So Much For Progress

at least when it comes to buying food:

A checkout-free Sainsbury’s branch has reinstalled its tills after just three months because customers chose to queue at the helpdesk to pay in the traditional way, rather than use the app.
The Holborn Circus shop was made till-free in April this year, with customers able to pay for products using the company’s app on their phone – in a drive to speed up shopping.
Shoppers download an app, called SmartShop then scan the barcode of the items they want to buy.
But the experiment resulted in long queues at the help desk, as people tried to pay for their groceries in the traditional way.

See, I know where this came from.  Some twerp in Finance looked at the staffing costs and recommended to Management that the company eliminate people altogether from their stores.
“But how do we do that?”  Management cried.
“Fear not,” said IT (or a $2,000/hour team of consultants from Bain, after a 2-year study), “We can just force people to use Technologeh!”

So now Sainsbury’s has had to re-install checkouts and hire staff — but the Finance / IT / consultant wizards are not dangling from lamp posts along Holborn Street, as would have happened under the reign of World-Emperor Kim.

And more’s the pity, methinks.

SHTF Talk

Yesterday’s post about Britishland’s .gov SHTF preparations triggered a response in Comments about a post from the old blog.  Here it is:

No Helping Hand

January 6, 2007
5:00 AM CDT

I thought I’d share with you an email exchange I had recently with Reader Jim K. from the Seattle area:

Years ago, I was a FFL firearms dealer.  I was Clintoned out of my license (that’s another story), but I still have leftover inventory including an unopened crate of semi-auto AK-47s.
Recently, four young families moved up here to Washington state after making small fortunes in the California real estate boom.  These people are all friends of a friend so I run into them frequently.  They are all liberal, but not of the raving moonbat type.  None of them are anti-gun, but neither are they much interested in fireams.
Last summer I mentioned to several of these Silicon Valley escapees that I had a crate of AKs (I love doing this – the reactions are usually interesting).  One guy responded with something like “when things get bad, we’re coming to your house.”  He said this as a joke so I did not think much of it.
Partially due to recent events (Katrina, the Indian ocean tidal wave) and following your and Instapundit’s suggestions, I have created an emergency “abandon house” kit and also stored several months worth of unperishable food.  I have also urged my friends and family to do the same.  Most have, to some degree.
Recently I was at a party with these four families present.  I was encouraging them to make their own emergency kits and store food.  Also, I described my efforts in this area.  Once again someone made the “when things get bad we’re coming to your house” statement.  This time it was not a joke.
They seemed to believe that I would feed and protect them in dangerous times; almost as if it was my responsibility to do so.
This pissed me off.  I did not slap down the idiot because I really was trying to get these people to become riflemen and prepare for emergencies. I said nothing.  Yelling at them would not help, but I don’t know how I should have responded.  What would you recommend?

Well, you all can guess my response:

Tell ‘em straight:  “You come to my house, you’re going to get chased off. It’s not MY responsibility to look after you;  it’s YOUR responsibility to look after yourselves.”
Then offer to show them how to shoot, on the condition that they buy their own guns—NOT your AKs, but other guns—and offer to help them buy their guns.
If they refuse all that, tell them that they’d better pray that disaster doesn’t strike, because you’re NOT going to help them—you have enough on your plate just to look after your own family.

And about a week later, I got this back from him:

On Christmas Eve I went to a party where the four liberal families I previously discussed were present, and followed your advice.  After bringing up the emergency kit issue again, lots of people complained and teased me (in a good-natured way) but as expected, the “we’ll just come to your house” meme reared its ugly head.  I stated, as you suggested, that I would *NOT* help them in an emergency unless they first took measures to help themselves.  This did not go over well. Much argument followed. The net result:

1) I am no longer welcome at any of the four homes (no great loss).

2) I am now morally equivalent to Hitler and George Bush.

3) One woman called me a potential child molester (I’m not sure of the logic, but it had something to do with not helping her starving kiddies when the world goes whacky).

4) Republicans are evil, therefore, I am evil (being a Libertarian, this seemed a bit unfair, but the finer points of political philosophy were lost in the debate).

5) Another woman (a hardcore feminist) screamed:  “I’ll call the police!! Hoarding in an emergency is just wrong.  You won’t get away with it.”

6) The case of home brew ale I brought to the party was consumed (even some liberals have good taste in beer).

7) It was the females who did most of the ranting about my vile character and lack of moral fiber.  They also had the worst potty mouths.

8) As I was leaving (actually, “kicked out” ) one of the guys said, with complete sincerity:  “If things get bad, I really hope you’ll help us out.”  I said nothing, just shook my head and left.

On the plus side, one guy asked me for help concerning firearms.  We will be heading to the local range in a few weeks.  Even more spiffy (spiffier? of greater spiffyness?), a city politician at the party told me that the city was also making plans for a disaster situation which included stored food, medicine and fuel, neighborhood leadership organizations, a volunteer emergency police force made up of armed citizens, a “sudden lack of resources to investigate shot looter issues” and a “flying sanitation training squad”, among other things.

For the first time, I feel semi-good about my city government.  They are still tax-swilling scum, but at least they have the foresight to prepare for bad times.  Furthermore, I am now officially part of the emergency police force.  In an emergency I suspect a shovel will be more useful than a revolver, but I plan on carrying both.

Thank you for the advice.  Using it was educational and entertaining.

My only comment, after re-reading this prior to posting it, is that I would have suggested, in the friendliest manner possible, that “Anyone attempting to storm my house to get at the supplies will be shot—present company included.”

What a bunch of dicks: but of course, considering the heritage of this bunch, not entirely unexpected. I am also not surprised that the women took the greatest umbrage at our Reader’s position—but I’ll bet that their husbands, if they are men at all, will be making quiet plans to set up a SHTF box or two in the not-too-distant future. Good grief: they’re Californians; one would think, given the earthquake situation in California, that this would be a group quite familiar with the concept of preparing for disaster.

But hey… if they don’t wake up and make preparations, then it’s just a Darwin situation.  That would be doubleplus spiffy, considering they’re California liberals.

Incidentally, I had a brief RCOB at the suggestion that SHTF preparedness could be characterized as “hoarding” by the Unprepared.  Reader Jim should count himself well rid of them.  Socialist pricks.


And one more observation:  I just wish I’d been at that party when the fur and feathers flew.

Judicial Insanity

Just when you thought Teh Law couldn’t get any more stupid, you get rulings like this:

A man who died from a heart attack after having sex with a woman he met on a business trip is a ‘victim of a professional accident’, a French court has ruled.
This ruling means that the employer of the man, known as Xavier X, will have to pay hefty compensation to his dependents.

No wonder the Brits want out of the EU — although their own courts are not exactly paragons of justice, either:

A teenage thug who killed a stranger with a single punch during an unprovoked attack outside a McDonald’s has been jailed for four years.

Fucking hell, if the penalty Over Here for killing someone with a single punch was only four years in jail (as opposed to 25-to-life or the chair), I’d have clocked Chuck Schumer twenty years ago.

Die Young, Stupid Peasants!

It appears that a Democratic Socialist presidential candidate wants us all to die young, and stupid:

Andrew Yang agrees that the world should stop eating meat immediately.
“The U.N. just released a study that said we’re going to be OK if the vast majority of the world goes vegetarian immediately,” the entrepreneur and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate said. “So, it’s good for the environment, it’s good for your health if you eat less meat. Certainly, meat is an extraordinarily expensive thing to produce from an environmental sustainability point of view. So, I think it would be healthy on both an individual and societal level for us to move in that direction.”

Oh, well if the United Nations  says that, then it’s all tickety-boo, and so of course  we have to follow their dicta slavishly.

Then we have the Vegetarian Deniers’ input, here:

Vegetarians have a 20% higher risk of suffering a stroke than meat eaters ‘because they miss out on key vitamins’

And we’re also going to become more stupid, before we die young:

Plant-based diets `risk insufficient intake of brain-critical nutrient´, says nutritionist.

Hell, with vegans, we don’t even have to wait until the next generation for Teh Stupid to manifest itself.  [loud laughter warning]

But to return to the point at hand:  I hadn’t heard about this Yang creature before, other than that he’s about as loony as all the others in the Socialist Clown Car — and judging from his polling numbers, just about everyone else thinks the same way I do.

What I want to know is:  how many of the other  Socialist assholes support his thesis?  Now there’s a question for the next debate.  Just don’t hold your breath waiting for it to be asked.

See You In November, Asshole

I did not need to read this.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) told Fox News on Monday that the ability for strangers to sell guns to strangers without a background check is a “loophole” that needs to be addressed.
“I think one of the things, Jon, we have to do in this country is, take a strong look at this ability for people to buy a weapon when they’ve been turned down by a background check. … I believe, as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, we should protect that family transfer or family sale. But any stranger-to-stranger, however — we don’t know how this person got their gun, but we do know that that’s a real loophole in the law. Because I’m a gun owner, I’m never going to sell my gun to someone I don’t know that — do they have a criminal record, are they a danger to other people, are they ready to commit evil? There’s no need for that.”

Fuck you, Patrick.  If I want to sell a gun, I’ll fucking well sell it.  If a guy has been turned down for a prior gun purchase and he then tries to get a gun anyway, then he’s at fault, not I.

And what if he was turned down because a vengeful ex slapped a restraining order on him, just for spite?  Am I supposed to know that, too?

What you and your fuckbuddies in the gun confiscation business call a “loophole”, I call a personal freedom — the freedom to sell my personal property whenever I choose to do so.  If the buyer turns around and commits a crime afterwards, that’s not my fault  — just as it’s not the (FFL) gun dealer’s fault when a “legal” gun buyer turns round and murders someone.  In both cases, the actual perpetrator caused the problem, not the seller.  

As someone who wants to sell a gun, I have a right to ask the prospective buyer if he has a carry permit, and the right to refuse to sell him my gun if he doesn’t have one.  That’s the right you want to turn into an obligation?  Bite me.  If you want me to perform a “background check” on someone, go ahead and deputize me.  Otherwise, stay the hell out of my business.

Wait, here’s a thought:  why don’t you and your politician buddies pass legislation that automatically grants every concealed-carry permit-holder a FFL?  Then we’d have  to perform background checks each time we sold a gun (except to other CHL holders, of course).  Go on, I dare you.

And stop listening to the screams and wails to “do something”.  That “something” that they want you to do is going to piss off a lot of people who might otherwise have voted for you.  Like me.

#MeToo? #FuckYou

A recent report (no link, it’s the poxy Guardian) outlines how businessmen are invoking the Pence Rule and are either freezing out women (no un-chaperoned meetings), not hiring women if the job involves close contact (e.g. business travel) or not hiring attractive women (because they cause more trouble than they’re worth).

Of course, the Grauniad  claims that men are now “afraid” of women — when of course what’s being revealed here is that men have become cautious of what women could do to them thanks to the (male and female) feministicals in HR and the pro-feminist corporate policies (#BelieveAllWomen) they create.

Which begs the question:  what did they think was going to happen?

Did these stupid people think that in the face of unremitting and unbridled hostility towards men, that we were just going to sit and take all the bullshit they were throwing at us without some kind of response?

Did they think we were all college professors, liberal arts students or girlyman journalists?

Here’s one article on the topic which should evoke howls of laughter.  Headed “College Students Need To End The Pence Rule Now”, the author makes nonsensical statements like:

The notion that avoiding one-on-one interactions between opposite sexes is the key to fixing sexual violence is absurd. The underlying suggestion is that if a male is never alone with a member of the opposite sex, they never have the opportunity to indulge in such activities. By presenting an image of men being uncontrollable, lustful and power hungry, and women as temptresses, the Pence rule only perpetuates gender roles which help lead to sexual violence in the first place.

What utter bullshit.  The Pence Rule actually has very little (if anything) to do with “sexual violence”:  it is a precautionary measure that provides equal protection for both men and women in intimate situations, where the man can be prevented from flirting (or more) with the woman, AND where a woman can’t unjustly accuse a man of harassment after the fact.  It’s a social prophylactic, in other words, but just like a condom, which makes sex less pleasurable but prevents disease, the Pence Rule guards against the other “diseases” of sexual aggression and unjustified accusation.

If I were a young man attending college right now, I’d break my own rule and have the Pence Rule tattooed on my arm, just to remind me.  (And, by the way, I would make a video recording of each and every sexual encounter I engaged in — not for dissemination, but as a defense against post-facto  harassment from the woman.)

And by the way, college students can’t end the Pence Rule:  only male  college students can do that, and they’d be idiots if they did.  The fact that the writer of the article is a woman simply invites the male response:  “I guess I missed the memo that gives you the right to tell me how to live my life.”

It’s sad that we have to protect ourselves with all these rules, but hey:  that’s the world we live in —  well, that other  people live in;  I have no desire to inhabit such a world, ever.

But the minute that #MeToo evolved into #BelieveAllWomen — and the Kavanaugh hearings showed us all exactly what that  entails — women lost all moral high ground, and became simply antagonists and adversaries.  And if there’s one thing that men are genetically programmed to deal with, it’s an adversary.

Deal with it, ladies.  And scolding won’t work, anymore.