Yet *more* reasons why Karl (KA3RCS) should sell off his hoard of E-junk

  1. It’s destroying his life.  I’m not just talking about the stuff in the storage units (which would be an almost insurmountable stone around his neck in any case).  I am also talking about the truly horrifying morass of stuff he finally got around to removing from his dad’s house after 20+ years, and a lawsuit.   Much of it has ended up corroded/rusty/moldy, due to bad storage-practices on Karl’s part.  Predictably, he takes no responsibility for that, whatsoever.
  2. The “collection” probably does contain (at least a few) good items which will most likely become damaged/degraded because of Karl’s abysmally bad methodology in regard to storing/organizing the stuff.
  3. The “good” part of the hoard will *never* be put to use, used as the basis for a computer-museum, or in any way be of any benefit to anyone — least of all Karl.  For example, the “Cosmac VIP” he’s always yammering about?  Buried so far down in one of the random piles of detritus from 30+ years of “hamfests”, that — by his own admission — he probably couldn’t even get to it, if he tried.
  4. His rickety shitbox of a jeep (which he has been driving unregistered and uninspected for over a year, is in need of a variety of repairs which would most likely cost more than the amount he *still* owes on the dismal POS, itself.   At this point, driving across two counties to sort through the E-junk in the storage units is simply ‘too risky”, according to Karl.   Ergo, the storage units will NEVER get sorted — barring some sort of nigh-impossible, miraculous turn of events.

Again: if it was anybody else, I might still be able to summon up at least a vestigial sort of compassion/pity.  NOT Karl, however.




Karl is now well past the point of no return:

Every Sunday, Karl (KA3RCS) has taken to phoning me, typically while he goes to the laundromat.   The conversations usually revolve around him whining about how much his lifestyle sucks, while simultaneously coming up with ever more rationalizations for why absolutely none of it is his fault.

perfect example: his “collection” of E-junk.

Now, a sane “collector” would know (at least in some terms) WTF his “collection” contained.  Not only that, but a sane person would also be able to locate a specific item of said collection — at least down to a certain level of granularity.  (Say: which of the several storage units where it was most likely to be located).

Karl cannot do this.  By his own (grudging) admission, he “attempted to catalog and organize” the “collection” several times within the past 15+ years — but has made no substantive progress whatsoever.

He claims to have sold off most of the (unused) radio gear (which is odd, given the fact that he claims not to know which storage-units contain which items — computers, radio gear, random E-waste he’s never even bothered to un-box, etc.)

Then again, he also claims that the “collection” – were he to actually sell even a small fraction of the items — would probably end up generating “somewhere around the high 6-figures” — more than enough  for him to finance the move to any number of areas where he claims he could “basically walk into a decent job”.

Now, think about this: the guy is basically dumping vast amounts of funds into paying for storage units, for 15 years.  Supposedly, he *could* sell the stuff contained therein for upwards of $500,000.  Why doesn’t he do so?

Oh wait, that’s right: his pipe-dream related to a (nonexistent) “computer museum”, coupled with his endless excuses about how it would be “logistically impossible” for him to even begin cataloging the stuff at this point, even if he wanted to so.

In other words, the stupid dick-head managed to paint himself into a corner by hoarding vast amounts of (unsorted) scrap, and is now ‘forced” to pay to store the random detritus — probably in perpetuity — simply because the hoard has become physically impossible to even begin sorting.

And yet this is the guy who also believes that “someday”, he’ll be able to magic up the funds to rent several 18-wheelers, transport the E-garbage to an indeterminate location, where he will then dump it all into other storage units.

His latest genius notion is: move somewhere first, get established, and THEN — somehow — miraculously manage to bullshit his employers into allowing him to take time off, so he can return to PA, and sort/transport the garbage, then.

(This assumes, of course, that he could manage to refrain from acquiring yet another E-hoard at the new location — which is mind-bogglingly unlikely, to say the least.)

Anyway: I pointed out to him that the compulsive hoarding thing isn’t really helping his situation improve, and that the “collection”. It has already been directly responsible for two failed romantic relationships, and caused his own father to sue him to have some of the hoard removed from their house.   However, he utterly denies what — to anyone else — would be blatantly obvious, and then (predictably) resorts to attempting to insult and belittle *ME*, when I point out the fact that his E-waste addiction is essentially destroying his life.

Oh well.  I’m way past the point where I can even pretend to have any respect for him.




I’m genuinely glad to see this:

So evidently, the (s)election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president has led a lot of people to stop lying to one another about what they really believe about “controversial” issues (politics, religion, racism, “gender” roles, etc.)

Predictably, this has not resulted in “reasoned debate” in most cases. (Hint: if most people were actually capable of “reasoned debate’, we would never have been indoctrinated with the notion that we would avoid “sensitive” topics, in the first place.)

Anyway, the resulting (totally predictable) squabbling has conclusively demonstrated to many involved that “relationships” predicated on what is essentially “lying by omission” simply aren’t “worth it”.

Thus — probably the for the first time in recorded history — relative large numbers of people have simply elected to discontinue any further contact, rather than merely continuing to bullshit one another:

Now, here’s the thing:

I love this.  I absolutely, incontrovertibly LOVE that this is happening.

I love the fact that non-racists are (finally) refusing to mollycoddle bigoted scumfucks, merely because the aforementioned bigoted scumfucks happen to be “relatives”.  Failure to “call out” racist idiocy is enabling.  Moreover, pretending to “respect your Elders” (and the racist/sexist bullshit they – too often — spew) is guaranteed to perpetuate those mistaken — and flatly indefensible — viewpoints.

Remember: your “Elders” (by definition) were alive during what – in retrospect – turned out to be pivotal historical moments.  How they (re)acted to those moments – and movements – demonstrate a lot about them:

For example: if Uncle willy still insists on denigrating women (by attempting to excuse Donald Trump’s ‘grab ’em by the pussy’ bullshit): Uncle Willy is a HORRIBLE person.  Likewise, if he insists on on trafficking in bigoted stereotypes against racial/ethnic/religious “Others” – he is a horrible person, for doing so.

The only thing Uncle Willy (or “Mommy and Daddy”) can ever offer you is:

  1. The basic (minimum) level of mutual respect they should bestow to ANY RANDOM STRANGER
  2. The opportunity “inherit” the (material and financial) detritus left over, in the event of their deaths.

That’s it.  Except, of course, that the trendy scam known as “reverse mortgages” has enabled your “Elders” to systematically piss away your “inheritance” while they’re still alive!

So, no: stop mollycoddling bigoted idiots, just because they happen to be your “relatives”.

If any given relationship requires lying (even the sort of “lying by omission” involved in “avoiding touchy subjects”), then that “relationship” is utterly worthless.

Either call the fuckers out, or discontinue any further contact.  You probably weren’t going to “inherit” any of the scraps if they die, anyway.



Mingi, FGM, albinos being hacked to death so their body-parts can be sold to “witch doctors”, etc. have NOTHING to do with whether or not abortion is available “legally”, in any particular nation-state:

  1. Mingi, FGM  and the Albino thing all involve the “community”-sanctioned killing of an individual who is already “viable” (IE: capable of survival as a separate entity, outside of a woman’s uterus), and — more importantly — who has already been born.
  2. In most cases, abortion is not seen as some sort of mandatory “cultural tradition” which is forced on the woman in question.  By contrast, Mingi/FGM/Albinos being hacked to death so that “witch-doctors” can use their body parts in “magic potions” etc. are coercively perpetrated on their victims.

By contrast, in order for abortion to be available “legally” in the U.S., the “fetus” must be (currently)  non-viable and not yet born.  The thorny issue with abortion is the probability that many (most?) of the fetuses which are aborted will eventually become viable.

Now, you might have a (seemingly) coherent case for those things being similar if — and only if — you had a situation where abortion was forced on a woman, because the “fetus” she happened to be gestating was (say) biologically female, or she was carrying twins, and the “community” required her to have one aborted, or there was some sort of pre-natal test for albinism, or suchlike.  You get the idea.

Now, if want to make an argument about the “personhood” of even (currently) nonviable fetuses, then that’s a different topic entirely.  However, even in those cases, you will have (most likely inadvertently) opened up an entirely different can of worms:

Once you admit (even in principle) that an embryo/fetus is NOT merely “part of a woman’s body”, you are confronted with the following question: WHO has first claim to the woman’s organs?  The woman herself, or a (separate and less developed “person”) who just happens to (currently) be contained within one such organ (the uterus?)

Far from justifying any sort of “anti-abortion” argument, you’d think this would lead “pro-lifers” to advocate for the development of stuff like fetal transplantation, drastically-improved incubators (“Artificial wombs”), etc.

(To be fair, at least some “pro-lifers” do actually follow through with what they claim to believe, by way of “embryo adoption”:

(Quite frankly, it strikes me that a reasonable solution to the abortion ‘controversy” is itself contained in Roe V. Wade:

It strikes me that any woman procuring an abortion (as opposed to resorting to self-inflicted abortion) is necessarily also consenting to have the “product of conception” disposed of by the abortionist, in whatever manner.

At any rate, at least some scientific/medical-type people are starting to understand the possible (future) feasibility of “Fetal adoption”:

Quite frankly, I’m not going to discount the possibility.  The important thing to note from the above, is the following paragraph:

The elegance of this scheme is evident in its ability to placate both proponents and opponents of abortion. Pro-choicers under a system of fetal adoption would never be forced unwillingly to suffer pregnancy or to bear an unwanted child. A woman must retain full legal control of her own body and should be free to surrender her fetus for adoption at any time during gestation. On the other hand, pro-lifers would be satisfied because no “human being” (here defined arguendo as a “fertilized or developing human embryo”) is ever put to death. Healthy newborn babies placed for adoption are in very short supply, so there would be no problem finding an adequate number of adoptive or surrogate parents to absorb the surplus nonaborted infant population.

Quite frankly, this strikes me as at least being worthy of consideration.



Note: there’s a better than even chance that your “comment” won’t get posted:

Several things are pretty much guaranteed to get your “comment” trashed:

  1. Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories lacking off-site links.  (Hint: “Clinton Body Count”, or similar.
  2. Attempts to come up with some sort of “utilitarian” justification/excuse for things like FGM, or what “Mingi”, or — for that matter — the way Albinos are (mis)treated in many “traditional” cultures:

3. Weird, completely off-topic attempts to “shoehorn” your own pet obsessions into the comment thread.  (Perfect example of this: some self-proclaimed “Bible Believer” who “replied” to the multiculturalism post, and attempted to make it about the fact that abortions happen legally here in the U.S. (as opposed to the “Back alley” slaughter which also happens wherever abortion is “illegal”.

(I’m not particularly interested, but I can’t help wondering whether this same sort of “Bible-believer” would openly advocate for (male) homosexuals to be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:13) , or whether this individual wears clothing made of two different sorts of fiber (Leviticus 19:19).   I also wonder whether this individual has ever consented to a blood-transfusion:’s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

(Funfact: the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be “Bible Believers”, too.  Just sayin’.)

Again:  if you actually manage to come up with something intelligent to say, which is at least somewhat related to the post in question, then I might approve your comments.

Here’s the thing: I would probably have approved the anti-abortion screed: IF the would-be commenter had been replying to something which actually had something to do with abortion.  Worse yet, the individual in question felt the need to post (almost) the same comment multiple times (evidently in the — mistaken — belief that doing so would magically ensure that I would approve at least one iteration of the comment in question.

Thing is: I’m not (quite) that stupid.



Some observations:

The standard “Left Vs. Right” political “spectrum” is idiotic.  It has always been idiotic.The primary reason that it is indefensibly stupid is: the taxonomy itself was inherited from the French Revolution.  Any “revolution’ is fundamentally reactive, as opposed to active.

What I mean by this is: all “Revolutions” – whether political, social or economic – begin as REACTIONS to some preexisting state of affairs.

As such, they necessarily “inherit” a significant amount of their world-view and conceptual vocabulary from their (notional) “opponents”.

For instance: the American “Revolution” did represent a (fairly) radical departure from the preexisting political order.  However, it did not substantively alter the social or economic structure:

For instance, many (if not most) of the “Founding Fathers” were wealthy (IE: land/slave “owners”) — men who blathered about “unalienable rights” as a pretext for open insurrection, while continuing to “own” other humans (enslaved Africans, and their descendants).  Moreover, the (putative) respect for “life, liberty and the Pursuit of happiness” did not extend to (for example), that portion of even the “White” populace who happened to have been born female.

Quite simply – and speaking strictly as a matter of fact – the United States inherited both Racism (in the form of “Race”-based chattel slavery), and Sexism (in the form of “traditional Gender Roles” — female subjugation).

That would be bad enough.  What is infinitely worse, is the fact that the above-mentioned evils went virtually unchallenged, for most of the (purportedly “revolutionary”) nation-state’s history:

“Race”-based chattel slavery: 1776-1865 (89 years)

“Jim Crow” segregation: 1865-1965 (100 years)

Female suffrage: 1920 (144 years)

I could go on, but you get the idea: the “traditional” social, economic and political structure of the United States has always consisted of: vigorous lip-service to glittering generalities (“Freedom”, “Equality”, “Liberty” etc.), coupled with CONSISTENT FAILU/RE to actually LIVE BY THEM – until some sort of “breaking point” is reached.

The “abolitionist” movement, the (attempted) insurrection of the so-called “Confederate States of America”, the nascent “women’s rights” movement (as exemplified by the Seneca falls convention of 1848):  at every turn, the pattern is consistent and unbroken: tortuously slow progress, coupled with decades of “principled” foot-dragging, concealed by a few high-visibility (and entirely SYMBOLIC) “victories” which serve as distraction — intended to hoodwink the rubes.

We are currently living through one such cycle:

Barrack Obama’s presidency was “symbolic” in exactly the above manner: a “Black” guy with a “foreign”-sounding name happened to gain access to the veto-pen for 8 years — 6 of which consisted almost exclusively of “partisan” gridlock, and governmental paralysis.

Remember, folks: Congress MAKES the law.  The President EXECUTES the law, and the Supreme Court INTERPRETS the law.   The absolute most that Obama was ever structurally capable of doing was: using the veto to (temporarily) block whatever Congress happened to shit out onto his desk — until Congress got around to “overriding” that veto.

So, that’s the first problem: the vast majority of the population of the U.S. has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW “THEIR” GOVERNMENT WORKS.  And no, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not any given individual happens to be able to rattle off the name of whoever happens to currently occupy any particular position.

It is far less important to know WHO happens to be Vice-President at any given time, and far more important to understand exactly what the Vice-President DOES.

And that brings me to the topic of so-called “Birthright citizenship”.

Essentially, “Birthright” citizenship is the notion that anyone born within whatever currently happens to be considered the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. automatically becomes a U.S. citizen.

I realize that the above is used as a political football by racist/xenophobic assholes.  The thing is, there is a definite negative to “Birthright” citizenship: it allows — even encourages — such “Birthright” citizens to be both IGNORANT OF — and complacent about —  how the nation-state is functioning  — OR malfunctioning.

That is, until something becomes too blindly obvious to continue ignoring it, at which time such individuals/groups are ripe for any demagogue, who invokes a suitable “scapegoat”.

For example: Appalachian “Coal country” voted for Trump, primarily because “Climate” activists (alarmists?) had previously managed to ram some rather draconian anti-coal regulations through the Obama administration.  The inhabitants of “Coal country” don’t give two liquidy shits about “climate change”.  ALL they know is that a (faceless) gaggle of bureaucrats, and an equally-faceless gaggle of “activists” legislated their primary means of continued survival out of existence, via the stroke of a pen.

Appalachia already knows they’re hated.  NOBODY ELSE gives a shit.  “Latte-Liberals” out on the coasts don’t give a shit — except inasmuch as they (and other “White trash”-demographic groups) can be “milked” for humor/TV ratings:

The vast majority of the U.S. population didn’t give a shit until the premiere of the Beverly Hillbillies, at which time most of them momentarily paused to laugh, before going back to not giving a shit again.

Then the Jerry Springer show gave ’em more “White Trash” at which to gawk.

THEN the hideous, slow-motion train-wreck known as Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo pretty much sealed the deal:  “HIllbillies” (and — by extension — Non-elite “Whites” in general — have become the go-to demographic to blame for, well,  everything, really.

SHOCKER! Study Shows Most Trump Supporters Really Are Poor White Trailer Trash

You get the idea:  the “redneck” caricature is to “the Left” what the “Ghetto” caricature is to the “Right”: a readily-available “folk-devil”, to be invoked at whim, whenever doing so becomes politically expedient — but otherwise pretty much ignored.

Now, let’s think about something, shall we?

I thought the “Left” had a principled stance against Victim-blaming.

At any rate: I submit the following:

Non-Affluent Blacks/Hispanics/Whites/women/LGBTQ etc. have infinitely more in common with one another — both as individuals, AND as demographic “Communities” — than they will EVER have in common with Coastal “White” “progressives”/SJWs/Latte-liberal ‘activist”-types, etc.


More about why Trump isn’t an “outsider”:

  1. First, because he’s a wealthy, “White” guy

2. Second,  He is not “self-made” (in the Libertarian/Objectivist/Horatio Alger sense of the term):  It is remarkably easy to make inherited wealth work for you:  all you really need to do is to be able to pay somebody who actually knows WTF they’re doing to actually do all of the administrative (or hands-on) work, and then take your “cut”.

(Really, this is no different in principle from the situation where a (near) total incompetent can pay somebody else to (for example) fix their plumbing, or re-wire an electrical outlet, or whatever.  It *is* possible to “get away with” near-total imbecility, if you can PAY SOMEBODY ELSE to “cover for you.”

So, yeah: Trump was born with a silver-spoon up his ass.  He might not fit the stereotype of “Blue Blood” East-coast wealthy who all sound like Katharine Hepburn, but that does not make him an “outsider”, in any meaningful sense of the term.

Look at the Koch brothers, for example:

For that matter, look at the “Walton” family (the folks behind Wal-Mart):

My point is: the “self-made” delusion runs exactly one generation deep.  Those who inherit significant amounts of wealth also tend to inherit the know-how related to how to INVEST at least some of that wealth in such a way that it will actually generate more wealth.

Contrast this with (for example) someone like Eminem: 9th-grade dropout who just happens to be able to rap.  He knows nothing about money except for the (undeniable) fact that having it allows him access to “bling”, “pussy” and pretty much any amount of (legal or illegal) substances he can manage to imbibe, and still remain alive (or capable of being resuscitated).

(Eminem is just an example.  The same basic pattern holds for pretty much every other celebrity (“Star”)   — especially those from “old media” fields (movies/TV, the RIAA “labels”, etc.) and SPORTS “stars”: conspicuous consumption, and totally unwarranted mass-cultural visibility.

But back to my original point: Trump is no more an “outsider” than either of the Koch brothers, the Walton family, or — for that matter — the Kennedys.

Trump is a boorish dickhead who has no problem blurting whatever racist, sexist, idiotic thing he believes will elicit enough shock-value from his opponents/idiotic hooting and fist-pumping from his “fans”.

Then again, that just means that he is essentially indistinguishable from (say) Howard Stern, Alex Jones, or your typical Fox “news” personality.

(The “Left” isn’t so much about “shock-value”, as maudlin whining: especially the younger, college-“educated” SJW-types, who would rather be huddled in a ball in some “safe-space” somewhere, than actually have to confront the fact that Existence itself is inherently “offensive” to their oh-so-delicate sensibilities.

Well, looky there, I’m off-topic again! 🙂