Author Archives: R.D. Walker

Final Debate Open Thread



On this date in 1066: The Battle of Hastings

On this day, 950 years ago, near the grey apple tree, everything changed forever.


What’s eating the working class?

There is a perception that material wealth of the middle class has fallen over the last half century. This is absurd on its face. As I have pointed out many times before, you can live on one income today in a manner of a 1950s family without much trouble at all. It’s easy.

First, you must live in a drafty, 1,100 square foot house and consider it large. Once you purchase furniture, you will – of course – keep it for decades. Your house should have no air conditioning. You won’t have cable television, a computer or Internet to pay for. You won’t have to pay for a cell phone. You will make long distance calls only rarely and keep them as short as possible. You will own only a single car that will be shared by you and your spouse. You will take vacations close to home at destinations like the Wisconsin Dells or Coney Island. You will take these vacations only every couple of years. No air travel at all. Air travel is for the wealthy. You won’t have to purchase a microwave oven, a DVD player, a flat screen television or an iPod. You will have about six or eight changes of clothes to buy and you will be set. Your medicine cabinet will contain aspirin, Merthiolate and band-aids. You don’t have to worry about college for your kids since you have no expectation of them attending.

Of course virtually no one lives like that in 2016. Even the lower working classes and those on welfare have access to more material wealth and comforts than did a middle class family in the 1950s. The middle class have access to entertainment, communications, education, medicines, comfort and travel that nobody at any income had access to in the 1950s. Compared to the middle class of the 1950s, the middle class of today is fabulously wealthy in terms of material goods.

So what are people so angry about if not a loss of material wealth?

More below the fold…


The Russians really want Trump to win

Why do you suppose the Russians want Trump to win?

    A) Exactly why they say: To ensure peace on Planet Earth

    B) Because Trump has many shared business interests with the Russian oligarchs

    C) Both A and B?

    D) Neither A nor B?



The end of classical liberalism in the GOP

This article was first run on May 14, 2016. It is worth a second look.


Trump’s nomination signals the death of American conservatism or classical liberalism as one of the two main forces in American public policy. He ran away with the nomination despite being exposed as a nonconservative who is hostile to private property rights, free trade and orthodox constitutionalism.

Trump discovered something important. He discovered that much of the Republican voter base does not share the policy preferences of those as professed on this site. He proved that it is possible to win the GOP nomination without being saddled with unpopular policy preferences like free markets and free minds.

He proved that much of the Republican base wants much of the same things that the Democrat base wants: Big government programs, governmental restrictions on trade, protection from entitlement cuts, isolationist limits on America’s commitment to military alliances and greater recognition of social changes such as those regarding homosexual and transgender people.

Future GOP candidates will understand this. They will follow this model. Those who believe in the classical liberal principles we have long espoused here no longer have a seat at the table. We have been shown the door.

This is why we have such a difficult time with each other. On this forum, Joe and I talk past each other because we want different things from government. Joe wants control of the borders, law and order and America to be first in all things. I want individual liberty and freedom of association with anyone in the world under my terms. Those are largely incompatible visions. Joe’s side has won.

Trump will still lose in November. He has found a way to tap into the non-conservatives in the Republican Party but his nastiness toward women, his crypto-racism and his generally crude and boorish demeanor will very likely cost him the election.

The next Republican candidate to adopt and refine his big government approach but will not make the tactical mistakes he has.

The bottom line is that the Republican Party has evolved. It became the party of small government in 1980 under Ronald Reagan. The classical liberal roots of Reagan’s presidency have been in decline since. Under Trump, whether he wins or loses, it is dead.


What if…?


I would agree. I would point out that they have talked that way and, frankly worse, since the birth of the Corps. I would also agree that members of other branches speak that way as well. I would point out that it is quite common and anyone who has served has likely heard it.

I would go on, however, to point out that it is common among privates in their teens and twenties. It is not nearly as common among senior NCOs and officers. In fact, it is almost unheard among officers and senior NCOs at the company level and above. Those who attain leadership positions tend to outgrow the juvenile antics of privates. Certainly this is the case as they reach their thirties and forties.

In fact, failing to outgrow this kind of crude and juvenile behavior would be career limiting. I find it hard to imagine a Marine officer, at company grade or above, with a pregnant wife and with daughters at home openly talking like that in a work environment.

I would also point out that any field grade officer who boasted about violating the prohibition against adultery in Article 134 of the UCMJ would unlikely to maintain a leadership position. If he were to be shown to actually engage in adultery with the wife of another man, it is unlikely he would be allowed to remain in the Corps. He would certainly be deemed unfit for a high leadership position.

It is impossible to imagine the Commandant of the Marine Corps speaking like this in the workplace.

I would agree, however, that adolescent, under-sexed, hormonally addled privates do (along with engaging in all manner of other juvenile jackassery) talk like that.


Thoughts on the Debate


Last night I watched two political cripples take swats at each other. Both candidates were vulnerable as the result of their own corruption, maleficence and treachery. Each was fully exposed to the other. Neither had any real hope of self defense. Each stood vulnerable in open country and open to attack at the front, flanks and rear.

Yet neither could draw much blood on the other. If either of these impaired candidates was facing an actual statesman, he or she would have been easily crushed and humiliated. But neither faced a statesman. Neither faced even a competent pol.

Each faced a hamstrung, hobbled, political weakling.

There will be talk today about who won the debate but there were no winners last night. Debates are won by gaining voters you didn’t have going in, not by getting your core constituency to gloat about a supposed victory. Last night each candidate spent the evening throwing red meat to each of their base supporters. I doubt either candidate changed any minds last night.

I didn’t watch a debate. I watched an ineffective slap fight.

Sadly, one of these two will be president. What a disaster.


Debate Open Thread



There seems to be a cultural shift underway

I have been hearing a lot about alpha males this weekend and I am confused. I need help from Revoistas. Let me give a hypothetical…

Man #1: Born poor raised in a small town. Worked hard and graduated high school with good grades. He volunteered for the Marines during Vietnam and served in combat. He volunteered for Force Recon and became a squad leader.

He came home, took a bank loan and purchased an excavator. He built up a small excavation business that employs about a dozen. He is actually a father figure for his staff. His company does good work and always pays what it owes.

He married a hometown girl and had three children, all girls. He always made sure they had what they needed even though they were never wealthy. He always loved their mother and was always respectful of her. He never strayed. When his daughters began dating he always met the boys and had strong but respectful words for them describing their expected behavior.

He has often volunteered in his community, bowed his head to Jesus and was always proud of who he was and what he had.

Man #2: Born rich and never experienced any kind of financial concern in his life. He dodged the draft during Vietnam with a fake medical condition. He inherited millions. He married three times divorcing the first two wives when they started to show their age. He cheated on each of his wives and boasts about his adultery. He has children by each of his wives and talks an lot about how sexual desirable his daughter is. He talks about sexual conquest constantly and defines his manliness by his success in bedding women.

He has a reputation for lying and not paying those with whom he contracts labor. He has presided over at least four bankrupcies and proudly uses lawfare to crush business opponents.

He is on the record talking about how his celebrity status allows him to get away with what is objectively sexual assault. He is loud, bombastic and will attack anyone who crosses him no matter how slight the insult. He has never shown any real interest in faith or community service. His biggest investments have been casinos with strip joints and he is most famous as a television game show host.

See? I have searched all of Western Literature including scripture, epic poems, operas, novels, stage plays and movies and in virtually every case, Man #1 is the hero and Man #2 is the villain. In the literature, Man #1 always ends up dominating Man #2 who is universally seen as a poltroon with nothing but his daddy’s wealth as a source of power. Man #1 always draws wealth from a much deeper source. This is universal.

Suddenly, however, there seems to be a cultural shift. Suddenly a certain segment of the population is enamored with Man #2. They suddenly admire the rich guy who inherited his money and brags about abusing women, crushing the little guy and running over people with his wealth.

What’s up with this shift from a theme that has been the foundation to the Western ethos and literary themes for centuries? I seriously don’t get it.


“Grab them by the pussy…”

Hey Republicans. Here is your presidential candidate.

“I did try and f— her. She was married,” Trump says.

Trump continues: “And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set.

“Your girl’s hot as s—, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.

“Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”

“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p—y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”


Amazon pulls the sexy burka costume


The perennially indignant and permanently offended were not amused. Here is a one star review…

“This is ridiculous. Dressing up like other cultures for the alleged purpose of “having fun” is not okay. Especially when, in a lot of cases, people who buy and wear costumes like this do it solely as a way to make fun of the culture, not as a form of appreciation. Stop cultural appropriation.”

So Amazon pulled it.

Question for Team Revo: Considering the above,can anyone rationalize this?


Cop chose to take a beating rather than use her sidearm

This is what it has come to.

A Chicago police officer who is hospitalized after she was severely beaten said she was afraid to use her gun because of the scrutiny she would have faced, Supt. Eddie Johnson said.

On Wednesday morning, police responded to a car crash at Roosevelt and Cicero on the city’s West Side where officers encountered a man that police allege was violent and under the influence of drugs.

Three officers were hospitalized in the incident. One officer who was severely beaten told Supt. Johnson she was afraid for her life and afraid to use lethal force with all of the attention on the police department’s previous actions and fatal incidents.

“She thought she was going to die. She knew that she should shoot this guy, but she chose not to, because she didn’t want her family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on national news,” Supt. Johnson said.

Law enforcement has been effectively hobbled. The result will be more crime, more suffering and a cheapening of black lives (and all lives) across the country.

Leave a comment

New Hampshire freest state according to Cato


Here are the top 10. It looks like the home states of many dedicated Revoistas score pretty well.

1. New Hampshire
2. Oklahoma
3. Indiana
4. South Dakota
5. Alaska

Here are the bottom 10.

43.Rhode Island
47.New Jersey
50.New York

Details here.


Regarding those millions of unemployed men…

What’s the cause? Well, it isn’t the Chinese. It isn’t NAFTA. It isn’t even necessarily automation. It is something far more insidious.

The work rate for adult men has plunged 13 percentage points in a half-century. This “work deficit” of “Great Depression-scale underutilization” of male potential workers is the subject of Nicholas Eberstadt’s new monograph “Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis,” which explores the economic and moral causes and consequences of this:

Since 1948, the proportion of men 20 and older without paid work has more than doubled, to almost 32 percent. This “eerie and radical transformation” — men creating an “alternative lifestyle to the age-old male quest for a paying job” — is largely voluntary. Men who have chosen to not seek work are two-and-a-half times more numerous than men who government statistics count as unemployed because they are seeking jobs.

[What Eberstadt calls a “normative sea change” has made it a “viable option” for “sturdy men,” who are neither working nor looking for work, to choose “to sit on the economic sidelines, living off the toil or bounty of others.” Only about 15 percent of men ages 25 to 54 who worked not at all in 2014 said they were unemployed because they could not find work.

For 50 years, the number of men in that age cohort who are neither working nor looking for work has grown nearly four times faster than the number who are working or seeking work. And the pace of this has been “almost totally uninfluenced by the business cycle.” The “economically inactive” have eclipsed the unemployed, as government statistics measure them, as “the main category of men without jobs.”

It is hard to attribute this to any single cause but it is closely correlated with this…

The collapse has coincided with a retreat from marriage (“the proportion of never-married men was over three times higher in 2015 than 1965”), which suggests a broader infantilization.

This is cultural and very troubling.



HRC says SCOTUS is wrong on 2nd Amendment

And she is going to fix it.

Hillary Clinton slammed the Supreme Court as “wrong on the Second Amendment” and called for reinstating the assault weapons ban during a small private fundraiser in New York last week, according to audio of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

While Clinton has previously supported an assault weapons ban, this is the first time since launching her campaign that she indicated that she would take on the Supreme Court over gun issues.

Although Clinton did not identify which Supreme Court case she disagreed with, she appeared to be criticizing the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., unconstitutional.

“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.

“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”


Venezuelans chose Chavez and his foul agenda

They chose badly and are paying dearly.

It was just a scraped knee. So 3-year-old Ashley Pacheco’s parents did what parents do: They gave her a hug, cleaned the wound twice with rubbing alcohol and thought no more of it.

Two weeks later, the little girl writhed screaming in a hospital bed. Her breathing came in ragged gasps as she begged passing patients for a sip of water.

Her mother stayed day and night in the trauma unit. She kept Ashley on an empty stomach in case she might cut in front of hundreds of other patients for emergency surgery in one of the hospital’s few functioning operating rooms.

Her father scoured Caracas for scarce antibiotics to fight the infection spreading through his daughter’s body.

They had no idea how much worse it was going to get.


Leave a comment

Pew: Most Americans don’t believe AGW hype

Americans are very skeptical of the idea of man-made global warming.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans don’t trust that there is a large “scientific consensus” amongst climate scientists on human behavior being the cause of climate change, according to an in-depth survey on “the politics of climate” released Tuesday by Pew Research Center.

According to the survey, only 27 percent of Americans agree that “almost all” climate scientists say that human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change, while 35 percent say that “more than half” of climate scientists agree on this. An additional 35 percent of those surveyed say that fewer than half (20%) or almost no (15%) climate scientists believe that human behavior is the main contributing factor in climate change.

Suppose it turns out that naturally occuring climate change that has gone on since the dawn of time has come to a mysterious end and is stable for the first time ever. Suppose that in this period of inexplicable natural climate stasis, all the remaining climate change is man-made and only man-made.

Who would be to blame for the fact that so many in America and around the world don’t believe the sky is falling and it is our fault?

The blame would rest squarely on the shoulders the socialists who have hijacked climate science in order to further their economic agenda. They have polluted the data with their propaganda. They have hysterically made claims that have, again and again, turned out to be wildly exaggerated. They have corrupted science to further their economic and social agendas until it was so clearly fraudulent no lay-person could trust it.

I suspect natural climate change has not gone to sleep and continues to play a role in the world. I also suspect that humans are contributing to climate change to some degree. I don’t know what the net effect of natural and man-made climate inputs will be but alarmists have been shown to wildly overstate the threat again and again. I very much doubt that the threat of climate changes to humanity and the biosphere is more than a tiny fraction of their hysterical prognostications.

If I am wrong, it is because big government fetishists have corrupted and adulterated public information to the point that it is impossible to sort lies from truth.


Pence vs. Kaine Debate Thread

This is a thread to discuss the Pence vs. Kaine Deba…

Hey, cool! Petticoat Junction is on and it is a good one too!


USS John S. McCain docks at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam

That’s right. The US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain also docked at Tien Sa Port in Danang, Vietnam.

Think about that.

HANOI—Two U.S. warships this week docked at Cam Ranh Bay, in the first such port call at the Vietnamese naval base since the two countries normalized relations 21 years ago, the U.S. Navy said Tuesday.

Submarine tender USS Frank Cable and guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain arrived at the deep-water naval base in Khanh Hoa province on Sunday, in a sign of warming military ties between the two countries.

Cam Ranh Bay was used by the French, U.S. and Russian navies in years past. Vietnam has recently made the base available to visiting foreign navy vessels in an attempt to maintain a strong international presence in the South China Sea amid maritime disputes with China. Apart from the U.S. warships, vessels from Japan, Russia and France have recently docked there.


What happens if Trump is elected?


Election years are like team sport competition and the electorate become the fans. Everybody picks their team, self-actualizes around its success and failures, excuses their team no matter how poorly they play and criticizes the other team as a band of dirty, rotten cheaters.

Then the election comes and goes and everyone settles down.

So what happens if Trump wins and becomes president? Do Trumpkins settle back into the traditional role of Americans as they hack on the government in general and the president in particular?

Or do they maintain their status as Trump fan-boys and and continue to believe that he can do no wrong? Will they, for example, still support him if, standing on 5th Avenue in New York, he pulls out the launch codes and shoots ICBMs at Moldova?

Obama’s cult lasted into his presidency but it tended to bleed away over the years. Will Trumpkins continue to believe their orange god doesn’t bleed or will they lose interest? Or even turn on him?

I don’t know. What say you?


Net operating losses and why you can carry them forward

Suppose you have a business. Let’s say that business, due to various reasons, lost a million dollars in 2014. In 2015, however, your business made $1.5 million.

Your total income for 2014 and 2015 is $500,000.

Now assume the federal, state and local corporate income taxes amount to 40 percent. Since you can carryover your loss from 2014, you will pay 40 percent of your $500,000 income or $200,000 in taxes.

If there was no carryover, you would pay no taxes in 2014 and 40 percent of $1.5 million in 2015. You would be required to pay $600,000 in taxes on $500,000 of income.

The media, however, would only look at your 2015 income of $1.5 million and decry the fact that, by paying $200,000 in taxes, you are gaming the system and getting away with only 7.5 a percent tax rate. This is either ignorant or dishonest.

Bear this in mind as the media now portrays Trump’s carryover is some obscure tax law used by the ultra rich. It isn’t. It is used by small businesses, farmers, writers, etc. It is absolutely positively fair and the alternative they imagine would be, ironically, be terrible unfair.


Does America really want to compete on a level playing field?


I very much enjoyed the Save the Day response video below but I did hear one comment in the thing to which I must respond. The comment was, when advocating for Trump, the claim that he will ensure “American businesses compete on a level playing field”.

If there is one thing we should all pray, it is that there never comes a day in which American businesses compete on a level playing field the majority of countries in the world.

In order for the playing field to be level, the United States would need to give up most of its significant advantages in the global arena.

In order for the playing field to be level, the US currency could not be the global reserve currency. That the USD is the world reserve gives us significant advantages in international balances of payments.

We would have to give up our intellectual property rights because the lack of these rights in China is a significant disadvantage for that country.

We would have to hobble our work force because it is currently among the most productive in the world. It is ar more productive than those in, say, Mexico or China.

We would have to loosen rules around court ordered contract enforcement and rely more on organized crime for enforcement as is the case in most of the Third World.

In order for the playing field to be leveled, much of our infrastructure would need to be eliminated. American infrastructure definitely gives the US trade advantages.

We would need to ensure that fewer people graduate high school and college to make sure the US workforce is a uneducated as that of Malaysia.

American research and development will need to be reduced to the levels of our competitors.

We would need the government to be more corrupt and corporatist than it already is. Doing business in most of the world requires bribes to government officials. That the US is largely free of that sort of things represents a meaningful advantage.

I could go on but I think I have made my point. If there is one thing all Americans should hope never, ever happens, it is that the US competes on a level playing field. The people of this country have worked long and hard to make the field tip steeply in our favor. We should acknowledge that, be thankful and absolutely stop whining about the unfairness of a world that is unfair in our favor.


A Save the Day response

Remember this jackassery? Here is pretty well done response.

1 Comment

Whatever happened to Obamacare?

Hillary isn’t talking about Obama’s signature legislation.

The Affordable Care Act is Barack Obama’s signature achievement as president. It is the Democratic Party’s most important legislative accomplishment in two generations. It is something Hillary Clinton, although she left the Senate by the time ACA became law in 2010, worked for all her adult life.

So why doesn’t Clinton at least mention this great achievement as she campaigns for president?

Well, the New York Times is talking about it and what they have to say explains why HRC isn’t mentioning it. The next stop is fully socialized medicine and that doesn’t play well in election years.

The fierce struggle to enact and carry out the Affordable Care Act was supposed to put an end to 75 years of fighting for a health care system to insure all Americans. Instead, the law’s troubles could make it just a way station on the road to another, more stable health care system, the shape of which could be determined on Election Day.

Seeing a lack of competition in many of the health law’s online insurance marketplaces, Hillary Clinton, President Obama and much of the Democratic Party are calling for more government, not less.

The departing president, the woman who seeks to replace him and nearly one-third of the Senate have endorsed a new government-sponsored health plan, the so-called public option, to give consumers an additional choice. A significant number of Democrats, for whom Senator Bernie Sanders spoke in the primaries, favor a single-payer arrangement, which could take the form of Medicare for all.

It is, therefore, clear why Hillary isn’t talking about Obamacare. What is very peculiar is that Trump isn’t talking about it either. He didn’t even mention it in the debate.



Vintage Imagry, Modern Tech…

It turns out you can see the addresses in this video, soooooo…

Go to 1:28 and then go here.

Now go to 1:51 and go here.

Finally, go to 2:46 and go here.

Obviously that last one was being demolished at the time…

Yeah, I know. Not earth shattering but it is Saturday night and I am just fooling around.