I’ve noticed recently that people like my Golden Retriever more than they like me and I’m thinking perhaps I was always meant to be a Golden Retriever instead of a standard model guy with a manual transmission. The non-stop hugs from pretty girls is very appealing, but I’m not thrilled about the food prospects. I’ve not yet committed to the transition. Would Medicare cover it?
I wish I could remember the substack author but I read a quite funny article by a woman who actually did eat high end dog food for 10 days or something like that: she wanted to do a paleo diet on the cheap. she said she felt perfectly okay but the taste was obviously designed for the dog and not the human palate.
It may be because I've had my gall bladder out, but the dry food I feed mine, while surprizingly palatable has so high a fat content that I get an oil slick every time I deficate.
Women often show a lot of interest in babies, but I wouldn't wan't to be one again. I was a bottle baby so I did not even enjoy the best part of infancy.
Now that their home season is complete, the Dodgers have cracked the 4-million mark in attendance for the first time in franchise history.
Since Joe Torre took over as manager of the Dodgers 17 years ago, the Dodgers have won the NL West 13 times and are three wins away from a 14th title. Winning your division 78 percent of the time is quite remarkable considering that in 32 seasons the Rockies have never won it. In that stretch there were 16 non-covid seasons and the Dodgers drew over 3½ million 14 times. As a comparison, the Angels have NEVER drawn 3½ million in a season.
Certainly impressive but I’ve found the Padres ascent from decades of irrelevancy in a transplant/military heavy city to being a reliable sellout and constantly good team willing to take risks and spend money even more impressive. I personally hope they can come out of the NL finally this season as I find the rest of the playoff field loathsome.
Updating this, by beating the Diamondbacks twice and the Padres losing to the Brewers once, the Dodgers have indeed won the NL West for the 14th time in the last 18 years. The Dodgers are locked into the 3 seed and will be hosting a Wild Card series this upcoming Tuesday through Thursday against whichever mediocrity gets the last playoff spot
“One way to discourage the handful of young men who commit these kinds of crimes would be to make clear that if convicted to life in prison“
UT has the death penalty, Steve, by firing squad. In this specific case, UT’s DA has already asked the state for the death penalty. certainly that’s one way to discourage young offenders-and if the death penalty is consistently applied in cases such as these.
And of course with the death penalty consistently applied, young people won’t get to use their phones either—permanently
I think life without parole is a scarier prospect to a young man than the death penalty. And the family's help should be rewarded. Not many families would have done the same these days.
I don't at all. After all, John Hinkley was supposed to get life, and he got out. Life without parole = one day a liberal governor commutes it, and he gets a pardon and he's out.
In CA once again the Menendez brothers are up for parole, surprised that Newsom hasn't pardoned them, but since he may be running in 28, so there it is.
Whereas death penalty is final, and it saves the taxpayers from funding decades upon decades of high living.
The state solves most murder cases, without or without parental assistance. Consistently apply the death penalty and don't make it a rare thing, and the word gets out and the deterrent works out in the end (if its consistently applied).
Twenty plus years if endless appeals in a death penalty case costs much more than a guilty plea with life in prison due to no appeal. Parole them at 65 and let Medicaid pick up their health costs.
End the endless appeals process, shorten it. Example, in January 1932 there was an assassination attempt on FDR's life in Chicago (another politician was killed instead). The perpetrator was swiftly caught, tried, had his appeals, and was executed in March of 1932, a few days before FDR took office for his first adminstration. Roughly the entire process took about 6 weeks from first trial, appeals process, and death penalty carried out. That's how it can be done--entire process carried out in less than a single year.
"Example, in January 1932 there was an assassination attempt on FDR's life in Chicago (another politician was killed instead)."
That would be Anton Cermak, mayor of Chicago. I know this because growing up near the Windy City, back when a public school education actually taught us useful skills and knowledge, we had one year of state and local history.
Interesting. And the fact that the perp didn't spend decades on death row but was fried right before FDR took office for his first term.
1932 was on of the worst years of the Depression.
It was also the year CHI NL won the Pennant, and proceeded to lose to the Yankees--Ruth's famous (or infamous) Called Shot HR to deep CF off P Charlie Root. Surviving 8 mm film stongly suggests that Ruth did in fact point to CF before the pitch was delivered. Lou Gehrig always maintained that he thought that the Babe did call his shot. Ruth always went along with the reporters story that he called the shot--he didn't deny nor confirm it. Although it's interesting that the media spread word that he called his shot and hit the HR where he pointed fairly early on, like within the same week of the WS (in other words the story of Ruth's called shot didn't take years to develop but was reported fairly early).
“But the Trump administration will likely need to justify its crackdown by all the bad things that Antifa have been up to over the past ten years or so, rather than by this particular assassination case“
The federal government needing to justifying its actions? (to whom is not clear in this passage). Steve, your natural noticing oftentimes borders on standup comedy that would make George Carlin proud. But that line was indeed a funny one. Remember to keep it in your repertoire for future events, no matter the administration.
> "there still isn’t much evidence that Charlie’s killing had much to do with left-wing movements besides transgenderism."
Maybe, maybe not: we don't know what the authorities have. But in any case, transgenderism has become a core tenet of leftism, such that the rest is commentary anyway. As you note in the next sentence, "you don’t even have to be terribly left-wing to be into trans": if you accept a little leftism, you accept a lot of transgenderism, so which is dog and which is tail is practically moot.
Fortunately, we don't have to interpret the hermeneutics of the suspect's trans fetish. M. Gessen is hardly an outlier among Mainstream Media. Their almost universal lockstep supposition is that mild mannered Charlie Kirk deserved assassination because he declined to accept Leftism as his Lord and Savior. Then they rely on Antifa generally, or loose-screwers like Robinson or Routh individually, to carry out the logical consequences of their implicit supposition. They are the terrorists they accuse others of being.
Transgenderism is far from a core tenet of leftism. I think most leftists just believe that we should respect people, regardless of the choices they make.
(except for the ones that inflict pain on other people, of course)
The last Dem president (supposedly the most moderate candidate) made transgenderism a centerpiece of his administration.
Transgenderism is core precisely because if you accept sexually mutilating children in the name of "respect" and "tolerance", you will accept anything and everything else.
I don't think it was a centrepiece of Biden’s administration. I think you are mistaken.
I think you will find that positive support for transgender policies, other than respect for individuals, will be forgotten by the time of the next election.
On the few occasions he could be bothered to make a public appearance, Biden often harangued America about the heretofore niche issue of transgenderism, something he had never before betrayed the slightest interest in during his long political career.
Giving the trans flag central prominence on the home of apex US executive power was a clear and knowing violation of the US Flag Code. The message was obvious: this is where our highest allegiance is now.
"O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Sibling."
> Transgenderism is far from a core tenet of leftism. I think most leftists just believe that we should respect people, regardless of the choices they make. <
This "respect people" line--a common trope--is verbalist judo doing a lot of work. Every single one of these minoritarian movements does not ask that the relevant minority be left alone, it demands that *normies* reorder their ideas, their attitudes, their norms to accommodate and coddle the minority and their demands.
With trannies that demand list was pretty extensive and explicit:
-- men use women's bathrooms
-- men play women's sports, pronoun nonsense/hoop-jumping
-- demand that you pretend some weirdo is the sex they are not
-- alter medical practice/ethics to poison confused young people
-- upend our common sense understanding of biology, sex and sexual-dimorphism
-- have public schools propagandize your kids with all this.
Minoritarianism is a very aggressive "hey normie, bend over and take it up the ass" ideology. It is not now and never has been "to each his own".
Trans activists certainly exceeded reasonable expectations with their demands, including most of the demands you list. A majority of liberals would agree with us on that. I don’t think it’s asking too much, though, to respect people’s choices even when you disagree with them. I agree with you that they had no right to impose their views on the rest of us.
Imposing their views on the rest of us is the point. Not of the scarred and abused children, but of the intelligent, aggressive, and nasty men (x-men) who drive the movement.
The AGP's fetish is only satisfied when the rest of us agree that he is a woman. A beautiful woman.
If someone wants to live their life as a woman, that’s their choice and it doesn't need to bother me. I get annoyed if I have to declare my pronouns or when they talk about ‘birthing parents’ or ‘chestfeeding’ or when they win the gold medal in woman’s boxing. But if they just want to wear a dress and change their name, that’s fine. Whatever. They can just live their life how they want. I don’t need to stop them or be rude to them.
They may be losing the men in women's sports/bathrooms issue, but what will stop the tomboys/autists/neurotics cutting their breasts off? Lesbians are going to have to take a stand against the enabling Cluster B mothers.
It's possible the view you ascribe to the Left on Transgenderism has become obsolete within recent memory. It feels clear that the height of Transgender Movement is past. Granted that it's impossible to know yet.
Two thoughts on the future of Transgenderism in the second quarter of our century:
-- We may have to speak of the Transgender Movement as something of the mid-2010s to early-2020s, lasting 10-12 years and losing its momentum in the mid-2020s, then sort of fading away.
-- Whatever the future of the Transgender ideology/movement, the mainstream-Right MIGHT be just as associated with it in the future as the Left. Just so long as its a patriotic Trans person, an anti-Woke, pro-Trump type of Trans person. Then the cheerleading can begin.
How many signs of a mainstream-conservative-type Transgenderism we can speak of, so far? I'm not sure.
Fox News made Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner an on-air commentator in mid-2022. That particular high-profile Trans person continues to make regular appearances on Fox. Jenner endorsed Trump-2024 with great gusto and received accolades from a surprising number of MAGA flag-wavers -- the sports-cheering instinct also behind the "Based Brown Guy" phenomenon.
I think it will be similar to what happened with homosexuality. Being gay was illegal, gays used to be beaten, we used to mock them, they were all over the news, they were at the Supreme Court. But now that gay marriage is allowed, we don’t hear anything any more. They are just regular people, living their lives. We might even have a gay president one day. I expect the same thing will happen with trans. They’ll stop making their crazy demands, and we’ll all just get on with our lives.
> "But now that gay marriage is allowed, we don’t hear anything any more."
LOL! Nonsense, the make-everything-trans was us hearing more, much more, from the gays and their allies, once gay marriage was endorsed.
With all their demands, each capitulation resulted not in peace and harmony but in ever greater and more extreme demands, as night follows day. No compromise was ever enough for them.
Now homosexuals openly groom and destroy children with the help of their allies. And it is acceded to by all the "respect" cucks.
Gays had been despised and persecuted by all major religions and cultures through all history for very good reason, as it turns out.
The most important thing to understand, not just from the last two weeks but from the last two decades, is that the political and thought leaders of the left do not believe anyone but themselves has the legitimate right to rule society. They often bleat about “our democracy” but when they lose, it is never treated as an acceptable outcome of a two party system or a genuine expression of the majority of the public that the left’s priorities our policy outcomes are unsatisfactory. No, it means dark and hateful forces have pushed the country off of the path the Arc of History intends us to be on.
What Steve says about the trans movement is broadly true of the left - it’s made up of smart, nasty people driving the herd of dumb or gullible masses on multiple cultural issues, since the left really doesn’t care about economic ones anymore. And although they are on the wrong side of public sentiment by lopsided margins on trans, immigration, crime, DEI they obviously have no intention of backing off, and if they regain political power we are getting the Biden Administration on steroids. Knowing that, I think a growing share of Americans are open to unorthodox measures to prevent a return to power of the left at a national level.
Speaking as a liberal, I'd prefer that my side wins, but I am OK with respectable Republican presidents. I think the current president is a problem for democracy, though.
Interesting perspective, considering he was elected by a Constitutional democratic majority of the Electoral College, and won the popular vote after six million votes that showed up for Biden either switched to Trump (around two million) or just didn't show up (around four million).
I think the actual problem that nobody wants to admit is that democracy doesn't scale beyond a small town, and politics have become so fraught because the government can make people wealthy from rent-seeking and artificial scarcity instead of just administering the few truly public goods. There's also the modern derangement that government must be actively ideological, so we end up with elections contested over visceral feefeez instead of who's the most competent manager.
As someone with a lifetime connection to the Medical-Insurance scam, I not only applaud everything RFK Jr is trying to do, I think it is an absolute travesty that it has taken so much time, and a goverment-created plan-demic for many Americans to see what is happening with the Big Pharma captured CDC (and don't get me started on the AMA). I hope you will come to feel differently about RFK Jr. but I won't lose sleep over it.
Lots of people find Jared Taylor offensive. Horridly, racistly offensive. But I don't really care about that. I just want to know if Jared Taylor is incorrect.
Same with Trump, a narcissistic yankee real estate developer. I'd much prefer Marcus Aurelius as president. But I don't need Marcus Aurelius. I need a sonuvabich who hates my enemies.
Trump's obnoxiousness and need for self aggrandizement is predictable and beneficial for my team way beyond, say, Mitt Romney's precious Principles.
Personally I feel like W is easily the worst president of my lifetime. An unnecessary and destructive war in Iraq, abandonment of Clinton era fiscal restraint, ushering in loads of Muslims and other immigrants and the lie that it's the "religion of peace", the housing bubble, and last of all giving a ton of oxygen to the various demented elements of the left that rose to the fore under Obama and are still an issue today. I don't think he's fundamentally a bad person, he was just catastrophically wrong about most major issues of the day and we're still paying for it.
Which clauses? Bear in mind FDR'S New Deal was unconstitutional until the Democrats threatened to pack SCOTUS, which suddenly found that the general welfare and commerce clauses were as broad as Congress said they were (but not so broad as to encompass insurance and major league baseball, which are localized, tiny affairs). There is zero constitutional justification for foreign aid transfer payments but here we are.
I think he usurped Congress’s authority by declaring an emergency that justified tariffs. I don’t think Trump had the authority to arrest and deport people without due process. I don’t think the president has the right to send the military to exert powers in a state, neither can he send in the national guard from one state to another. He has regularly exceeded the powers assigned by Article Two.
I don't dispute that the New Deal violated the constitution.
Point taken, but absent the tariffs, Trump has behaved like Eisenhower, federalizing the National Guard and sending the 101st Airborne to desegregate Arkansas schools, and conducting Operation Wetback. You don't need a full blown jury trial or even a hearing to figure out you don't have a visa and aren't a citizen.
“Biden” (actually private citizen Barack Obama and a group of industry insiders) issued a 48 page Executive Order governing AI and cited as authority “the laws and Constitution of the United States.” I'm not falling out of my chair over emergency declarations of tariffs, because why would Congress toss that plum to the President in the first place? Does Congress not want to govern? You don't have to answer that.
So my admittedly flawed tu quoque argument is that unconstitutional is kind of prolapsed language at this point. There's a good argument Congress should not have certified George W Bush's election and that Iraq was a war crime, but Bush continues to walk the streets a free man. So for all the passions he excites in his opponents, I reject the extremist label of Trump.
You'll need to get really specific because again in the "Biden" administration we had active government actors consulting with social media to decide who to promote and who to squelch. And there's the problem in the other direction: the new york times pulitzer prize winning concoction of russiagate. And Douglas Mackey being prosecuted six years after the fact for a joke tweet.
Again, this is tu quoque argument, but the point is Trump is not a uniquely ultra vires actor in the history of US government.
The Left's stochastic language over people with the politics of the Eisenhower administration is quite troubling. After all what's NOT justified against #literallyHitler, meemaw-killers who won't get vaccinated or wear surgical masks, people cooking the planet with their gas grills and pick up trucks, or denying LIFE-SAVING puberty blockers and top surgery to trans kids! (Think of the children.)
The latest I've seen is, "We fought a Revolution to get away from tyrants like Trump!"
The Left really does seem to be psyching themselves up for a shooting war. Our team often talks about a future the future US as Brazil. But what if it's like Lebanon except fifty times bigger? Hence my advice to conservatives to move to a Red county (preferably in a Red State) and make it Redder. It will make the partition easier when the local John Brown Gun Clubs convince themselves we had it coming.
Trantifa seem to be perfect examples of Dr Edward Dutton's "spiteful mutants" but a description is hardly a prescription. 50% infant mortality as existed before the Industrial Revolution would have likely prevented most of these from reaching maturity if it hadn't done so for their parents. We can't let these people walk freely among us. We can't afford to keep them all in custodial care for life and we are not ready or able to do what Britain did, hang or transport every sociopath apprehended until the population as a whole improves enough to kick-start the Industrial Revolution. Perhaps the coming of AI and its predicted effect of making 80% of the country unemployable has an upside. A large enough population of potential custodians that no one of them gets burned out. Short shifts and lots of perks can go a long way to aleviating job dissatisfaction.
Charlie Kirk's assassination isn't important because of the casualty count (1), but because of the implications for public discourse in America. The genocide in Gaza is a truly amoral crime of the largest proportions, but it is not in competition with Kirk's killing.
Now that really is the kind of weird phenomen that Steve Sailor should get involved in.
He notices that 12k blacks a year get murdered by other blacks and this is somehow hidden in US media. But fails to notice the hiding of a genocide in Gaza with full US backing.
What is this guy - an amateur at mass psychology? Or in on the cover up?
What I wrote was perhaps ambiguous. I meant it in the sense that my favorite baseball team isn't in competition with my favorite football team: I can root for both. We can decry both assassinations of public political figures and genocide.
Having said that, yes, Steve circa 2025 obviously feels uncomfortable criticizing Israel and its enablers (in contrast to Steve c. 2010). I don't think it makes much sense to try to get him to write about it.
Ideological soul-searching misses the point. There are a certain miniscule % of young men who will get sufficiently obsessed about some fringe ideology to commit murder. It could be gender-bending, eco-fascism, neo-Naziism, Islamism or something else.
You are never going to eliminate this dynamic, but you certainly can do something about the ready availability of firearms to all comers. Just a simple matter of changing the Constitution...
Any changes that can realistically be made to the 2nd amendment aren't going to remove easy access to the kind of hunting rifle that was used to assassinate Charlie Kirk. This would require the confiscation and destruction of all privately owned firearms in the United States, which is obviously not going to happen (and couldn't be carried out even if such a law was implemented), so the idea of fixing the matter by changing the Constitution is a non-starter.
Exactly. As Steve has alluded to, if you are okay with ruining the Bill of Rights, getting rid of the 4th amendment would be far more productive in reducing violence. Heck throw in the 14th amendment and you don't even need to bother law abiding gun owners. I wouldn't be in favor of that either.
Charlie Kirk said that the 2nd amendment was about shooting tyrants while never thinking that many people would view him as the tyrant who needed shooting.
That's another way of saying that Charlie Kirk never thought that many people would be so delusional as to think something like that and actually act on it. I'm not sure if that's the case -- I have no way of knowing about Kirk's thought processes, obviously -- but it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that such a thought might have crossed his mind occasionally. However, it would be equally unreasonable to make fear of such people the guiding principle of your life.
You obviously have lost the plot. Charlie knew that the spiteful mutants of the left were gunning for him. He was wearing a vest for all the good it did him. And his remark about the 2nd ammendment is provably true. Several of the authors admitted that it was intended as a bulwark against tyranny.
All I learned was that the discussion we need to have - the violent streak involving transgenderism- was immediately shut down and taken off the table. There was no bringing up the string of school shooting committed by transgenders. None. And while Robinson was not identified as one himself, the fact that he was living with one is deemed completely irrelevant.
I actually had what I considered to be a "smarter" Democrat neighbor who posted on FB that since his parents were Republican that obviously meant that their son was Republican. End of discussion. The left really does think they are the "good" people.
Amazing. I’ve heard a few iterations of that logic and it baffles me because those folks often come from childhoods with Republican parents…of course by the time they were 15 they had renounced it for their cool liberal bonafides snd never looked back
I don't know anyone who was claiming that this assassination was in general support of mainstream American left policies. I'm not sure it matters, when we know that similar people are willing to do violence for a host of other positions that are currently more associated with the right.
Heck they will do violence over positions that are one or two steps removed from justifying policies that might be violence worthy (e.g. thoughtful discussions on the current state of IQ science).
Maybe we could request a list from the left of opinions/positions that they deem college campus assassination worthy, as well as some nearby examples that are not. Then everyone would know the rules. Maybe they could even agree to support the right if one of their assassins oversteps.
I think they can talk themselves into political violence and assassination quite easily. They conflate the detention and deportation of illegal aliens with Auschwitz, they believe walking around unvaccinated or without a mask is literally killing their meemaws, and I'm incinerating the planet every time I mow my lawn or start my pickup truck. We're killing trans kids because we won't feed them synthetic hormones and perform surgical mutilations on them. The Left is just an endless holiness spiral.
Sure but if we could get it in writing. You know, like if they reserve the right to assassinate right wing speakers for literally anything it might make them appear slightly unreasonable to the more sane members of the voting public.
You can find all sorts of stochastic language on Twitter. I mean, what's not justified against the perpetrators of Auschwitz, the slaughter of meemaws, and incinerating the planet? You can find a photograph of Kathy Griffin holding up Trump's bloody, severed head during his ineffectual first term. Remember when he was guilty of literal high treason by taking orders from Putin? Need I say what the penalty is for treason?
I actually quit Twitter after seeing how unhinged so many of my fellow citizens are. No question in my mind I would receive death threats if I posted under my real name. Sailer is a braver man than me.
There was a recent note on here by a guy who managed Milo Yannatoupolis's organization. They couldn't do a single public event: too many death threats.
Why are right-wing columnists now using pronouns for transgender people? Steve does it in this article, possibly ironically, and Victor Hanson did the same in a recent video.
While Steve is known for mocking the trans movement, I’ve seen him seriously use pronouns for transgender people in his writing before, which means he’s conforming to that narrative at least some of the time. I believe this is dangerous as it eventually leads to doing it all the time and legitimizing the trans movement. Incidentally, I banged your mom in the Enterprise teleporter room.
I’ve noticed recently that people like my Golden Retriever more than they like me and I’m thinking perhaps I was always meant to be a Golden Retriever instead of a standard model guy with a manual transmission. The non-stop hugs from pretty girls is very appealing, but I’m not thrilled about the food prospects. I’ve not yet committed to the transition. Would Medicare cover it?
Have you seen what people feed their dogs these days?
My dogs enjoy the high-protien kibble I feed them but they know what I eat is better and kinda resent it.
I wish I could remember the substack author but I read a quite funny article by a woman who actually did eat high end dog food for 10 days or something like that: she wanted to do a paleo diet on the cheap. she said she felt perfectly okay but the taste was obviously designed for the dog and not the human palate.
It may be because I've had my gall bladder out, but the dry food I feed mine, while surprizingly palatable has so high a fat content that I get an oil slick every time I deficate.
Thanks so much for sharing that information.
Oversharing has long been one of my major sins
Women often show a lot of interest in babies, but I wouldn't wan't to be one again. I was a bottle baby so I did not even enjoy the best part of infancy.
Our Lab Retriever is able to sniff the rear of every bitch he meets in the street, but a trans-Lab might have more of a problem.
Man to girlfriend as his dog is licking its testes "I wish I was capable of that!"
She - "why don't you, it's your dog"
O/T
Now that their home season is complete, the Dodgers have cracked the 4-million mark in attendance for the first time in franchise history.
Since Joe Torre took over as manager of the Dodgers 17 years ago, the Dodgers have won the NL West 13 times and are three wins away from a 14th title. Winning your division 78 percent of the time is quite remarkable considering that in 32 seasons the Rockies have never won it. In that stretch there were 16 non-covid seasons and the Dodgers drew over 3½ million 14 times. As a comparison, the Angels have NEVER drawn 3½ million in a season.
Certainly impressive but I’ve found the Padres ascent from decades of irrelevancy in a transplant/military heavy city to being a reliable sellout and constantly good team willing to take risks and spend money even more impressive. I personally hope they can come out of the NL finally this season as I find the rest of the playoff field loathsome.
Updating this, by beating the Diamondbacks twice and the Padres losing to the Brewers once, the Dodgers have indeed won the NL West for the 14th time in the last 18 years. The Dodgers are locked into the 3 seed and will be hosting a Wild Card series this upcoming Tuesday through Thursday against whichever mediocrity gets the last playoff spot
“One way to discourage the handful of young men who commit these kinds of crimes would be to make clear that if convicted to life in prison“
UT has the death penalty, Steve, by firing squad. In this specific case, UT’s DA has already asked the state for the death penalty. certainly that’s one way to discourage young offenders-and if the death penalty is consistently applied in cases such as these.
And of course with the death penalty consistently applied, young people won’t get to use their phones either—permanently
Sure. But their parents might be less likely to turn them in.
That’s a crime too.
Quickly and consistently.
Amen
I think life without parole is a scarier prospect to a young man than the death penalty. And the family's help should be rewarded. Not many families would have done the same these days.
I don't at all. After all, John Hinkley was supposed to get life, and he got out. Life without parole = one day a liberal governor commutes it, and he gets a pardon and he's out.
In CA once again the Menendez brothers are up for parole, surprised that Newsom hasn't pardoned them, but since he may be running in 28, so there it is.
Whereas death penalty is final, and it saves the taxpayers from funding decades upon decades of high living.
The state solves most murder cases, without or without parental assistance. Consistently apply the death penalty and don't make it a rare thing, and the word gets out and the deterrent works out in the end (if its consistently applied).
Twenty plus years if endless appeals in a death penalty case costs much more than a guilty plea with life in prison due to no appeal. Parole them at 65 and let Medicaid pick up their health costs.
That's an argument against hyper-creative judges and lawyers, not the death penalty.
They had McVeigh in the chair four years after conviction, which sounds about right.
End the endless appeals process, shorten it. Example, in January 1932 there was an assassination attempt on FDR's life in Chicago (another politician was killed instead). The perpetrator was swiftly caught, tried, had his appeals, and was executed in March of 1932, a few days before FDR took office for his first adminstration. Roughly the entire process took about 6 weeks from first trial, appeals process, and death penalty carried out. That's how it can be done--entire process carried out in less than a single year.
1933
"Example, in January 1932 there was an assassination attempt on FDR's life in Chicago (another politician was killed instead)."
That would be Anton Cermak, mayor of Chicago. I know this because growing up near the Windy City, back when a public school education actually taught us useful skills and knowledge, we had one year of state and local history.
Interesting. And the fact that the perp didn't spend decades on death row but was fried right before FDR took office for his first term.
1932 was on of the worst years of the Depression.
It was also the year CHI NL won the Pennant, and proceeded to lose to the Yankees--Ruth's famous (or infamous) Called Shot HR to deep CF off P Charlie Root. Surviving 8 mm film stongly suggests that Ruth did in fact point to CF before the pitch was delivered. Lou Gehrig always maintained that he thought that the Babe did call his shot. Ruth always went along with the reporters story that he called the shot--he didn't deny nor confirm it. Although it's interesting that the media spread word that he called his shot and hit the HR where he pointed fairly early on, like within the same week of the WS (in other words the story of Ruth's called shot didn't take years to develop but was reported fairly early).
Unfortunately, UT doesn't have such common law traditions like drawing and quartering. As they did with Guy Fawkes.
“But the Trump administration will likely need to justify its crackdown by all the bad things that Antifa have been up to over the past ten years or so, rather than by this particular assassination case“
The federal government needing to justifying its actions? (to whom is not clear in this passage). Steve, your natural noticing oftentimes borders on standup comedy that would make George Carlin proud. But that line was indeed a funny one. Remember to keep it in your repertoire for future events, no matter the administration.
I guess we're not going to learn much more until the trial or plea bargain, or does Utah have public preliminary hearings like California?
Likely won’t know more until the trial. Don’t know what happens with a plea bargain: maybe no more info.
> "there still isn’t much evidence that Charlie’s killing had much to do with left-wing movements besides transgenderism."
Maybe, maybe not: we don't know what the authorities have. But in any case, transgenderism has become a core tenet of leftism, such that the rest is commentary anyway. As you note in the next sentence, "you don’t even have to be terribly left-wing to be into trans": if you accept a little leftism, you accept a lot of transgenderism, so which is dog and which is tail is practically moot.
Fortunately, we don't have to interpret the hermeneutics of the suspect's trans fetish. M. Gessen is hardly an outlier among Mainstream Media. Their almost universal lockstep supposition is that mild mannered Charlie Kirk deserved assassination because he declined to accept Leftism as his Lord and Savior. Then they rely on Antifa generally, or loose-screwers like Robinson or Routh individually, to carry out the logical consequences of their implicit supposition. They are the terrorists they accuse others of being.
Transgenderism is far from a core tenet of leftism. I think most leftists just believe that we should respect people, regardless of the choices they make.
(except for the ones that inflict pain on other people, of course)
The last Dem president (supposedly the most moderate candidate) made transgenderism a centerpiece of his administration.
Transgenderism is core precisely because if you accept sexually mutilating children in the name of "respect" and "tolerance", you will accept anything and everything else.
I don't think it was a centrepiece of Biden’s administration. I think you are mistaken.
I think you will find that positive support for transgender policies, other than respect for individuals, will be forgotten by the time of the next election.
The whole “trans women are women” and thus should be allowed to compete in women’s sports is losing popularity.
Lia Thomas wasn’t allowed to compete in last year’s Olympics. Genetic sex testing is arriving.
Peak trans has passed.
Right. The transwomen are women thing is over. In my country, the Supreme Court said so and we don't hear about it any more.
Lol, they knew their new Sharia masters wouldn't go for it, so they shut it down preemptively.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/2023-06-10T215359Z_392627298_RC2IG1A69EWO_RTRMADP_3_USA-BIDEN-PRIDE-1200x800.jpg
They put up a stupid flag. That doesn't make it a centrepoint of their administration.
Sex testing for DSDs is arriving. People like Caster Semenya (not trans but born XY with a hormone defect).
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/sep/19/sex-tests-brought-in-after-data-showed-50-60-dsd-athletes-in-finals-world-athletics-says
On the few occasions he could be bothered to make a public appearance, Biden often harangued America about the heretofore niche issue of transgenderism, something he had never before betrayed the slightest interest in during his long political career.
Giving the trans flag central prominence on the home of apex US executive power was a clear and knowing violation of the US Flag Code. The message was obvious: this is where our highest allegiance is now.
“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
"O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Sibling."
> Transgenderism is far from a core tenet of leftism. I think most leftists just believe that we should respect people, regardless of the choices they make. <
This "respect people" line--a common trope--is verbalist judo doing a lot of work. Every single one of these minoritarian movements does not ask that the relevant minority be left alone, it demands that *normies* reorder their ideas, their attitudes, their norms to accommodate and coddle the minority and their demands.
With trannies that demand list was pretty extensive and explicit:
-- men use women's bathrooms
-- men play women's sports, pronoun nonsense/hoop-jumping
-- demand that you pretend some weirdo is the sex they are not
-- alter medical practice/ethics to poison confused young people
-- upend our common sense understanding of biology, sex and sexual-dimorphism
-- have public schools propagandize your kids with all this.
Minoritarianism is a very aggressive "hey normie, bend over and take it up the ass" ideology. It is not now and never has been "to each his own".
Trans activists certainly exceeded reasonable expectations with their demands, including most of the demands you list. A majority of liberals would agree with us on that. I don’t think it’s asking too much, though, to respect people’s choices even when you disagree with them. I agree with you that they had no right to impose their views on the rest of us.
"A majority of liberals" are the ones pushing this insanity.
If you check out the surveys, a majority of liberals don’t like the insanity either.
Bullshit.
A survey this very month: 64% of left-leaners favor transgender surgery FOR CHILDREN.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LbQ2hIRw79CJMK8Uh8VoepoujAg_TV62GK9taqiB2Mg/edit?gid=443713424#gid=443713424
Even if you can find any liberals who "don't like" it, somehow they all ended up siding with it anyway.
Imposing their views on the rest of us is the point. Not of the scarred and abused children, but of the intelligent, aggressive, and nasty men (x-men) who drive the movement.
The AGP's fetish is only satisfied when the rest of us agree that he is a woman. A beautiful woman.
You don't have to agree. I don't.
> to respect people’s choices even when you disagree with them
Perhaps you could elaborate on what this would entail wrt transgender people.
If someone wants to live their life as a woman, that’s their choice and it doesn't need to bother me. I get annoyed if I have to declare my pronouns or when they talk about ‘birthing parents’ or ‘chestfeeding’ or when they win the gold medal in woman’s boxing. But if they just want to wear a dress and change their name, that’s fine. Whatever. They can just live their life how they want. I don’t need to stop them or be rude to them.
oh geez, so let's just pretend that's all they're doing
They may be losing the men in women's sports/bathrooms issue, but what will stop the tomboys/autists/neurotics cutting their breasts off? Lesbians are going to have to take a stand against the enabling Cluster B mothers.
It's possible the view you ascribe to the Left on Transgenderism has become obsolete within recent memory. It feels clear that the height of Transgender Movement is past. Granted that it's impossible to know yet.
Two thoughts on the future of Transgenderism in the second quarter of our century:
-- We may have to speak of the Transgender Movement as something of the mid-2010s to early-2020s, lasting 10-12 years and losing its momentum in the mid-2020s, then sort of fading away.
-- Whatever the future of the Transgender ideology/movement, the mainstream-Right MIGHT be just as associated with it in the future as the Left. Just so long as its a patriotic Trans person, an anti-Woke, pro-Trump type of Trans person. Then the cheerleading can begin.
How many signs of a mainstream-conservative-type Transgenderism we can speak of, so far? I'm not sure.
Fox News made Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner an on-air commentator in mid-2022. That particular high-profile Trans person continues to make regular appearances on Fox. Jenner endorsed Trump-2024 with great gusto and received accolades from a surprising number of MAGA flag-wavers -- the sports-cheering instinct also behind the "Based Brown Guy" phenomenon.
I think it will be similar to what happened with homosexuality. Being gay was illegal, gays used to be beaten, we used to mock them, they were all over the news, they were at the Supreme Court. But now that gay marriage is allowed, we don’t hear anything any more. They are just regular people, living their lives. We might even have a gay president one day. I expect the same thing will happen with trans. They’ll stop making their crazy demands, and we’ll all just get on with our lives.
> "But now that gay marriage is allowed, we don’t hear anything any more."
LOL! Nonsense, the make-everything-trans was us hearing more, much more, from the gays and their allies, once gay marriage was endorsed.
With all their demands, each capitulation resulted not in peace and harmony but in ever greater and more extreme demands, as night follows day. No compromise was ever enough for them.
Now homosexuals openly groom and destroy children with the help of their allies. And it is acceded to by all the "respect" cucks.
Gays had been despised and persecuted by all major religions and cultures through all history for very good reason, as it turns out.
You are mistaken about the relationship between gays and trans activists. You are also mistaken about gays attraction to children.
Today's Antifa are so historically ignorant that they use a symbol from their ancestors' avowed enemies as one of their own today.
Be careful of lumping the high IQ leaders of the movement with their low IQ followers.
The most important thing to understand, not just from the last two weeks but from the last two decades, is that the political and thought leaders of the left do not believe anyone but themselves has the legitimate right to rule society. They often bleat about “our democracy” but when they lose, it is never treated as an acceptable outcome of a two party system or a genuine expression of the majority of the public that the left’s priorities our policy outcomes are unsatisfactory. No, it means dark and hateful forces have pushed the country off of the path the Arc of History intends us to be on.
What Steve says about the trans movement is broadly true of the left - it’s made up of smart, nasty people driving the herd of dumb or gullible masses on multiple cultural issues, since the left really doesn’t care about economic ones anymore. And although they are on the wrong side of public sentiment by lopsided margins on trans, immigration, crime, DEI they obviously have no intention of backing off, and if they regain political power we are getting the Biden Administration on steroids. Knowing that, I think a growing share of Americans are open to unorthodox measures to prevent a return to power of the left at a national level.
Speaking as a liberal, I'd prefer that my side wins, but I am OK with respectable Republican presidents. I think the current president is a problem for democracy, though.
Interesting perspective, considering he was elected by a Constitutional democratic majority of the Electoral College, and won the popular vote after six million votes that showed up for Biden either switched to Trump (around two million) or just didn't show up (around four million).
I think the actual problem that nobody wants to admit is that democracy doesn't scale beyond a small town, and politics have become so fraught because the government can make people wealthy from rent-seeking and artificial scarcity instead of just administering the few truly public goods. There's also the modern derangement that government must be actively ideological, so we end up with elections contested over visceral feefeez instead of who's the most competent manager.
He won the election fair and square but he’s the worst president of my lifetime.
Worse than Biden, Obama or Bush the younger? He's doing exactly what we elected him to do which is rare!
Not everyone voted for him. His appointment of that crackpot (and former Dem) RFK Jr alone qualifies him as worst ever. In my opinion, of course.
Trump is right about a few things: men in women’s sports for example. But that is small potatoes compared to the disaster of RFK Jr.
As someone with a lifetime connection to the Medical-Insurance scam, I not only applaud everything RFK Jr is trying to do, I think it is an absolute travesty that it has taken so much time, and a goverment-created plan-demic for many Americans to see what is happening with the Big Pharma captured CDC (and don't get me started on the AMA). I hope you will come to feel differently about RFK Jr. but I won't lose sleep over it.
Following up on Kelly's comment, worse than Biden, Obama or W Bush?
LBJ was President in my early lifetime--worse than him?
In what way specifically?
See my reply to Kelly.
Translation: you find Trump offensive.
Lots of people find Jared Taylor offensive. Horridly, racistly offensive. But I don't really care about that. I just want to know if Jared Taylor is incorrect.
Same with Trump, a narcissistic yankee real estate developer. I'd much prefer Marcus Aurelius as president. But I don't need Marcus Aurelius. I need a sonuvabich who hates my enemies.
Trump's obnoxiousness and need for self aggrandizement is predictable and beneficial for my team way beyond, say, Mitt Romney's precious Principles.
I thought you usually pretend to be Canadian on here. Or do Canadians keep track of the worst American presidents "of their lifetime"?
My (Canadian) family was following US politics from as long as I can remember. I got into the habit myself.
If you don't mind me asking, were your parents born in Canada?
Personally I feel like W is easily the worst president of my lifetime. An unnecessary and destructive war in Iraq, abandonment of Clinton era fiscal restraint, ushering in loads of Muslims and other immigrants and the lie that it's the "religion of peace", the housing bubble, and last of all giving a ton of oxygen to the various demented elements of the left that rose to the fore under Obama and are still an issue today. I don't think he's fundamentally a bad person, he was just catastrophically wrong about most major issues of the day and we're still paying for it.
W had his problems, for sure. But Trump’s UN speech sounded crazy.
I don't deny that he was elected fair and square. I think he has stretched the constitution beyond breaking point.
Which clauses? Bear in mind FDR'S New Deal was unconstitutional until the Democrats threatened to pack SCOTUS, which suddenly found that the general welfare and commerce clauses were as broad as Congress said they were (but not so broad as to encompass insurance and major league baseball, which are localized, tiny affairs). There is zero constitutional justification for foreign aid transfer payments but here we are.
I think he usurped Congress’s authority by declaring an emergency that justified tariffs. I don’t think Trump had the authority to arrest and deport people without due process. I don’t think the president has the right to send the military to exert powers in a state, neither can he send in the national guard from one state to another. He has regularly exceeded the powers assigned by Article Two.
I don't dispute that the New Deal violated the constitution.
Point taken, but absent the tariffs, Trump has behaved like Eisenhower, federalizing the National Guard and sending the 101st Airborne to desegregate Arkansas schools, and conducting Operation Wetback. You don't need a full blown jury trial or even a hearing to figure out you don't have a visa and aren't a citizen.
“Biden” (actually private citizen Barack Obama and a group of industry insiders) issued a 48 page Executive Order governing AI and cited as authority “the laws and Constitution of the United States.” I'm not falling out of my chair over emergency declarations of tariffs, because why would Congress toss that plum to the President in the first place? Does Congress not want to govern? You don't have to answer that.
So my admittedly flawed tu quoque argument is that unconstitutional is kind of prolapsed language at this point. There's a good argument Congress should not have certified George W Bush's election and that Iraq was a war crime, but Bush continues to walk the streets a free man. So for all the passions he excites in his opponents, I reject the extremist label of Trump.
You must have been really pissed at Ike in '57, eh?
I should add that his repeated threats against media organisations and individuals for things they have said violate the First Amendment.
You'll need to get really specific because again in the "Biden" administration we had active government actors consulting with social media to decide who to promote and who to squelch. And there's the problem in the other direction: the new york times pulitzer prize winning concoction of russiagate. And Douglas Mackey being prosecuted six years after the fact for a joke tweet.
Again, this is tu quoque argument, but the point is Trump is not a uniquely ultra vires actor in the history of US government.
The Left's stochastic language over people with the politics of the Eisenhower administration is quite troubling. After all what's NOT justified against #literallyHitler, meemaw-killers who won't get vaccinated or wear surgical masks, people cooking the planet with their gas grills and pick up trucks, or denying LIFE-SAVING puberty blockers and top surgery to trans kids! (Think of the children.)
The latest I've seen is, "We fought a Revolution to get away from tyrants like Trump!"
The Left really does seem to be psyching themselves up for a shooting war. Our team often talks about a future the future US as Brazil. But what if it's like Lebanon except fifty times bigger? Hence my advice to conservatives to move to a Red county (preferably in a Red State) and make it Redder. It will make the partition easier when the local John Brown Gun Clubs convince themselves we had it coming.
Trantifa seem to be perfect examples of Dr Edward Dutton's "spiteful mutants" but a description is hardly a prescription. 50% infant mortality as existed before the Industrial Revolution would have likely prevented most of these from reaching maturity if it hadn't done so for their parents. We can't let these people walk freely among us. We can't afford to keep them all in custodial care for life and we are not ready or able to do what Britain did, hang or transport every sociopath apprehended until the population as a whole improves enough to kick-start the Industrial Revolution. Perhaps the coming of AI and its predicted effect of making 80% of the country unemployable has an upside. A large enough population of potential custodians that no one of them gets burned out. Short shifts and lots of perks can go a long way to aleviating job dissatisfaction.
So much for the observation of Mass Psychology.
Israel victim 500,001. Steve is still talking about the One not the 500,000.
Someone should write a book about this. Call it "Not Noticing".
Nothing is as important or interesting today as the mass psychologicl phenomen of Mass Genocide avoidance.
Charlie Kirk's assassination isn't important because of the casualty count (1), but because of the implications for public discourse in America. The genocide in Gaza is a truly amoral crime of the largest proportions, but it is not in competition with Kirk's killing.
Not in competition?
500,000 barely gets a mention and 1 does?
Now that really is the kind of weird phenomen that Steve Sailor should get involved in.
He notices that 12k blacks a year get murdered by other blacks and this is somehow hidden in US media. But fails to notice the hiding of a genocide in Gaza with full US backing.
What is this guy - an amateur at mass psychology? Or in on the cover up?
What I wrote was perhaps ambiguous. I meant it in the sense that my favorite baseball team isn't in competition with my favorite football team: I can root for both. We can decry both assassinations of public political figures and genocide.
Having said that, yes, Steve circa 2025 obviously feels uncomfortable criticizing Israel and its enablers (in contrast to Steve c. 2010). I don't think it makes much sense to try to get him to write about it.
i'm intrigued - I know nothing of this Steve 2010. If you feel like sharing please do.
Nevertheless - quite how half a nation an ignore an obvious genocide is quite a mass psychological problem that is interesting in itself.
Ideological soul-searching misses the point. There are a certain miniscule % of young men who will get sufficiently obsessed about some fringe ideology to commit murder. It could be gender-bending, eco-fascism, neo-Naziism, Islamism or something else.
You are never going to eliminate this dynamic, but you certainly can do something about the ready availability of firearms to all comers. Just a simple matter of changing the Constitution...
Any changes that can realistically be made to the 2nd amendment aren't going to remove easy access to the kind of hunting rifle that was used to assassinate Charlie Kirk. This would require the confiscation and destruction of all privately owned firearms in the United States, which is obviously not going to happen (and couldn't be carried out even if such a law was implemented), so the idea of fixing the matter by changing the Constitution is a non-starter.
Exactly. As Steve has alluded to, if you are okay with ruining the Bill of Rights, getting rid of the 4th amendment would be far more productive in reducing violence. Heck throw in the 14th amendment and you don't even need to bother law abiding gun owners. I wouldn't be in favor of that either.
Charlie Kirk said that the 2nd amendment was about shooting tyrants while never thinking that many people would view him as the tyrant who needed shooting.
That's another way of saying that Charlie Kirk never thought that many people would be so delusional as to think something like that and actually act on it. I'm not sure if that's the case -- I have no way of knowing about Kirk's thought processes, obviously -- but it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that such a thought might have crossed his mind occasionally. However, it would be equally unreasonable to make fear of such people the guiding principle of your life.
You obviously have lost the plot. Charlie knew that the spiteful mutants of the left were gunning for him. He was wearing a vest for all the good it did him. And his remark about the 2nd ammendment is provably true. Several of the authors admitted that it was intended as a bulwark against tyranny.
Kirk was not wearing a vest Kirk's wife mentioned it at the memorial service.
All I learned was that the discussion we need to have - the violent streak involving transgenderism- was immediately shut down and taken off the table. There was no bringing up the string of school shooting committed by transgenders. None. And while Robinson was not identified as one himself, the fact that he was living with one is deemed completely irrelevant.
I actually had what I considered to be a "smarter" Democrat neighbor who posted on FB that since his parents were Republican that obviously meant that their son was Republican. End of discussion. The left really does think they are the "good" people.
Amazing. I’ve heard a few iterations of that logic and it baffles me because those folks often come from childhoods with Republican parents…of course by the time they were 15 they had renounced it for their cool liberal bonafides snd never looked back
I don't know anyone who was claiming that this assassination was in general support of mainstream American left policies. I'm not sure it matters, when we know that similar people are willing to do violence for a host of other positions that are currently more associated with the right.
Heck they will do violence over positions that are one or two steps removed from justifying policies that might be violence worthy (e.g. thoughtful discussions on the current state of IQ science).
Maybe we could request a list from the left of opinions/positions that they deem college campus assassination worthy, as well as some nearby examples that are not. Then everyone would know the rules. Maybe they could even agree to support the right if one of their assassins oversteps.
Trump said that about the left being the source of all the problems.
He said this guy represented leftward views in general? I didn't see or hear the remark but it would strike me as jumping to a conclusion.
Trump tends to rail against “the left” which is a lot of people.
I think they can talk themselves into political violence and assassination quite easily. They conflate the detention and deportation of illegal aliens with Auschwitz, they believe walking around unvaccinated or without a mask is literally killing their meemaws, and I'm incinerating the planet every time I mow my lawn or start my pickup truck. We're killing trans kids because we won't feed them synthetic hormones and perform surgical mutilations on them. The Left is just an endless holiness spiral.
Sure but if we could get it in writing. You know, like if they reserve the right to assassinate right wing speakers for literally anything it might make them appear slightly unreasonable to the more sane members of the voting public.
You can find all sorts of stochastic language on Twitter. I mean, what's not justified against the perpetrators of Auschwitz, the slaughter of meemaws, and incinerating the planet? You can find a photograph of Kathy Griffin holding up Trump's bloody, severed head during his ineffectual first term. Remember when he was guilty of literal high treason by taking orders from Putin? Need I say what the penalty is for treason?
I actually quit Twitter after seeing how unhinged so many of my fellow citizens are. No question in my mind I would receive death threats if I posted under my real name. Sailer is a braver man than me.
There was a recent note on here by a guy who managed Milo Yannatoupolis's organization. They couldn't do a single public event: too many death threats.
Banger
Why are right-wing columnists now using pronouns for transgender people? Steve does it in this article, possibly ironically, and Victor Hanson did the same in a recent video.
Does "M. Gessen (formerly an angry homely woman named Masha Gessen who recently declared itself nonbinary)" really sound "possibly" ironic to you?
While Steve is known for mocking the trans movement, I’ve seen him seriously use pronouns for transgender people in his writing before, which means he’s conforming to that narrative at least some of the time. I believe this is dangerous as it eventually leads to doing it all the time and legitimizing the trans movement. Incidentally, I banged your mom in the Enterprise teleporter room.
Frankly, rejecting neo-pronouns was an own goal for the right. The correct strategy was to embrace them and run the euphemism treadmill.
The killer app for neo-pronouns is referring to people who have disgraced, or are unworthy of, their gender.
Transgenderism is a left wing movement. And most of the true leftists I know have silently celebrated it among themselves. That's all you really need.