John Shuck Made Me Do thiS

Sunday, September 27, 2026

Saturday, September 26, 2026

Brakes Can Be Good

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdoRTnLz9yM/?stkn=MWgycnVlMDh3M3Y4ZQ==

Truth

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdmuuA7z2ys/?stkn=ejZueDZpOGM3dnNu

This rings True for others as well.

Freedom

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdwUCT1D9wK/?stkn=eWUzYjZkZnliM21r

In deep blue MN, this is what we get.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdH1JDFjZ-P/?img_index=1&stkn=NW9sOXlsZzhsc2cw

Also what we get for giving “free” stuff to rich folks.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdsGK9guUzs/?stkn=MXJ3eTAybjQxdzBpMA==

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdEmQeUlrHf/?stkn=ZDZpYmw2Z3MxeWxv

https://x.com/mnhd3bgop/status/2103677058572243028?s=46&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdwyThDNjCr/?stkn=bjZsczE1eDBqeWtr

In A Spirit Of Truth, Accuracy, And Transparency

In a thread over at the cesspool, Dan posted a list of people who "liberals" consider to be "heroes" (he also posted a BS list of conservative "heroes"). I calmly and respectfully pointed out that his list didn't include a few people who are clearly heroes to "liberals". My list included Margaret Sanger. Many high profile liberals have proudly accepted awards named after Sanger (isn't the existence of these awards proof enough of her position in the liberal pantheon?", which would seem to indicate that he's considered a "hero".

I then listed some people based on the popularity of the merch that liberals buy and wear. Guevara, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin to name a few people. I can't think of why anyone would buy and wear merch with these guys likenesses if they did not consider them "heroes".

Surprisingly, Dan deleted my comment and commented thus.

" Craig also had to come here and try to tear down good, wise people rather than either having kind words at the passing of someone or just stay away.

This is not a place for you to engage in hateful attacks of people you don't like, Craig. Be a better person."

For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how adding a few names to Dan's list (with good reasons) elicited this response. I literally do not "tear down" anyone, nor have any "words" related to Barry. I was literally and specifically responding to Dan's comment and his absurd comparison.

Dan's original comment in bold below.

"Progressive saints/heroes...

Wendell Berry
Barack Obama
Dorothy Day (who wouldn't want to be called a saint!)
Annie Dillard
Jimmy Carter
Rev. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr
Gandhi
Jane Goodall
Jesus, in his own words

Etc. Actually good people noted for their great love and stands for justice for all and human rights.

Conservative heroes

Trump (corrupt felon, sexual predator and war criminal)
Reagan (war criminal)
Kirk
Jan 6 felons (violent criminals)
White men who shoot black men (violent criminals/murderers)
ICE kidnappers and murderers...
White "Jesus," in THEIR conservative words (ie, not actually Jesus)

Etc. Actually bad and vulgar people, criminals and killers, and frankly, as a rule, just generally not that bright.

You will be known by the heroes you keep."

When I saw what Dan had done (I deeply regret not copying my original comment), I responded with the comment below. Reiterating my reasons for my additions, and pointing out that he falsely characterized the comment he deleted. This behavior is nothing new, and I should have known he'd react this way and kept a record of the deleted comment so that I could prove his false characterization.

"Dan.

I'm shocked that you would so blatantly characterize my comment so falsely. I merely added a few names to your list of liberal heroes. The first name was added because so many modern liberals cite her has an influence and regularly accept an award named after her. I could have added another individual that liberals lionized (and Biden glowingly eulogized), but chose not to.

I then pointed out the fact that many, many liberals wear merch with the pictures or symbols of their liberal heroes. Surely you can agree that the only reason one would spend money on merch and wear it in public is because they consider the person on the shirt or hat a hero.

But, as usual, you chose deletion and false characterization, over transparency and honesty.

I have no doubt that this will disappear soon as well. I was correct. My comment disappeared, replaced by more misrepresentation of what I said Thank goodness for copy/paste so that the Truth can be preserved Apparently reality is hateful

“Craig also had to come here and try to tear down good, wise people rather than either having kind words at the passing of someone or just stay away.

This is not a place for you to engage in hateful attacks of people you don't like, Craig. Be a better person.

I Apologize

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ErQL4EbzE/

" I’d like to apologize to Taylor Swift.

The other day she got excited at a football game, pointed at her ring, and said, “MY HUSBAND!” And I made a joke about it.

But the more I thought about it, what the hell am I making fun of?

Here’s a woman who has just about everything in the world, and she’s excited to tell everybody, “That’s my man.” Proud of him. Cheering him on. Happy to be his wife. More women should be that supportive—and more men should give them a reason to be.

We hear enough about how men are useless and marriage is a trap. Here’s somebody showing millions of women that loving a good man and being excited about marriage is something to celebrate. We ought to encourage that.

I went looking for a punchline and missed the point. Keep cheering, Taylor."
 
Without spending too much time on the Swift Kelce relationship, I do want to make a couple of points about how their relationship runs counter to a lot of the messaging we see in our culture today. 
 
1.  Swift has spend her entire career writing songs about searching for the knight in shining armor who would sweep her off her feet and marry her.   She finally got what he wanted.  In a society where marriage is not highly valued and treated as an inconvenience.   They treated it as a goal.   Even with the wedding, I think they went against the grain.   Yes it was big and relatively extravagant, but it was also private.  It wasn't an event intended to generate money from tabloids, or likes on social media.  They banned phones for everyone, and made it as private as possible.   The fact that they just bought a home in Cleveland, and have said that they're primary residence will be in KC for the foreseeable future speaks volumes about their relationship.   
 
2.   In the MNF game Taylor's response to Travis making a big play was to point at her ring and say "That's my husband."    As we watch coverage of other pro sports WAGs, this kind of thing isn't common.   The fact that she has committed herself to engaging in her husband's career as someone who wasn't a football fan is kind of cool for someone with a massively successful career of her own.    Seeing her interact with the WAG's of the other players on the team sure makes it seem like she's trying to be one of them. 
 
The problem with comparing Swift the other NFL WAGs is that she is simply a bigger celebrity than any of them   So, it's awesome that Simone Biles just sold a house in TX to move to CHI for her husband's career.   But, as good as Biles was/is at her sport. she's not Swift.

Day 7

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JqCmZWj1i/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Abortion Arguments Series: Day 7 of 10
"Banning abortion doesn't stop it. Just like Prohibition, it'll still happen"

One of the most common arguments against abortion restrictions sounds reasonable on the surface:

"Bans don't stop abortion. They just move it. Women drive across state lines or order pills online. Look at Prohibition. You can't stop something people want, so outlawing it is pointless."

I'll concede what's true: no law eliminates 100% of the behavior it prohibits. When states pass restrictions, thousands of women travel, and others order pills by mail.

So if the claim is simply that a statute cannot prevent EVERY single abortion, that's correct.

The trouble starts when you examine what that logic actually proves (and the contradictions hiding beneath it).

First, "laws don't stop everyone" is an argument against every law ever written.

We have laws against theft and drunk driving and murder and child abuse, yet all of those still happen nearly every day.

Nobody looks at domestic violence stats and concludes the law should be repealed because "people do it anyway." The purpose of a law was never a 100% success rate. Its purpose is to draw a line, declare what a society will not tolerate, reduce the harm where it can, and provide consequences when someone crosses that line.

If "people will do it anyway" were a valid reason to legalize something, it would be a valid reason to legalize almost everything.

Second, the Prohibition comparison falls apart the moment you ask one question: Who is being protected from harm?

Prohibition banned the sale of a substance. Drinking carries real downstream risks, but drinking itself is a private act. Harm to others is a risk, not the definition of the act. That's why our legal system criminalizes the external harms (like drunk driving) while regulating the substance itself.

And for what it's worth, Prohibition did reduce drinking, by roughly a third at its low point, according to the standard economic study of it. It was repealed because society decided policing a private vice wasn't worth the cost. That is not the calculation when someone else's life is at stake.

Abortion is fundamentally different. It isn't a private vice or a consumption habit with downstream risks. In every abortion, there is an innocent, defenseless second person who does not survive, and the entire purpose of the procedure is to end that life.

"Yeah, but this just makes it more dangerous"

Can we admit that the underground abortion of today isn't a coat hanger? It's a pill in an envelope, mailed by a licensed doctor in another state. Whatever else you think of that, it isn't the 1960s, and pretending it is misleads the very women it claims to protect.

Plus the logic doesn't hold anywhere else. Nobody says, "Burglars will break in regardless, so let's decriminalize it so they stop cutting themselves on broken windows." The reason is obvious: the harm isn't to the person committing the act. It's to someone else.

Third, consider what a law is supposed to do.

Laws don't have to be perfect to be effective. Making an action harder, more expensive, and farther away means it happens less often. In the first year after post-Dobbs restrictions, roughly 20,000 to 32,000 babies were born who otherwise would have been aborted. Some women traveled. Some ordered pills. But tens of thousands didn't. That number is not zero. Those are real human beings alive today because a legal boundary existed.

Beyond numbers, the law is a teacher. Sixty years ago, throwing beer cans out the window, driving drunk, and skipping the seatbelt were culturally normal. The statutes changed, and over a generation the culture followed, at least as much as it led. What a society permits, it eventually normalizes; what it prohibits, it eventually stigmatizes.

Finally, notice the contradiction inside the other side's own slogans.

The same movement that insists "bans don't stop abortion" turns right around and calls those very same laws "forced birth."

Think about what that phrase claims. It claims the law forced a woman to carry a pregnancy she otherwise would have ended. That is an explicit confession that the ban prevented an abortion.

You can argue "bans don't work," or you can argue "forced birth." You cannot argue both. If bans don't stop abortion, nobody was forced to give birth. If women are having babies because of the law, the ban worked, and this debate is over. Either way, the other side's own vocabulary admits what they publicly deny.

Finally, when someone shrugs and says "you can't stop it anyway," notice what they didn't say.

They didn't say abortion was right.

"You can't stop it anyway" isn't a claim that something is fine. It's a concession that it might be wrong, followed by a shrug. And a shrug, when an innocent human life is on the line, isn't a principled position. It's looking the other way."