We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It's a done deal, finally, I believe. This sort of thing is one of the reasons why people who disapproved of Trump on a personal level felt the need to vote for him. This is fun:
In the NAFTA Deal, Trump Got What Democrats Couldn’t - Critics are panning the president’s new trade deal with Canada and Mexico as a minor update. They’re wrong—it’s a significant accomplishment.
A few newspapers, mostly tabloids like Britain’s Sun, have had the temerity to stand up to the EU’s power grab. Worse, many millions of Europeans agree with them. What is the solution? “Smart regulation.”
I have a habit of posting longer pieces, but this will be relatively short.
A friend called today, asking if I could help her daughter find an internship. Of course, I love helping young people, so I said fine and asked what her major was. "Corporate Psychology" was the answer.
I know several contributors are in the field of psychology or psychiatry, so maybe they can help me understand what this is, and if it's real.
I am aware that it would be in the Human Relations department. Given my recent post on "A Culture of Thank You", I have a feeling I know what kind of stuff is involved. I'm not sure I like the concept. Any time a business meeting starts with phrases like "it's ok to be vulnerable" or "everyone needs to be aware this is a safe space" I become immediately wary of the goals of the meeting. Not being involved will likely work against you. So will being involved but asking the wrong questions. I think that's what Corporate Psychology is about. Manipulating people to devise a particular result. But maybe I'm wrong.
I am sick and tired of this disgusting circus. Crazy thing about it is, as Scott Adams pointed out, Trump can't lose no matter what happens. A few final links on the topic:
She lied about a fear of flying, lied about renovations to her house being driven by the memory of the attack starting 2012, quite likely lied about knowing she could testify in CA (otherwise her attorneys should be disbarred), does not know how she go to or back from the party and all four witnesses that she named deny her story completely.
She is not a licensed psychologist and thus cannot call herself a "psychology" doctor - Stanford and the local JuCo had to revamp her work webpages.
She denied having knowledge of polygraph tests while having apparently coached people on how to pass them!
But we need to believe her because she is a woman and women never lie. Well we have apparently discovered the world's very first female liar. Amazing. Someone is going to have to write this up as an amazing psychological phenomenon!
Oh, and her daddy works for the CIA at a black ops bank.....
One question I have pondered over the last few weeks is, why are the Democrats so determined to block Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court? Realistically, he is the most moderate nominee they are likely to see from the Trump administration. If his nomination fails, the president will most likely appoint Amy Barrett, who is secure against #MeToo allegations and is both more conservative and younger than Kavanaugh. So what is the point?
To some extent, the Democrats’ bizarre smear campaign against Kavanaugh is explicable on short-term political grounds. The Democrats’ crazed base demands that they #Resist, so resist they will, whether it does any good or not. But I think there is something deeper and more sinister at work...
I've seen it done in the workplace. Everybody makes dumb mistakes, but if somebody gets an angry, resentful, paranoid, or envious issue with you, you can be brought down without those mistakes.
I find myself wondering what would drive a middle-aged woman to seek to destroy a splendid and honorable family man who she alleges attempted to grope her 35-37 years ago at a high school beer party? Seems evil to me. Lucky me, I guess, but I was testosterone-fueled when I was 17 but the gals seemed hormone-fueled too.
When Conservationists Kill Lots (and Lots) of Animals - Invasive species are sometimes trapped, poisoned, and shot in large numbers to save native species from extinction. Some scientists say the bloodshed isn’t worth it.
“The unthankful heart…discovers no mercies; but let the thankful heart sweep through the day and, as the magnet finds the iron, so it will find, in every hour some heavenly blessings!”~Henry Ward Beecher
My Senior VP has been in place for just over a year. He's made some changes to our team which are, without going into detail, good. He's altered many of the previous cultural differences between our department and others we work with, and has found a way to eliminate much of our own department's internal strife. Many of the changes he's made are superficial. Overall effectiveness and productivity is unchanged. He'd say morale and confidence of the group are higher. I wouldn't disagree, but it's a subjective opinion. My view has always been an efficient and productive department has the highest morale. People like be useful and productive. It carries its own rewards.
Still, I can't fault him for following the path he has. Either groupthink has set in (my view) or he's made real, tangible differences that will last. I'm a natural skeptic. People can feign behaviors for only so long, but I hope I'm wrong and he's right.
One behavior which he has instituted, however, has me cringing. Not because it's terrible. Not because it's wrong or subversive or disturbing in a broad sense. From my perspective, based on my own personality and 36 years of working, it's just uncomfortable and personally intimidating. Thank you is something for me and whoever I'm with. I'm curious to see what others think. I've shared this with many people and gotten many different responses.
For the sake of any college friends who are reading, this is not about Spare Change, the guy who stood on the corner down on M Street. Though I'm sure he was very familiar with Carlo Rossi, this story takes place about 25 years later.
Today in the Morning New links, Bird Dog led off with an article about spare change. I don't know if Mrs. Bulldog told him the story about our spare change jug, but I know Mrs. Bird Dog heard it. Bird Dog was present in the Mohonk Mountain House parking lot when I picked up a dime, handed it to Mrs. Bulldog and said "Look, 10 Paris."
Spare change has some history in our family. About 11 years ago, I'd had a poker game in my basement and someone brought a jug of Carlo Rossi. You know, the good stuff in the big jug, with the finger handle on the neck.
Commenter at Althouse: At this point how long until the democrats start pushing to impeach Kavanagh from his current seat? They have to at this point don't they?
Althouse thinks all college boys (and girls) devote themselves to drunken sex parties
... antithetical to the stated goals of Wokeness is the tendency of its most popular preachers to castigate sinners instead of calmly attempting to persuade them of the justness of the Woke doctrine. Antithetical, but perfectly comprehensible from a signaling perspective. Those who are Woke don’t really want to inhabit an entirely Woke world without the bigoted masses; instead, they want to occupy a world of good and evil, of the just and the wicked, of the high status and the low status, of the elite and hoi polloi. The Woke faithful almost certainly do believe that the world is unjust, even wicked, and they almost certainly do sincerely want to ameliorate the suffering of its victims. However, they also want to signal their membership to an elite and morally righteous club, and therefore they need an out-group, a foil, a morally wicked other for contrast. And, they can’t let just any kind-hearted person into their club, because then it would lose its exclusivity. So they must develop a strenuous vetting system, one that is vigilant and suspicious and quick to detect sin.
Photo came in over the transom 
University of Pennsylvania 
Scott Adams d