Eric Ciaramella

We now know, with absolute certainty, that Eric Ciaramella is the so-called “whistle-blower.” Why do we know that?

Because the Democrats have a tell: they are desperate to hide his name, even though everyone in Washington already knows it, and the name has been all over social media for weeks. That cat is out of the bag.

The second tell is how angry they get when people post his name on Facebook. Someone I know just threatened to report me for doing that.

This genuinely puzzled me, because the emotions seem…disproportionate. Underneath such anger, there must be a very deep fear. The exposure of Eric Ciaramella threatens their entire theory of the case. Beyond that, it threatens their entire world-view.

If Eric Ciaramella is not a whistle-blower, then he is a conspirator. That means there was a criminal conspiracy against Trump, against his voters, and against the Constitution itself. This conspiracy reached into the FBI, the CIA, the highest levels of the Obama administration, and included all of the mainstream media organizations.

We are holding up a mirror for the Democratic Party, and they can’t stand to look at what they see. They are too committed to their belief in their own cultural, intellectual, and moral superiority.

Now watch the fur fly. Maybe, after years of trying, I will finally get kicked off of Facebook…

Recall the basic facts

1. Hunter Biden is and was a hot mess.
2. He knew nothing about Ukraine or natural gas.
3. He was given a seat on the board of Burisma.
4. He was paid at least $50,000 per month.
5. His only qualification was his last name.
6. VP Joe Biden was in charge of Ukraine policy.

These are the undisputed facts.

Then there is the matter of whether or not Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that wanted to investigate Burisma for corruption. That question is still disputed, but we have video of Biden publicly bragging about how he threaten to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees.


I’ve looked at Christmas from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s love’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know love at all

Learning Crystal Reports

This is a link to everything I needed to learn Crystal Reports.

It was a three step process:
1. Watch the chirpy little videos. There are a lot of them.
2. Play with the user interface.
3. Build something real, for Mark Vend.

That’s all there was to it…

The Game Changer

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band

Today is my 63rd birthday.
Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64?

(I’ve been waiting my whole life to make that joke.)

The Hunt

This is the YouTube trailer for The Hunt, opening Sept. 27, 2019.

I’m posting it on my blog, because Facebook is censoring it:


What Were Robespierre’s Pronouns?

Opinion | Declarations

What Were Robespierre’s Pronouns?
The French Revolution was led by sociopaths who politicized language, much like today’s Jacobins.
By Peggy Noonan
July 25, 2019 6:51 pm ET

We often make historical parallels here. History doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme, as clever people say. And sometimes it hiccups. Here is a hiccup.

We start with the moral and political catastrophe that was the French Revolution. It was more a nationwide psychotic break than a revolt—a great nation at its own throat, swept by a spirit not only of regicide but suicide. For 10 years they simply enjoyed killing each other. They could have done what England was doing—a long nonviolent revolution, a gradual diminution of the power of king and court, an establishment of the rights of the people and their legislators so that the regent ended up a lovely person on a stamp. Instead they chose blood. Scholars like to make a distinction between the Revolution and the Terror that followed, but “the Terror was merely 1789 with a higher body count.” From the Storming of the Bastille onward, “it was apparent that violence was not just an unfortunate side effect. . . . It was the Revolution’s source of collective energy. It was what made the Revolution revolutionary.”

That is from Simon Schama’s masterpiece “Citizens,” his history of the revolution published in 1989, its 200th anniversary. It is erudite, elegant and heroically nonideological.

John Adams, across the sea in America, quickly understood what was happening in France and voiced alarm. In contrast his old friend Thomas Jefferson egged on the revolution and lent it his moral prestige. Faced with news of the guillotines, he reverted to abstractions. He was a genius with a true if hidden seam of malice, and rarely overconcerned with the suffering of others.

The revolution had everything—a ruling class that was clumsy, decadent, inert; a pathetic king, a queen beyond her depth, costly wars, monstrous debt, an impervious and unreformable administrative state, a hungry populace. The task of the monarchy was to protect the poor, but the king had “abdicated this protective role.” Instead of ensuring grain supplies at a reasonable price, Mr. Schama notes, the government committed itself to the new modern principle of free trade: “British textiles had been let into France, robbing Norman and Flemish spinners and weavers of work.” They experienced it as “some sort of conspiracy against the People.”

One does see parallels. But they’re not what I mean.

It was a revolution largely run by sociopaths. One, Robespierre, the “messianic schoolmaster,” saw it as an opportunity for the moral instruction of the nation. Everything would be politicized, no part of the citizen’s life left untouched. As man was governed by an “empire of images,” in the words of a Jacobin intellectual, the new régime would provide new images to shape new thoughts. There would be pageants, and new names for things. They would change time itself! The first year of the new Republic was no longer 1792, it was Year One. To detach farmers from their superstitions, their Gregorian calendar and its saints’ days, they would rename the months. The first month would be in the fall, named for the harvest. There would be no more weeks, just three 10-day periods each month.

So here is our parallel, our hiccup. I thought of all this this week because I’ve been thinking about the language and behavioral directives that have been coming at us from the social and sexual justice warriors who are renaming things and attempting to control the language in America.

There is the latest speech guide from the academy, the Inclusive Communications Task Force at Colorado State University. Don’t call people “American,” it directs: “This erases other cultures.” Don’t say a person is mad or a lunatic, call him “surprising/wild” or “sad.” “Eskimo,” “freshman” and “illegal alien” are out. “You guys” should be replaced by “all/folks.” Don’t say “male” or “female”; say “man,” “woman” or “gender non-binary.”

In one way it’s the nonsense we’ve all grown used to, but it should be said that there’s an aspect of self-infatuation, of arrogance, in telling people they must reorder the common language to suit your ideological preferences. There is something mad in thinking you should control the names of things. Or perhaps I mean surprising/wild.

I see in it a spirit similar to that of the Terror. There is a tone of, “I am your moral teacher. Because you are incapable of sensitivity, I will help you, dumb farmer. I will start with the language you speak.”

An odd thing is they always insist they’re doing this in the name of kindness and large-spiritedness. And yet, have you ever met them? They’re not individually kind or large-spirited. They’re more like messianic schoolmasters.

Offices and schools are forced to grapple with all the new gender-neutral pronouns. Here a handy guide from a website purporting to help human-resources departments in midsize businesses. It is headlined. “Gender Neutral Pronouns—What They Are & How to Use Them.”

He/She—Zie, Sie, Ey, Ve, Tey, E

Him/Her—Zim, Sie, Em, Ver, Ter, Em

His/Her—Zir, Hir, Eir, Vis, Tem, Eir

Himself/Herself—Zieself, Hirself, Eirself, Verself, Terself, Emself

It’s wrong, when you meet a new co-worker, to ask his pronouns. (We don’t say “preferred” pronouns—that “implies someone’s gender is a preference”!) You don’t want him wondering if you think he’s transgender or nonbinary. Instead, introduce yourself in a way that summons his pronouns: “Hi, I’m Jim and my pronoun is he/him.” Use “they” a lot. It’s gender neutral. Suggested sentence: “I spoke to the marketing director and they said they’d get back to me.”

This is grammatically incorrect but so what? Correct grammar, and the intelligibility it allows, is a small price to pay for inclusion and equality.

We are being asked to memorize all this, to change hundreds of years of grammar and usage, to accommodate the needs or demands of a group that perceives itself as beleaguered.

There’s a funny but painful spoof of all this on YouTube. A seemingly friendly but dogmatic teacher of adult immigrants in English as a Second Language class introduces them to the 63 new pronouns. They are understandably flummoxed. An Asian woman announces she identifies as a girl and then shrinks in fear this might not be allowed. A confused Eastern European man asks the pronoun of his desk. The Central American asks if the new pronouns mean gay. “You’re not learning English so you can be a bigot, are you?” the teacher demands.

And there are the office arguments about bathroom policy, which I gather are reaching some new peak. There can no longer be a men’s room and a women’s room, so we can have one expanded bathroom everyone can use. No, we’ll have three. But there may be a stigma to using the third, so keep two bathrooms but remove all designations. But the women don’t want to put on their makeup with men coming in and out. But the men don’t want women walking in on them—that’s a harassment suit waiting to happen!

It’s all insane. All of it.

But we’re moving forward, renaming the months and the sexes, reordering the language.

You wonder how the people who push all this got so much power. But then, how did Robespierre?

The song of my people

Let me sing you the song of my people:

Life is hard in Dedham village.
The land is mostly good for growing granite boulders.
A fresh crop comes up every year.
We carry them by hand, and use them for building fences.
It snows from October to May.

God is harsh. Fear him.
The landowners are cruel.
(They have been since 1066.)

But don’t give up. Never give up.
Move west, find better land.
Build another wood-frame house.

And keep your eyes on the prize…

The Scottish Himalayan Expedition

Until one is committed there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initative or creation, there is one elementary truth…that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves. too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would otherwise never have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in ones’s favor all manner of incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man would have believed would have come his way.

Whatever you think you can do or believe you can do, begin it. Action has magic, grace, and power in it.

― W.H. Murray