The other night I was thinking, half-asleep, that leftists simply have a different view of reality, and that's how they can say things which are so obviously at odds with the truth. But as I fell deeper into my slumber I began imagining how a leftist sees reality, and the mental image was literally of wearing clothing made out of rusty tin cans, where the ends of them have rotted away to rusty lace, and any movement brings discomfort or pain depending on how hard the jagged edges press into the flesh.Strangely enough, I think that's actually the reality.
If you look at the left, what do you see?
Leftists are dour, miserable wretches. They hate their country. They hate their countrymen. They hate freedom. They hate guns. They hate cops. They hate having to live under a Constitution that, however badly it's been weakened, is yet functional enough to provide some small protection against their ability to rule over We The Inferior absolutely.Not just disagree, but hate. It seems to me that my somnolent image was correct: they hate the world, they hate life, they hate existence itself, because to them every moment is nothing but jagged, rusty metal gouging skin.
They hate prosperity. They hate the internal combustion engine. They hate air conditioning, and the coal-fired power plants that provide reliable electric power to run it. They hate the Big Agriculture complex that feeds an entire planet. They hate music that has anything resembling a coherent, pleasant melody. They hate individuality, noncomformity, and independent thought. They hate Big Macs, or any food that actually tastes good. They hate heterosexuals. They hate normal, happy, traditional families. They hate freedom of speech, and of religion.
They abhor beauty because they can't see it. They hate excellence because they can't achieve it. They want to punish those who see beauty and attain the greater heights because they cannot; and their political system ensures that no one can ever do anything other than suffer.
Their obsession with sex stems from the fact that it is their only relief, however fleeting, from the suffering their ideology imposes on them. But there's no beauty in it for them, just the satiation of animal lusts; and so they make it, too, as ugly as they can, with fifty-seven genders and a thousand perversions.
* * *
Limbaugh said, many times, that when the left is out of power, that's when they go nuts. And it's true--never more true than in the past four years. And it's getting worse, I think because they can see the writing on the wall, that the pendulum is swinging and their ideology is being rejected. Conventional wisdom says that any one of the manufactured scandals should have been enough to derail the Trump presidency, yet he emerged from each one more popular than before; and with each failure, the left's smear machine grows ever more desperate.
Part of it is that they've gone once too often to the well. With each new allegation--each delivered as if it were the first--the people have grown more callous about it, more likely to shrug and say, "Eh, this is just like all the other times the press did this, when there turned out to be nothing to it."
It seems strange to me. The people never seemed to have much of a political memory before--they'd easily forget what happened two years ago--but these days they don't seem to be like that any longer. I can't really put my finger on it; it's just an impression that I have...but it's also one I can't get away from.
I've noticed that Trump reminds people of things in his speeches; perhaps it's really just that simple: when he talks about something, he reminds us that X happened yesterday or last week or two years ago and that it was exactly the same pattern as this time. Or maybe it's just that the Internet is a lot more convenient for getting news and information than the mainstream media are, and when you look it up on the net, you get a more comprehensive view than can be delivered in thirty seconds of television or four column-inches of a newspaper.
But what's not new, and not puzzling, is how unhinged the left has become since Trump's election. David Limbaugh calls it "screaming insanity" and he's not wrong.
But it is a huge turnoff for the American people.
The violence continues in the same places it's been taking place, but the media have stopped covering it because everyone's realized that it's making the Democrats look bad. The most recent burn-loot-murder riots over the police indictments in the case of the shooting of what's-her-face is a perfect example: they got only passing mention on the TV news.
* * *
The unhinged leftists cut Trump supporters out of their lives. Why?
Someone you love has exposed their support for or tolerance of bigotry, hatred, selfishness, narcissism, bullying, racism, sexism, abuse and violence through their support of Trump.The correct response to this is, "See ya! Wouldn't want to be ya!" because let's face it: if you are such an intolerant jerkoff that you cannot stand for a family member to have different political opinions than you do, then you probably belong in a psych ward anyway.
But I love the projection there. Let's demonstrate.
Bigotry: leftists hate christians and white people
Hatred: leftists hate everything not of the left--they're experts at hatred; see the first link in this post.
selfishness: leftists want everything their way and will not tolerate dissent
narcissism: leftists cannot tolerate dissent
bullying: leftists use the threat of violence to get what they want
racism: leftists hate whites but they also treat minorities like idiot children
sexism: leftists support rapists and sexual abusers of women
abuse: leftists pile abuse and derision on those who disagree
violence: leftists riot and burn when they don't get their way
More projection: "It hurts bad when your MAGA-hat wearing cousin calls you all kinds of names on social media." Uh no, generally what happens is the lefty finds out that her cousin likes Trump and then calls him "all kinds of names" on social media.
* * *
Pritzker is trying to blame Republicans for the tax hike threatened by his own lieutanant governor. The older I get, the more obvious it is to me when someone is trying to punch, intellectually, above his weight class. The argument that, "We are going to raise your taxes, and this way is the lesser of two evils!" is not a good argument--particularly not in the state known for being the second-most taxed state in the union, behind only California--and anyone with any sense would have understood that.
I think our lieutenant governor is out of her league.
The Democrat party has enough of a stranglehold on local politics in Illinois that my district doesn't have a Republican running for the seat. I'm not sure who the last Republican was who held the seat, though I do know that my second-or-whatever-cousin did hold it for a couple years. So plenty of folks don't have an alternative, anyway, except to check "no vote for this seat" on the ballot. Which is what I do.
Anyway, it's utterly boneheaded to announce that there is going to be a huge tax increase this year, because the (un)Fair Tax scheme is being sold on it not costing the middle class anything, and what's-her-face's idiotic comment that "we'll raise your taxes!" just lets the cat out of the bag entirely.
Look: they're not going to the trouble of promoting the (un)Fair Tax scheme in order to reduce tax revenue. They're doing all this in order to increase taxes. They need to be able to say that "we're just raising taxes on the rich!" but they can't do that when everyone is being taxed at the same rate. Under the flat tax, everyone's rates go up, and it's obvious that it's just a money grab.
Going to a "progressive" tax scheme just gives the politicians the power to tax us more, and this idiot went and made it obvious. Pritzker is trying to walk it back and blame the Republicans for it, but anyone in this state who pays even a modicum of attention to the politics ought to know damned well that the Republicans have no power to do anything. If they did, Rauner would have won re-election for his attempt to rein in spending.
* * *
The linked article gives preciously few details. The Chicago Sun-Times likely doesn't care to give many details because the girl was killed by a woman using a knife, not shot by a policeman.
Why was a 5-year-old girl "stabbed" to death? (The SCC post says, "We have two e-mails saying the only thing keeping this poor baby's head attached was her spinal column--after Mommy cut her neck almost all the way through.") Why does SCC say "Mommy" and the article says nothing other than "a female suspect"?
What was the motive for the killing? I doubt we'll ever know--she wasn't killed by a white policeman, so the media doesn't care.
* * *
What, exactly, will the left do that they are not already doing? Should Republicans confirm Trump's latest nominee before the election?
"Nothing is off the table," they warn.
Go look up "empty threat" and while you're at it, shut the fuck up already.
* * *
For the first time in a while, dinner last night was pan-fried pork chops. I've got the formula, now, for making things like chicken and pork chops etc in a frying pan, rather than the oven; and they come out juicy and tender.
The two key factors are hot pan and butter.
Get the pan hot, toss in some butter, and get a good sear on the meat. You want it to be browned without being crunchy. I've found that I need to leave the meat on one side longer than I think is wise, but inevitably when I finally check it, it's just right. Flip it over, give it 2-3 minutes on the other side, then reduce heat, toss in some wine (or water if there is no wine) and simmer, covered, for another 5-10 minutes. As a bonus, the resulting reduction can be spooned over the meat when serving.
Generally I take strips of chicken breast meat and prepare them this way, and serve with garlic noodles (pasta with butter, garlic powder, and a generous amount of parmesan cheese). For seasoning the meat, the basic three (salt, pepper, garlic powder) and careful cooking are all that are required.
So I used that technique with the pork chops, and they came out delicious and tender.
Only problem: pan's only big enough for three pork chops.