertain as to whether we would be imposing, even though our previous visit had been so rewarding — they came to call on us in our own space. That was perfect, we invited them in and talked happily for a few more hours, and traded email addresses when they were finally ready to leave.

We’re Facebook friends now as well, and I’m not ruling out the possibility of visiting them in Toronto next year. It was just nice overall, and VERY unusual for me of all people to voluntarily initiate social contact.

Sometimes, things just work out.

When Trump announced the end of birthright citizenship … well, it’s easy to say something like that, isn’t it? Pushing it through the blizzard of lawsuits and countersuits and protests and a still-at-least-a‑bit-squishy Supreme Court is a different matter.

( Caution: conservative political thoughts under the cut. )

Some months ago, pretty much immediately after Joe Biden’s disastrous debate with Trump, one of my wife’s friends called her in a panic. The lady has been in a long-term lesbian relationship, and — since she knew of Susan’s conservative background, though they’ve remained on very good terms — she wanted to know if Trump’s people would come after her and her partner if he was elected.

I think back on that now that I hear all the dire predictions of the fascist tyranny about to descend on the United States now that a popular and electoral majority have decided that Trump was preferable to the available alternative. And I keep thinking of what I wanted to tell the poor woman, if she had asked me instead of my wife.

It runs something like this.

Before we get into anything else, you need to understand: Trump is not a conservative.

I’m serious. I look at the man and still see a comfortable urban liberal who, because he was in businesses that required that he achieve measurable, practical results, had his reflexive cultural liberalism modified and kept in contact with reality. This, by the way, is quite a bit more approving toward him than was my original impression. When I knew he had the Republican nomination for the 2016 election, that it would be between him and Hillary, I groused, “So basically we get to decide which liberal New York Democrat we want in the White House?” Even now, he’s enormously more easy-going on the issue of abortion (for instance) than I believe an attentively moral man ought to be, and that’s not the only area where he doesn’t measure up to ‘my standards’.

I was, in fact, surprised by how more-toward-conservative his presidential record turned out to be. Frankly, I suspect he would have taken a more moderate approach (in this context, ‘moderate’ is not something I see as a good thing) if the liberal/progressive establishment hadn’t gone after him with everything they had, nudging him in the opposite direction purely in reaction. I may be doing him an injustice there, it may be that the same unflinching stubbornness kept him doggedly on the course he had originally chosen, refusing to deviate by so much as an inch. Either way, I still see him as a liberally-inclined guy who wound up behaving in a manner more gratifyingly conservative than I had expected of him.

Now, whether or not you agree with any of the above, the point of all that is this:

My own political beliefs are SO conservative that I view the current global avatar of reactionary right-wing extremism as not-really-conservative. In other words, if I had the power of the Presidency, I would push a LOT farther than Trump has done or appears ready to do.

And, even that being so, I wouldn’t be going after that poor woman and her life partner.

Why would I? Why would I want to? I don’t want porn taught in K‑12 schools, I don’t want men in women’s locker rooms (or fraudulently stealing sports trophies from women and girls) because they lie about being women, I don’t want pedophilia to be legitimized and legalized, but none of that has anything to do with individual people making their own private choices. I am MUCH MORE EXTREME in my beliefs and positions than Trump is ever likely to be, and she’s still safe from me … because I have no desire to force other people to do what I want, I just want to stop them from forcing ME to do what they want.

And if I wouldn’t be inclined to kick off the next wave of right-wing tyranny, how much less likely is the guy who’s substantially more moderate than I am?

Susan and I started watching hours before any of the polls were due to close, just to get a feeling for the general tenor of things. Then polls did begin closing, and returns began coming in …( Political stuff under the cut. )

It’s been a while since I did one of these retrospectives. To some extent, it was because — upon ‘aging out’ of the Army — I was no longer able to directly participate in the kinetic response to the events of 23 years ago, and so felt any opinions I might offer would come from a place of lesser authority. Also, after 10 years I simply had much less to say on the subject.

( Mostly, though, it was disillusionment. )

I listened to Joe Biden’s speech last night with mounting horror. Talk of ‘passing the torch’, ‘new generation’, ‘good of the nation’, and dwelling on his accomplishments (i.e., he hasn’t yet succeeded in destroying the U.S.) … I just knew he was about to announce his resignation from office.

Which would be good. He never belonged in the White House in the first place.

On the other hand, he’s already there, and — however much damage he’s done — his power is fading by the moment.

Mainly, though, I was viscerally repelled at the prospect of Cackling Kamala actually making it into the history books, without any achievements of her own, as “our first female President”.

She didn’t. Joe didn’t resign. It may well be the first thing he’s ever done that meets with my approval. Not wholehearted — he never should have been President, and with the possible exception of James Buchanan has been the worst ever — but I’d prefer he stay where he is, till he can be carted out to long-term elder care, rather than give the office over to that vacuous idiot.

We live in uncomfortably interesting times.

So far, I haven’t seen anybody lamenting that the gunman missed, or calling for other volunteers to step up and keep trying. I don’t doubt that something like that is out there somewhere, but I haven’t seen it.

So far, I haven’t seen anybody claiming that Trump set up the whole thing himself, to make him look good. I don’t doubt that something like that is out there somewhere, but I haven’t seen it.

So far, the reactions have been sincere shock — followed by rejoicing at the man’s survival — or measured statements that this kind of thing is unacceptable, and should be condemned by all.

That’s how it all should be. So far.

However, I emphatically reject ANY attempts to claim that violent rhetoric ‘from both sides’ has led us to this point. Because I only see it coming from one side … and the guilty parties were getting praise and applause from their political compatriots. Until somebody acted according to those expressed sentiments, and suddenly (For the moment. For the moment.) talk of assassination became unpopular and an embarrassment.

But I remember who was making those noises. And I don’t think I’m the only one who isn’t about to forget who they were.

I keep hearing that it’s politically impossible for the Democrats to replace Joe Biden with anyone except the current Vice President, cackling Kamala Harris (except maybe for someone like Michelle Obama), because the optics of ignoring a black woman — and current officeholder — are just too prohibitive. I figure the people who say this know more than I do about the intricacies of Democrat infighting and the behavior of Democrat voters, so I won’t say they’re wrong.

( I just can’t see it myself, though. )

The current (progressive) mayor of Boston has stated that people should not be prosecuted for these offenses:

• shoplifting
  
• larceny
  
• disorderly conduct
  
• receiving stolen property
  
• driving with a suspended license
  
• breaking and entering with property damage
  
• wanton and malicious destruction of property
  
• threats
  
• minor in possession of alcohol
  
• marijuana possession
  
• possession with intent to distribute
  
• non-marijuana drug possession

Those offenses are all on a ‘do-not-prosecute’ list that was created by former Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins.

I won’t address that directly. I’ll just say this:

Starting in 1994, Rudy Giuliani — then the new mayor of New York City — instituted a new program wherein ALL minor crimes would be dynamically prosecuted. His view was that, if the people saw that the city government was serious about law and order, they would … well, maybe, find it to their benefit to obey the law?

Nice theory. Question was, would it work?

It did.

New York City underwent an almost literal renaissance. Times Square, once home to endless porn theaters and sex shows and drug marts, became a favored tourist destination for families. That was just the most prominent effect; the city itself was cleaned up to an extent that would have been deemed impossible a few years previously.

Subsequent Democrat administrations, of course, repudiated this primitive, retrograde thinking. With predictable (except for progressives) results.

And now Boston is pursuing an approach almost explicitly the opposite of the Guiliani strategy, with — apparently — no glimmering of awareness of the absolutely certain consequences.

These people are convinced that their superior status, their superior credentials, their superior being, mean that they are definitionally qualified to rule over us. And with everything they say, everything they do, they extravagantly, publicly demonstrate that they are not reliably qualified to wipe their own asses.

I recently was reminded of something I saw several several years ago, on A&E Biography: while speaking of the subject of that particular episode, the narrator concluded the sentence with, “… and this insecurity started a downward spiral of cocaine abuse.”

Whereupon I stood up and said to the TV set, “No, using cocaine started a downward spiral of cocaine abuse.”

Then yesterday, I saw a report that, after some state (I forget which) decriminalized possession of the most common illegal drugs, overdoses went up 1,500%. Gee, who saw that coming? and what could possibly have brought it about?

Why is it so hard for some people to keep basic principles straight in their minds? “Don’t do stupid things if you don’t want stupid results.” “If you get stupid results, don’t repeat the stupid things that produced them in the first place.”

Maybe the advanced brains necessary for elite thought just can’t be bound by simple, crude cause-and-effect reasoning. Or maybe — maybe — they’d change their methods of operation if they were ever, ever actually held accountable for the continuing results of their continuing dumbassery.