It seems obvious by this point that a rational corporation would, when presented with the option of weighing in on politically decisive “culture war” topics, just stick their fingers in their ears and hum real loud until whatever -themed month it is ends, and spend their time trying to sell their normal merchandise to their normal customers. But, no. Due to the insidious and invasive influence of “woke” ideologies and diversity initiatives, companies have been led to believe that they *have* to build up their diversity social credit scores, or else… something.

Target stores are the latest to discover that attempting to appease a small group of weirdos ticks off a far larger group of people who don’t want to sterilize, mutilate and drive insane their children.A lot of customers have expressed outrage; a few by pestering the employees (these are just regular folk trying to earn a paycheck, leave ’em the frak alone); a few others by causing damage (come on, you’re not on the left… the law *will* go after you for vandalism). But by far, from Targets perspective the biggest threat to the corporation are the large number of customers who are simply not spending their increasingly thin dollars there. Apparently Target has lost about nine *billion* dollars so far. So Target has decided to move their displays of child-grooming-friendly products further back in the store where they’ll be less conspicuous. This, supposedly, is in response to threats to the stores, products and employees from customers who don;t like those products.

But now they’re getting threats from the *other* side… bomb threats from weirdos ticked off that Target is now attempting to appease right wingers.

You know who’s not getting bomb threats from *either* side? Companies that didn’t delve into goofy identity politics in the first place. There might be a lesson there.

Utah Target Evacuated After Reports of Trans Extremists Threatening to Bomb Multiple Target Locations for Removing Satanic Groomer Products

Huh.

The Constitutional Instructor

For the Use of Schools

By Daniel Parker · 1848

From page 155:
Article the Second . — This provision is so plainly proper that its propriety need not be argued. It will be sufficient to contrast it with the practice of despotic governments, who, while they maintain large standing armies, at all times subservient to their pleasure, will not allow arms in the hands of the common people.

From "The Constitutional Instructor For the Use of Schools" by Daniel Parker, 1848. https://t.co/uobNo0ex86 pic.twitter.com/2m2rG2jAbo

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) February 20, 2023

Couldn’t happen to a nicer fella:

Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in ‘Rust’ film shooting

The argument seems to be that Baldwin was screwing around and negligently fired the weapon. However, it also seems to be the case that he was given a gun and told by the armorer that it was not loaded. Assuming those, I’m dubious that a solid legal case can be made against him. The prop master is in serious trouble (and is also charged), no doubt, but Baldwin was told it was safe. That said: I’m never, EVER trusting a weapon to be unloaded and safe until such time as I have personally inspected it. Do I trust the person handing me the weapon? Quite possible. But “trust” has a hell of a time stacking up against “oops, I accidentally shot myself/someone else.”

So jail time for Baldwin? I’m uncertain. A massive fortune-thinning lawsuit? Oh yeah. Kind of a given.

Finally saw unedited video of the recent shooting of the armed (with a toy gun as it turns out) robber in Texas. With the edited videos, you can’t tell anything about the customer’s shooting of the robber other than at least one shot in the bad guys back. But with the edited video there appear to be *nine* shots, including multiple shots into the guy while he’s down… and a few seconds later, one more shot which kinda seems like it might have been a back-of-the-head shot. Which, you know… maybe a bit much. Do I feel bad that a robber got rubbed out? Not in the slightest. The fact that he had a fake gun doesn’t matter, the *fear* he was determined to generate was real enough. But riddling a dead guy with holes… people are gonna question that. But I dunno: you threaten to kill someone, chances are real good that that *someone* is going to get amped up on adrenaline, and might not be thinking to straight for a minute or three. I know the wokescolds and the prosecutors are going to yammer on about how he shot too many times… but when your life has just been threatened, how rational are you really expected to be?

The greater lesson here: if you don’t want to be turned into Swiss cheese, don’t go robbing people. Seems a simple enough rule of thumb.

Houston Police want to speak this man, but he’s not charged with a crime. HPD says a gunman was robbing people at a taqueria on S. Gessner last night. During the robbery, this man shot and killed the suspect… collected the money, gave it back to the robbery victims, and left. pic.twitter.com/nPtDxw2lQF

— Joshua Rodriguez (@Joshuajered) January 7, 2023

A lot of people think that the US is simply throwing money away. These people are wrong.

The majority of the weapons that the US is giving to the Ukrainians are old stock, stuff that would have gone to the incinerator or the scrap heap pretty soon anyway. If you expend a million-dollar weapon that you were otherwise going to simply throw away, you haven’t lost money. But if you expend that weapon for a practical purpose, you not only affect the course of the conflict, you also *learn* things.

I post this every few years because people have a short memory and generally refuse to learn from history.

The Plymouth colony was originally set up to be a Christian commune. This was not some random weird choice on their part, but was based on their reading of the Bible and Plato, both of which suggested that communism was a good and proper system to live under. As governor Bradford related in “Of Plimoth Plantation:” (available on Project Gutenberg)

1. The adventurers & planters doe agree, that every person
that goeth being aged 16. years & upward, be rated at 10li.,
and ten pounds to be accounted a single share.
2. That he that goeth in person, and furnisheth him selfe
out with 10li. either in money or other provissions, be accounted
as haveing 20li. in stock, and in ye devission shall receive a
double share.
3. The persons transported & ye adventurers shall continue
their joynt stock & partnership togeather, ye space of 7. years,
(excepte some unexpected impedimente doe cause ye whole
company to agree otherwise,) during which time, all profits &
benifits that are gott by trade, traffick, trucking, working, fish-
ing, or any other means of any person or persons, remaine still
in ye comone stock untill ye division.
4. That at their coming ther, they chose out such a number
of fitt persons, as may furnish their ships and boats for fishing
upon ye sea; imploying the rest in their severall faculties upon
ye land; as building houses, tilling, and planting ye ground,
& makeing shuch comodities as shall be most use full for ye
collonie.
5. That at ye end of ye 7. years, ye capitall & profits, viz.
the houses, lands, goods and chatles, be equally devided be-
twixte ye adventurers, and planters; wch done, every man
shall be free from other of them of any debt or detrimente
concerning this adventure.
[29] 6. Whosoever cometh to ye colonie herafter, or putteth
any into ye stock, shall at the ende of ye 7. years be alowed
proportionably to ye time of his so doing.
7. He that shall carie his wife & children, or servants, shall
be alowed for everie person now aged 16. years & upward, a
single share in ye devision, or if he provid them necessaries,
a duble share, or if they be between 10. year old and 16., then
2. of them to be reconed for a person, both in trasportation
and devision.
8. That such children as now goe, & are under ye age of
ten years, have noe other shar in ye devi~ion, but 50. acers of
unmanured land.
9. That such persons as die before ye 7. years be expired,
their executors to have their parte or shaff at ye devision, pro-
portionably to ye time of their life in ye collonie.
10. That all such persons as are of this collonie, are to have
their meate, drink, apparell, and all provissions out of ye comon
stock & goods of ye said collonie.

In short, the land was to be worked communally, and the produce distributed equally. Two centuries before Marx, this was a perfectly valid description of “communism.”
How’d it turn out? Well… in 1623, Bradford wrote this:

The experience that was had in this comone course
and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst
godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of
that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded
by some of later times; that ye taking away of
propertie, and bringing in comunitie into a comone
wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if
they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so
farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion &
discontent, and retard much imploymet that would
have been to their beneflte and comforte. For ye
yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour &
service did repine that they should spend their time
& streingth to worke for other mens wives and chil-
dren, with out any recompence. The strong, or man
of parts, had no more in devission of victails & cloaths,
then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter
ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged
and graver men to be ranked and [97] equalised in
labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner &
yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect
unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to
doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, wash-
ing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie,
neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon ye
poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike,
they thought them selves in ye like condition, and one
as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those
relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did
at least much diminish and take of ye mutuall respects
that should be preserved amongst them. And would
have bene worse if they had been men of another
condition. Let none objecte this is men’s corruption,
and nothing to ye course it selfe. I answer, seeing all
men have this corruption in them, God in his wis-
dome saw another course fiter for them.

In the end, it was found that communism bred not plenty, but famine. If you get your share whether you bust your ass in the fields, or just laze about all day, pretty soon people are going to realize that they are being played for chumps if they actually go and bust their asses in the fields all day. And the result of that will be a massive drop in productivity; and in a razors-edge colony on the far end of the map, this is a recipe for disaster.
As a result, the colony rethought its communist ideology:

All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew
they when they might expecte any. So they begane
to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they
could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done,
that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At
length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with
ye advise of ye cheefest amongest them) gave way that
they should set corne every man for his owne per-
ticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all
other things to goe on in ye generall way as before.
And so assigned to every family a parcell of land,
according to the proportion of their number for that
end, only for present use (but made no devission for
inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some
familie. This had very good success; for it made all
hands very industrious, so as much more corne was
planted then other waise would have bene by any
means ye Govr or any other could use, and saved him
a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente.
The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and
tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which
before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to
have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie
and oppression.

The result here was that going from collectivism to private ownership resulted in a massive increase in productivity and the end of the famine. With the assistance of the Indians in matters agricultural, the colony went from a dying group of starving commies, to a prosperous group of feasting private property owners. If you’re of a mind to believe in God, then the deliverance from Communism is certainly something to be thankful for. The Pilgrims lucked out… a more typical story would have the totalitarian government maintaining the communist ideology until complete disaster struck. But the colony was too thinly populated for a Pilgrim-KGB to maintain order through force.

There are any number of lessons to be learned here. The primary one that *should* be hammered home in every school is the Tragedy of the Commons and how through many long years and many, MANY examples, collective ownership of the means of production is just about the *worst* way to run an economy. It’s strange that when the Myth Of Thanksgiving was being generated over the last few hundred years that it focused on the Pilgrims and the Indians playing nice, rather than the triumph of privatization over communism. You’d think that the 1950’s, when it was still good and proper to be an American patriot and people recognized just how awful the Commies were, that serious efforts to correct the myth would have been made.

A little self knowledge is important.

Even the rural areas of Idaho show that, like Chicago or Baltimore, you should never go out unarmed.

KITTY!!!!

The worlds of Design Engineers and Machinists are very different… but they have to meet up at some point, or things don’t get done. I saw a lot of the sort of problems described here back when I was in aerospace; similarly, the worlds of Engineers and Draftsmen were well separated, which was an issue that I found to be insane. When I worked at United Tech in California as a design engineer, people – including my managers – thought I was some sort of whacko because I, a Design Engineer, actually wanted access to a CAD program so I could draw up the stuff I was designing “That’s what the draftsmen are for!” Insanity.

That “Men Have Two Types of Fantasies” at the end? Also true.

This guy tells a joke, the short from of which is that learning about science in school is useless, because he didn’t become a scientist. Now it could well be that he doesn’t actually believe that; perhaps a longer video with more context has him redeem himself later. But the basic notion expressed here grates on me more than a lame joke by an unknown standup comic really aught to. It would be better by far for kids to learn about science and math and then have them not go into STEM fields, than to replace science and math with the latest trendy identity politics subjects. Because even if the kids *do* go into the fields of gender studies or LGBTQ studies or racial grievance activism… society is *worse* off. Learning math helps a kid order their mind. Learning science helps a kid learn skepticism. Learning critical race theory helps a kid become a racist monster. Learning about the latest innovation in pronoun-invention helps a kid become schizophrenic and sterile.