I’m going to get out of the way, here, and let someone who was a far better writer than I am speak his piece:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The only things I did to the above were to correct a typo that does not appear in the Dunlap Broadside (the first printed version of the D of I), and I broke up the paragraph containing the Self Evident truths, to highlight them, retaining the punctuation.
Most times when people decide to quote the self evident truths, they stop after listing “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
But the following sentences begin with “That” as well, and it’s clear–to me at least–that they are also among the “self evident” truths.  Yet they don’t get quoted nearly as often.
That’s a mistake.
What does get quoted is an encapsulation of a theory of rights, and I talked about this issue quite some time ago.  (https://wqth.wordpress.com/2019/03/04/what-is-a-right-anyway/)  But the following:

–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Moves on, and describes governments.  Rights are a part of us, a government is something we create.  Rights therefore exist before a government does.  Why create a government?
To secure our rights.  That’s it.  That’s the SOLE reason for a government to exist, that is its sole function.  It’s not there to provide a retirement plan or education or tourism subsidies or even farm subsidies.  It’s not there to run car companies.  It’s certainly not there to provide health care, nor is it there to micromanage health care or any other sector of the economy.
Protect our rights.  That means quelling criminals, and quelling foreign invasion.
And furthermore:
Once a government starts stomping on our rights, it is going against the reason for its very existence.
All those superfluous functions I listed (and many, many more) are not just “not part of what government is supposed to be doing.”  They are actual rights violations, because government must take money from you to fund them, and they invariably function to benefit some other person, not the country as a whole.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul is…robbery, a violation of your rights.
We are a long, long way from our Founders’ vision of what we should be allowing our government to do.
They’d be appalled at our country the way it is today.  They’d have been appalled with it during the Reagan years, too; this isn’t just a situation Obola put us into.
We put ourselves into it by supporting, sometimes even demanding, government programs that have nothing whatsoever to do with securing our rights.  It’s not “the Left’s” fault.  It’s OUR fault.
It is past time we dedicated ourselves to fixing this, not just holding the Left off.  Who here is ready to fight for a properly-constituted and just government?
Something to think about, on this anniversary of Thomas Jefferson’s finest words.

UPDATE:  I saw it was 5 minutes before 11 mountain time (12:55 AM ET) and there was no daily thread.  So I threw this together.
Wolf thanked me for watching out…then published his own daily anyway, so go there, please, to comment.
I guess that pic above could apply to me as much as to the Opposition.
 
It’s Mueller Misfire Madness Monday!!!
This MAGA Monday Open Thread is the place to post your thoughts on what’s going on.  Pretty much anything authorized (especially Q), except:  See the January 1st daily thread for the rules of the road, which are few but important.
Other useful rules (not having to do with content):

1. No food fights.
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Take great care around anything hazardous.

I’m going to post this right now and find a good image shortly–but it’s already an hour late!

Folks, I thought I’d commemorate “Beastly Banned Wagon Day” with this Very Open daily thread.
It has been Six Hundred Sixty Six days since I was banned from SunDirge’s Eeyore Tree, also known as Can’t Tolerate Heterodoxy, and Banhammer Central.

(Not that I’m counting, mind you.)

Hey, sometimes 666 is just a number. Something has to fill the gap between 665 and 667.
 
More on the positive side apparently this Thursday is day 777 of the Trump Presidency.  That’s Eeyore Tree, ordinal counting where inauguration day is day 1, which is not at all the way I’d count…if I were to count, which (mind you) I don’t.

– – · –

– – · –

OK, on to the usual boilerplate:
It’s Very Open here, so you can comment on that, or anything else…and the way things have been hopping lately, there will be plenty else to talk about. Of course Q is at the top of the list, until the top blows off the pressure cooker.
But the point is, you can say pretty much what you want provided it’s civil.
But there is an exception: Don’t give the internet censors an opening to take this place out (see the September 1 Daily Thread for what I’m talking about).
And of course the other rules:

1. No food fights.
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

And need I say, if you should happen to see any nuclear warheads (though I can neither confirm or deny any of them are around), do not molest them.  Especially don’t put any hypothetical bullet holes in the hypothetical warheads.  We may or may not have plans for them.

– – · –

Things certainly seem to be coming to a boil…there’s a tension building. But we don’t really know what, exactly, and we certainly don’t know what the Opposition is going to do. Nor what our side will have to do to counter it. I know some people have even put out videos warning that martial law (!) will be coming, but they reassure us it will be Our Side doing it, so just go along with it!  Of course, in the end, it’s all speculation.  But it wouldn’t hurt to be prepared.
Of course (I’m going to be a pessimist for one paragraph) it’s still possible the Opposition will strike first attempting to take out our President (and I must repeat: OUR President) before he can do it to them.
Well, they can try.
Whatever it is, however it goes down…we must stick with POTUS. Even if it looks like he’s down and on the way out at some time during the chaos, we must stick with him. Sometimes that’s all it takes to defeat a coup; the people behind it generally rely on there being enough people accepting that they’re in charge now that a sense of “accompli” sets in.  So don’t accept it.
But the most likely outcome, I think, is that we’ll come through this and “they” won’t.  I don’t know if my fantasy of heads on pikes down the Washington Mall will come to pass, but “they” won’t make it.
Maybe it will even start today, who knows? Wouldn’t it be just lovely if Beastly Day 666 of the Banned Wagon turned out to be a really bad day for them!

– – · –

OK, it’s trivia time!
US Highway 666, whose shields are shown in the topic banner, was nominally a side branch off of US 66–three digit numbers (except 101) were for loops and spurs. But between 1942 and 1992 it was quite a side branch, extending from 66 south to the Mexican border just inside the eastern edge of Arizona, and from 66 north from just inside the western edge of New Mexico, up into Colorado then turning west and ending barely inside of Utah. The 30 mile stretch of 66, which crossed the Arizona-New Mexico border, between the two turnoffs was co-signed as 666.
But that part of 66 became I-40, and in 1985 the US 66 designation was simply dropped.
US 666 became known as the Devil’s Highway, and many people either believed it was cursed, or worried that their businesses would suffer because many people believed it. In 1992, the south branch in Arizona was changed into an extension of US 191. In 2003, the rest of the highway got renumbered as 491.
Another reason for the change is that the signs got stolen so often that they became a noticeable drain on the highway department budget. In fact, within five days after the renumbering to 491 was announced–every single 666 sign was stolen, in some cases the entire sign assembly, signpost and all, was simply cut off with a chainsaw.
A lot of residents along the highway took a sort of pride in the number, and proudly used the name Devil’s Highway, sort of like how we use “Deplorables” with pride.  Even many who take the 666-Devil connection seriously didn’t want to make the change.  But change, it did.

– – · –

License plates: Colorado until 1981 used numbers of the format AB-1234, then switched to ABC-123. The ABC-123 numbers were coded by county (plates starting with K and L were for El Paso County, which contains Colorado Springs and a lot of Deplorables, for instance). At least some counties ran out of their allotment, so we went to ABC1234 in 1992. Cops found those hard to read, so we went from green mountains/white sky to white mountains/green sky in 2000, and switched numbers and letter groups, 123-ABC. We ran out of those (even after adding Q (!) to the allowable letters) in 2015, so we switched back to ABC-123, using any plate number that had never been issued (including all possible combinations with Q).  For about two years here, every new license plate issued had a Q in it!  In mid 2018, apparently (though I didn’t notice until Monday night), we went to ABC-D12 format, and it’s gone all the way up to BEX-C99 as of January 20.
Not that I’m counting, mind you.  I got this info from Wikipedia.

– – · –

And of course no post of mine would be complete without a coin. Here’s a silver dollar from the very first year that America issued them. Today, it’s known as the “Flowing Hair” type to distinguish it from the later types where Liberty’s hair was bound in some way, with a ribbon or cap.  The design was used into 1795 (when they went to a new portrait on the obverse); the 1794s are considerably rarer than the 1795s.

This post won’t be on news of the day, but it will be on a political matter, one that perennially pops up.
Every once in a while it’s good to discuss/review some of the foundational issues; it keeps one politically “centered.”
It’s especially important to review/discuss the sorts of things that the Opposition wants to obfuscate or hijack. They do that to try to destroy the concept; it’s very hard to think clearly about something without the appropriate concepts in place, and they love to muddy thought processes, because clear thinking lets one see through their crap.
(Clear thinking is our ally, which is one reason I fight against muddy thinking by people on my side. It’s not the usual “we’re better than this” argument that needs to be ditched because we’re now at war, it’s the fact that we’re laying down our best weapon by engaging in the behavior that they do, and fighting on the turf they chose.)
So today, let’s pick up the question of what a “right” is.  I’m going to be talking about the basic rights, not the procedural rights that come into play when someone sues you or the government prosecutes you.  Those, of course largely depend on the procedure, whereas the basic rights, we tend to regard as absolutes, inherent in the human condition regardless of how our courts work.
We all know that the Left thinks there is a right to healthcare, a right to child care, a right to an education, and even a right to a basic living income. We disagree, of course. But why? It’s important to know why this is wrong.
The other day I saw a comment on the daily thread, and it implied, I believe, the <em>wrong answer</em>. I wrote a response to it, which apparently no one noticed. (No one “liked” it, and no one took me to task for it either, which means no one hated it. 😀 )
Here’s the original comment I responded to (at https://wqth.wordpress.com/2019/02/28/dear-maga-20190228-open-topic/comment-page-1/#comment-85981)

no, not inconvenient–it’s a RIGHT (according to Lizzy) to have government provide childcare–what could go wrong?
hmmm…which number is that in the Bill of Rights Liz?

(“Lizzy” is Elizabeth “Spreading Bull” Warren a/k/a Fauxcahontas.)
I find this line of thinking–that it’s not a right if it’s not listed in the Bill of Rights–very dangerous for two reasons.
1–What if the writers of the BOR didn’t think of everything? The list of rights could be overly narrowly construed because of that. For instance, if there’s a right to privacy (and I’ve seen good arguments both ways, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that there is), it’s not in the Bill of Rights, and someone could try to deny that it’s a right on that basis.
(Note: Someone might say it’s not a constitutional right, and they’d be correct. But then the question still remains: Does that “someone” believe it’s therefore not a right at all?)
2–Ironically, the writers of the BOR did realize they hadn’t listed everything. So they wrote the Ninth Amendment. Here it is:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, the Bill of Rights itself explicitly states that something might be a right even though it doesn’t have a number in the Bill of Rights. So there you have it: It would be a mistake to assume that only rights specifically named in the Constitution are rights.
The Ninth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to counter an argument that many made against having a Bill of Rights: That listing some rights might be taken as an implication that the government could violate any rights it wanted as long as it didn’t violate those specific rights.  Meaning it could run rampant everywhere else.
And you’ve got to admit, they did have a point–it does seem as if the government overreaches with impunity everywhere else; it’s certainly not actually limited to the powers expressly delegated to it in Article I, Section 8 or anywhere else in the Constitution. That’s largely because the SCOTUS generally hasn’t yanked back on the leash unless there was a BOR-listed-rights violation.
The Ninth was an attempt to address this argument, and it is a sleeping giant of constitutional law. If the SCOTUS ever decides to pay attention to it, well–it will be interesting to see what they come up with. One would hope they use it as a meat cleaver, getting rid of a lot of the crap the government does to us, putting it back inside the bounds of the expressly delegated powers.
But the Ninth has its hazards, too: it leaves the door open to inventing bogus rights, then claiming that there’s no argument against them, because of the 9th amendment. I’m sure everyone can think of a favorite example of a bogus right that could be brought in this way. This is very likely the sort of thing that was on the mind of the person who wrote the comment I quoted.
To sum up: It’s clear that the Founders recognized there were more rights than in the Bill of Rights, but since they didn’t specify them, the door is wide open to invent bogus rights. We shouldn’t rely on the BOR “list” to be complete, but we don’t want to let people tack things onto it willy-nilly, either.
How to resolve this?
This is why it’s very important to remain grounded on the true definition of what a “right” is. The Left would love people to lose track of it precisely so they can invent new pseudo-rights, and also to deny the ones that really exist.
But even if we come up with a good definition of a “right,” one that allows for freedom of conscience (speech, religion), freedom to have firearms, etc., but does NOT include “right to health care,” the Left has a counter-argument. To them “rights” are “social constructs,” arbitrary decisions by society which society can decide to countermand whenever it feels like. To the Left, there’s no objective definition of what a “right” is, because rights don’t really exist, so the concept can mean whatever you want it to mean.
So it’s important to be able to defend (even if only in your own mind) against this, to know that your definition of a “right” is objectively correct, not just some arbitrary preference on your part. If you buy into the social construct theory, then your only defense is to make sure they don’t have the power to make the decisions for the rest of us, because once they get that power then you have no choice but to agree that the list they come up with is the correct one, at least this decade.
I’m not going to go into justifying the definition this time around, mainly because I strongly suspect everyone here would disagree with my justification. I’m going to take the definition as a given. (Of course, there’s a potential problem here: because our justifications are different, our definitions might be subtly different too.)
So here it is, my favorite definition of a right.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person’s freedom of action in a social context.

Let’s note a few key things.
A) It says a man. A right applies to an individual, not to any group.
B) It covers freedom of action. Let’s unpack this a bit more. A right concerns a potential action to be taken by an individual. What that means is, if someone has a right to take an action, they can take it, without compulsion or interference by others. The basis of this is that the basic right is to life, but one must take action to sustain their own life; thus the right to action is a derivative of the right to life.
But note, this is only a right to act on one’s own judgment; it does not impose any obligation on others to take positive action, it only requires them to not interfere.
This is why there is no “right to health care.” Because if there were, you’d have a right to force someone to act to provide you with that health care. Any proposed right that requires someone to take positive action on your behalf, or provide resources to you, cannot be a real right.  If there were such a right, it would absolutely interfere with people’s real rights to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, it would turn everyone into a slave.
This is why the Left is not just trying to invent bogus rights, but trying to get rid of real ones as well–those real rights conflict with their bogus ones.
Even actual rights are not immune to attempts to contaminate them.  To take an example that irritates me still, “Free Speech” is about being able to speak your mind, it is not about someone having to provide you with a microphone, or an internet site, or a printing press, or even a soapbox, to do so. “Freedom of Religion,” similarly; you can practice your religion; you cannot legitimately force me to pay it either lip service or monetary support.
Of course a right has limits beyond just “don’t force someone else to pay for it,” but those limits are usually pretty obvious, direct damage to others, interfering with their rights, and so on. Your right generally ends when you start violating the rights of others, or cause them physical harm, or intrude on their property. I can speak freely, but I cannot commit libel. I can bear arms, but I can’t go around shooting people or threatening to do so, even if, by my judgment, it might make sense to rob a bank to go buy a Mercedes.
So now you can use this definition as a litmus test for a right covered by the Ninth. Is hiking on my own property a right? It surely is; it’s an action I am undertaking, it’s not requiring anything out of anyone else (other than that they keep off my property and let me walk),  and it doesn’t harm anyone else. It’s not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, but it is a real right, and the Ninth Amendment legitimately covers it.
But if any Leftist schmuck tries to tell you health care is a right, you can call bullshit; and if he tries to slide it in under the Ninth Amendment, you can, for the same reason, call bullshit.

[NOTE:  As of 19:45 Mountain Time, the status is uncertain; some indications are that PDJT will sign the bill, others that he will wait and review.  I wrote this a couple of days ago when I was feeling optimistic, and I had too much fun with it to waste it so long as there’s a shred of hope.]

Tick.

Tock.

Tick.

Tock.

The deadline approacheth.

It comes!  Can you hear it?  Yes, it’s…

Well, does the name “Pavlov” ring a bell?

MOAR SHUTDOWN!!!

MOAR!!! MOAR!!! I’m STILL not SATISFIED…

– – · –

Now for the disclaimers
You can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on. Keep it civil. Rules much like the Old Treehouse, except of course Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged. A couple of other important things to consider. This here link….

….contains some general guidelines for things that are really, really not kosher to post here.
Also consider the other four rules (ratified by WolfMoon):

1. No food fights.
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. No shooting at the nuclear warheads.

Remember – this is a free speech zone. Barring the few minor things that can get this site closed down, you ain’t gonna get banned.
And once the Gab commenting layer is here – BOOM.

– – · –

The current plan for Dear MAGA threads is to switch to a format where people have ONE NIGHT A WEEK that they take care of the thread. For example, Wheatie will put up the SATURDAY thread on FRIDAY NIGHT.

• Monday – Wolf
• Tuesday – Wolf
• Wednesday – Wolf
• Thursday – Wolf
• Friday – Wolf (but today, Yours Truly)
• Saturday – Wheatie
• Sunday – ThinkThinkThink

If anybody else would be interested in being a Dear MAGA author one night a week, feel free to let me know.

– – · –

I know of my own personal knowledge that the last shutdown was an extreme hardship on some of the very good people working for Customs and Border Protection, so please keep them in your thoughts.

– – · –

I broke the word “farewell” into its two pieces to express my wishes that you all fare well in the future.
But this is also a farewell in the more usual sense.
It is hard to write these words. I’ve struggled with this for days. It may be hard for you to read them; be assured it was very hard for me to write them and actually hit “Post.”
It has been reported by the other authors here that I was feeling “burned out” and they spoke the truth. That is what I told them back on the 30th when WolfMoon re-opened the daily thread schedule.
But as I thought about it more and more…I began to realize that under the immediate sense of feeling burned out is another problem. I’m feeling less and less like I belong here. There are a couple of reasons for this. I’ll explain them. But I’ll do so by a rather roundabout way.
Do all of you know who I am? No, I don’t mean my IRL name and address, but do you know who I am in the sense of WHAT I am?
And do you know WHAT you WANT me to be?
The two might not be compatible.

What I Am

For as long as I can remember, the universe has fascinated me; I absorbed books written for children on astronomy, then I moved on to stuff like chemistry and even things like how nuclear fission works.  Remember when Wolf wrote about the isotopes of uranium? I knew that stuff by sixth grade.  (NO, I didn’t (and still don’t) know enough to design reactors and bombs, and I still have no idea what the mathematics is like.) I also cheerfully admit I’d be lost in a chemistry laboratory.  But I do speak some of the language.
I was that super annoying kid that I imagine most of you hated in school, whose combined SAT scores were over 1500. In fact, based on that meme someone posted about PDJT’s SAT scores, and some sites I found that would translate my scores into IQ and percentile–I actually scored slightly higher than he did. I must be the world’s most egregious example of an underachiever, eh?
I got a formal education in electrical engineering and computer science, which means a lot of physics, a lot of math (calculus is just the beginning), a lot of Maxwell’s equations.  Then my masters in space operations where I learned astrodynamics.  Of course, I’ve used very little of it since then because I went into software.  And a lot of self-education on everything from particle physics to biology to geology to astronomy and chemistry–not enough to hold my own but enough to understand the broad sweep.  I know a little about a lot, and a lot about a little.
Most importantly, I’ve concentrated not on just what they say the world is like, but why they think it is the way it is.  Not just the conclusion, but a lot of the arguments used to support it.
Is this of value here?  Only sometimes.
I have a hard time holding back when someone, out of ignorance (which isn’t a character flaw if you’re willing to fix it) posts something flat-out wrong. I’ll try to explain why it’s wrong. As often as not my explanation is blown off and I get a hostile response. Sometimes the explanation isn’t understood, sometimes I suspect I’m contradicting someone’s religion but either way–it’s rarely appreciated.
So when I see comments to the effect people want me to do science posts, I have to ask: Are you sure about that? I’ve got some beauts lined up in my head.
And when I tell you I’m no longer in a mood to let ignorant comments slide sometimes…are you sure you want me back?
I’ve alluded to knowing how one knows something to be true.  I was thinking of specifics, but as a general question, it’s actually a branch of philosophy known as epistemology. And it’s implicit in the sciences, sometimes quite explicit; a large part of the gruntwork in science is determining the likely error in measurements and assigning a confidence to conclusions. There are also fairly simple rules for determining how many “significant figures” you’re entitled to cite.
Occam’s Razor is a (proposed) epistemological rule of thumb (and a fairly good one, as long as you’re dealing with inanimate things and not with people who could be trying to deceive you). But here are a couple of others, ones I think are pretty solid.
1. It’s important to correctly identify things; words mean things. Attacking this principle is an attack on rational thought itself, which is why the Left does it, and why we cannot afford to do it to ourselves.
2. Emotions are not tools of cognition. You can’t determine what is true from your emotions. That’s not to say emotions have no place at all; there’s no need to go Vulcan. But their role is in evaluating facts, not determining them.
So when I try to correct a mis-identification, and get the responses I got, and then the justifications I got…those responses tell me a lot about you. Some were purely emotional. I can understand (though not agree) with that. The worst, though–yes, the worst–were those from people who told me I was technically correct, but they planned to go ahead and misuse terminology anyway. Put bluntly–they’re declaring their intention to lie.
I really don’t want to be around that.
[Nebraska Filly, put your mind at ease–I’m not leaving because of anything you said.]
And here is another thing you may or may not be aware of about what I am.
It has been mentioned, from time to time, that I am an “unbeliever.” Another term for “unbeliever” is “atheist” which, going back to the Greek, is literally, “without a belief in god.” Any god.  Which means we are not Satanists, because we don’t believe in him either–contrary to the assertions of about a million fools I’ve encountered over the course of my life.
So I, as of right now, refuse to mince words any more. I’m an atheist. (And I’ll bet at least five of you just became glad I’m gone, simply because of That Word.) I give your beliefs as much credence as you give to–say–Hinduism. If you ask why, I would counter by asking why you give Hinduism no credence. Chances are good my reasons would be very similar. The difference between us actually is: Instead of rejecting all but one system of religious belief (loosely, belief in a supernatural power or powers), I reject them all.
This is a tough stance to take in today’s society. I could tell the three of you who are still reading this some stories, but I’ll hold back; this is already overlong. Suffice it to say, anyone in the United States who feels “persecuted” as a Christian has never been in the shoes of an atheist, and has never had to deal with the treatment an atheist gets at the hands of some Christians.
My blog is moribund. I’ve not written anything for it in years, but in between the science articles, are articles I wrote when I was still quite bitter about that treatment. My attitude now is that if you don’t start a fight, there won’t be a fight.
I’ve let pass a few gratuitous swipes at atheists on this site. Were I to remain, though, that would change–and I would likely again be jumped on by everyone.  But those swipes tell me that I–the actual me–am not considered fit to associate with, by some people here.
Even leaving that sort of bigotry aside, it remains true that there is a vast gulf between me and Christians. You don’t make sense to me, and I’m sure I don’t make sense to you either–I’m sure of this because I’ve seen more than a few rants about how clueless we are. But I can go through life without having to pay attention to that gulf most times, with the exception, of course, that I’d better stay silent.
I bring up the whole atheism issue because lately I have noticed a trend here–this site is resembling, more and more, a big revival meeting.
It is your privilege to do so as Wolf is not only allowing but encouraging it.
But it holds no value to me. I have to go through more and more of what is, to me, meaningless noise, but I am expected to “respect” it, even if only by remaining silent–while knowing that if I posted my opinion on such matters just once in the vast sea of overtly Christian postings, it would get little to no respect and certainly wouldn’t be greeted by silence.
As the great Q tree Revival atmosphere grows more pronounced, and there is little or no Q and a shrinking percentage of Trump here, I feel more and more out of place.

What You Want Me To Be

As near as I can tell, the only things you actually want from me are cheerleading and snark and the occasional interplay with Morose Marica.  But guess what, folks, it’s a package deal.  You get that, and I will feel free to call you on nonsense, scientific and otherwise…and you’ll dismiss my critique and get angry at me.  Rather than go through all that, I’ll just take the package deal off the table.

Closing

I wish you all the best.
But truly, I don’t belong here any more.
And I’m not sure I ever did.

Coal train.  Celebrating our energy independence and making environmentalist heads explode.  (Win/Win)
Today’s NOT THE STATE OF THE UNION TUESDAY Open Thread is devoted to your thoughts on the glorious chaos in US Politics.
As always, you can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on. BUT: Keep it civil. Rules much like the Old Treehouse, except of course Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged. A couple of other important things to consider:
https://wqth.wordpress.com/2019/01/01/dear-maga-open-topic-20190101/ contains some general guidelines for things that are really, really not kosher to post here.
And Wheatie’s Rules (as amended by me):

1. No food fights.
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. No shooting at the nuclear warheads.

– – · –

It looks to me like the Democrats are starting to realize that they’ve been pwned.
Meanwhile SunDirge of the Eeyore Tree continues to think Trump is a bumbling fool.  And apparently he’s not alone.
I love watching people who are on the outside looking in, decide that they not only know more about the current situation than does President Donald J. Trump, but they can figure out what to do better than he can even in spite of their actual handicap of knowing quite a lot less than PDJT does.
I’m rarely accused of humility, but I know that I don’t know what to do better than PDJT!  And I know I’d not know, even if I knew exactly what he knew about the current situation. Every time I try to guess what’s going to happen next–I’m wrong.  I know and accept my limitations, and I won’t be constructing grand theories of what’s next like some do.
Some people don’t trust the President, while protesting that they do.  I do trust him.  No, not in the blind way of assuming he’ll never lie (for the benefit of enemy ears), but I trust that his goals and my goals mesh pretty well, and I trust he’s the one most able to achieve them.  And that particularly means I do NOT think he’s bumbling around in the Oval Office.  No bumbler could accomplish what he HAS accomplished already.
Part of his task is to make it clear to the people…the ordinary disengaged people, those who tossed a coin in the voting booth or voted for him simply because he wasn’t his opponent, that what he’s about to do is necessary.  That’s important because it will be drastic, drastic enough to make one wonder if he’s going too far.  We’ve never in living memory had to arrest the political opposition because they were SO corrupt and treasonous.  When that happens, people will more than likely assume that Trump is simply harassing his opponents, like some banana republic dictator.  The best way to shut that down is for him to show us how vile and criminal the opposition is.  That takes time, but it must be done, well enough that a solid majority of Americans see it.
He has a lot more to do before he can bring his enemies–America’s enemies–to ruin.  I think it’s important that we stand behind him, and not snipe at him or his associates because we’re unsatisfied with the pace or how he’s keeping us informed.
Stand behind Trump, or admit you don’t support him.

– – · –

– – · –

MAGA Onwards!!!

Today’s STEEL MILL SATURDAY Open Thread is devoted to your thoughts on the glorious chaos in US Politics.
(Newt Gingrich once said Trump combined the energy of Theodore Roosevelt, the salesmanship of P T Barnum…and the disruptiveness of Andrew Jackson.  He sure got that last part right!)

– – · –

As always, you can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on. BUT: Keep it civil. Rules much like the Old Treehouse, except of course Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged. A couple of other important things to consider:
https://wqth.wordpress.com/2019/01/01/dear-maga-open-topic-20190101/ contains some general guidelines for things that are really, really not kosher to post here.
And Wheatie’s Rules (as amended by me):

1. No food fights.
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. No shooting at the nuclear warheads.

– – · –

What a roller coaster these last three days have been, Fellow Deplorables!  I think I said twice that President Trump does things I don’t expect…and he certainly did so today!  The shutdown is on a three-week hiatus.
Does anyone imagine the Dems are going to cave on the wall in the next three weeks?  So I think the Great Glorious Shutdown is just going to be coming back.
Meanwhile anyone with more brain cells than a planarian who is ALSO paying attention will realize the Dems were holding federal workers hostage, given that the Republicans tried to get their paychecks to them on at least two occasions but were rebuffed.
And they did promise to negotiate.  Yeah I know, their promises are worthless.  You know that and I know it.
But millions of Americans don’t know it, and they’re about to learn.

– – · –

MOAR SHUTDOWN!!!
MOAR!!! MOAR!!! I’m still not SATISFIED!!!

Oh, well…

Hey, maybe I can look at it this way:  The shutdown is so thorough, that it even managed to shut itself down!

– – · –

One last piece of business:  Congratulations to Wheatie, who absolutely SHATTERED the comment yesterday.   You get another Steel Wheatie!!

– – · –

– – · –

MAGA ON!!!