u/RedneckTexan

I have a long and boring commute. Morning drive is mostly treacherous winding high speed in a construction zone ..... it demands my full half-awake attention. The drive home is a different, even longer but calmer rural route where my mind is free to drift away.

Audio books make the long trip seem shorter ...... with Connelly's level of immersion, it seems like I blink and I'm home.

Problem is I've listened to every single book he's ever published, and It hasn't been long enough for me to start over with the Black Echo....... and I need more than the couple books a year Connelly kicks out.

So ..... I need something new but similar to speed the passage of time up with.

Ian Rankin and Craig Johnson have been suggested as alternates ...... and thus I'm leaning towards getting to know Walt Longmire.

But before I do, have you guys found anything to scratch the itch between Connelly releases?

Have any of the cop protagonists in the Connelly universe ever had a boss that wasn't an asshole that tried to limit the protagonist's ability to solve crimes? ..... or a straight up criminal with a badge?

Is that always necessary to establish the protagonist as an outsider?

If Stilwell gets a new boss ...... I'm guessing he will fit the mold.

Unrelated, but Star Trek always does this with visiting Admirals too.

I dont think Clint Eastwood ever had a non-asshole / non-obstructionist boss in his cop movies either.

Surely in the real world police supervisors would want to be as helpful as possible to their investigators, and not cultivate an antagonistic relationship with their best detectives.

Redditor_IDWstar18: I don't get it. Everyone agrees Trump is evil. Like, everyone. And yet he won an electoral majority. Twice.

Psychologist: Sit with that for a second. You just described two different populations giving you opposite answers, and only one of them surprised you.

Redditor_IDWstar18: Because the online consensus is right and the electorate is wrong.

Psychologist: Or — and I want you to actually consider this rather than reflexively reject it — your "everyone" isn't a sample of the country. It's a sample of people who chose to spend their evening arguing about politics on a comment thread. That's not "everyone." That's a specific personality type, self-selected, mostly talking to itself, where the loudest and most extreme voice gets the most upvotes and therefore the most visibility. You're not measuring public opinion. You're measuring what wins a popularity contest in a room you already agree with.

Redditor_IDWstar18: So you're saying I'm in a bubble.

Psychologist: I'm saying you have direct, repeated, real-world evidence — an actual election, twice — that your online "consensus" doesn't match the electorate. And your instinct wasn't to wonder about the room you're standing in. It was to conclude the electorate is crazy. That's the tell.

Redditor_IDWstar18: Fine. Let's talk capitalism then. It's irredeemable. Legalized exploitation. Everyone I talk to agrees.

Psychologist: Everyone you talk to, where, specifically?

Redditor_IDWstar18: Reddit. Twitter. My friend group.

Psychologist: Same populations as before, talking to each other, about a system that — depending how you poll it — somewhere around two-thirds of the actual country still says they'd rather live under than the alternatives on offer. Including plenty of people who'll tell a pollster, in the same breath, that capitalism has serious problems.

Redditor_IDWstar18: That's just propaganda. People don't know what's good for them.

Psychologist: I want you to notice what you just did. Confronted with a gap between your in-group's consensus and the broader population's stated preference, your move wasn't "maybe I'm wrong" or even "maybe they're not wrong, just weighing things differently." It was "they've been fooled." That's not a small move — it's the move that closes the loop. It means no contrary evidence can ever reach you, because disagreement itself just gets reinterpreted as proof of manipulation. You've built a belief system with no exit.

Redditor_IDWstar18: Okay, but the system does produce massive inequality. That's not made up.

Psychologist: Correct. And that's a real, substantive, arguable critique — wealth concentration, generational mobility, healthcare costs. Reasonable people disagree hard about how to fix all of that, and you're allowed to think the fixes need to be drastic. That's not what I'm diagnosing. I'm diagnosing the jump from "this system has serious problems" to "everyone who doesn't want it abolished tomorrow is either a victim or a villain." That jump isn't economics anymore. That's identity talking, not analysis.

Redditor_IDWstar18: Fine, but anyone to the right of me is basically far-right at this point. Centrist Democrats, mainstream Labour, all of it.

Psychologist: By what reference point?

Redditor_IDWstar18: By mine.

Psychologist: Right — that's the thing I want you to hear back. "Far right" isn't a fixed coordinate on a map, it's a position relative to wherever you're standing. If you've spent years drifting outward inside a room that only rewards the most extreme voice, the goalposts move with you and you don't feel the motion, because everyone around you moved too. Meanwhile the party you're calling far-right hasn't necessarily moved at all — its actual platform, its voting record, where its own median voter sits on a generic left-right policy scale — none of that requires your impression of it to be accurate. You can check it against what the party actually does, what it actually votes for, where political scientists who study this for a living place it. That's a fact about the party. "Everyone to my right is far-right" is a fact about your position, dressed up as a fact about theirs.

Redditor_IDWstar18: So nothing's ever far-right then? That feels like it lets a lot of stuff off the hook.

Psychologist: No — some things genuinely are far-right, and you shouldn't talk yourself out of calling those things what they are. I'm only saying the word stops doing any work once you apply it to everyone who isn't standing exactly where you're standing. At that point it's not a category anymore, it's a synonym for "disagrees with me," and you've made the term useless for the cases where it actually matters.

Redditor_IDWstar18: One more. I don't see any violence coming from the left. None. It's always the right.

Psychologist: What would you have to see to update on that?

Redditor_IDWstar18: I don't know. I just haven't seen it.

Psychologist: That's the part worth sitting with — not whether it's true, but the shape of "I haven't seen it." If your information diet is the same self-selected rooms we've been talking about all session, then "I haven't seen it" mostly means "it wasn't covered, or wasn't covered as violence, in the specific feed I read." That's not the same claim as "it didn't happen." Political violence research generally finds both sides produce it, in different forms and different proportions depending how you draw the categories — and reasonable people can argue hard about which side does more, under which definition, in which year. That's a real empirical argument. "I have literally never seen any" isn't a position in that argument. It's a description of your feed.

Redditor_IDWstar18: So you're saying I'm just not looking.

Psychologist: I'm saying "I haven't personally encountered evidence of X" is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is, precisely because it's so sensitive to where you stand. It feels like a fact about the world. It's actually a fact about your vantage point. Worth knowing the difference before you build an argument on top of it.

Redditor_IDWstar18: You're making it sound like I'm sick for having opinions.

Psychologist: No — I'm pointing at four specific mechanisms, and none of them require you to be wrong about any individual issue:

False consensus. A self-selected online crowd feels like "everyone" because you only see the people who showed up to that room. The room is not the country. Negativity bias in what gets attention. Outrage and condemnation posts get more engagement than measured ones, so the loudest content in any feed is systematically the most extreme content — not the most representative. Status spirals with no cost to escalating. In an anonymous in-group, the most extreme take wins the most social credit, and there's nothing pulling anyone back toward the middle. So the conversation drifts further out over time, and nobody notices it drifting because everyone's drifting together. Identity fusion. Once "I am a leftist" (or anything else) becomes who you are rather than a set of policy preferences you hold, disagreement stops being a data point and starts being an attack. And you don't update in response to an attack — you defend. Moving goalposts. Labels like "far-right" are relative to your own position. If your position has drifted, the label drifts with it without you feeling the motion, because the whole room moved together. Vantage point blindness. "I haven't seen X" is a description of your feed, not a measurement of the world. Mistaking the two lets you hold a confident position on something you've never actually checked against a source outside your own bubble. None of that tells you whether you're right about capitalism, or Trump, or anything else. It just tells you why you might be a lot more confident that "everyone agrees with me" than the actual world will ever bear out.

Redditor_IDWstar18: ...So what, I'm supposed to just trust the silent majority instead?

Psychologist: I'm supposed to ask you to notice the difference between "most people I argue with online agree with me" and "most people agree with me." Those are different facts. You've been treating them as the same fact for a long time. That's the whole session.

Redditor_IDWstar18: I don't get it. Everyone agrees Trump is evil. Like, everyone. And yet he won an electoral majority. Twice.

Psychologist: Sit with that for a second. You just described two different populations giving you opposite answers, and only one of them surprised you.

Redditor_IDWstar18: Because the online consensus is right and the electorate is wrong.

Psychologist: Or — and I want you to actually consider this rather than reflexively reject it — your "everyone" isn't a sample of the country. It's a sample of people who chose to spend their evening arguing about politics on a comment thread. That's not "everyone." That's a specific personality type, self-selected, mostly talking to itself, where the loudest and most extreme voice gets the most upvotes and therefore the most visibility. You're not measuring public opinion. You're measuring what wins a popularity contest in a room you already agree with.

Redditor_IDWstar18: So you're saying I'm in a bubble.

Psychologist: I'm saying you have direct, repeated, real-world evidence — an actual election, twice — that your online "consensus" doesn't match the electorate. And your instinct wasn't to wonder about the room you're standing in. It was to conclude the electorate is crazy. That's the tell.

---

Redditor_IDWstar18: Fine. Let's talk capitalism then. It's irredeemable. Legalized exploitation. Everyone I talk to agrees.

Psychologist: Everyone you talk to, where, specifically?

Redditor_IDWstar18: Reddit. Twitter. My friend group.

Psychologist: Same populations as before, talking to each other, about a system that — depending how you poll it — somewhere around two-thirds of the actual country still says they'd rather live under than the alternatives on offer. Including plenty of people who'll tell a pollster, in the same breath, that capitalism has serious problems.

Redditor_IDWstar18: That's just propaganda. People don't know what's good for them.

Psychologist: I want you to notice what you just did. Confronted with a gap between your in-group's consensus and the broader population's stated preference, your move wasn't "maybe I'm wrong" or even "maybe they're not wrong, just weighing things differently." It was "they've been fooled." That's not a small move — it's the move that closes the loop. It means no contrary evidence can ever reach you, because disagreement itself just gets reinterpreted as proof of manipulation. You've built a belief system with no exit.

Redditor_IDWstar18: Okay, but the system does produce massive inequality. That's not made up.

Psychologist: Correct. And that's a real, substantive, arguable critique — wealth concentration, generational mobility, healthcare costs. Reasonable people disagree hard about how to fix all of that, and you're allowed to think the fixes need to be drastic. That's not what I'm diagnosing. I'm diagnosing the jump from "this system has serious problems" to "everyone who doesn't want it abolished tomorrow is either a victim or a villain." That jump isn't economics anymore. That's identity talking, not analysis.

---

Redditor_IDWstar18: Fine, but anyone to the right of me is basically far-right at this point. Centrist Democrats, mainstream Labour, all of it.

Psychologist: By what reference point?

Redditor_IDWstar18: By mine.

Psychologist: Right — that's the thing I want you to hear back. "Far right" isn't a fixed coordinate on a map, it's a position relative to wherever you're standing. If you've spent years drifting outward inside a room that only rewards the most extreme voice, the goalposts move with you and you don't feel the motion, because everyone around you moved too. Meanwhile the party you're calling far-right hasn't necessarily moved at all — its actual platform, its voting record, where its own median voter sits on a generic left-right policy scale — none of that requires your impression of it to be accurate. You can check it against what the party actually does, what it actually votes for, where political scientists who study this for a living place it. That's a fact about the party. "Everyone to my right is far-right" is a fact about your position, dressed up as a fact about theirs.

Redditor_IDWstar18: So nothing's ever far-right then? That feels like it lets a lot of stuff off the hook.

Psychologist: No — some things genuinely are far-right, and you shouldn't talk yourself out of calling those things what they are. I'm only saying the word stops doing any work once you apply it to everyone who isn't standing exactly where you're standing. At that point it's not a category anymore, it's a synonym for "disagrees with me," and you've made the term useless for the cases where it actually matters.

---

Redditor_IDWstar18: One more. I don't see any violence coming from the left. None. It's always the right.

Psychologist: What would you have to see to update on that?

Redditor_IDWstar18: I don't know. I just haven't seen it.

Psychologist: That's the part worth sitting with — not whether it's true, but the shape of "I haven't seen it." If your information diet is the same self-selected rooms we've been talking about all session, then "I haven't seen it" mostly means "it wasn't covered, or wasn't covered as violence, in the specific feed I read." That's not the same claim as "it didn't happen." Political violence research generally finds both sides produce it, in different forms and different proportions depending how you draw the categories — and reasonable people can argue hard about which side does more, under which definition, in which year. That's a real empirical argument. "I have literally never seen any" isn't a position in that argument. It's a description of your feed.

Redditor_IDWstar18: So you're saying I'm just not looking.

Psychologist: I'm saying "I haven't personally encountered evidence of X" is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is, precisely because it's so sensitive to where you stand. It feels like a fact about the world. It's actually a fact about your vantage point. Worth knowing the difference before you build an argument on top of it.

---

Redditor_IDWstar18: You're making it sound like I'm sick for having opinions.

Psychologist: No — I'm pointing at four specific mechanisms, and none of them require you to be wrong about any individual issue:

1. False consensus. A self-selected online crowd feels like "everyone" because you only see the people who showed up to that room. The room is not the country.
2. Negativity bias in what gets attention. Outrage and condemnation posts get more engagement than measured ones, so the loudest content in any feed is systematically the most extreme content — not the most representative.
3. Status spirals with no cost to escalating. In an anonymous in-group, the most extreme take wins the most social credit, and there's nothing pulling anyone back toward the middle. So the conversation drifts further out over time, and nobody notices it drifting because everyone's drifting together.
4. Identity fusion. Once "I am a leftist" (or anything else) becomes who you are rather than a set of policy preferences you hold, disagreement stops being a data point and starts being an attack. And you don't update in response to an attack — you defend.
5. Moving goalposts. Labels like "far-right" are relative to your own position. If your position has drifted, the label drifts with it without you feeling the motion, because the whole room moved together.
6. Vantage point blindness. "I haven't seen X" is a description of your feed, not a measurement of the world. Mistaking the two lets you hold a confident position on something you've never actually checked against a source outside your own bubble.

None of that tells you whether you're right about capitalism, or Trump, or anything else. It just tells you why you might be a lot more confident that "everyone agrees with me" than the actual world will ever bear out.

Redditor_IDWstar18: ...So what, I'm supposed to just trust the silent majority instead?

Psychologist: I'm supposed to ask you to notice the difference between "most people I argue with online agree with me" and "most people agree with me." Those are different facts. You've been treating them as the same fact for a long time. That's the whole session.

Before Cato was an elder, he was a young man watching Hannibal romp through Italy wiping out every Roman army that stood in his path. He grew up in the threat environment where Rome’s future was in doubt. Even though Rome eventually wore down Hannibal’s army in Europe and defeated it in Africa, before imposing tough terms on Carthage, that fear and embarrassment stayed with him for the remainder of his life. Later in life he visited Carthage and saw that they had been using the post-war period to rebuild their economy, and knew they would remain a threat to his Rome as long as they continued to exist. He ended every session of the Roman Senate afterwards, regardless of whatever had been discussed, with “Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.”……"Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed.

He never lived to see the results of the 3rd Punic War he helped inspire …… but I’m sure he would have been satisfied with the result ….. Carthage was wiped off the face of the earth, the survivors enslaved, and rumor has it the land was salted to prevent any future recovery. No Carthaginians were left to declare victory.

About 1800 years later the early American colonists had a problem. The woods around their cabins were filled with organized bands of humans that wanted to kill them and their families. Barbaric and violent people that needed to go away if they were ever going to be able safely walk around with their families. Those people were also standing in the way of their future goals. Cotton Mather. Puritan minister in Massachusetts in the late 1600s had been suggesting to his flock that those people needed to be exterminated. He celebrated the Mystic Massacre of 1637…… where English colonists and their Narragansett allies burned a Pequot village and killed somewhere between 400-700 people, mostly women, children, and elderly …… as the work of God. The woods outside his cabin door were getting safer every day.

There was no public outcry with institutional weight behind it. A few outliers existed ….. men like Roger Williams, who had built real relationships with the people being slaughtered and saw them as something other than an abstraction. But they were isolated voices with no press and no audience that felt safe in their homes. The overwhelming general public, including those whose trade and security depended on the land being cleared, was on board with pushing these hostile people away from their growing communities.

But things slowly changed over the next 150 years. Those on the expanding western frontier still wholeheartedly supported the use of indiscriminate violence against these savages in their immediate vicinity …… but back east, in those communities where the threat has been vanquished long ago something was brewing …… a conscience.

Pamphlets, sermons, and editorials started showing up in eastern papers questioning whether the men being sent west to handle the Indian problem were behaving like Christians or like savages themselves. Reformers organized, petitioned Congress, demanded investigations into reservation conditions and broken treaties. The moral language was sincere. It was also, conveniently costless. These were people whose own safety was now unrelated to the threats the pioneers on the fringe of western expansion were still facing. Being judgmental of their own side’s distant behaviors was becoming both fashionable and a defensible political position. But sympathy was arriving too late for the savages that had been resisting our continued encroachments into their land. The enthusiastic use of methods of destroying their food supply, biological warfare in the form of old world diseases, and restrictions on their movements at the point of a gun had finally and completely removed them from their warrior code. They fully capitulated and remained in their assigned reservations, for their own safety, long enough to have their offspring somewhat forcefully assimilated into their enemy’s culture. You never heard them declare victory …… even a pyrrhic one.

Roughly around the time our Indian problem was being put to bed we were also putting our rough riding boots against some necks in the Caribbean and Latin America. We could read all about our glorious victories in the patriotic press, but the details were mostly quotes from the victors, with no bloody images attached, reaching the public that might have found our brutal methods as the basis of a political opposition position. No one that survived our adventures in imperialism was ready to declare victory the day after we withdrew.

The US civil war had been the first time that our founder’s definition of “all men” had been broadened to include men living in the US but previously outside the founder’s originally intended scope. Fifty years later there was a nascent anti-imperialist faction growing in the northeast looking to extend these noble ideas and guaranteed rights to whatever foe our military was facing, over increasing long distances.

The Philippine-American War was the perfect opportunity for opposition political groups to weaponize these ideas against a sitting President. US soldiers’ letters home had been trickling in bragiing about their kill ratios. So when after guerrillas dressed in civilian clothing ambushed and killed 48 US soldiers, General Jacob H. Smith’s order to “Kill everyone over ten” landed with a thud inside the beltway. The media that had been patriotic pro-war up to this point …… actually goading politicians into wars ….. Suddenly found well received advantage in painting a mental picture of American cruelty against a peace loving Christian society that just wanted the same opportunity to rule themselves we had. Nobody hated the Filipino guerrillas enough to politically justify a total war against them.

This became a partisan issue in the next election cycle, but nationalism still prevailed outside the northeast, despite the celebrity firepower and funding Mark Twain and Andrew Carnegie brought to the anti-Imperialist faction …… But the seeds were planted for a return to the isolationist instinct Washington had championed in his farewell address.

We were back on the path towards an enlightened liberal society until WW1 came knocking, then on December 7th 1941 …… the Japanese shattered the illusion of safety these noble ideas needed to keep our barbaric instincts at bay.

The day after Pearl Harbor …… the anger and fear immediately started rewiring our brains back to the human norm. Americans on the west coast looked out over the Pacific ocean and knew there was danger coming for them, they scanned the water just like the colonialists and pioneers scanned the upcoming tree line. Internment of our Japanese was a no brainer …. just high security reservations for a race of people as easily dehumanized as the old savages had been. Not just for our safety but for theirs as well. Lines started forming at recruitment centers, factory floors were repurposed to start kicking out mass quantities of instruments of death, and cautious career military brass were quickly replaced with young, aggressive, pissed off harder men.

Dissent, what little there was, was criminalized and prosecuted as sedition. The press reverted to patriot and self-censored for the good of the nation. The isolationist organizations closed their doors and kept their mouths shut.

Shortly there would be images of burning piles of dead Japanese soldiers on some distant Pacific island, and the public viewed it, not as an atrocity, but a W on their scorecard. Submarine commanders would surface after their attacks and sailors stood on the deck with machine guns picking off the survivors in the water. The firebombing and nuking Japanese cities received widespread popular approval …… and within days after the world’s first glimpse of nuclear American exceptionalism the centuries old Japanese Bushido warrior code, that had emphasized fighting to the death before surrender …… unconditionally capitulated. No one in Japan was deluded enough to claim victory just because some of them managed to survive the war.

Then as quickly as the fear subsided, and safety returned to the US and Europe …… the pretensions of civilized ideas and gentlemanly warfare popped their heads out of the diplomatic sands, and we all signed feel good treaties that pinky-sweared to each other that we would never again commit the atrocities we had just witnessed and performed.

These newly codified rules of warfare were even written so that we were to abide by them in the future, even when the future enemies did not. This gave rise to some clever enemy strategies. Now that they knew what our compassion based rules for ourselves were ….. they could weaponize them against us. Firing at western soldiers then running into and blending with a group of unarmed citizens, or surrounding your military installations with civilians and cameras, for the first time in human history, actually worked. But only because unsavory images in western media had become tools in the west’s constant internal partisan struggle, half of the western electorates at any a time could become advocates for the enemy, because the enemy's interests inadvertently aligned with one domestic faction's partisan ones. What the Geneva Conventions fail to address, is that these rules of self-restraint have a shelf life ….. they expire the minute a signatory once again experiences fear in their homes, or a serious threat to the continuity of their governments.

In the artificial construct of post war peace and complacency, western diplomats have assumed the self appointed role of refereeing lesser conflicts on distant shores, trying to force our cultural values onto cultures that never asked for them. Borders that have been shifting like sand dunes since the dawn of civilization are now, in their minds, permanently etched in stone for perpetuity now. And they seem to have developed an affinity for never allowing conflicts to be played out to a definitive conclusion. As soon as one side gains a decisive advantage they start clamoring for restraint and looking for some economic lever to pull to force compliance that leads to simmering animosities on the ground, and an unnatural stalemate that allows the weaker side to reconstitute its forces. The last example I recall of allowing forced capitulation to work its hostilities ending magic was Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers had developed a romantic following in western society for their innovative tactics of resistance during their 26 year insurgency efforts, that including the introduction of modern suicide bombing tactics. The Sri Lankan government forces had finally pushed the Tamil leadership into a small radius of control and the had holed up in a hospital. Western diplomats howled for the Sri Lankans to show some restraint … but the Sri Lankan government, with China backing their play at the UN and India quietly looking the other way, ignored every plea, every ceasefire demand ….. and wiped out the Tamil Tiger command down to the last man. No Tamil has ever had the audacity to claim victory just because they survived.

For those few of you still reading this ….. I will now get to my point….. if you haven’t already guessed it.

I had only recently become cognizant of global affairs in 1979 when some crazy Muslims in Iran took Americans hostage. If I had been old enough to vote in 76 I would have voted along family instilled preferences for Democrat Jimmy Carter, but the nation was growing tired of his refusal to do anything kinetic, and over the course of 444 days the combination of rage and embarrassment was permanently reshaping my perspectives. My first trip to the ballot box was to eagerly empower the tough talking man who was going to deliver our collective vengeance against the flag burning “Death to America” crowd who had been toying with Carter’s lack of manliness.

….. and nothing happened. I watched eight administrations come and go as televised acts of Islamic terrorism went from shocking to mundanely brutal. Over the decades the rage subsided, and now 70% of the current American population didn’t experience what it was like to be attacked and humiliated by a ragtag enemy who knew he was insulated from America’s wrath because his reign of regional terror was born in the era of American restraint and politically induced inaction.

Then all the sudden a lame duck hero emerges that seemed to be immune to the political constraints that had kept superior American firepower holstered for decades. He actually ordered B2s to drop bunker busters on Iranian soil that had been avoided since Carter’s failed rescue operation.

I had it on good authority from Generals Kelly and Milley, the mainstream press, Hollywood actors, most musical artists, and no shortage of my good leftist friends right here on Reddit, that Trump was the embodiment of Hitler. This should be good. Hitler wouldn’t have had any qualms with punching the Iranians’ lights out if he had all the resources he needed in theater, no peer level resistance …… and all it came down to was giving the final order to send the death to America crowd back to the dark ages. We had eliminated the Ayatollah in his bunker without remorse, something I had been told all my life was not doable due to the expected global Shiite rage blowback, he had decapitated IRGC leadership forcing them to stay hidden underground in the nation they lorded over …… one more sortie would have eliminated their electrical grid they needed for lights, water supply, refrigeration, and fuel delivery …… that would certainly cull the herd in the upcoming summer heat ...... and its hard to make too many more missiles and drones without electricity or the ability to import or produce replacement parts to rebuild the grid …… my day of vengeance had arrived.

But then Hitler blinked. Trump is no Hitler ….. turns out he’s a humanitarian after all.

I’ve always questioned Trump’s geo-political chops. I’ve never thought he really understood how human nature works outside the artificial construct of western enlightenment. Sherman knew ….. LeMay knew …. Neither went to Wharton.

My window is closing. Iran will be allowed to rebuild and continue to threaten the region, and possibly some day my offspring in their homes. The survivors are declaring victory …….. let me just end with …… Ceterum censeo Persiam esse delendam.

One of our cats keeps moving her kittens to underneath the seat compartment of our Polaris Ranger.

We dig them out, she puts them back in.

We've already taken them on several trips around the pasture unknowingly. We stop somewhere on the trail we hear them meowing.

There dont seem to be a fix for this problem in the owner's manual.