The Silence of the Good People

When good people remain silent while there is evil in the world, evil triumphs.

A year from now, America will be a different place.   Perhaps by then, this pandemic would have run its course - with the help of a vaccine.   Trumpism will have self-destructed, as Trump, this very day, utterly destroys his own legacy.  Slowly, people are coming around to the idea that maybe Trump - and many in his circle, including Giuliani, are utterly off their rocker.  Even Tucker Carlson - a die-hard Trumper - has noped out on this deal.

But what people will remember, a year from now, are the people, particularly politicians, who stood by and said nothing, out of fear, or merely to be complicit.   People who wouldn't take a stand for principle, because they didn't want to lose support from a "base" or because the were hedging their bets - afraid that if somehow Trump did pull off a coup, there would be payback for those who were disloyal to him.  They might end up in a detention camp with Democrats!  Or worse...

There are a few brave people standing up to tyranny and what is now a bald-faced attempt to steal an election through extra-legal means.   Our Secretary of State (Brad Raffensperger) here in Georgia is - or was - a Trump supporter.  But he refused to alter the election results or parrot any of these conspiracy theories.  You see, we put in a new voting system this year, that collects paper ballots (either printed out by a voting machine or mailed-in after being filled out by hand) and then counts then electronically in another machine - leaving an electronic and paper trail.

Under the law setting up this new system, the Secretary of State was ordered to "audit" at least one election by hand-counting ballots and he chose - because of the so-called "controversies" to audit the Presidential race.  The count didn't change much, other than due to a clerical error in one county, whose election official has since been fired.   A recount is likely, as the margin is under 0.5%, but that will just machine-count the paper ballots.

The Secretary of State certified the outcome, and the Governor - another Trump supporter - will verify this today, as he has noted, he is obligated to do so under the law.  We are a nation of laws, not men, and these Republicans realized that if you start stealing elections, it will never end.  Because when the "other guy" comes into power, he'll do the same thing.   They did the right thing - along with election officials, poll watchers, poll workers, Judges, lawyers, and thousands of others - even if the outcome wasn't what they would have liked.   And many are facing death threats as a result.

Others, well, others are saying nothing, including most Republican members of Congress - House and Senate, including the Minority and Majority leaders, respectively.  Still others are hedging their bets - arguing that a Biden Presidency is inevitable, but doing nothing to quell the "stolen election" narrative - when the only person trying to steal an election is Trump himself.

Many are claiming that Trump will "lead" the Republican Party for years to come.  But it is not clear how this would actually work.  George Bush (either one) didn't "lead" the GOP after they left office, nor did Ronald Reagan.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama didn't steer the Democratic Party after they left office - in fact, they sort of faded from view, to the disappointment of many.  If the Clintons were running the Democratic Party, then Hillary would have gotten the nomination back in 2008, instead of waiting until 2016.

And quite frankly, the spectacle we are seeing today may be what destroys the legacy of Trumpism.  Oh, sure, there are the hard-core Qanon believers - and "believer" is the key work - who, like one Texas Chiropractor profiled recently, will go to armed conflict, if Trump gives the word.   And that is a scary thing - not that people are willing to fight and die for a cause, but that people are willing to fight and die for a rumor that has been proven false time and time again.

We've had a Civil War in this country - killed more people than all the other wars we've been in, combined.   But it was over a real issue - slavery.  And no, please don't try that "well, there were economic and other issues like State's rights!"   The economic issue was slavery.  The State's Rights in question was the rights of States to allow slavery.  The point is, that was a war fought over a very real and very troubling issue - not a rumor of slavery or a conspiracy theory about slavery, but slavery.

Similarly, World War II was about the very real threat of fascism, which was taking over half the world at the time.   We had to decide whether to live in a world safe for democracy, or abandon our allies to a fascist regime that routinely slaughtered millions.  It wasn't based on rumors or conspiracy theories.

But fighting and dying for Qanon?   I mean, come on, be serious!  But there will always be a few nutjobs that will believe just about anything, I guess.

Others, not so much.  As I noted before, I have no problem with people who have different opinions than mine - provided they have some rational basis.  My Catholic friend is against abortion.   My developer friend wants lower taxes and fewer regulations.   There is an internal consistency to their logic.  They voted for Trump based on these issues, not because they love Trump.  In fact, many of them didn't like Trump at first, or still do not, but "held their nose and voted" because they liked the policy perks they were getting - judicial nominees, tax cuts, and so on and so forth.

These people never went to Trump rallies or wore MAGA hats.  And the are not married to Trump at all (unlike Melania, until January 21st).   They will switch their allegiance in 2024 to the next Republican Presidential Nominee, and there are many people jockeying for that position already.   I doubt Trump will be on the ticket - I think four years of raking over the ashes of his administration will repulse the vast majority of Republicans - who will all claim in retrospect not to have liked Trump at all.

The core group of MAGA-hat wearers - the under-educated, racist, and xenophobic rural voters may still admire him, and probably put up statues of him, on the no-vacant Confederate pedestals in the courthouse square.  But the "core" supporters are not enough to get elected, as the last election shows.  What's more, they are likely to vote GOP in any event.   However, denouncing Trump might bring you a nomination fight the next time around, if you are House or Senate Republican.

That's the math they are doing.   If they denounce Trump, they lose the base and lose the nomination to a far-right Qanon supporter, as traditionally, only the wacky extremists (of both parties) vote in Primaries (except in places like here in Georgia, where we have open primaries).   But the other half of the equation is tricky - you might win the nomination by appeasing the far-right, but lose the general election by alienating the centrists.

We have a Senate runoff election coming up here in Georgia on January 5th.  The two GOP candidates are rabid Trump supporters who have been caught with their hands in the kitty (Trump-style) trading stocks based on insider information they received while in office.  Since none of the candidates received 50% of the vote (again, Georgia law) there is a runoff, and runoffs are historically not well-attended.   But history is being made, this time around - perhaps.

David Perdue received 49.7% of the vote, and if he received the 2.3% the "Libertarian" candidate received, he would have won.  3rd party candidates are spoilers - again!  Jon Osshoff has some catching-up to do, in order to win.  Needless to say, the GOP is trying to pain Osshoff as some sort of Communist.

Kelly Loeffler - a real piece of work who was appointed, not elected, received 29.5% of the vote in a free-for-all no-primary race with more than a dozen candidates (Georgia law, again!) while Reverend Ralph Warnock received 32..9%   Again, Warnock has some catching up to do, as if you add up all the GOP candidate votes, they exceed the Democratic votes.  Most pundits expect both races to be won by the Republican candidates, so don't get your hopes up.

Funny thing, that.   In Georgia and across the nation, Republican candidates for House and Senate were re-elected or even flipped some Democratic seats.   It is clear that Biden won the election only because some Republicans voted Democratic at the top of the ticket and voted Republican down-ballot.   In other words, they were independents, who were sick of the drama and nonsense of Trump and were willing to go along with a more centrist Democrat who wasn't Hillary and wasn't Bernie.   They refused to be silent and go along with things.

And that is why Trump is melting down.   He realizes that the vast majority of people who voted for him were voting for Republican values and not him, personally.   Trump though that people loved him, and indeed the rally-goers and MAGA-hat wearers are enamored of the cult of personality.  But more than anything, the election was a repudiation of Trumpism, not necessarily a repudiation of Republican policies (Ms. AOC - are you listening?   Biden's win is not a mandate for far-leftist politics!).

So in a way, I get it as to why some of these Senators and House members are remaining silent - they are up for re-election in 2022 and don't want to be seen as a "traitor" to the Trump cause and lose a primary race to a Qanon believer.   But then again, someone has to break down and break the news to Trump - and stand up for what is right and stand up for the truth - as our Secretary of State here in Georgia has done.  Mitch McConnell really doesn't have to worry about losing his Senate seat - not for at least six more years, by which time, he will likely be retired or dead.   What is stopping him from saying out loud what everyone is thinking?

Dr. King had it right.  Years from now, we will condemn those who have used vitriol and violence to try to sway this election.   But a special place in hell will be reserved for those who choose to remain silent and go along, even as they knew it was wrong, because they didn't want to rock the boat.

If someone like Tucker Carlson can speak the truth, why not others?

$40 Tires on an $80 Bicycle

The cost of replacement parts and labor far exceeds the purchase cost of many items.  It was true in the past, it is particularly true today, with cheap products from China.

I mentioned before when I was a kid, we would drive down I-81 (I think it was) through Pennsylvania, and there was this huge junkyard which was on both sides of the road, filled with cars - it covered an entire valley!  There must have been thousands of cars there - enough to make a car collector today drool - most were from the 1950's and 1960's and the only thing wrong with them (other than rust) was the fact they were old and not worth anything, and likely they needed a new transmission or engine rebuild.

Cars were cheap back then - and they are today, believe it or not.  You reach a point where they "ain't worth fixin'" and you throw them away.  Today, with rust-proofing, perfectly decent looking cars end up in the junkyard, but with esoteric repair problems that makes them too expensive to fix.  When the repair cost exceeds the book value, it is time to cash it in - you'd be better off just buying the same car in working order.

Anyway, as we drove by this junkyard, I said to my Dad that it would be possible to comb through this mountain of junked cars and find enough "good" parts to assemble a complete working car - such is the thinking of a ten-year-old.  My Dad tried to explain to me that for the labor involved and the cost of parts - even at junkyard prices - the cost of building such a car would exceed what you'd pay for a brand-new one - and it would not be as reliable, either!

Well, he was right.  Today, some folks do try to put together collector cars from junk parts and NOS parts and replacement parts, but it is prohibitively expensive.  It is a hobby more than anything, and few make money on old cars - the average person gets about "half what I got innit!" as the ads on Craigslist often say.  If you want a collector car, buy one from the guy who bankrupted himself restoring one.  My neighbor did this - buying a fully restored 1950 Ford F-1 "Resto-rod" and is driving the wheels off it.  Someday, he will sell it to someone who will bankrupt themselves re-restoring it.

But the same concept is true for so much else.  I wondered before whether I should bother fixing up our old TREK bicycles, which are now over 20 years old.  We use them when camping, as they can handle off-road trails and are lightweight and fit on a rack on the bed of the truck.  But for cruising around the island, well, we bought some cheap "cruiser" bikes for $130 and $89, respectively (well, Mark's was marked down to $80 because of a small scratch on it).  They work fine, although the assembly by the WalMart hacks needed some adjustment.  They are what they are - cheap bikes.

When we got back this fall, they both had flat tires - air will leak out of old inner tubes over time.  I pumped them up and they seemed fine, until the rear tire on Mr. See's $89 "Margaritaville Special" blew out.  And by blow out, I mean the tire itself dry-rotted to the point where the sidewall disintegrated.  Time for new tires and tubes!

As you might guess, this was a shocker.  The whitewall tires on the bike are not cheap, and some outlets want $40 a tire or more for them.  I finally found a set - with tubes - for $45 from Amazon.  I am sure they are not the highest quality tires around.  In fact, they look just like the set we have, that dry-rotted in two years.  Is it worth spending $40 to fix an $80 bicycle?  Or am I better off just buying a new $80 bicycle and throwing this one away?

Interesting question.   We got rid of the 20-year-old Softub because the liner and motor were shot, and it would cost over $1000 in parts alone to repair it.  A new Softub is like $3000 and a hard version from another manufacturer is like $2200.  We decided to replace rather than repair.

Funny thing, though, the hot tub people are sold out until May of 2020 (!!) because everyone is at home in isolation and decided to spend their vacation money on a new hot tub.

Funny thing, too, that bicycles are sold out at WalMart as everyone decided to go biking, too.  Actually, the Jimmy Buffet "Margaritaville Special" sold out about the time we bought it.  People were buying them up and then re-selling them on eBay for $150 or more.   It was a good deal - perhaps too good.  Stuff made in China is cheap - perhaps too cheap.

Today, if you can find a single-speed plain Jane "cruiser" bike at Walmart, it is like $120 or more.  You want gears? Luggage rack?  basket?   Expect to pay more.   So looking a this based on the price we paid maybe isn't right - the replacement cost is the real issue.  Maybe we should have rebuilt the hot tub.  Maybe...

But this situation illustrates a number of things:

1. Creating tariffs on imported goods to "save jobs" is short-sighted.   It may create a few jobs (or cost even more jobs), but what ends up happening is that it just raises prices - for both imported and domestic products, as Obama's tire tariffs illustrated.

2. The cost of labor in America is so expensive that it isn't worth repairing most things made in China - you just throw them away when they break.

3. Even without the alarmingly low prices from China, repair labor and parts costs far exceed manufacturing and wholesale costs - it is cheaper to buy new than to repair old, in many cases.

4.  Pandemic or not, it seems that the price of goods is going up over time.  With all the free money being bandied about, expect inflation to rise in the coming months and years.  Let's just hope we don't have another oil shortage!

The tires are supposed to arrive tomorrow.  I will replace both and keep the old "good" one as a spare (I suspect it is dry-rotted as well).  By the way, I already replaced both tires on my 29" cruiser - bought at about the same time.   Chinese rubber and hot, humid weather don't mix well, apparently.

But so long as buying new is so cheap, and repairing old is so expensive, it almost makes more sense to buy a cheap bicycle every year and then just give it away and buy a new one.   Or at least it did make sense, for a brief time in the 21st Century, before inflation took hold.   Perhaps.

Normalizing Mental Illness

Mental illness is not an alternative lifestyle!

An article in the paper today - two actually - pushed me over the edge.  For some time now, it seems some folks - activists and whatnot, as well as the media - have been trying to sell us the idea that being mentally ill is a normal thing that should be embraced and accommodated by the rest of us. Sounds like a swell idea, but when I act weird, no one accommodates me - in fact, society pretty much beats me down, as it should.  So I don't act weird (most of the time) and play by the rules.  Funny how that works, eh?

Others, however, have a get-out-of-jail-free card (often quite literally) and can do whatever the hell they want to - and the rest of us have to deal with it, even if it means we are inconvenienced, assaulted, our property damaged or stolen, or even our very lives taken - by them claiming to be mentally ill.

We see this all the time with "homeless advocates" who argue we should accommodate the homeless, let them camp in the park in a tent, shit on the sidewalk, do drugs all day long, break into our cars and steal our stuff.  They can't help it - they're mentally ill!  And yes, being a drug "addict" is a form of mental illness.  So, some argue, not only should we tolerate this, but celebrate it.  After all, if Jesus came back today, he'd be a homeless bum!   Maybe not.

The trend continued with the so-called autistic rights movement.   Autistic people can be a real scream - quite literally.  If you have a severely autistic kid, my hat is off to you - it can be quite a challenge to raise such a child.  On the other hand, today we are calling everyone autistic or saying they have "Asperger's Syndrome" - whose symptoms are so vague that anyone can be diagnosed with it (and everyone today is diagnosing their friends and neighbors or even historical figures with it).  Poor Abraham Lincoln - first we call him gay, now Autistic.  Even the dead can't rest in peace.

Don't get me wrong, I am not beating up on the Autistic.  But a funny thing, though. The very first person diagnosed with this condition ("Case 1") is still alive today. Yup, this is a fairly recently discovered "illness" dating back only to the 1950's.   Before then, we just called such people mentally ill.  And maybe there is no cure for mental illness, but in terms of behavior, people were expected to toe a certain line.

Funny thing, too.  This "Case 1" Patient went on to live a normal life simply because his family treated him as a normal person.  No exceptions were made for him, no accommodations or excuses.  He went on to college and worked in a bank and got a driver's license and lives what is a pretty normal life - and shouldn't that be the goal for most of us - if not all?

Today?  Well, the kid who acts up in class isn't being bad, he's just expressing his alternative view of the world as part of the natural spectrum or "neurodiversity" of human mental condition.  If Johnny can't read, he is dyslexic, right?  There is always some excuse to be made.  We need to accommodate him, like the Autistic muppet who changes the rules of the game the kids are all playing - and everyone else has to accommodate her rather than vice-versa.   Sounds to me more like a spectrum of narcissism!

Do you have a problem with what I'm saying?  Well, too bad for you, because several readers have diagnosed me as having "Asperger's Syndrome" and you have to swallow your bile and deal with it. You see, I'm just handicapped, so I can say whatever I want to.  But you - a "normie" as the Trump supporters call them - can't say shit, because you're normal and thus are in no position to criticize.  How dare you even think of doing so!  Shame! Shame!

You see how this game is played.  Fun for me, must suck to be you.   All you need to is claim a mental disability and the world is your oyster.

Like this guy in Colorado who shot two people.  Someone was walking their dog who took a shit on the lawn.  The dog owner was bending over to pick up the poop, but apparently not fast enough for our hero, who unloaded the clip on his AR-15 (24 rounds in all) wounding the dog owner and killing the dog owner's girlfriend.   When asked about his behavior, the shooter's girlfriend said, "He's having some mental health issues" - so, hey, get out of jail free, right?

And thanks to the NRA, mentally ill people have access to high-power weaponry.  No, I'm not kidding about this - the NRA's position is that just because you are bat-shit crazy is no reason you shouldn't be allowed to own as many guns as you'd like.   You see where this is going, eh?

But what set me off this morning (my Asperger's again!) was an article on "Homeowner's Insurance for Hoarders" - which set forth how to get homeowner's insurance if you are a hoarder, including some tips on deceiving the insurance company (keep your hoarded broken lawn mowers in the back yard where the insurance adjuster won't see them!).  Nowhere in the article was it mentioned or even hinted that, hey, maybe being a hoarder is a shitty idea.

The article only hints at the idea that maybe hoarding is bad - but acts like it is some sort of condition, like diabetes, that one just catches. The article does point out - but not strongly enough - that your homeowner's policy isn't going to cover the damage to your house caused by hoarding - the water pouring in through the holes in your roof, or the fire damage from all the flammable materials you are keeping next to a space heater or the stove you are using as a heat source.  It made me sad, reading this article.

On the other hand, hoarders don't think of themselves as hoarders - so no hoarder reading that article would assume it was directed at them.  And that's the problem with mental illness - no one admits to it, unless they are trying to get some benefit from it.

Like clockwork today, every person accused of a crime argues mental illness as the cause.  The head of United Way, when confronted with his use of charity money for limos and hookers, claimed "brain shrinkage" was to blame.  We are all weak, right?   The mass-murderer or rapist claims to be mentally ill and not responsible for his actions.  Yet the law is quite clear on this - if you know right from wrong at the time you committed the crime, no matter what your compulsion, you are guilty of that crime.

The problem with this trend, as I see it, is that not only are we excusing aberrant behavior but we are embracing it.  Societal norms are being tossed in the wastebasket and replaced by a new set of norms, or lack thereof.   "Doing your own thing" today means being allowed to scream at the top of your lungs in the subway or maybe pushing someone in front of the subway train (it's a thing, google it).

It is funny, but until the early 1970's, homosexuality was considered a mental illness.  That all changed and today, fear of homosexuality is now considered an aberration.  In those early days, all most gays wanted was (as I have noted before) the right to be left the hell alone.   But today, it seems everyone wants to be "in your face" about every damn thing, and if you don't like it, you're the problem, because expressing even mild discomfort is considered a crime.

I have no truck with someone's mental illness - it is the public behavior that becomes an issue, particularly when that behavior is violent and endangers others.

Our societal norms have changed, and the "science" of mental illness is still in its infancy.  It wasn't long ago that Dr. Freud considered dreams an insight into the soul, instead of just random electrical storms in your brain.  Most of what he "discovered" is now considered to be hooey.  I wonder how much of what we "know" today will be considered hooey just a few decades from now.

Myself, I think mental hygiene is like personal hygiene - you have to work at it.  You have to make some concerted effort not to fall down the rabbit hole of Qanon or other crazy online shit.  And yes, you do have a choice in this matter, to some extent.  No, the severely Autistic might not have a choice, and the severely mentally ill might not have a choice.  Such folks may need medication, supervision, and even institutionalization (which is not a dirty word).  When someone is dangerous to themselves or others, we need to take care of them, and not just let them run wild and claim it is an alternative lifestyle.

A friend of mine, who is something of a Southern wit, once remarked that this "Bear" movement among some gays (embracing being overweight) was "just another excuse for giving up!"  It was a funny comment, but on point.  In the same way, I think we are merely giving up when we start to embrace mental illness as a "variation" of the human condition.   I am not saying that mental illness can be easily cured - indeed, it is perhaps harder to cure than cancer.   But at least we should strive for some level of normal behavior.  There has to be some sort of incentive to succeed, and some sort of disincentive for wallowing.

This is not to say we should shame the mentally ill.  Well, maybe a little bit.  There has to be some disincentive to being crazy, other than craziness itself.  We need to make it clear that acting weird or violent isn't "normal" or part of a "spectrum" of the human condition.

Some are saying that perhaps the cause for Autism may soon be discovered and quantified.  Suppose a "cure" was discovered?  Would people be willing to take it, or would this be against the idea that Autism is part of the "spectrum" of the human mental condition?

Sounds like an odd argument, but one that is going on right not in the "hearing-impaired" (deaf) world. Some deafness advocates argue that being deaf is not a "handicap" but just an alternative way of living. And indeed, there is a deaf culture, centered around the use of sign language and whatnot.  However, recently, there have been medical advances to "cure" deafness in some people through the use of cochlear implants. Some in the deaf "community" argue that such medical interventions are unnecessary and in fact, abhorrent.  They argue that parents who have such surgery on their children are denying the child the "choice" of whether to live the deaf lifestyle later on in life.

Will such a thing occur in the future if a "cure" for Autism or other mental illnesses is found?  Again, it seems like an odd question, but it is a relevant one.  If a "cure" means conforming to a certain societal norm, than perhaps such "cures" would turn us all into zombies - and perhaps deny society of variation and creativity and insight.  After all, some of the brightest people in the world, who have solved mathematical puzzles or composed great symphonies, may have been Autistic.

As we discovered recently, a certain chemical, which given to people, causes them to gamble recklessly.  Suppose a similar chemical was found to make people despise gambling?  Casinos and racetracks would be put out of business - and perhaps we all would become very risk-averse.  Risky behavior is bad, to some extent, but then again, necessary for survival of a society as a whole.

Or suppose a chemical was found to "cure" homosexuality?  It is possible - would that be desirable or not?   Tricky questions - sticky questions.  I have no easy answers.

On the other hand, behavior that endangers the rest of us, or even merely inconveniences the rest of us, should be discouraged.   Yes, there should be a "spectrum" of behavior that is not only tolerated, but celebrated.  But there are limits to this - which is why we have laws, to encourage people to behave within certain societal norms.

I don't see this article about "homeowner's insurance for hoarders" being helpful.  What's next? A "how-to-hoard" book?  A discussion group for hoarders?   We need to shout down some ideas as being too far out of the norm!

Three Kinds of Learning, Scientology, Qanon, and Conspiracy Theories

The strongest lessons you learn in life are from direct experience.  Often, however, they are the least useful lessons or indeed, the wrong lessons.

In one of my earliest postings, I mentioned there are three kinds of learning: Direct, Indirect, and Projected.  You put your hand on the hot stove, you learn directly that a hot stove can cause pain and you learn not to put your hand on the hot stove (some folks, sadly, put their hand on the stove time and time again).  That's direct learning.  You see someone put their hand on the hot stove and howl in pain, you realize from watching the experience of others that hot stoves are dangerous.  That's indirect learning.  But, if you are really smart, you might theorize that a hot stove, being hot, could burn you, and thus learn not to put your hand on one - without anyone having to get burned to figure this out.  That's projected learning, and few people are capable of it.

Indirect or projected learning are hard, and the lessons learned are often weakly imprinted in the brain. Learning is painful - when it is fruitful.  Mark is somewhat technology-impaired, and when he asks me how the remote control works, or how to do something on the computer, it is tempting to just grab it out of his hands and punch the keys to make it work - but that only insures he will ask me next time around.  It is painful to watch, but when he struggles to learn something by doing it himself, he ends up knowing it cold and doesn't need further instruction.

That being said, if you can program your brain to benefit from indirect learning or projected learning, you will be head and shoulders above the rest of the world.   You won't have to take out a payday loan or a high-interest credit card and go into default to learn the pitfalls of these crooked financial instruments - you would realize they are shoddy deals simply from the way they are presented or by learning about the experiences of others, or just sitting down and thinking about how 25% interest works, with a calculator and a pencil.

Recently there was an article online about conspiracy theories and role-playing games.  The author "ran" role-playing games (similar to these "escape room" games, where you look for clues to solve a puzzle).  These sort of games have been in ascendancy lately.  When I was a teenager, this nonsense started with "Dungeons and Dragons" but the fad quickly petered out. In today's nerd society, DnD as well as other role-playing games have become wildly popular, now that players can play on the Internet and everyone is locked up at home with nothing to do.

Myself, I never saw the point to it.  If you explain the entire game to someone, it sounds silly, but if you are playing it - one step at a time, you are drawn into the "story" and it seems intriguing - even though it is just a made-up story that sort of progresses randomly.  It seems real when you are immersed in it, and seeking out clues and whatnot.

Cults work the same way.  Scientology notoriously teaches people in "levels" with each "player" having to pay to move on to the next level, but only after they've mastered a particular level.  Sounds a lot like DnD to me!   Scientology was very secretive and didn't want their "Bible" published, as people would just jump to the last chapter and say, "You telling us we're all space aliens?  Get real!" - and no one would pay the huge fees needed to learn this nonsense one level at a time.

I have no truck against Scientology - if you want to believe that nonsense, that's your business.  If you want to believe the Pope or the Koran, same deal.   Harvesting the stupid is the oldest game known to mankind.   If you want to become fabulously wealthy, start a religion, or better yet, take over one that is just being established.   The track record shows that the second guy in the gig is the one who really rakes in the cash, while the first dude is literally crucified.

What was interesting about this article is that the author claimed that conspiracy theories were like these role-playing games.  They don't just cut to the chase and tell you how the game ends, but instead leave a trail of "clues" and "breadcrumbs" for you to figure out.  And since you figure this out (direct learning) you tend to "own" these lessons and they are very strong and hard to dislodge from the mind.  Hence cult members are notoriously hard to deprogram.

Qanon works the same way.  People get "clues" which are so abstract as to be laughable - Rorschach tests on the Internet - and people fill in the blanks.   They've "solved" the Q-puzzle and get congratulated by their fellow sleuths (the so-call "love-bomb" - another technique of cults and evangelical churches) and then can move on to the next level.

But  as the author points out, it is sort of preposterous - if someone had real evidence of a worldwide conspiracy, why not just present it, instead of teasing it out in little dribs and drabs?  It is akin to these mystery novels or adventure novels, where clues are dropped here and there.  Or James Bond movies, where the bad guys all wear matching rings or have a lapel pin identifying them as part of Spectre, because, hey that makes sense, right?

It is an interesting article in that it illustrates how conspiracy theories start, are maintained, and why they are so hard to get rid of.  Once implanted into the mind this way, people view an attack on the conspiracy theory as an attack on themselves.   They also view any attack on the conspiracy theory as more evidence that the conspiracy exists - after all, why would anyone try to discredit it?  The only logical reason is the powers-that-be are afraid the truth-seekers are catching on!

In a way, it is not dissimilar from online cons and Nigerian Prince scams.   You see an ad for a Casita travel trailer for a fraction of its value!  What a deal!  But there has to be a catch, right?  You contact the "owner" and they have a long-winded story they feed you in dribs and drabs, because if they told you the truth up-front, you'd walk away as the story would be so preposterous.  Same deal for the Nigerian Prince who wants to send you the sum of ten millions dollars "$USD" by certain modalities.   They feed it in dribs and drabs and people get sucked in.  One older fellow killed himself over this, as his own family turned on him after he squandered tens of thousands of dollars on the scam.  Even in his suicide note, he claimed he would be vindicated some day, when all that money came pouring in!

There is hope, however.  In any cult or evangelical church, 1/3 of the people are just joining (and being love-bombed and dazzled by it all), 1/3 have been members for some time, and 1/3 are in the process of leaving, having gotten bored by all of it, seeing no personal profit it any of it, or after getting into fights with the other members.   These cults require a constant turnover of members and often these cults flare up and flame out with spectacular speed.   Quite often, like Jonestown or the Branch Davidians, they literally self-destruct.

If you have a family member or friend drawn into one of these cults, probably the worst thing you can do is try to talk them out of it.   Well, the worst thing you can do is join the cult with them, which they will try to get you to do.  Just back away slowly - no need for dramatic pronouncements that you are cutting them off from your life or whatever.  Just see them less and less until you are not seeing them at all.   Maybe eventually they will realize they are wasting their lives on something that will never profit them personally (but is wildly profiting others) and then come back to you.  Or they will latch onto a new cult or conspiracy theory - which is far more likely.  Once you are burned by an MLM scheme, you are prime meat for the next one!  True believers never stop believing, they just believe in something else, instead.

But to denounce the cult is to denounce them, in their minds.  You are merely backing them into a corner if you try to argue with them logically.  And cornered animals can be dangerous.  If there is any chance at reapproachmont it would be if you are just there when they eventually crash and burn.  And eventually, they all crash and burn, although a few take these beliefs to the grave - usually the ones that someone tried to deprogram.   And for the rest?  Well, maybe you need to re-examine your life and figure out why you are hanging out with such negative people.   Is leaving crazy people out of your life such a bad thing - or the best thing you can do for your own mental health?

As I have said time and time again in this blog - when you see a friend about to drive their car off a cliff, the best thing you can so is make sure you are not in the back seat.

Of course, I say this as a fully anointed member of the conspiracy (cue: scary theremin music).  I live on Jekyll Island and have bought cabinets from Wayfair. Bu-hahahahahaha!  Bu-hahahahah!  Bu-hahahaha!  <cough!>  <hack!>

Allergy season, again?

Crybaby Politics

Conservatives decry the enshrinement of victimhood, and then claim they are victims for doing so.

In a recent post, I noted that it seems this "cancel culture" thing is more of a way for an obscure conservative columnist, author, or media personality to aggrandize themselves by claiming to be a victim of mean old leftists.  It is a neat trick, really - you can vault from obscurity to celebrity in a heartbeat, just by claiming people are trying to silence you, even as you announce this through a bullhorn.

But this is just a point on a graph, part of an overall trend.  The granddaddy (or as Yannia Yaniyopalous calls him, "Daddy" - that boy has issues!) of all of this is, of course, our soon-to-be ex-President (or dictator for life - stay tuned!) who claims victimhood at every turn, even has he decries others for claiming to be victims.  The mean old press doesn't like him!  The Democrats are out to get him!  People are being mean to him for calling him out for being mean to them!

It is cowardice, plain and simple.

They play this game, "trolling" people - or claiming to be trolling - and then getting upset when people call them out on this.  It is a stupid game - they say outlandish things, such as dog-whistling to the far-right or even outright Nazis, and if you respond to the bait, they say you are being mean to them or say it was all a joke, and "hey man, can't you take a joke?"  Ha-ha.  I stopped laughing at trolls a long time ago.  They aren't funny, just annoying.

It is bullying, plain and simple.  And like any bully, they are mostly bluff and bluster.  They try to intimidate you and if you punch them one right in the noggin, they cry like a bitch and run to the principal's office with a tear-filled tale of how unfair life is.

It is a game we all should refuse to play or get drawn into.  And yes, people on the left play this game as well - just not as well.  They claim to be victims, too - but of society at large.

I am not sure where I am going with this, other than there seems to be a distinct lack of courage among today's politicians and commentators.  They all want to be the aggrieved party, the victim, the subject of sympathy for their unfair treatment.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it, Sean Hannity et al.   When you are mean to others, you have no grounds to play the victim, when others are mean back.

Just a crazy thought, but you want people to be nice to you, try being nice to them, first.