This is where I'd be putting the finishing touches on decorations and preparing hors d'oeuvres for aprox. 100 guests coming and going. Four hot and four cold. The bar stocked to the maximum capacity, sufficient to last through the whole year actually. The whole place cleaned up. Until one final time a guest said upon leaving "See you next year!" having not seen them at all during the year, and I thought in that moment, "This is bogus" and dropped the whole effort.
That's all it took. The same deal with political party affiliation. In both cases there came a time when there existed no further point to loyalty or tradition.
There's also no point in arguing with strangers but somehow I still do. That's fading too.
For example this Denver Post article by their editorial board, Now is not the time to "move on" and excuse those who seek to harm us.
It's fake news presented as political opinion and comments to it are extraordinarily dopey, worse than the article itself, written by people who actually use Denver Post to formulate their opinions. Now, what would be the point in arguing with them? The single reason is to present my own version of truth, and honestly, at a place like Denver Post, to an audience of their commenters, that amounts to trolling.
Here's Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald.
There are fourteen uploads of this video on YouTube presently. I have tremendous respect for both of these guys. I didn't care for Greenwald at first, I think reflexively, but I've come to regard him as a straight shooter. I saw him in a debate with an American general one time and I must say Greenwald completely outclassed him. And I appreciate his work with Edward Snowden. That is a critical point in modern American history. As such he is nothing less than an historical figure. Plus he likes dogs.
Jon Gabriel writing for Ricochet put out a nice succinct essay recapping the salient points of the mainstream media's new trope of Russia hacking our election, an effort designed to deflect attention off the content of Podesta's emails onto a familiar foreign bugbear by way of making excuses for failing in their massively corrupted efforts to foist Hillary Clinton upon us. It works on partisan Democrat dopes but not on anyone else.
The essay boils down to Russia might have hacked Podesta, so far that is unproven, but they did not hack our elections. No matter how many times mainstream media says that they did. No matter how hard they push that as their axiom.
Speaking of axioms, I've read "[absurd] as WMD in Iraq" at least twenty-five times the last couple days. Suddenly a flood of references to that. Just thrown out mid sentence as unquestionable internalized truth. Yet a simple internet search by any of various search parameters shows that chemical weapons were found, and repeatedly, and long after the counter truth of WMD non existence had already been accepted. As axiom. They stopped listening. They stopped learning. In each case I stopped short and dropped what I was reading or viewing and regarded the writer too seriously mal-informed to continue any further, as I did with one of the Tucker Carlson / Glenn Greenwald uploads, annotated by the uploader who I was in agreement until that minor side point. It ruined the whole thing even though everything else comports to reality. The aversion has developed to the point now where I'm beginning to consider nearly all political discussion not worth the effort, not worth the time given it, not worth the effort of contesting, not worth so much as simply enjoying Crazy Russian Hacker videos, or talent videos, how-to-make-caramel videos, even ancient Egyptian malarky videos delivered through agonizingly distorted British accents.
Man, this new year sure is going to be new.