A home for wayward souls

by

“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”–Alexander Graham Bell

Good friends are hard to come by, even harder when your primary connection is through the internet.  I can’t and won’t promise daily or multiple posts because my schedule may not allow it.  I will open my doors to friends and foes alike so that people can have a place to discuss whatever the hell they want to without the heavy hand of censorship smacking them down.  I haven’t written in a while, but it appears that the Grand Old Perpetual train wreck is providing ample fodder for discussion.

Feel free to pull up a chair, fix you a drink, and chat away.  The doors never close, and there are not very many questions that I won’t answer myself.  If you think you can insult or anger me, let met tell you now that you won’t succeed.  I am far too confident in myself and my abilities to allow someone to anger me over the internet.  If we’re face to face, then that’s a different ball of wax.

Brosephus

Add:  If you’re new here, your initial comment will be held in moderation until it is approved.  After that, your postings will appear as soon as you post them unless you use a different email address.

216 thoughts on “A home for wayward souls”

  1. I just checked out Bookman’s blog. It looks like Finn McCool may have been left out in the cold. Anyone know how to contact him/her?

    Like

  2. Yay! I’m seeing several of my old Jay’s blog friends here! Since I don’t have a Facebook account, I can’t post on the AJC any longer (and Jay won’t be there much longer anyway). That sudden posting change left me feeling bereft.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’ve mentioned before, I saw Jay do a live event years ago. It was shortly after the 2012 election and he and former CL writer Andisheh Nourae did what was called a Real State of the Union. It was a benefit for WAND.

    Anyway, at the end was QandA and it went on for a while. I was going to ask a question, or so I thought, until Jay called on another audience member instead of me. So this cat basically made comments like I was wanting to, never really asked a question and came off like a buffoon. So. I. I put my hand back down.

    Liked by 4 people

    • You’re not alone there. I’ve been alternating between trying to figure out the comments thing as well as put something up on Cohen. Don’t ask me for computer advice unless you want the blue screen of death.

      Liked by 2 people

    • He’s right. We did away with the 3/5ths Compromise itself, but we did not eradicate all the poisonous fruit that it reaped afterwards. The EC could be considered as a form of institutionalized racism in that aspect, but I don’t think you’d find many people to agree with it.

      The EC could still work, but we would need to increase the numbers within the HoR to account for population growth and also reconfigure the ratio of the number of people per representative sent to DC. The Senate is supposed to allow for equal representation across the states. The HoR is supposed to be representative of the people itself. The ratios are way off when you look at the population of states like California, New York, and Texas when compared to Wyoming, Delaware, and such.

      Liked by 4 people

        • That’s not reflected in the numbers of the HoR. I’ll have to look for the link, but someone did the research and came up with a number like 593 or so HoR members that we would need to increase to better reflect the population growth since the number was capped at 435 in the early 20th Century.

          Nothing personal against the middle of the country, but they should not be over-represented in the HoR when there’s nobody living there. The Senate is the chamber that gives equal representation to all. The House isn’t supposed to be remotely equal other than in the representative population total of each member.

          Liked by 2 people

          • I’ve read that the 435 number was chosen because a larger House would be unworkable. Certainly we should bear in mind such considerations in considering such questions. But to me, this is all minor quibbles because much more important than such procedural questions is what people think government is and what they think it should do.

            Like

          • I don’t think 600 would be too cumbersome. If we kept the number at 435 and reallocated seats on an equal basis that was based on equal representation, the red states would lose a lot of seats and power.

            The government is the foundation of our society. Without the base layer, the house does not stand. The government isn’t everything, but we wouldn’t exist with a govermment of nothing either.

            Like

          • Your comment on government is very vague and incomplete. It does not explain why the “house” will not stand without the “foundation”. (I am willing to give an explanation, but I don’t think you’ll like it.) It does not address the question of what, exactly, we need in the foundation.

            Like

          • I’m certain that I wouldn’t like your explanation because it would undoubtedly not be my notion. It would be a perversion of what you think I intended instead.

            The foundation of our society which the government provides is a stable valuation of currency, security from other nations, rules and laws to provide for a stable nation, and a means of enforcement for those rules and laws. From that foundation, we’re able to build up our nation. Without that foundation, we would not exist as we do.

            Like

          • As long as gold operating in a free market was the foundation of the currency, the currency was stable. It was government tampering that created the instability.

            You do not explain why we need rules and laws or what they should apply to. Again, I am willing to give an explanation, but I don’t think you’ll like it.

            Like

          • We need rules and laws because human nature is not a sufficient means to run a society. Gold operating in a free market works only when there’s a value assigned to gold. Gold would be of no use to people who do not have a means of obtaining or have a use for it.

            You’ve peddled the Libertarian beliefs long enough to where I pretty much know where you’re going. Human nature would render any libertarian based society useless in today’s world. Those ideas worked in the 1700s and 1800s, but they are of no use today. That’s no different than seeing old economic theory still being recycled today.

            Like

          • You’re still being very vague about the rules and laws.

            There are enough people with a means of obtaining gold and enough people with a use for it to provide a solid foundation for gold as a currency, much more solid that the government fiat that underlies the currency we have now.

            Why, exactly, are libertarian ideas less workable now than they were before?

            Like

          • I don’t have the time or inclination to list individual laws and/or regulations (rules) that form.the foundation of our society. There are some areas where we are overburdened, and there are some where we are too lax.

            Gold is useless to an Iowa pig farmer when he can use his crop to barter or trade. The same could be said for most any farmer. The problem with a free market society is that no such society exists. Greed is too powerful of a human instinct to allow any society to operate as a true free market. That’s why even Adam Smith knew some regulation is necessary.

            Greed is reason #1 why libertarian ideas are less workable now. What poor person have you seen espousing libertarianism? Libertarianism today is nothing more than a notion where some wealthy and well to do can feign concern about equality. I’m not against libertarians outright. I am just real enough to understand human nature isn’t fit for those ideals.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I’m not asking for a list of individual laws and regulations. I’m asking for a statement of basic principles. What, exactly, do you mean by using human nature to run a society and why, exactly, would this be insufficient?

            A money-based system is much more workable than a barter system.

            In a true free market, individual rights are protected. A true free market harnesses greed to work for other people, not against them. No such society currently exists, but that doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t.

            At any economic level, few people are currently espousing libertarianism. That doesn’t prove anything about whether it is right or wrong.

            Why, exactly, is greed more important now than it was in the past in determining whether libertarian ideas are workable?

            Mixed-economy statism and the resulting pressure-group warfare give rich people ways of using government to preserve and expand their wealth without earning it. Under a free market, they would have to earn it.

            Like

          • People are not ideal. The ideal free market based system you describe is just that, ideal. It’s not practical.

            There will always be someone who will try to game the system either due to greed, envy, or something else. There’s a reason why religion refers to the Seven Deadly Sins.

            In principle, I agree that people should be able to self-regulate through the ideals put forth by a true free market. In reality, humans do not live in a vaccum, so there are no perfect conditions that would support such a free market over the long term.

            Even if America went full and totally free market, we would still be at the mercy of every other country who would be out to screw us over.

            Rich people get rich and stay rich because they’re able to manipulate people and the system. That would not change under a free market, and it would likely be worse if people were left to self regulate. I’ve dealt with enough people from around the world to know that human nature would not support such a society you envision. I applaud you for your ideals, but I’ve put enough handcuffs on people to realize it isn’t possible. It has nothing to do with mixed statism. It’s all about human nature and how some people will always seek to take advantage of others.

            Liked by 1 person

          • A free market does not depend on people being ideal. It includes provision for dealing with people who commit physical aggression. It harnesses any other sort of non-idealness so that it will work for other people, not against them.

            A mixed-economy statist system is much easier to game than a free market.

            A free market does not require or depend on perfect conditions. It provides the best mechanism for dealing with whatever conditions exist.

            If we went fully and totally free market, we would be stronger, not weaker, when it came to dealing with any other country that would be out to screw us over.

            It is mixed-economy statism and the resulting pressure-group warfare that give rich people and organizations the tools for manipulation. A free market would take those tools away.

            Please give a representative list of examples of reasons why you have had to put handcuffs on people.

            Like

          • I’ve handcuffed people for things as minor as failure to appear warrants to drug smuggling and more.

            No market or methodology is immune to corruption or manipulation. We can control many things, but you cannot control human nature.

            Like

          • In order for the court system to work, it must be able to compel people to appear. But this leaves the question, what, exactly, is it right to give courts authority over?

            Your example assumes that criminalization is a good way to deal with drugs. I maintain that criminalization is immoral and does much more harm than good.

            Mixed-economy statism and the resulting pressure-group warfare make corruption and manipulation much easier and more destructive. A true free market is the best way to limit the damage.

            Like

          • What would compel a person to appear to face criminal charges? Innocent people don’t jump at the chance to defend themselves, so how would you compel the guilty to appear?

            You maintain that criminalization of deugs is immoral. That’s your right and opinion to believe so. I maintain that drug usage is immoral in and of itself. I’m not talking about medical usage, although I try to limit any and all drugs that I personally take.

            Legalization of drugs would not do anything towards the effect drugs have on breaking up homes leaving kids to depend on others. Someone will still have to clean up the messes left behind by drug abuse whether it’s broken homes, crime, or corpses littering the streets.

            I have not seen any free market based solution to that. If it were in existence, it would already be monetized in today’s world.

            Like

          • I am not arguing against compelling people to appear. I am asking, what behavior should be criminalized in the first place?

            If something is immoral, that in itself does not make criminalizing it moral.

            Criminalization forces the drug business to operate outside the law. This greatly increases the extent to which crimes occur in it. It also allows gangs to use force to establish coercive monopolies, making the drug business much more lucrative and greatly increasing the incentive to get people hooked. It also makes addicts more reluctant to seek help. All this makes drug abuse much more destructive than it would be in a free market.

            The extensive, complicated statism we have in the system can make solutions unworkable that would work in a free market.

            Like

          • As an example, how do you pay for rehab if we switched to a free market system? People are hooked on illegal drugs, legalizing them doesn’t make them any less addicted nor does it solve the problem of obtaining the money necessary to obtain that next fix.

            I get where you’re coming from. I grew up reading Adam Smith and having teachers who taught free market thinking along with other economic realities.

            I still maintain the complexities of human behavior would still corrupt or pervert a free market system. I k ow you believe otherwise, and I respect that

            Like

          • There are already private approaches to rehab. There would be more if government were not preempting the field. But a person’s need for rehab does not create a right to it.

            Absent the coercive monopolies made possible by criminalization, less money would be required to get the next fix, which would reduce crime.

            Like

          • A person’s need for rehab does not create a right to it, but demand for something is met by offering a supply. Government preemption is not as big of an issue as rehab not being a profitable industry.

            For a free market to truly function, there has to be a mixture of altruism and pragmatism to offset the propensity of earning a dollar to morph into greed.

            America is not at that stage where such a system will work. There may be some, many even, who would make such a system work, but it only takes about 5-10% to scre up the enire thing, IMHO. Mixed statism isn’t going anywhere in America. You’ll be dead and gone while it will continue to function. Neither you nor I have any means of changing things.

            Like

          • Again, a free market harnesses greed to work for other people, rather than against them.

            What is your basis for saying that a small proportion of people can screw up the entire thing?

            In order to get away from mixed-economy statism, and to otherwise achieve a better society, we have to educate people on multiple fundamental levels. This takes a long time. I don’t expect to live to see the final result. Maybe nobody alive today will live to see the final result. But I can help bring the final result closer by telling the truth. And as Ayn Rand said, “those who fight for the future, live in it today.”

            Like

          • I believe a small number of people can screw it up for everyone because my father still walks the earth with scars from being shocked with a cattle prod by white supremacists who were intent on not integrating the South. In 2018, we still have a lot of white supremacists who carry those same beliefs that killed thousands and scarred thousands more.

            Human nature cannot be tamed or controlled in some kind of idealistic Shangri La. In the entire existence of humankind, there has been no free market society that lasted any longer than it took for greed or outsiders to wipe it out. That’s just reality.

            You’re not going to educate 7 billion plus people to believe and act that way. We can’t even educate Americans enough to avoid fake news.

            Like

          • White supremacism in the bad old South is an example of a majority in the South screwing it up for everyone there, not a small proportion doing so.

            It is a proper function of government for the federal government to require state and local governments to give everyone equal protection under the law. When it finally did so, most of the killing and physical scarring stopped, the psychological scarring was reduced, and people had a better chance to learn that white supremacy was wrong.

            There is no record in history of a fully free market society. When we came close, it was the growth of statism that ruined it. The key is to educate enough people on enough fundamental levels that they will realize statism is both immoral and destructive. This educational process will take a very long time even in just the U.S.A., let alone the entire world. But taking a very long time is not the same as being impossible.

            Like

          • Enjoyed.the exchange, but it’s time to call it a night.

            I wish you well on your endeavor to educate people. You cannot overcome human nature and instinct though. Humans are not automatons or robots.

            Like

          • “Instinct” is not a useful concept. In humans, it does not exist. In talking about other animals, saying “instinct” is a copout that shirks the task of explaining behavior scientifically.

            The way to educate people is by appealing to their reason. One cause of this taking a long time is that each person always has a choice of whether or not to think. This is in the nature of reason. It is precisely because humans are not automatons or robots that they have a faculty of reason to appeal to. This is the part of human nature that will eventually save the world.

            Like

    • That’s a default function of the Gravitar Gravatar system. If you’re registered through their system, your own avatar will show. If you’re not registered, the system will randomly assign you one. I like that better than everyone having that bland assed bathroom man looking avatar.

      Like

    • I just want to know how come everyone else has figured out how to post a new comment and I haven’t. I literally cannot find a link to do this anywhere on the page. And I know I used to post such things all the time at this liberal moron blog before.

      Like

      • It’s not you. For some reason, your posts keep going into moderation making me have to approve them. I’m not sure why. You should be able to post with no problem.

        Like

        • Ah. It is possible I’d used a different email address before. But I’m a registered WordPress user with the current one you have, so that’s kinda weird that WP recognizes me but this blog doesn’t.

          Like

          • I’ve been trying to figure that out. Your email and IP address is consistent with what you used before. Even if it was different, you shouldn’t be blocked after the first approval is done. Your posts are the only one that keeps going into moderation. I may have to email WordPress to see what’s causing the issue.

            Like

  17. Brennan has his own skeletons however it doesn’t mean he doesn’t know something. And based on his previous job and contacts he still has he probably does know something about this issue

    “How large is the iceberg & who will be found clinging to it? The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine,” he continued

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/419115-ex-cia-chief-rips-into-trump-for-iceberg-of-lies-deceit-corruption

    This nothing burger is going to be a Whopper

    Like

  18. I called into AJC cancel my subscription and the guy on the phone asked me why I told him the Facebook plugin is a flop because people do not like the idea of being forced to comment using only one platform and that very few people are using it. He asked me if I would give it a week because it was just rolled out yesterday and that he would pass my feedback onto the editorial staff.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. I saw a comment somewhere earlier today that suggested Alan Moree is DiA. I doubt that because Alan Moree works at an allergy clinic while DiA is supposedly a CPA, and StSimon’s once confirmed that.

    Like

    • Just my two cents but even if certain bloggers have provided enough info to figure out who they are via their FB page it’s probably a good practice not to post it on any blog. Hopefully their revealing of info doesn’t lead to anything negative but best not to speculate on blogs.

      Like

      • Yeah, I hear you. I’m not about to out anyone’s real identity, but I figured it couldn’t hurt to dispute a likely false identification either.

        Like

    • I’m with TBS on this. I wouldn’t advise speculating on people or revealing their identities. This site is nowhere near as trafficked as the AJC, but putting someone’s information in public could jeopardize their safety if some dumbass is wanting to do something crazy.

      Like

    • Based on what was posted, they appear to have been trying to tame the comment section by forcing people to use their real identity to comment. If that was their intent by switching to Facebook, then that was a tacit admission that their own Terms And Agreement for Use is a joke.

      If you looked across the different blogs and stories, they did not police the comment sections, and as a result, they lost control and rendered their own policies as moot. There is no First Amendment protection when using someone’s private platform, and the AJC should have worked harder at removing the filth and purveyors of filth from their domain instead of allowing the problem to take root and grow.

      It’s their problem to deal with though. I don’t get paid to offer them advice.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I think that was all a bunch of bs from the AJC
        In reality the format change is a cost cutting measure just as Wingfield, Bookman and a few sports writers leaving is a cost cutting measure
        They could have saved that weak song and dance

        Liked by 2 people

        • Agreed that it’s basically a cost-cutting move. Pretty soon the AJC will be more like a weekly neighborhood publication that gets distributed for free than a newspaper of a major city.

          Like

    • The AJC did the same thing with the UGA sports blogs a couple of years ago – forced people to post through Facebook and it killed them stone dead.

      Liked by 2 people

    • ROFL!!! I’ve been called far worse. I used to write for the school paper, and an acquaintance of mine from my marching band years is a reporter back at home. Ironically, we reconnected on a story that I posted here involving a generous act of kindness that made the news at home.

      I’ve been spoiled by real time commenting, so I may have to upgrade this blog so I can add the necessary plugin to avoid having to keep refreshing the screen to see new comments.
      *curses Jay and the AJC for making me spend more money

      Liked by 1 person

    • I just want to see a good game and nobody get hurt. I didn’t realize it until this week that Alabama has only been behind in points for one possession over the entire season. I had never stopped to look at the stats like that.

      Like

    • 175 yards or more rushing and I think the Dawgs have a chance. That’s a tall task against Bama. And if they can’t run the Bama front seven are going to pin their ears back and it might get ugly

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Announcement
    The Bookman Beer Summit has been set. I will not post the information here in public for security reasons, but let me know if you’re not already on the notification list, and I can forward you the information. It will be a great chance to thank Bookman for helping forge so many friendships and memories.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Russia and Putin are throwing shade at Trump

    Russian officials cast doubt on President Trump’s official reason for canceling a planned bilateral summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in statements Friday blaming the “US domestic political situation” for Trump’s decision to not meet with Putin.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/international/419061-russia-trump-canceled-putin-meeting-over-domestic-political-situation%3famp

    Liked by 1 person

        • That job puts exponentially more stress on a person than any other I can think of. I don’t think Trump was all that healthy to begin. My prediction was initially that he would stroke out before he completed 4 years. I still see that as something that may happen.

          I don’t wish bad health on him, but he’s brought this all on himself.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Agreed, he didn’t look really healthy during the campaign…but yesterday some show posted a picture of him at a campaign rally and I was struck by how much he’s changed. Being president does age a person, but he’s changed a lot in less than 2 years. And I, personally, have no doubt it’s not ALL from the stress of being president.

            Liked by 1 person

    • I guess in order for me to judge them I’d have to ask hypothetically: Would I accept an invite (of sorts) to go post to a conservative’s WordPress blog in similar circumstances? I think my answer would be “depends on the conservative.”
      I sure wouldn’t trust several of the rightie regulars to, for example, respect individuals’ requests for anonymity. Some, though, I would.
      So, maybe – I am just irresponsibly speculating here – the conservatives at Jay’s have some issues with that sticky end of Interweb blogging.
      Or maybe they’re all lying sacks o’ crap, who were never interested in intellectually honest debate, and just wanted to show off in a well trafficked public forum.

      Like

      • I say to each their own as far as who decides to take up Bro’s offer to post here. Based on comments that were posted in the past at Bookman’s there are certainly a few conservatives who use to lurk on this blog. Whether they dicide to comment is yet to be seen

        Like

  29. Thanks Bro. I’ve been sort of out of sorts since Jay announced his retirement. Seems silly to feel like I was losing a community, but it did. Thanks also to PaulNH for sending me here.

    Liked by 3 people

  31. Trump is scared now he thought he was being smart having secret meetings with Putin and bringing Russians into the Oval Office. It’s not so funny now. Cohen struck a nerve today.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Trump’s lawyers tried to game the system with their joint defense arrangement with Manafort. It’s much easier to tell the truth instead of trying to lie to the Feds. They forget that Mueller and Company have put away real mobsters before. Mueller’s original team was like a Who’s Who of RICO prosecution.

      Trump is an abysmal businessman, or even a useful idiot, considering US hotel chains were typically able to get up and running in 18 months. Trump Tower has been in negotiations for years. Putin used Trump like a rented tuxedo.

      Liked by 2 people

    • If a perjury trap is the same as a simple test to tell whether or not you are telling the truth, it looks to me as though Mueller laid it perfectly. He knew Trump and Manafort would coordinate lies. He had Cohen and no doubt some documentary evidence to refute the lies. So now he’s done with Manafort, doesn’t have to give him any nice things, and he’s fot Trump’s written lies.

      Like

  36. The latest Cohen news, the Manafort stuff from Tuesday. Reminds me of something that occurred to me soon after Trump had taken office.
    Which was: if we ever had the kind of goods on Trump that we had on Nixon, the Republicans would never do what they did in 1974. They’d never convict Trump (as they told Nixon they would, back in the day).
    I’m not saying we necessarily have quite the same goods on Trump now, but damn, it looks like something a lot like it at this point.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Somehow this got posted under Bro’s comment.

      I think what is out there will eclipse Nixon. You would have to add Agnew into the mix to get to drumpf’s level of corruption.

      Like

    • What makes you think the FBI doesn’t have the goods on Trump? The combination of forigen press reporting on SIGINT captured by Five Eyes is pretty consistent with our allies having actual recordings of Teump campaign members carrying on conversations with Russian nationals who were Russian intelligence. I don’t think we will see what was discussed or who it was outside of indictments. I don’t see Mueller actually indicting anyone on conspiracy charges with Russians because that will give Russia an insight into how to avoid spy techniques.

      Another thing that makes me think tbat the FBI has the goods is the response from members of Congress after one particular briefing in either December 2016 or January 2017. I distinctly remember every single member of Congress running away from cameras after leaving that particular beiefing. That’s the only time I can ever recall seeing something significant discussed and not a single politician wanted to preen in front of a camera and mic.

      Like

  45. Thanks, Bro
    I’m sure opening back up the blog is appreciated by those who have previously commented as well as just read your articles. Get this not so successful blog going again. That was an inside joke if anyone missed the comment at Bookman’s

    Liked by 1 person

    • I try not to say too much about work because I can still step on my own crank off duty and away from the office. There will likely be a few heads to roll because of that case. I’ll also probably see new rules and training in the not too distant future. I deal with detainees a lot, so I’ve already seen things coming down the pipeline because of this case.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Not as much as I was. I’m running out of the easy ones, and the hard ones are out of my reach. I have ben doing a lot of camping though and trying, when I can, to get back to ones I’ve been to before to get videos. Right now I’m in a project to stay at every GA state park that has a campground. Been to 27 so far, # 28 this weekend. I fixed up my 20+ year old van into a camper. It’s been a lot of fun!

        Like

  56. Well, this is a strange reason to resuscitate a blog, but it’ll suffice.
    I’ve always kept my old sfd persona here, but those more recently on the ajc machine only know me as Visual. Howdy noobz.

    Like

    • Once you’re in, there’s no need for a secret knock anymore. The one thing I haven’t figured is how to get the comments to auto refresh. There used to be a Discus option that you could apply, but I don’t see that now. I may have to upgrade and turn professional. LOL!!!

      Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.