I'd like to bring up a lesson I keep trying to teach, that no one on the left learns.
"Racist!" is a pointless epithet to hurl at someone.
There are three categories of people in this context. People who are racist but don't know it.  People who are racist and know it. People who are not racist.
If someone is a racist, or has racist tendencies, and isn't aware of it, one needs to point out to them the errors, politely ensure they're aware of them and comprehend them, and ask if they can change.  Screaming "RACIST!" just pisses them off and makes communication impossible.
If someone is a racist and knows it, screaming "RACIST!" will either get you laughed at, or a lengthy "logical" (to them) screed on why they proudly are.
If someone is not a racist, and you scream it at us, we realize no rational debate is possible, since you're using epithets in lieu of any rational argument, and we ignore you. Unless, of course, you scream it as us then block us.  You accomplished nothing positive, antagonized an ally, and demonstrated that you are, in fact, stupid.
Eight years of this, accusing anyone who questioned any of 0's policies of racism, led us to where we are now.
Let me show one particular issue as example: Cash for Clunkers.
The INTENT, as I understand it, was to get rid of old, polluting cars, and give poor people assistance in replacing them. Not pointed out was that the vouchers were an advance against future taxes.
The IMPLEMENTATION required the cars be destroyed. The engines deliberately seized, the cars crushed.
The RESULT was that there were fewer old cars for people with little money, or for dealers in poor areas to make a few bucks off. There were fewer spare parts for old cars that needed cheap repair.  More new cars had to be made, involving metal founding and bunches of CO2.
So, it was a complete failure from ANY "liberal" perspective.
But failing to endorse it is "Racist" against the president who pushed it.
Had GWB pushed the same thing, would it have been a "benefit," or would he have been lambasted for wasting resources and hurting poor people?
You know the answer.
This is why you have no credibility.  By making minorities unanswerable to the same rules to which you hold "Whites" (which never seem to include yourselves), you are the racists, and you're projecting, because you're terrified that if you question a (minority of choice), it will show.
In actuality, it's blatantly obvious to everyone.
You've completely failed to get over yourselves, so you project at everyone else and try to harass them into your position. Which will never work.
This can't be fixed.  You haven't learned, show no interest in fixing it, you're just doubling down on more rhetoric.
So there's only one thing left.
Yes, Trump is going to put you personally in a concentration camp. No, you will never get a job nor amount to anything because racriarchilege.
Or rather, no, he won't, because he has no authority or means to do so, and you're just not worth the effort if he did, because you are worthless, and it's entirely of your own agency.
The only thing you can do for your country is to swallow a bottle of sleeping pills, wash it down with tequila and rat poison, chug some drain cleaner, and wash your mouth out with a shotgun.
Seriously, fuck off. And take your racism with you. Or kill yourselves.  No one cares.
As some of you know, I recently concluded a lengthy divorce.
 
Now, in any divorce, there may be a good party and a bad party, two good parties that just aren't compatible, or two bad parties. And there's really no need to go into that here.  We were married almost 22 years and eventually had to part ways. Enough said.
 
What I am going to address is two things:  Lawyers, and involvement.
 
Now, I understood from an early age, possibly because my parents got divorced, not to get involved in other people's drama.
 
My advice is this: When two friends or acquaintances are getting divorced, stay the hell out of it.  It's not your fight. Listen and be supportive to either or both, but DO NOT relay any information from one to the other. Don't try to "help save their marriage," as one friend did, based on meeting us for two weeks a year at an event. No, you don't know us well enough, and "God" doesn't want you to do that.  God wants you to stay the hell out of it.
 
The exceptions fall into two categories.  If you're aware of documentable, actual abuse or criminal activity, then by all means help the victim. "Documentable," is key, because no matter how "reliable" your friend is, subjective opinion is not objective.  This was not a factor in our divorce, btw.
 
The other is, "I know these people well enough to know their birthdays, former (or in some cases, current) partners, other friends, parents, and what underwear styles they wear."
Because if you don't know them that well, no, you really don't know them well enough to get involved.
 
I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but a lot of people apparently don't grasp it.  If you give money or other assistance to one party, YOU HAVE CHOSEN SIDES IN A FIGHT.  If you do this, and are surprised that the other party regards it as a hostile act, you're not just naive, you're an idiot.
 
And no, you're not "Helping."  Any money you give to one side for legal bills, for example, has to be matched by the other party.  All you're doing is feeding ammo to a civil war.  Remember that classic Star Trek episode, "A Private Little War"?
 
"Oh, but my friend is the poorer of the two and needs help or they'll be homeless."
 
You don't know this.  And it's not your problem. See above. Unless you have deep personal knowledge of the relationship, you have no way of knowing what the circumstances are, or why. Especially if you're basing it off social media posts. How many trials have we seen where everyone is "positive" of a set of facts from the news and Facebook, and how dare the jury decide "wrongly"?
 
HINT: The jury saw evidence you didn't. They're not wrong. You're misinformed.
 
Possibly your friend is the victim. Possibly they're playing the victim. Possibly both are victims. Possibly both are self-destructive assholes. YOU DO NOT KNOW.  
 
"But I'm SURE!..."
 
No you're not.
 
I'm aware of another divorce where marital rape was involved.  But after the dust settled, the victim admitted that possibly they'd misinterpreted an action and given a signal that could be taken as consenting. And if that sounds ridiculously complicated, you're right, it is.
 
Eventually, it turned out both of them had problems, neither of them had ill intent, and each of them needed someone entirely different to suit their personalities.
 
I knew these people reasonably well as friends, and had detailed info from both. I considered one a victim at the time, but that information was subjective.
 
As I was smart, I didn't try to "help them fix the misunderstanding," and I didn't give either of them money, even when the "victim" was couch surfing.
 
So here's an incident from my divorce, as illustration, and I'm going to name a name.
 
My ex's first attorney wasn't bad, but lacked some of the skills needed to get things moving.  Eventually, the attorney/client relationship ended.
 
My ex needed a new attorney. And this is when a "friend," "helped."
 
Actually, the friend was a tutor I'd hired for one of the kids, who was aware, "My ex has moved out. I have filed for divorce. I have custody of the children and interim possession of the house."
 
And that is all the information they were entitled to or would ever need.  Also, if you know much about divorce, there's a lot of pertinent information in that statement.
 
So, this person recommended an attorney friend of theirs to my ex. One Michael Schoen.
 
Michael Schoen is in my opinion an illiterate idiot.  I offer the below document (readily available in the court's public records) as evidence:
 
 
 
When I responded that I couldn't answer these questions because I couldn't comprehend them, he refused to clarify informally, demanded trial, dragged me and my attorney into court, attempted to lambast us, was forced to admit his queries were nonsensical, and got the judge irritated--the judge we BOTH needed to be calm and reasoned for a fair settlement.
 
Then he insisted that by "contact" he meant "Contract" and by "Contract" he meant every receipt I'd ever written for a sale from my secondary business, ever, and every cable, internet or other bill, ever, to determine the"value" of things.
 
Hey, Schoet for brains, those are in my tax filings with the IRS.
 
Then he misquoted state law regarding custody, and insisted he was correct.
 
The judge then demanded his party, meaning my ex, pay for an evaluator to determine the value of the business.  In case you're not aware, that costs hundreds to thousands of dollars.
 
At mediation, with none of these issues resolved because they can't be, he then tried to argue tax and IP law and showed he had even less knowledge of those subjects, and hindered a deal (Which we eventually achieved through a better attorney) by which I willingly GAVE HER THE HOUSE and the accumulated equity (I moved to a new house.  There was no reason to waste the old one, but he seemed determined it was some sort of trick), BTW, this was the deal I'd offered originally. 
 
Then after four hours we had to call mediation unresolved because he had to leave to go to "his job." He wasn't even a full time attorney at that point.
 
The end result was, he was involved in the case for a year, cost her whatever he billed her, cost me $50,000 responding to his idiocy through my attorney (Andrew Bartelt with Hollingsworth and Zivitz, who managed to keep track of all this and respond methodically to complete idiocy.  Thank you, Andy).
 
So, I'm estimating, even if he worked cheap, $70,000-$80,000 we should have spent on our family and kids, wasted. All because someone "wanted to help."
 
And to prove the point, her third attorney Chris Barrows, whom I will also personally recommend, sat down with Andy and got this all resolved in a month and about 5 billable hours. Again, this was close to the deal I'd offered originally. Thanks, Chris.
 
Now, I'm going to do the tutor a favor and not mention them publicly. But I hope they realize that there will be no further work for them through my family, and no endorsement,.  It was none of their business, and their "help" wrecked both party's financial future for months if not years.
 
Everyone else should learn from this.
 
"Oh, you're getting divorced?  I am so sorry to hear that. Do you need a hug and a drink?"
 
And that's as much involvement as you should ever have.
You may remember me from a few years back when we shared dinner together in Atlanta Ga during Dragon Con. I really enjoyed our meeting and learned that I should NEVER accept a table next to the waitstaff station. No matter the case, this year I was in the hospital hoping to die, and your book "Rogue" gave me what little hope I have. I was well prepared to end my life, but your character not ending his because he felt responsibility to his daughter gave me pause. I will live a few more years because you created a character who would not abandon his child. I thank you for the lesson.
I'm seeing this myth more and more--that fewer people own guns, and just own more of them, yadda yadda.
A) 
Even if true, so what?
I bet .05% of individuals own 90% of the newspapers. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?
2: I'm well-placed to debunk this.  If millions of people were getting rid of their guns, then one of two things would happen.  
2a} your local police station would have people lined up to turn in guns for destruction. Call them and ask. They're going to laugh at you.
2b] your local gun store would have people lined up to sell their guns, the market value would plummet, and I'd be buying used guns for twenty bucks a pop.  I only wish that were the case.
c; If this were a thing, it would mean fewer gun owners, so why the urgent panic to pass more laws?  The "problem" would be correcting itself, just as smoking is a dying habit.
IV: In other words, it's morally corrupt, intellectually dishonest bullshit from left wing cowards with small penises. As usual.
