Short painful life of Norah Vincent

Norah Vincent is dead.

Who is Norah Vincent? A better question is "Who wasn't Noah Vincent?"

Think John Howard Griffin. Think Ralph Ellison.

Please leave your arguments about gender constructs at the door. How you choose to identify yourself is not my business. I do not want it to be my business. Please do not make it my business.

Argue the idea behind this blog if you like. Cut loose! I like it.

TO READ OR NOT READ

To read or not to read. That is the question. Whether tis more idiotic to remain unread and look down upon those who cannot read, while being exactly same, or read and by reading realize one's own shortcomings and by realizing, end them. Yeah. Shakespeare is gonna have Words for me when I get to the next realm of existence.

Ennyhoo.

I have not read Mr. Griffin's work. I probably should. I did read Mr. Ellison's work at the prompting of a HS English teacher. She said I would really like the book.

I read it. The only reason I read it is because she suggested it. Were it a class assignment or even an individual assignment from her to me, the book would remain forever unread. It's how I roll.

I told her I did not like it. And yet, it has stuck with me. I vividly remember passages. With 40+ years of experience now behind me I can still say I did not like the book. Today, I appreciate the book. Like, well ... maybe. Need? Without question. That book was a shot of verbal nutrients to an embryonic philosophy that continues to grow today.

Mebbe I do like it after all.

LEARN MORE

Until this day - 10 March 2025 Gregorian - I had no idea the person Norah Vincent existed. Now I do. Now, I must learn more. Why?

Read this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/18/gender.bookextracts

Norah's literary work is the experience men have. 

Someone is going to insist this is a hasty generalization, perhaps a bandwagon fallacy or some other kind of flawed logic. G'head.

Norah said her 18-month experience living as a man so transformed her, that her only release was the final option. Sad, sad, sad. It is also reflected the reality of being a male Homo sapiens. Men account for 80% of suicides. Men also commit somewhere around 90% of violent crimes.

Causation is not correlation? Then you explain it. We'll get to a statement on reality in a moment.

What Norah reports in her book is what heterosexual male Homo sapiens in the United States and likely the modern world experiences. Is that experience universal? It is for every heterosexual male Homo sapiens I've come across. It is in the anthropological studies and books I've read.

(Unless you are an anthropologist or sociologist, I'm willing to bet I've read more of the studies than you have.)

If you are that person who says this is so much fertilizer, I'm willing to bet you are not a heterosexual male Homo sapiens.

Remember, reality is under no obligation to conform itself to your expectations. Nor does it have to be warped to my preconceived notions. Arg. Complicated. Lemme simplify.

Mebbe this kinda thing does not happen in places like Afghanistan where women are considered propetty. I don't care enough to research it. 

If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.

Can't make it any clearer than that.

IT'S TOUGH

Norah said that time she lived as a man, it was tough. Ellison wrote the same thing. Griffin wrote the same thing. Quibble semantics if you wish, the base premise is the same; live as someone else to experience what they have to go through. It is fucking HARD.

The difference? Norah died by assisted suicide in Switzerland in 2022. 

It is tough being a man. Women have a hard go of it too, but in today's modern societies - Taliban ruled Afghanistan, Iran and other places ain't modern as defined for this blog - they can have it easier than men. Not always. 

You ain't gotta believe me. Norah did not want to believe it. Rather than stand on a belief without empirical evidence, she lived it. Well, she lived it for as long as she could and then she quit living altogether.

Do you have the kind of stamina to prove me wrong? Are you willing to risk the kind of breakdown she had to prove me wrong? Reality is, a lot of men don't have what it takes to live as a man in today's world. Some men are so shredded by it they resort to violence. Norah writes about that too.

Norah was also a lesbian and a feminist.

Ooooo. I just heard the wind go out of a LOT of sails. Truth and pain, truth and pain.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Men have to live up to a higher level of expectations than women. We are expected to earn more. We are not supposed to cry or show reactions to pain. So many things are required that are not required of women. 

If a woman defeats us at anything, we are ridiculed. If we defeat a woman, we get, "Ooo. So you beat a woman" with as much sarcasm as can be packed into that small statement. A tie? "What, you ain't man enough?"

A woman defeats a man? "She got lucky." A woman loses to a man. "Yep. That's what happens."

We have to be macho!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ1glxX1BiQ 

The standards are not the same. As evidenced by suicides, violence and etc, so many male standards are harder than those for women.

VIOLENCE

I've written about men and the penchant for violence and how that has been transformed into socially acceptable outlets - sports for instance. Been roundly ridiculed for it. Eh. Prove me wrong, then I will change my opinion. Pick a sport women and men play with the same set of rules. The male version is more violent.

Sports trace their roots back to the hunting, fishing and war, all being violent activities, traditionally men's activities.

TRADITIONALLY! Not exclusive. Lots of women do these same things, but it is more common for men. Stone-age societies mostly leave the hunting & fishing to men while women gather and care for babies.

Why are men this way? The Animal Kingdom has a clue.
https://www.prodiveinternational.com/top-10-least-known-bull-shark-facts/

Bull sharks are the most aggressive sharks around. If they walked on land, lions, tigers and bears would not be safe.

Causation is not correlation?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3693622/

Why are men this way? Evolution maybe?

As Norah saw it, being a man is tough. Women do have a hard time of it, but in a different way and in a way that is just simply less difficult, she said. SHE SAID.

I concur.

Don't like what she said? Argue with her and refer to the above statement on truth.

You do not have to agree. Prove me wrong. I will change to fit the truth. Will you?

VAW

Violence against women (VAW) is bad. Violence against men is more common. This too is bad, but it reinforces my point. Men attack men far more often than they attack women.
https://noviolence.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Whataboutmen.pdf

Domestic violence is different. Women are the primary victims.

Historically, VAW was also institutionalized by men. Extreme surgeries, denial of basic human rights, etc etc etc. Granted.

Today is different, in modern societies at least.

Someone is gonna point out attempts to continue to regulate women, especially when it comes to reproductive rights. Granted. Politicians are only interested in maintaining power, not protecting anyone's rights, except their own to get back into office.

Someone else is gonna point out that women are massively more likely to be sexually harassed or assaulted than men. Granted. 

Someone is gonna point out men earn more than women, in a lot of cases. Granted.

Lemme cut these off right here.

A wonderfully brilliant, kind and intelligent friend of mine has Hodges' Rule of Thumb: Do not expect rational behavior from beings with an opposable thumb.

Quit expecting 100% logical and rational behavior. Ain't none of us a Vulcan. Homo sapiens runs on emotions, hormones and what we think we can get away with and then, if there is any brain left over, compassion, empathy and reasoning.

H. sapiens has no problem whatsoever working against its own interests.

Women verbally snipe at each other. They snub, ignore, put down, etc. It is psyche attacks. Women intentionally go for the emotional heart.

Men have no problem slinging the insults, but the words are more direct and blunt. Sometimes it is meant as and attack. Many times it is not, it is just manly banter. Also, men, as noted above, are also far more likely to take things physical when things get hot.

The difference is men are encouraged to hide their feelings. Those feelings are gonna come out one way or another. For men, keeping that bottle capped until it cannot hold the pressure leads to bad results. Women are encouraged to have emotional reactions.

Eh. Digest this -
https://www.heartfeltcounselingmn.com/blog/2020/12/28/are-men-more-logical-and-women-more-emotional

And Norah Vincent said it is harder to be a man than a woman.

ALL THUMBS

Let's run this VAW idea from another direction. Assume Hodges is correct. Might as well say H. sapiens is all thumbs when it comes to reason. Even the much-vaunted Stoics admit emotion is a ruling force their life. It is a force that sometimes needs to be subdued, sometimes let free to run wild but is always a force that must be reckoned and considered.

Watch what you do, where you do it and how you do it. H. sapiens is territory-defending predator with this instinct (yes, instinct) being more violent in males than females. Disagree? Visit your community's hood, a hood where you stand out and are clearly an outsider. Lemme know how it goes.

'Nother example. Someone breaks into your house. What are you going to do?

ASKING FOR IT

How does this apply to ladies? Ever heard the expression, "She was asking for it?"

You do not have to like that statement. In fact, if that statement is an accurate reflection of your belief structure, pray thee and I never meet, especially if you intend to act upon that belief. Juuuuust for the record, I once put 5 shots into a 6&3/8ths inch group at 1,000 yards. My worst group for the whole tournament was 5 shots in about 2 feet.

My daughter can do the same thing.

Regardless of our thoughts on "asking for it," this is a false wrong distorted unfortunate misguided idiotic reality mental mindset many men live. Yes. Ladies are in danger.

Ladies can also do something about that. Don't behave in a way that would invited such attention. Is that fair? No. Is it reality? Yes. Wear your rose-colored glasses if you wish. Remember this, corpses do not get to testify.

Lemme put this another way.

I am NOT going to wade into the ocean wearing a Lady Gaga meat dress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_dress_of_Lady_Gaga

Apply some common sense, except it is not common.

REPRODUCTIVE URGES

Here's another one for you to chew on. The sex industry is mostly aimed at men. Reproductive urges dominate. Evolution & biology again, I think. Women are biologically limited in the number of kids they can generate in a year. Men? Men are only limited by the number of ladies willing to say, "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath! There rust and let me die." Until she gets pregnant.

As the late Norah Vincent almost states —Women need a reason. Men need a place. She may have said it exactly that way in her book. I want to find out.

I'm saying it.

Sex is a major driver for most men. 

It is true. Sure, there are exceptions. By and large, that's the way it works.

Pull 100 men from anywhere. More than 90 of 'em are going to have sex, plain simple sex, as a major driving force in how they live their lives.

Women? The number is gonna be a LOT lower.

You don't have to believe me. Try this experiment.

Have a guy enter a bar and loudly announce "I need to get laid, now!"

What do you think is gonna happen?

Have a woman enter a bar and loudly announce "I need to get laid, now!"

What do you think is gonna happen?

Incels sometimes use their lack of lady companionship as a reason for violence. Is it justified? Hell no. Is it their reality? Yes. Is their reality distorted? Not to them. We (including me in that statement) believe their reality is distorted. Because of that distortion, they are, well, whatever you wanna call 'em.

My point here is, many men use lack of sex as an excuse to get violent. Now, how many women use lack of sex as an excuse to get violent? 

Here's other gelled-sand monkey wrench for your gears. How many women use withholding sex to try to control men? How many men use withholding sex to try to control women?

Ahhhhhhhh.

Norah, dammitall, I never met you, but I miss you.

I may never make this post public. I have plenty of haters coming after me these days and see no need to give them something else, especially when -

No. What I started to write is a lie. 

Truth is, what I write here is important, one of the most important things I could ever communicate. I still have to deal with enough hate from presenting other truths, a few more important and many a bit less important.

Yeah. Folks have plenty to hate me about right now. Don't think Imma let them have more.

Less than human

https://www.facebook.com/greg.millette/videos/1321608892683522 

The idea that the current Liar in Chief may send federal troops into various cities to restore order is causing splodey heads, especially among those who don't know what they are talking about.

A VERY short listing of federal troops used against citizens. https://www.history.com/articles/national-guard-federal-troops-deployments

The actual and complete list of using federal troops against US citizens has probably closed to 100 instances. Just a few that come to immediate mind:

The Whisky Rebellion
Bacon's Rebellion
The Boston Revolt
War of the Regulation
Shay's Rebellion
Frie's Rebellion
Cortina Troubles

We shall not enumerate the mass attacks on Native Americans mainly because I ain't got the time and I've provided enough proof to back my claim.

DEHUMANIZING

Some are claiming the Liar In Chief is trying to dehumanize people. Well, yeah.

Government always attempts to reduce people, individuals, to an economic point. How much can government get out of the individual? How much does the individual cost the government? Want proof?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556

"Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage."

In another section of Obergrfell, an individual judge's opinion says:

"For that reason, just as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union. Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules."

Etc.

I have more proof. If you need, I will supply.

If I am wrong, prove it. Show your evidence.

This is not a case, as me bud Tom Clark says of "doing your homework for you." I showed you mine. Show me yours. 

You can't. It doesn't exist.

MILITARY

Given enough time, every government will always use its military against citizens. How much time? Dunno, except that almost every government that existed more than 100 years has used the military against its citizens.

I provided proof about the US. Pick another country. Will be glad to show you proof about that nation.

Make this clear from the start - The function of a military is to dehumanize people. 

In order to start killing people on a mass scale, you have to reduce those people to being less than human. Carlos Hathcock referred to his targets as "hamburger." I only heard him refer to one person he killed as human, an NVC woman who tortured plenty of Americans and others.

Also, government(s) is(are) the world's biggest serial killer(s) and biggest mass murderers on the planet. Want to really save lives from gun violence? Make it illegal for the government to have guns. But that's another story for splodey heads on another day.

FOOTSTEPS

The current Liar in Chief is only following in the footsteps of previous Liars In Chief from both sides of the aisle. Those who deny this are not only ignoring but flatly rejecting history.

Complain as much as you need to if it makes you happy. I'm be sitting over here laughing to keep from crying.

Great leaders must have enemies

To be a truly great leader, you must identify an enemy for your followers to hate and attack.

I hear the splodey heads.

History proves me right. If I am wrong, correct me. As Paul says, I will write a retraction, change my mind and probably throw in a good story about how I messed up and got corrected.


DEFINED

Lemme define great before I go on. By great, I mean:

Popular with a huge group of people, millions or more
Able to command said huge group of people
Followers, some of 'em, are willing to kill and die for the leader
Followers, some of 'em at least, give unquestioning loyalty

By great I do not mean:

Right or wrong
Good or evil
Moral or amoral
Kind or cruel
Nor any other ethical or moral judgment category.

Those definitions are too flexible. Your moral and ethical code are not universal.

Great, as I define it, must come with tangible, empirical measurements. How many people died at the leader's command? How many followers? Etc.

And still someone is gonna have splodey heads now.

DEUS EX HUMANA

Sometimes great leaders exalt themselves to be deities. Deus ex humana. The ancient pharaohs, kings and emperors did this.

Medieval Europe had something almost to that point - divine right of kings. Kings were considered appointed by whatever god was supposed to be in charge. Divine right is not exclusive to Europe, but it is the most familiar example.

In both cases, these leaders commanded people. Go there and do this. The people went there and did that.

GREATEST LEADERS

Consider some of the greatest - mind my definition! - leaders we know. Look at their legacy, at least what we know of it.

Alexander the Great
Genghis Khan
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Stalin
Mao Tse Dung
Mohammad
Jesus bar Joseph of Nazareth
Mahatmas Ghandi
Martin Luther King
Many of the kings in Europe
Rulers in the Western hemisphere, most of whose names we do not have.
Pretty much all US presidents, including the current liar in chief, the one he replaced the first time and others.

What did they all have in common? They identified an enemy and rallied their followers to resist, to attack and defeat the enemy.

No? Show me one of the above leaders who did not have a clearly identified enemy.

ENEMY IDENTIFIED

I better identify enemy before I go on.

An enemy can be:
A person
A people/race
A nation
An ideology
A religion
A concept
A practice
Morals
Ethics

Laws/Regulations
More I ain't gonna list.

The enemy does not have to be something physical.

And still someone will disagree with me.


NO ENEMIES

I hear it now - "Jesus had no enemies!"

We ain't reading the same Bible. You tell me where these quotes come from. "We fight not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities." "Get thee behind me, Satan!" "What have you to do with me?" "Our time is not yet come." "He who has 2 cloaks, let him trade one for a sword."

Khan? Fought everybody he came across unless they surrendered.

Ghandi? Fought the British. Encouraged his followers to take up weapons.

MLK? He fought a system he saw as corrupt and oppressive.

Mohammad? At first he saw Jews and Christians as the enemy. In later years he shifted gears to say his version of Satan is the enemy.

The others should be self-explanatory. If they are not, do some research and edify yourself.

DEMAGOGUERY LIVES HERE

Demagoguery is the platform on which all great leaders build. Every. One.

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition of demagogue:

A political leader in a democracy who gains popularity by arousing the common people against elites, especially through oratory that whips up the passions of crowds, appealing to emotion by scapegoating out-groups, exaggerating dangers to stoke fears, lying for emotional effect, or other rhetoric that tends to drown out reasoned deliberation and encourage fanatical popularity. Demagogues overturn established norms of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

I don't  agree with the "in a democracy" and "against elites" phrase. I can do that because this is my blog and I get to define my terms the way I want 'em.

Every one of the leaders I mentioned used these techniques. Reason and rationality are how you lose followers. R&R require people to think, which is painful to many. R&R takes too long to explain. R&R just does not work.

You can use logic to explain why X needs to happen. You detail the costs, impacts and benefits. Prove your point that everyone will benefit in the long run. Show how X is not only necessary, but vital.

A great leader will beat you down with just a few words - The bastards are coming to take away your Y or Z! Help me stop them to save you!

You lose. Not only do you lose, you become the enemy.

WRONG

I may be wrong. G'head. Prove I am wrong. You can't.

A new religion is created

Stranger in a Strange Land. SISAL to those of who read it.

Today is 15 Monday 2025. (I am editing this on 19 Sept. 2025)

This afternoon I finished a blog about violence -https://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2025/09/violence-last-resorts-and-necessities.html

Over at Quora, this question JUST popped up in my feed: JD Vance will guest host the TurningPoint USA podcast. Should Vance sit in Charlie's chair or use a different seat? Should he use Charlie's microphone or a different microphone? Thoughts?

These are important in the context of this blog. Lemme link 'em together for you.

IMMEDIATE REACTION

On hearing of the death of Charlie Kirk and finding out more about him, my first reaction was, the dude is now a martyr. I immediately jumped to SISAL and thought about of Mike being ripped to shreds by the crowd and Jubal Harshaw immediately setting plans in motion to buy the ground where Mike was killed. 

I wondered who would try to buy the place where Charlie Kirk was when he was shot. I wondered what kind of shrine will be built to this conservative icon. I wondered and wondered.

Heinlein's magnum opus ranks just below Dune as a commentary on humanity. The Grand Master said he wrote a book to make people think, challenge assumptions and question, hopefully to learn.

Whoa. Now I wonder if Charlie Kirk read SISAL.

RAH's seminal work in his fictional universe also set the stage for a new religion built around the young Valentine Michael Smith. In the book, Harshaw saw it coming and took steps to push the concept forward.

The similarities here are eerie. Of course, there are a metric ton of differences in the specifics. Space travel, real Martians, etc. But the underlying thread... it's just uncanny.

31

Jesus, son of Joseph, was killed in his early 30s.

The first record we have of Jesus doing His ministry was when he was around 12. According to the protestant Bible, there is a gap until he was around 30. That gap is covered in some of the recently discovered scrolls. A lot of people discount those works. Of course, a lot of people discount the entire Bible.

Charlie launched his work around age 18.

Charlie was killed at age 31.

The Charlie Kirk radio show started in 2020. His first TV appearance was in 2012.

He died in 2025.

Trying to tie all that together into something that clearly joins up is also something out of conspiracy theory handbooks. Even stretching the point, the numbers do not line up.

And? Too many "conspiracy" theories are proving true for me to be a complete atheist about 'em.

What if, as Lara asked, this was meant to be? Christians believe Jesus was meant for death even before He was born. And Charlie? If there is a being in charge of creation, we have to accept that possibility.

VIOLENCE

Jesus, like so many other leaders in history, was persecuted by both the government and by the people around Him. His message was radical, offensive to many and presented a very real challenge to the status quo.

A lot of people disagreed with Jesus. They wanted nothing to do with him. They wanted him gone, as in leave town or die.

So it is with true bastions of peace and change. Those who really sought the least violent ways of change, those who wanted people to really look into themselves, they were pariahs to the intelligentsia and the leaders.

Charlie? Much Exactly the same thing.

Conspiracy theorists started almost immediately. This was some kind of plot by a group to kill this man. Some pointed to an actual government conspiracy. No evidence, but evidence doesn't matter to true believers. Some say it was part of a national left-wing or right-wing group. Some say the killer was really acting alone.

2000 years later, we know there was a conspiracy to kill Jesus. We know the government was complicit. 

Oh. You thought I was writing about Charlie. 

You are correct. I wrote about both.

As of this writing, we don't know all the particulars. About which one? Both.

Just as a religion grew around Jesus, well, the stage is certainly set, as Lara says. Centuries from now Charlie Kirk and his legacy and record certainly may become the stuff of religion.

When I heard he was killed and did a bit of research, I immediate concluded some people will turn this man (you pick which one) into a saint. Is he a saint? Jesus is not; He is more than a saint. Charlie? Ehhhh. 

The Catholic Church has a process for canonization. Jesus was not a Catholic. Charlie, not being a Catholic, won't be honored by the Church of Rome. Of course, the Catholic Church also does not speak for all Christians. It does not even speak for a majority of Christians. Increasingly, it does not speak for all Catholics.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/opposition-pope-francis-rooted-rejection-vatican-ii

WRONG

He appealed to people to provide real evidence that he was wrong. If he was wrong, he promised to change.

Look at how he talked to with people. I have talked to people who said they did not agree with everything he said. These people did say they loved the way he talked, drawing in people from everywhere and having a kind, forthright and honest discussion with them. No insults, no invective, just two friends finding common ground and building on that.

No wonder he was killed.

Which one? Yes.

Charlie challenged people to think. Charlie challenged people to look at the real world, the real facts and most importantly, themselves.

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie gave hope to many people. Some people will not tolerate that. 

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie wanted people to live a better life. Some people cannot stand the idea of people being allowed to chart their own course unless it adheres to what they dictate. These are the people hurling vitriol at the memory of Charlie Kirk.

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie tried to bring joy to a world in desperate need of it.

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie wanted to bring an end to pain.

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie Kirk was the kind of radical that a society of sheep will not tolerate.

No wonder he was killed.

So was Jesus.

All the criticism I have read of Charlie Kirk is from people who twist his words, warp them and insist they really know what Charlie was saying. Put Charlie's words in context and every. single. argument. in these lines falls apart. We have enough of his stuff in his own words to put paid to the naysayers.

Attacks on genuine leaders are the price of being a genuine leader. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gncyDkWWY_w (My all time favorite song.)

POOH-POOH

Today, we may pooh-pooh the idea of all this lining up in a certain way.

200 years from now? 300, 400 years? 

Consider all the records we have of Charlie. What will people centuries from now think about this?

Charlie Kirk stands a very good chance of becoming a religious icon, as Lara said.

WORMHOLES

I was headed that way in my thinking about this. Maybe I'da made it there. Maybe not. Lots of idea germinate, get started and go into a sort of stasis. This blogsite has lots of half-completed ideas. I may finish them. I may not. (I'm done with this, 19 Sept. 2025.)

For this one, thanks to Lara, I rolled through a Lara-cut space-time wormhole of thought process and reached the conclusion I needed to complete this. It is a conclusion I may have never reached on my own.

As she and I talked earlier this same day I said, "I gotta write this."

"Really?"

"Really."

"You'll send me a copy?"

"Of course."

"Wow. I gave you something to write,"

Indeed.

TWO addenda

Got 2 items to add that are only tangentially connected to the above. I wanna say it. My blog. I make the rules.

Today, I saw a Washington Post columnist was fired for remarks she made about Charlie's work. Who was it? You can go look that up.

At first, I was infuriated. So, I did some reading.

My fury abated, turned to confusion, shifted into disappointment and finally into satisfaction.

The fundament of journalism is accuracy.

Get.

It.

Right. 

You can be arrogant. You can even be late (sometimes). You can be opinionated. You can be many things.

You. Can. Not. Be. Wrong.

This columnist was racist. While I do not like that, I would not silence the voice. I know many who want to.

This writer was anti gun. Again, don't like it, but opinions must be shared. I repeat - Opinions must be shared. I know many who would silence such voices.

This journalist was definitely well past the moderate left. Hey. We need people like that just like we need people like Charlie Kirk, that InfoWars idiot and others.

I know many who believe radicals should be shut down completely.

This employee - correction - former employee of one of the nation's most prestigious newspapers had no problem in taking direct quotes and changing them to fit her narrative and offer that as fact. I saw it in her posts which I then went and checked against verified records.

These were not honest mistakes. She crafted deliberate distortions of easily verified facts.

Oh, hell no.

Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!

Meantime, this person who used to be a journalist is now spinning the story so she is a victim. If you read her work, you will say, "Yep, knew that was gonna happen."

That she was fired in once place, canceled in another, not her fault. It is oppression in her view.

In other words, she refuses to accept responsibility for her own actions. 

I'll betcha Charlie would have talked with her like they were friends since they were toddlers. She would have tried to tear him down, as she's done in her post-assassination writings. He would have reasoned, encouraged and offered help.

No wonder he was killed.

Free speechifying (19 Sept. 2025 addenda)

One of the late night TV show hosts was also canned. The left is all splodey heads right now over free speechifying

His firing was a business decision. 

Was that decision influenced by the government? Maybe. The government does issue broadcast licenses. Those licenses come with a LOT of controls.
https://govfacts.org/federal/fcc/how-the-fcc-controls-your-phone-tv-and-internet/

Here's something the Left and the Right will not tell you - Gummint control over content on cable, satellite TV and the Internet is massively less, almost nonexistent.. You can stream adult porn online over cable TV the Internet and via satellite. Legal. Can't get that on broadcast TV. 

It is illegal to stream child porn; I really need permission to personally deal with child molesters. I'll need more small caliber, low-power ammo. Donations will cover that.

Anyway, that fired TV person was watched by massively more people over cable, satellite and Internet than via broadcast TV. 

It. Was. A. Business. Decision.

Here's something else they won't tell you. The right to free speech also means government cannot force you to say, produce, publish (whatever) anything. You do not have to provide space for speech you disagree with. You can say no and the speakers have to leave.

Yes. 1A and 5A are in tandem on this. I can prove this to you and will, if pushed.

Also, those bitching about that TV show guy getting canned? They celebrated when Rosanne (however you spell that entity's name) was fired.

In case you don't wonder, I do not like Rose(whatever), the guy who got fired or any of the late night TV comedian/hosts I've had the displeasure to watch.

I may not agree with them being hired or fired, but that business decision is not mine.

Fired

A few years back I had a columnist at the paper. I fired that person.

The person brought in a proposed column that was obviously copied from somewhere. The columnist denied it. I gave the writer a warning - Do not do this again.

A while later, the person brought in another column, obviously copied from another source. I confronted the writer. The person doubled down. Claimed he/she wrote it.

"Then how could I find this exact same article online?"

Shoulders shrugged.

Columnist terminated.

I did not always agree with what this person wrote. Irrelevant. I am all about sharing views that are different from mine. I may learn something!

I did not and will not tolerate intellectual property right theft, as that person did.

Violence, last resorts and necessities

Is violence necessary? Is it ever necessary? Is  "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" as Isaac Asimov wrote?

Dad thought so. I guess he was incompetent as he resorted to violence sometimes.

I 'spose the best important needed thing is to define violence. Try this on.

Violence is force that cause pain, hurt, harm, injury and even death to another entity. That violence can be physical, mental, emotional, economic or any combination.

If I am wrong, tell me.

Accepted.

EXAMPLE

Let's look at an example of violence.

In 2024, I had a total knee replacement. That was violence committed on my person. The doc and crew nearly cut my leg off.

I wanted it. I was tired of the constant pain and being unable to walk any distance. I could have live with the deteriorating knee. I chose another path, a path of violence.

If a joint replacement is not violence, then I need want demand request to hear your definition of violence.

Enlighten me.

ANOTHER QUESTION

Here is another question. Is it violence only when it is a human being doing it to another human being? Leave the idea of rights out of this. Just want to know about violence.

Can a human commit violence against or on a wombat? Is it violence when a shark bites a human? When a male lion takes over a pride and kills the kits, is that violence?

Share your insights, please.

RUNNING ON ASSUMPTIONS

Running on my assumptions that violence is pain, hurt, harm, injury and even death to another entity, then I ask, is violence necessary?

At this point someone is gonna bring up MLK, Ghandi and other so-called pacifists. I say so-called because maybe they never threw a punch, fired a gun or tore someone apart verbally. They absolutely engaged in violence.

The famous bus boycott was economic violence. https://blackpast.org/african-american-history/1955-martin-luther-king-jr-montgomery-bus-boycott/ It brought a public transit system to its knees. How did this affect the bus drivers? Businesses along the routes.

A lawsuit was filed.https://www.britannica.com/event/Montgomery-bus-boycott A court order was issued. Dunno about you, but where I am from, defying a court order leads to violence. You get arrested, you get fined, your salary gets garnished and so on. Physical and economic violence automatically. The stress of being arrested, having your money taken away also leads to mental and emotional stress, externally inflicted violence.

Beyond that, MLK issued a call for force when speaking on the bus situation. "Standing beside love is always justice, and we are only using the tools of justice. Not only are we using the tools of persuasion, but we’ve come to see that we’ve got to use the tools of coercion."

The online Dictionary defines the word coercion as "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats: 'our problem cannot be solved by any form of coercion but only by agreement'"

Mmhm.Ghandi? https://wagingnonviolence.org/2013/02/what-gandhi-really-thought-about-guns/ "In truth, Gandhi did not oppose the use of violence in certain circumstances, preferring it to cowardice and submission. Even though Gandhi’s spiritual philosophy of ahimsa rejects violence, it permits the use of violent force if a person is not courageous and disciplined enough to use nonviolence. Gandhi regarded weakness as the lowest human flaw, and would rather see a person use violent force in self-defense than be passive."

Jesus? He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36. 

GOVERNMENT 

Government is violence. Period. Anything government does, it then assumes the authority to back up with punitive measures against those who resist. No? Gimme an instance of a government action that either does not have direct violence or is backed up by violence.

I'm not gonna wait.

HISTORIC HYPOTHETICALS

If you could, you would go back in time and kill Pol Pot? Stalin? Genghis Khan? How about today? If you could whack the midget running North Korea today, would you?

Would you kill one to save millions?

Margaret Traylor is now deceased. When she was alive she told me she could not kill someone no matter the provocation. She would try to stop them, but lethal force was not an option for her. She had 2 daughters.

What about you? Someone comes to kill you, will you defend yourself? Would you defend others if lethal force was the only way?

Violence. It is unfortunately necessary only because someone will always want to control you against your will. Some of these people cannot be reasoned with. Some of these people will only understand superior force.

It really is free, the delivery, no

People constantly whine at me that the newspaper I run is not free to read online. I also see this whine about other media outlets.

Here is the reality that will cause cognitive dissonance and disconnect in the vast majority of people reading this. Any replies are gonna hilarious.

In other words, splodey heads inbound. 

The information you seek is free. Yes it is. It's 100% free. YOU, yes you, just have to go and get it.

If you want it free, you have to get it all on your own. No help from anyone at all. No resources you do not bring. No resources you did not create from the raw materials you harvested, mined, whatever and shaped into what you need.

This includes the clothes you wear. Yeppers. Someone, not you, had to make those clothes from the raw materials like plant fiber or animal skin.

Aye, there's the rub! No, a little lower. Lower. Lower.

Lemme 'splain this slightly differently. This will also create more splodey heads

IT IS FREE

The water coming through your pipes, that you buy in a store, the electricity powering your domicile, devices and yes, even the fuel that powers whatever you use to get around, all that is free.

Yes. It is. Free. Free. Free. Free.

George, siddown and keep reading.

What you are paying for is the gathering, sorting, storage, delivery and other treatments to and for the things you buy. 

These processes involve a live human being at various points in the supply chain. 

This is what you are paying for, the peoples' work.

You are NOT paying for the whatever it is, unless you hire someone to work. Then, yeah, you are paying for labor.

SUPPLY LINE

Keep up, George. This is not as complicated as you think, or not think as the case may be. Let's follow a supply line.

That electricity is free. It is just electrons. Electrons are everywhere. Your body has more electrons than any thing else down to the atomic level. Lightning and static electricity are electrons.

So why do you get a power bill?

You have to pay for everything that goes into making those electrons flow through the wires. THAT is what you pay for.

An astonishingly short list of what you pay for is:

1. The transmission wires.
2. The poles holding the wires.
3. The pipes for underground wires.
4. Everything at the generating plant.
5. Salaries for people to keep everything working.

This is nowhere near comprehensive. I don't have the inclination to list everything nor are you willing to read an entire dictionary's worth of writing to see that whole list.

SALARY

Splodey head #3 - Salary, wages, pay and even profit.

Eventually everything you are paying for comes down to a salary, wages or profit for someone. In other words, money in someone's pocket. To briefly dip into the evils of Maths, money is the lowest common denominator.

George, you must pay Fred to get and make the things you want to exist.

This is the circle of economics.

Someone is now screaming I am an idiot and have no idea what I am talking about. Likely true.

Prove me wrong.

SPEARMINT

Try this experiment, or spearmint as George says.

Go completely off grid. 100%. 

Do not rely on ANYONE except yourself for everything you need. 

Whatever you think you need, gather the materials yourself and make it.

You can't do it. No. You can't.

Need clothes? Harvest plant fibers and process them. Hunt animals and tan the leather. Each animal, except buffalo and many reptiles, has exactly enough brains to brain-tan the hide. Betcha didn't know that.

Think you need electricity? Build your own generator. Mine the copper and iron ores. Smelt the metals. Cast and draw the parts. Rig the generator to run with flowing water from a creek or a boiler. 

You can exist completely isolated. This is literally possible. It is literally done in the world today.

See Sentinel Island. See the Japanese WWII soldier discovered in islands decades after the war. See the Russian family in Siberia

You can't do what they did and are doing.

Now, show me anything you think is not free, except for labor. I will prove you wrong. 

Workers got bills, yo.

THAT NEWSPAPER

Yeah, the newspaper ain't free to read online.

The information is free.

Another VERY short list of what you pay for with your subscription is:

• Very f'dangin' little profit
• The monthly website fees
• The reporter salaries for gathering the news
• The salaries behind the people doing the website work
• The computers needed to generate the news and transmit it to the webhosting company
• And so on

Eventually all this runs right back to giving another human money to do the work needed to get the information to you.

Everything else is free.

Unless you are slave, in which case your labor is free and your life is forfeit for not working. But that's another Constitution blog, 'cause slavery is still legal in the United States. Yes, huhn. Look it up.

We charge for newspaper access because we have to pay for everything that goes into getting the information to you. The information? Absolutely free. Yer welcome.

Get out of the way already!

D called me this morning. D lives in Washington State. He and I are members of a globe-spanning association. Don't read a lot into that. I am a member of several associations/groups with global membership.

He called to talk about the association, how things are going with it and my role within that association. Mostly he called to talk about what I'm doing and how he wants to help. No complaints, no criticism, just D saying "Lemme help."

Thank you, D.

Anyway, one of the things we touched on is how this association needs to attract younger members. This seems to be an issue everywhere as young folks don't join organized groups as much as their elders did and do. (Egad, it strikes my soul to use the phrase "younger crowd" or "young people.")

One thing he and I agreed on is this association has some older members, around since the beginning, and they are keeping new folks away. Their attitudes are just ... self-righteous, condemning and dismissive.

Potential younger members show up and encounter these attitudes. Their reaction?

"I don't have to deal with this." So saying, if only to themselves, they walk away. Forever.

Reality check time. The old guard ain't gonna be here forever. New and younger people will take over, if this or any other association continues to exist.

THE PAIN

I know the pain of that kind of attitude and even attacks. I ain't young, but I am new and REALLY new to a position within the global group. I took over from a gent who'd been there for 20+ years.

Some of the old guard resent this. They are taking it out on me. They do not like what I am doing.

So be it.

D, whatta guy, offered to step in on my behalf. D was there at the beginning. He knows stuff so many others do not. He just wanted to know who has problems with me. He offered to set them straight.

Wow. Thanks again, D.

I said I'd rather not say who is mad at me as I do not want to cause more division and problems. As long as they are just mad at me, all is good. I realize they are seeing their control slip away and they cannot accept this. I'm just a convenient target.

Cool. Target R Me.

Here's an important item. No one else was willing to step up and do the work I do. No one. They even offered to pay a pretty significant salary.

GET OUTTA THE WAY

It is time for them to get outta the way, sort of. Them who? Pick a group anywhere that has been in control for decades. It is time for them to let go. Let the younger crowd step up. 

If the next set of leaders are not allowed to step up and start assuming leadership roles, the association will fail.

I have seen it happen.

I used to be a member of the Southeastern Outdoor Press Association. I was driven out. I was young (early 20s), new and with some ideas the old guard did not like. At the time, SEOPA was second in prestige only to the national outdoor writer's association. I also did not fit in with the clique running the place. 

I know some of you are shocked to read that (heavy sarcasm).

Some years ago SEOPA folded. A big part of that collapse was the old guard and that clique who wanted things done their way. Doing it differently was simply not going to happen. Rather than relinquish control and accept others, they chose to let SEOPA shut down.

That national association? It had a major split around the same time. Again, the entrenched members refused to move. A second national association was created. Even combined, neither is as strong as the single national association used to be.

So be it.

MOVING ON

Before you get excited and starting pointing fingers at me, know this. I am moving on.

I have backed off. I have stepped down. I have excused myself. I have let other, much younger people take over.

Sometimes I stepped back, knowing there was no one to take over. Things fell and failed. That hurt. It should hurt. Rather, I should feel that the failure was the best thing to happen. Whatever failed did not need to exist.

Sometimes, I did not leave completely. I hung around to help if asked. I am still on the sidelines in some places. I'm there to offer support, advice and input.

If these new folks have new ideas, I give them ideas on how to do it. 

They may come up with something the old guard tried and failed at. Cool. I tell 'em we tried and it flopped but y'all are new so let's see if it works now.

I do not tell them how to do it, unless specifically asked. Even then, I say "This is how we did it. How do you want to do it?"

Mentor. Sage. Old man on the mountain. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, kinda thing. Also, very ready to hand the reins over because it is time someone else jumped on this wagon's driver's seat. I want to sit inside the coach and take a well-deserved nap.

This brings me to another idea.

DON'T TRUST

"Don't trust anyone over 30," is a statement often attributed to a bunch of people. Jack Wienberg said it first. As of this writing, Mr. Weinberg is in his mid-80s. Does he still endorse that statement or has he backed off it. I did not look because I do not care.

His statement is an attitude and opinion I shared in my teens and 20s.

Now nearly double that age, I see the foolishness in it. However, that foolishness is a reaction to an entrenched mindset of older folks who say "Change is bad."

Young folks have always rebelled. They have always challenged their elders. They have always tried to force change. We did when we were young!

“[Young people] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances.
...
They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it.” 

Rhetoric Part 12 On Youthful Character, Aristotle, 4th Century BC

 And yet, the world has continued to move right along.

I am desperately trying to not be that person on either end of those quotes. I want to welcome the new and see where it takes all of us.

Some days I am better at that than others. I need to at my best every single time. Working on it.