Latest Posts

The “Revolution” Fails

Marxists, Resistance

It is, as they say, to laugh:

As predicted, the Texas Democrat legislators who fled to blue states to deny a quorum for redistricting have folded. Still, I’m not sure anyone expected them to fold this soon. 

According to ABC News, the runaways who claimed to be saving “democracy” are heading back to their home state early, claiming to have accomplished their goal of raising “awareness” about gerrymandering. That’s a very polite way of saying they failed miserably.

Yep.  This time, TXGov Abbott wasn’t messing around.

The pressure campaign put forth by Republicans was effective. That included stopping direct deposits of paychecks and promising to call multiple special sessions to keep these Texas Democrats stranded in blue states indefinitely unless they returned to provide a quorum. They were also incurring daily fines. That all started to add up for the legislators who aren’t independently wealthy, and it was just a matter of time before the donor class got tired of funding a dead end. You also have to factor in time away from family members. None of it was ever sustainable. 

But still they did it, acting like naughty little children.  And now that their beau geste  (LOL) has failed, they’re crying like little children at their failure.

Even better, the redistricting move in Texas is going to take place, was always going to take place despite all the foot-stamping and pouting.

Feckless idiots.

Self-Evident

Anti-Gun Nannies, The Gun Thing

From some guy in Arizona who gets the idea (of the Second Amendment):

Arizona state Rep. Quang Nguyen (R) used an X post to warn that an American citizenry devoid of guns would soon be a citizenry without freedom of speech and property rights too.

He noted that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” is the one which upholds and protects all the other freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A disarmed citizenry would put in jeopardy the ability to control one’s own property, hedged in by the Third Amendment, as well the freedom to exercise rights to privacy and security, hedged in by the Fourth Amendment.

Nguyen warned that, “A disarmed populace is more vulnerable to censorship, unlawful search and seizure, and political oppression.”

Yup, we all know that, but thankee for re-stating the point, sir.

Now here’s a graphic illustration of a non-Second Amendment society:

Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom.

The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant.

Well, maybe.  Maybe the burglar just wants to get your stuff.  On the other hand, maybe your stuff is not what he’s after;  he’s after your life, your wife’s life (or body), your daughter’s life (or body) or your son’s life (or body).  We can debate the point forever, but the plain fact is that the criminal’s motives are unknown to everyone except him.

We — that is, our politicians as well as the public — are aware of that fact, but it appears the British have willfully chosen to bury their heads in the sand.

And the reason that their law is more on the side of the criminal than the victim is, quite simply, because the people have been systematically disarmed by the government, so the government gets to make the decisions on behalf of the public, with the result that the nation of once-Great Britain has been turned into a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks.  We’ve seen what’s happened Over There, and we want no part of it.

We uncultured rubes on this side of The Pond prefer to turn criminals into victims.  And we have the law on our side.

Modern Take

Business, Eco-Crap, Travels

In Orwell’s Animal Farm, the pigs’ chant changed from “Four legs good, two legs bad!”  into “Four legs good, two legs better!”  and the farm changed forever.

Well, when it comes to airliners, it seems that the latter has become the norm — just substitute “engines” for “legs”, and you get the picture.

Modern engines, we are told, are more efficient and more eco-friendly (in that they burn less fuel and therefore squirt much less of that eeeevil carbon-whatever into the atmosphere), so therefore twin-engined long-haul aircraft are so much more desirable, you see, than those fat and dirty old 707s and 747s.

Amazingly, the oh-so eco-friendly Germans don’t agree (albeit for the wrong reasons), and are keeping some of their 747s:

This four-engine behemoth, first flown commercially in 1970, is no longer financially viable in an era of increasingly-efficient twin-engined jets. The final passenger-configured jumbo was delivered eight years ago, and Boeing has no plans to restart the production line.

But one European airline hasn’t turned its back on the 747 just yet. Germany’s Lufthansa, perceived by many to be aviation’s kings of efficiency, still operates 27 jumbo jets – 19 of the newer 747-8s, and eight older, slightly smaller 747-400s – and is even upgrading some jumbo jet interiors with swanky new Allegris seats as part of a £2bn Lufthansa fleet-wide refit. 

Here’s the reason:

Why the lingering attachment? Part of the reason is simple and unromantic economics. According to aviation analysts, operations out of its Frankfurt and Munich hubs are each at take-off slot capacity.

So, with flight numbers capped, Lufthansa really needs its biggest aircraft, and the 364-seat 747s-8s drop neatly between the Airbus A350 (293 seats) and A380 (455 seats).

Yeah, whatever.

I happen to prefer flying aboard the older 747s for one simple reasons, based on the old saw:  “Two is one and one is none.”  Using that as a yardstick, I happen to think that four engines are safer than two.

I know, I know;  according to the cognoscenti, modern twin-engined airliners can stay in the air if one engine breaks.  But to my way of thinking, if one engine can break, its identical twin can also break, for the same reason.  I know the chances are not high, statistically speaking;  but the chances are not zero.

And forgive me for being a little skittish about my transportation suddenly turning into a lawn dart at 28,000 feet.  Under those circumstances I’d like the odds to be somewhat more stacked on my side, and four engines are not going to fail simultaneously, or even sequentially.

I know that this is more of a moot point nowadays, when it appears that my transatlantic flying days are pretty much over.  And annoyingly, according to a cursory study, Luftwaffe  Lufthansa is persisting with the European Airbus 330 for DFW-FRA.  (Why Frankfurt?  Because if you’re going to connect at an airport in Euroland, Frankfurt is as good as LHR or CDG, to name but a couple, and better than MAD or — gawd help us — ROM.)

But the principle remains, because it’s true for any passenger, not just me.  So in my opinion, Orwell’s original thesis is true:  four legs good, two legs bad.

Different Strokes

Legal Stuff, Rights

…different folks.

Background:  a little while ago, this happened:

Chinese and other foreign citizens could soon be barred from purchasing homes in Texas under a bill greenlit by the Texas House on Thursday [and since signed into law by TxGov Abbot].

The measure, which passed the Republican-led chamber in a largely party-line vote, was significantly narrowed-down from the original version. Lawmakers voted to add exemptions for individuals residing in the United States legally on temporary work or student visas. Dual citizens and permanent residents are also not included in the ban.

The legislation would block any other citizens of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran from purchasing homes, buying land or leasing apartments in Texas, and give the governor power to add other countries to the list.

Now, via Insty, this little development:

A pair of Chinese citizens asked a federal judge to block a new law banning Chinese nationals and people from a select number of other countries from buying or leasing property in Texas.

In a lawsuit filed July 3, Peng Wang and Qinlin Li, two Chinese citizens currently in the United States with visas, called Senate Bill 17 unconstitutional and racist.

Because of course.

Both plaintiffs said that while they plan to stay in the United States legally, they have no clear path to permanent residency and would be hurt by the law.

In its initial response to the lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office argued the state was using its “police powers” to prevent foreign governments from gaining a foothold in Texas. The attorney general’s office argued that Wang and Li won’t be affected by the law because they are already in Texas lawfully and wouldn’t be prohibited from real estate transactions.

The complaint, however, argues that the law is centered around where people claim their domicile, or permanent home. People in the U.S. on student or work visas, like Li and Wang, can’t claim their home is in Texas, attorneys wrote.

That’s not the part which get up my nose, however;  it’s all legal stuff and whatever happens, happens.

Because this is the Houston Chronicle, the reported decided to provide a little “balance”, or what we conservatives would call “whataboutism”:

As of 2023, Chinese investors owned or leased about 277,336 acres of U.S. agricultural land, according to the USDA. Of that, 123,078 acres were in Texas. Most of the land was associated with wind energy investments, the agency said.

Other foreign countries own far more land in the U.S.

Canadians own or lease about 15.3 million acres of U.S. land, according to the USDA. The Netherlands, Italy, United Kingdom and Germany hold a combined 13 million acres.

Yeah.  The difference, however, is that unlike the Chinese, Iranians et al., the Canadians, Dutch, Italians, Brits, and Germans aren’t likely to use the land they purchase as a springboard to cause mischief.

And a huge percentage of the land already owned by the Chinese coincidentally(?) happens to be adjoining U.S. military bases.  What are we to deduce from this little factoid?

One last thought.  Both the plaintiffs aren’t exactly wealthy:  one is a salaried employee and the other a recently-graduated student.

So I’d like to know who, exactly, is paying the costs of this lawsuit.  Let me go out on a limb here, and suggest that once you peel away all the shell organizations or individuals who purport to be paying the legal costs, the thing is being funded by the fucking Chinese government.  I may be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

Which is the precise reason for the law in the first place.