While chatting with an old buddy, this song came to mind and now I can’t shake it.
Psychedelic music, baby.
Latest Posts
Too Old To Rock ‘N Roll
…but too young to die, as a wise man once sang.
Now we have the political equivalent:
Former South Carolina Republican Governor Nikki Haley said over the weekend that politicians should have to take mental competency tests once they hit 75 years old to ensure they are fit to serve the public.
“We need to have mental competency tests for anyone over the age of 75,” she said. “And I don’t say that to be disrespectful. I don’t care if you do it for 50 and older. What I’m saying is, these are people in D.C. that are making decisions on our national security.”
Of course, this tin-eared politico uses this argument to score a point off the noticeably-senile Joe Biden, but she does have a point nevertheless.
We don’t let people go into public office when they’re too young, because even among a poulation of ignoramuses, youthful wannabe-politicians are no more than the primordial ooze of society. Young people, as it’s been said, argue with passion, vigor and conviction; except that they’re almost inevitably wrong.
So given the inescapable fact that old farts start losing their marbles as they approach senility — forget the numbers, stats and medical studies on this, it’s an inescapable fact of human life — why not set an arbitrary upper limit on public service? Forget that “testing” bullshit as suggested by Haley et al., that’s just busybody government attitude on display. Carve it in stone — hell, stick it in the Constitution, why not? — but make it impossible for any Olde Phartte to govern.
Yes, I know: some old people are commendably active, mentally speaking, and denying them office would have denied us of, to name but one, Ronald Reagan (at least his second term, anyway). But even in Reagan’s second term, it was apparent that the old boy was losing his marbles. And taking our cue from that, it’s not really how old a President is when he takes office, it’s how old he’ll be at the end of his first term that’s important. Think about it: 70 years old on Inauguration Day means 78 towards the end of his Presidency, when he’ll still have his finger on the nuclear trigger and be proposing legislation that may suit the present but be a hopeless long-term proposition. Older than 70? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Joe Biden.
Which brings me to the next issue about senior-citizen politicians: the “I’ll be dead by then” attitude that is as inescapable a mindset as physical senility. Oh sure, we’d like to think that our politicians are going to be statesmen like Washington or Jefferson and think of generations to come; but the most likely scenario is that they’re going to be more like Barack fucking Obama. (Tangentially, the only reason to allow older men to become president is because they’re more likely to die soon after leaving office, unless they’re named Jimmy Carter in which case they continue to meddle and foist their horrible ideas and opinions on us long after they’ve exceeded their useful date.)
If we think about this logically, politicians and lawmakers in general should have to live with the consequences of their actions, because then the urge to just say “oh fuck it, let the kids deal with it” is a lot less appealing.
Corporations, by the way, recognize this issue quite clearly, which is why we have mandatory-retirement policies in so many professions — airline pilots at 55 65 being the most noteworthy — and why so many people prefer middle-aged doctors to both young and inexperienced doctors and old doctors who may not be up to date with recent advances or do things “because I’ve always done it this way”. There are limits to experience, of course, and particularly when that experience stands in the way of proper action. Most corporate boards, by the way, have no age limit but that’s because the proper function of a board is advisory and not executive.
Here’s my suggestion: all public servants, regardless of position, should be banned from running for public office after the age of 67 — the de facto “retirement” age of current society. I know that medical advances are wonderful and have done so much to ensure that the age of Man is no longer just threescore years and ten etc., but allowing much older people to run for office — yes, Trump as much as Biden — is an irresponsible indulgence that in general and in the long term will turn out to be harmful to society. (Trump, for example, would be 78 were he to win the Presidency in 2024, which means he’d be 82 at the end of his term of office. You sure you want an octogenarian Trump flailing around the Oval Office for two whole years? And that’s assuming he’s still got all his marbles now: by no means an established fact.)
As a bookie might put it: yeah, there are some senior citizens who would function perfectly well while late into their seventies and even eighties — but that’s not the way to bet.
If we have a lower limit on political life, why not an upper one?
Everybody Panic!!!!!
If anybody has noticed that the hysteria surrounding Global Warming Climate Cooling Change© is ratcheting up, you’re not alone. However, the reasons for this increased hysteria — fueled by the spate of summer heatwaves* consuming Yurp and Murka alike — are not surprising. Why? Because government and especially the Marxist wing thereof constantly affirm the wisdom of H.L. Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Now that the dreaded Covid has essentially subsided into a “seasonal flu” category, this eco-nonsense has perforce had to take its place:
There are a lot of religions on this planet, but none so demanding of one’s faith as the Church of Climate Change. It’s a cult whose message is so pervasive in our culture that many take it at its word that mankind is indeed changing the climate of the Earth, but once you start looking at the data you can see pretty quickly that a lot of its claims are based on half-truths or full-on lies.
The dirty secret about the Church of Climate Change is that all things considered, it’s a suicide cult. It wants humanity to die off and stop having so many children. All this to, ironically, save you from yourselves.
Moreover, its goal is to get you to give up on human advancements and regress back to a time when humanity worked with lesser technologies and fewer rights. It wants you to hand power to them, not only in the government but personal freedoms such as your ability to travel freely and eat what you want. It wants to regulate businesses into obeying rules that would cripple and restrict them.
As Jeffrey Tucker points out in the Epoch Times, the media is currently using the fear-inducing models they created for COVID-19 to push the climate change scam. There are orange and red “tracking maps” on major networks following big heat increases in the same way they would highlight COVID-19 outbreaks.
Executive summary: don’t believe the hysteria, especially because the media is using that to attract eyeballs. That it happens to coincide with the totalitarians’ aims is in itself no coincidence.
However, there are at least a few signs that this nonsense is finally being recognized for the foolishness that it is — not by us, the public, but by government officials. Good grief, even squishy BritPM Rishi Sunak is snapping back:
He added: ‘If you or others think that the answer to climate change is getting people to ban everything… I think that’s the absolutely the wrong approach.’
Yeah duh, Rishi old man; welcome to our party.
But if there’s one thing we can be certain of, it’s that climate change hysteria is not going to abate, but get more frantic.
*Note that there’s a perfectly good reason for said heatwaves, but blame can’t be laid at the door of airliners, SUVs or Republicans so it’s being ignored by the media:
In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer.
Oh.
Maybe we should ban volcanoes. What the hell, it makes as much sense (and as much chance of success) as any of the other initiatives proposed by the Greens.
Outrage
So this prime pair:
…needed some painting done in their little love nest, but when they asked one house painter to do the job, they got this reply:
Needless to say, the fegelehs are “outraged”. And so am I.
While it is absolutely within anyone’s right to turn down work — for any reason — this little painter needs to get a good swift smack: not for refusing to work for homosexuals, but for using her religion publicly as an excuse not to do so. Sheesh, could she not just have said, “Sorry, but my work schedule is really full right now, so I can’t do the job”? Of course not: she had to use this situation to loudly proclaim her faith — the kind of thing that gives all religious adherents a bad name. And I know that lying is typically taboo, but FFS there’s a reason they’re called “white lies”: a falsehood that is used out of politeness or manners to avoid causing offense.
(I typically refer to people like this as “asshole Christians”, although I should also point out that when I once read about a Muslim chick refusing to work in a supermarket’s meat department because it would mean touching pork products, I referred to her in similar terms.)
Now, of course, some other asshole in government (is there another kind?) is going to get all puffed up and outraged too, and as day follows night, regulation and/or law is going to follow — which outrages me — and laws like this will be used to bludgeon people like bakers who refuse, for the same reasons as Painter Polly, to make cakes for soon-to-be-married lesbos.
And all civility is lost, and the lawyers get rich.
As for our two nesting gayboys: it’s not like the world of interior decorating is devoid of people of similar inclination to yours. Just find one — it will not be difficult — and stop making a production about it.
Everyone involved in this sad little tale needs to be smacked about the head with a Cluebat®.
Gratuitous Gun Pic: Beretta Mod 74/101 (.22 LR)
Seen at Steve Barnett’s:
No, that’s not an accidental double-post; the first is a Model 74 (retail: $850), while the second is a Model 101 ($1,250 because, I suspect, of its scarcity). I suspect that the only real difference is mechanical, because other than a different stock design, I can see no apparent difference between the two.
Here’s the thing: according to what I can see, the Models 71 through 75 are essentially the same pistol, differing only in barrel length (2″ or 6″), and all seem to have been confusing named and sold under the name “Jaguar”, regardless of model. The Model 101? Who knows.
At least all take the same hard-to find-and-therefore-expensive magazine — and those prices are for aftermarket mags; original Beretta mags for these guns are made of ultra-unobtanium, and if you can find one, will typically run to three figures.
Ask me how I know this.
You see, I’ve owned not one but two of these beautiful pistols (both with the 6″ barrel): one back in Seffrica which I inherited from my mother and had to leave behind when I emigrated, and the second here in Murka when I found one at a gun show and paid way too much for it. Because did I already mention that it’s beautiful?
And here’s the other problem: my mom’s gun was a peach. I could drop bullets in the same hole all day (and I often did), and the action felt like ball-bearings on silk. The Murkin one was awful: it rattled around when firing, the mag was also loose, and I couldn’t hit a paint can at 10 yards with it. Also, when I found an aftermarket mag, it was worse than the “original” mag.
So in the end, I sold it or traded it, I forget which, because I was totally disenchanted with the gun’s performance, especially when compared to my first one’s.
But I have to say that if I had the $$$, I’d buy one of the above in a heartbeat, not because of its quality — who knows, maybe my Murkin gun was just an anomaly — but because, as I may have said before, the 71/72/73/74/75/101 is achingly, breathtakingly beautiful. Those flowing lines, that perfect rake on the grip… oh stop me while I can still speak.
And yes, that swooping Art Deco trigger-guard is hopelessly unfashionable nowadays. People need and want a squared-off monstrosity like this:
…so that they can find adequate purchase for a two-handed grip.
I prefer to think that the Jaguar is not a two-handed pistol — I mean, it’s a .22, FFS — and when I see it, I think more of the shooter assuming a classical duelist’s pose with it:
And yes, it’s a romantic, out-of-date attitude.
Guilty as charged.
Dept. Of Righteous Shootings
Seems as though this man’s car was stolen, but the thieves were unaware that nowadays, you can track your car’s location. Which is what Our Hero did, and confronted said scumbags in a mall parking lot. He made them get out of the car at gunpoint and sit on the ground while everyone awaited the arrival of the San Antonio police.
Well, our Senior Scumbag wasn’t going to take this lying (sitting?) down, so he pulled his own gun and popped off at the car owner.
Whereupon Our Hero wasted the fucker AND shot Scumbag’s accomplice in the leg, I assume lest she wanted to retrieve her late partner’s gun and continue the festivities.
Quote of the day comes from the SAPD chief:
‘Certainly a case of self-defense, is what we have.’
Then, for the lawyers, he added (no doubt with a shrug):
‘We would prefer that they call the police before taking that into your own hands, but he did what he felt he needed to do.’
I think some applause for both the chief and Our Hero would be appropriate:
Texas, baby.
Of course, the family of the corpus delicti is all boohoohoo about it (sent by Longtime Friend and Reader John C.):
“Whether my brother was wrong or right, he had a gun pointed at him. I guess he took it upon himself to defend himself. The guy who shot him is a vigilante, not a hero,” Jose Garcia told KENS 5. “A vehicle is not worth taking someone’s life, I don’t care what kind of car it is. You don’t take the law into your own hands. Now my mom, my family, we all have to suffer and just deal with it.”
Errr well, I hate to break it to you, Jose, but under Texas law, self-defense during the commission of a crime is not justifiable. And the law is always in the hands of the citizen — we just deputize its enforcement to government. But when the government is late to the scene, or absent altogether, it is absolutely the right of the citizen to enforce it. Deputization is not the same as abrogation, despite what government wants you to think.
Also, if a vehicle is not worth a life, your deceased choirboy brother didn’t think the same way — or else he would not have been carrying a gun himself. Clearly, he thought that a car was worth more than a life, which is why he ended up the way he did.
In any event, fuck him, he’s dead, the dangerous criminal asshole. And while you’re right to mourn him, I’ll bet this wasn’t the first time he’d caused the family grief and heartache. Everyone (your family included) is better off without him, as it is without all dangerous criminals.