Is It Too Soon to Say ‘I Told You So’?

NYC Mayoral Candidate Bill de Blasio Campaigns In BrooklynBack in September, The New York Times promoted Bill de Blasio’s mayoral candidacy with an editorial titled, “Don’t Fear the Squeegee Man.” The editorial informed readers that crime wouldn’t get worse under de Blasio because “policing is far better than it used to be, thanks to innovations by Mayor David Dinkins.” (Emphasis added — the Times was not being sarcastic.)

Under the policing “innovations” of Mayor Dinkins, the annual murder rate in New York City rose to an all-time high of 2,245 in Dinkins’ first year in office. After four years of hard work, the murder rate had dropped by about 10 percent, to a merely astronomical 1,995 per year.

In Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s very first year in office, the murder rate fell 20 percent. The Times acknowledged the dramatic drop in crime with an article titled, “New York City Crime Falls But Just Why Is a Mystery.” By Giuliani’s last year in office, there were only 714 murders in the entire city, a drop of 64 percent from Dinkins’ personal best. By continuing Giuliani’s aggressive crime policies, Mayor Michael Bloomberg got the murder rate for 2012 down to 419 in a city of 8 million people.

But at the Times, they think we’ve been living in hell since Giuliani’s election, and the most urgent priority for the next mayor is to get back to Dinkins’ New York.

They’re not alone. (Thus de Blasio’s election.) In 2001, Richard Goldstein of The Village Voice announced on MSNBC’S “Hardball,” “I feel less safe today in New York City than I did 20 years ago.” This was a position Goldstein developed after taking a vow to never leave his apartment, allow visitors, read a newspaper, watch TV or listen to the radio.

A couple of weeks ago, the Times ran another item downplaying the coming crime surge under Mayor de Blasio. Former hedge fund manager Neil Barsky wrote a column mocking his fellow 1-percenters for fretting about the new mayor with this advice: “Calm down.” (I find few balms as soothing as being told to “calm down.”)

Reluctantly, Barsky admitted (17 times) that he is a very rich man. As he explained, he, too, enjoys the city having been turned into a “a millionaires’ playground” and having a mayor who is “one of us.” (Bloomberg’s not one of me, buster.) He sniffed that he found “this affluent angst more than a bit overwrought.”

They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

Liberal zealots view de Blasio as a breath of fresh air because he’s stuck in policies of the 1960s. That’s when Americans were assured by brain-dead liberals that if we could just improve criminals’ self-esteem, crime would disappear. You’ll see!

The result? The violent crime rate quadrupled.

We never got an apology on behalf of the tens of thousands of Americans who were murdered, maimed, raped and robbed as a direct result of liberal law enforcement strategies — much less the show trials these people deserved.

Liberal activists just waited out Giuliani and Bloomberg. Now they’re ready to retry all the old ideas. Mayor-elect de Blasio recently met with convicted criminals to get their views on policing policies. Wow! Look at de Blasio’s new ideas!

The ex-cons actually complained to de Blasio that they don’t like being watched so much.

The left simply refuses to believe that locking up criminals has any effect on crime and insists we just need to explain to them that committing violent felonies is wrong. (New York Times headline from Aug. 10, 2000: “Number in Prison Grows Despite Crime Reduction.”) It’s strange because liberals totally understand cause-and-effect when it comes to … well, um, nothing.

Suggesting that the “1 percent” – such as himself — are the most terrified of a de Blasio mayoralty, Barsky claimed that the massively rich have been the primary beneficiaries of record-low crime rates in New York — “those who can actually afford its housing, attend concerts in Lincoln Center, eat in its fancy restaurants and pay for parking to boot.”

That could be said only by someone who has never been the victim of a violent crime. Could someone please mug this guy?

The rich in New York are always the last to experience a spike in crime. They might not even notice when the murder, rape and robbery rates go through the roof under de Blasio — for the very reasons Barsky names: They can afford expensive neighborhoods, paid parking and concerts at Lincoln Center.

It’s the poor and middle-class New Yorkers, unprotected by doormen, chauffeurs and ticket-takers, who will be the first victims of de Blasio’s innovative new ideas on policing.

The non-1 percent live in neighborhoods that aren’t the province of multimillionaires, with doormen standing guard every 15 yards. They park their cars on the street, eat lunch in public parks and attend free concerts — all of which are also open to criminals. New-wave Brooklyn is about to become crime-wave Brooklyn.

For a newspaper that claims not to be worried about rising crime rates under de Blasio, the Times sure dedicates a lot of ink to assuring us that it’s not going to happen – and if it does, it won’t be de Blasio’s fault. In anticipation of a return to the glory days of David Dinkins, let me be the first to say, I told you so.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Jakareh

    De Blasio’s election, like Obama’s, is further proof that democracy—meaning every bipedal mammalian gets a vote—doesn’t work. Only those who pay substantial a amount in taxes—let’s say 10K a year—should be allowed anywhere near a ballot box. That the Founding Fathers set up a system much like that is the probably the least understood fact about American history. We were meant to be a republic, not a country subject to stupid majority rule. “No taxation without representation”—everybody agrees on that, and rightfully so. “No representation without taxation” is just as fair and even more necessary. Or put another way, “You pay, you get a say. You freeload, you do what you’re told.”

    • Chris Gait

      I was going to post something, but I couldn’t have put it better.

    • Leland64

      Nice avatar. Great comment. The Founders feared democracy which they considered mob rule. “Democracy” in never mentioned in the Constitution. Others noted democracies perished by allowing the mob to vote themselves benefits paid from the public treasury. The mob always wants more and reliably votes politicians into office promising more “free stuff.” I agree, “No representation without taxation.” End the madness.

    • BagLady

      Does that mean without tax imput you have no representation? Oh my dear, that will never work and I think you will soon change your mind as you queue up behind the others who suddenly find themselves without representation. “Spade, darling, or shovel?”

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        This the US, not the UK, toots.
        .

        • BagLady

          THIS, toots, is not the US. This is cyber space when many and any of us may comment. OK?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Chances are that thanks to the AMERICAN Internet, now shared internationally (you are SO welcome), UK English variations will probably disappear. This is a site dedicated to American politics. The presumption is that American spellings are preferred.

            But you didn’t use colour as an alternative to color. You made up a new spelling on your own. And even if someone corrects something widely known like “colour” you should really just get over it and move on.

          • BagLady

            I ALWAYS spell colour, honour etc in their correct forms. I expect much of the beauty of written language will disappear as technology produces smaller and smaller handsets and shorthand becomes the communication of choice.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Fine, whatever. Just make sure you can find a dictionary reference the next time you expect to defend your spelling choices.

          • BagLady

            That was my dilemma, back in 1998 I produced it as ‘proof’ to my tutor that is was an acceptable and (in my opinion) more sensible spelling of the word input/imput. Now when I go in search of that tome of a dictionary, I cannot find it, nor can I produce a copy of the early VAT returns that I was on such intimate terms with. I am aware that we must evolve and language along with us. Speed is of the essence because our concentration spans seem to keep pace with the latest gismo. I wonder who it is who has the ‘power’ to change our spelling. The word ‘colour’ is the European (French) spelling while America has gone for the Latin ‘color’. I’m sure we are all ‘big enough’ to accept both. Vive la difference.

            I have noticed this phenomena around the world. The more tech stuff there is the more bored the people. Try sitting through a simple Indonesian puppet display. Go to an Indian ballet. We are ‘over it’ after 3 minutes (the length of a single), but in both Indian dance and Indonesian puppetry sequences, the same steps will be repeated over and over (albeit beautifully) but way past our interest threshold.

          • BagLady

            Takes me back to a shady garden in Guatemala where I was attempting to learn Spanish (highly recommended). On a nearby table sat an American lady who loudly announced to her tutor that the word ‘perhaps’ was olde English and no longer in use. ‘Maybe’ is what everyone uses now is what she told him. I kept quiet although I wanted to disagree. I like the freedom to choose between the two. Don’t you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I like the freedom to choose between the two. Don’t you?”

            Yes I do. But you’ve missed the entire point. Maybe you should wonder about your own attention span.

            Language does evolve, but its evolution is something that happens collectively – by consensus. You can’t show any consensus at all for your position. Language is simply not that flexible. Your parable tells the story of an idiot who doesn’t understand. But it doesn’t support your point and your apparent desire to invent your own spellings. You’ve got to show some evidence of consensus that anyone agrees with you.

      • Jakareh

        “Does that mean without tax imput [sic] you have no representation?”

        Scares you a bit, doesn’t it? Without the leeches being able to vote themselves more blood, the whole rotten edifice of liberalism collapses.

        Charity is commendable. Compulsory charity, however, is not charity but robbery, and it doesn’t matter an iota if the strong arm belongs to the government or the highwayman.

        • BagLady

          Please don’t [sic] my imput before first referring to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Tax Department itself uses imput in preference to input, which does not roll of the tongue.

          • Jakareh

            Chaucer or the Venerable Bede might have used “imput” for all I know, but in the present day it’s unusual enough to warrant a [sic], especially when the readership is mostly American.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/input

            Oxford agrees with you. Ancient English was also with “n” so we need a little more info to find out what the heck she’s talking about.

          • BagLady

            It really doesn’t matter. I just don’t like to get a [sic] in error.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Then use the n in future. The machines will probably still understand you. And you don’t use your tongue when typing I assume. Or is that the problem? The m rolls off the tongue more easily on your particular keyboard?

          • BagLady

            “Unusual” does not warrant a [sic]. I would also dispute your suggestion that it is antiquated. If you have studied computer science and voice recognition, you would appreciate its preference as a natural mouth movement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you have studied computer science and voice recognition, you would appreciate its preference as a natural mouth movement.”

            Please give it up. M is easier for those with tongue cancer. OK, whatever.

            You’re freaking typing your comments. You made a typo or had a brain hiccup. Get over it.

          • Drakken

            Play all of the sematic games you want to there cupcake, your still an effing commi and as such you are an enemy of every free man in the western world.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/input

            “Spelling help: Remember that input is spelled with an n, not an m.”

          • Jakareh

            I actually gave this some thought since yesterday. The suffix “in” becomes “im” only in Latinate words, such as “impotent” and “imbalance”, in which it serves as a negation. The “in” we see in “input” is completely different in origin, function, and meaning. Rather than a negation, it is the common Anglo-Saxon preposition used in English, including in this and the preceding sentences. It is akin, for instance, to “inbound”, which no fully literate individual would spell as “imbound”. And if all that is not clear enough, we have only to observe the contrast between “input” and “output”. In short, “imput”, because it ignores both etymology and semantics, is not just an unusual variation, it is plain wrong. The dolts at the Tax Department can’t change that no matter how many memoranda they put out.

            @disqus_5tHaURTzYe:disqus

            Stick with us and you may yet learn something.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I tend to think you are absolutely correct. Normally I don’t call attention to errors that seem more plausibly to be typos or “imput errors” from the “keeboard” but I “tot I smelt a rat” when I heard the defense.

            However, in theory it is possible that some version of some Oxford dictionary refers to this. I just kind of doubt it. And if there is some claim about it, I’m sure it can be traced back to some keyboard error going viral or something like that. It just doesn’t make any sense any other way.

            “The dolts at the Tax Department can’t change that no matter how many memoranda they put out.”

            Viral keyboard error.

            Definition of imput: What you expect to pay in taxes? Accounting term specific to US taxes, but also an esoteric alternate spelling in UK English? Mmmm, er. OK. Fine. Have it your way.

            And don’t forget to worship the gods of social justice while you’re at it.

          • BagLady

            Exactly. An alternative spelling, but one that rolls off the tongue so much easier than INPUT.

            It was also the choice made by the British government when they introduced VAT though, I admit, I cannot find proof in writing of this. Strange.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…I admit, I cannot find proof in writing of this. Strange.”

            Huh.

          • BagLady

            What rubbish you spout. Input – Imput. Both are acceptable in Oxford English speaking communities. I choose Imput over input for the simple reason it rolls off the tongue and will be the choice of future voice recognitions machines.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I choose Imput over input for the simple reason it rolls off the tongue and will be the choice of future voice recognitions machines.”

            I can’t stop laughing.

            You probably are thinking of “impart” or “import” or something like that. Got any documentation of your theory about the “Oxford English speaking communities?”

            Get ready for the machines. You can’t possibly imagine creating Utopia without the machines. Everyone knows that.

    • dennis x

      Then perhaps those and only those taxpayers should fight in wars. No blood without representation.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        That might be fair. But we have an all volunteer military so what’s the harm in allowing people to join? How does it harm you?

        But as long as I’m chiming in, I don’t think people should be completely without voting privileges. And the other point is that they would still have the courts.

        There are infinite choices. We could simply keep them from electing congressmen, and ensure that only congress has the final say on funding “social welfare” programs.

        I think being a citizen does give each one of us natural rights. But it doesn’t give the right to vote in favor of legalized theft. Even if that is not the intention. The strictly constitutional solution is to outlaw explicitly all social welfare programs and force each individual to plead their case before a court if they want government assistance.

        There are lots of options available. In reality, the best way forward is simply to stop lying to people by creating these Ponzi schemes like the ACA, Social Security and so forth. Most taxpayers don’t have a problem with welfare programs per se, but when they’re lied to they end up voting for programs that set everyone up for failure.

        There are grave problems and the biggest underlying problem comes from the deceivers that were or are trying to destroy private property rights. Which is insane. Get rid of the liars, and expose those who want to attack private property rights, and the rest of it can be resolved without a civil war or radically changing the constitution any more than it has been.

        But to address your comment directly, you’re absolutely right that people denied the right to vote should not be drafted. And it would never be a “life sentence.” Upward mobility or class mobility is the key to our economic power. You can vote in periods where you contribute. That alone would chase away these insane politicians that are pursuing the socialist communist agenda.

        And limit the restrictions to congressional representatives. Let them vote locally and for POTUS. And when they pay in to the fed, they can vote for congressional reps in that period.

        It would be fair and productive. But we’re now a nation raised on irrational thinking.

      • Jakareh

        Actually, that makes no logical sense at all. Right now, it’s an all-volunteer force, and there’s no reason why that should change. But if there were ever a war in which the survival of the nation was at stake, the able-bodied non-taxpayers should be certainly be required to fight. Why should the moochers’ continued freedom and existence be yet another free ride?

        BTW, those who served 20 years or more in the military and were honorably discharged, and also those who suffered a serious injury while serving, should also get the vote regardless of amount paid in taxes. The general idea is not that the rich get the vote and the poor don’t, the idea is that those who make a contribution get to vote.

        • BagLady

          Treading on dangerous ground here. How will you define ‘contribution’?

  • Elizabeth Cape Cod

    It seems that the more educated liberals and progressives are, the more arrogant they are, and with that arrogance comes the mindset that just believing something will make it so. Come to think of it – no wonder they don’t believe in a higher power. They think they ARE a higher power.

    • PaleAle

      “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”

      • Elizabeth Cape Cod

        exactly

  • davarino

    I love it here in Texas

    • Demetrius Minneapolis

      Dirty, lucky dog! ;-)

      • Drakken

        I am wondering what the DFL is going to do next to fk up MN even worse than it is now?

    • ziggy zoggy

      Why? EVERYTHING is illegal there except illegal immigration. Texas throws people in jail for traffic violations. Long sentences and huge fines, too. Other than that, I’m sure it’s great.

      • Jakareh

        No offense, but I think you’re buying into liberal stereotypes. Illegal immigration is a big problem, but it’s nationwide. The federal misgovernment is at fault.

      • http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/ Nixys

        As a young law-abiding woman, I felt about 1000x safer in “barbaric” death penalty happy Texas than “enlightened” Oregon, where they seriously let a multiple murderer and rapist out of jail right after I moved here. This guy was convicted in the death of two women and suspected in the death of up to like ten more. Horrible, seriously messed up stabbings. My friend (also a young woman) actually almost bumped into the guy on the street before his curfew. I am not making this story up, I’m totally serious. Kalifornia also sucks majorly with illegal immigration and pretty much the entire rest of the West is getting worse and worse with it as well- at least in Texas people integrate.

    • BagLady

      It always looked so flat and uninteresting on Dynasty.

      • Jakareh

        Said the Bard, “This blessed plot, this eden, this Lone Star Republic, this Texas.”

        • PaleAle

          Excellent. You’ve inspired me to add west Tx to my list of vacation destinations.

          • Jakareh

            Most of the photos are of the Hill Country in central TX.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          The BBQ is also off the hook.

      • Jakareh

        And “Dynasty” was set in Colorado.

        • BagLady

          I stand corrected. It seems so long ago and I have a confused picture of Larry Hagman and Joan Collins together as a warring couple. However, both Dallas and Dynasty seem to be set in the same dreary, barren landscape. Does the wind whistle through 24/7?

          • http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/ Nixys

            Just admit it, the very thought of a Texan loving Texas is offensive to you. You won’t be happy until every Texan is self-hating, miserable and self-flagellates for their very existence over and over. Better yet, they’d all just die.

            Always nice to see how much you lefties truly care. As we well know, the left is after all the compassionate party of the little people. It’s just that those little people have a pesky way of thinking for themselves. Oops. Well, that will shortly be “corrected” and “made better.”

          • BagLady

            I apologise profusely. I had no intention of insulting your State. In fact, if anything, I suffer a little jealousy of anyone with deep roots. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and nothing makes it more so than love.

          • http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/ Nixys

            Well, I’m not actually from New York City, but I used to live there.

            I’m from Austin, then I lived in New York, and Portland. I have family in Virginia, Louisiana, Dallas, Houston, San Luis Obisbo, L.A., and other parts of Oregon. So I’ve got everywhere covered except the Midwest, pretty much.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          The main house was from California.

  • Rusty Shackelford

    The only silver lining will be watching all of the younger hipster types infesting the place tuck tail and run back to their subdivisions in Iowa. They still won’t understand that their own political beliefs lead to that happening.

    • BagLady

      So New York is broke. Where did the money go? Naive question, maybe. Why is your crime rate so high? Does it correspond to wealth distribution?

      I always get the gut feeling that ‘mafia’ organisations run everything in your cities under the umbrella of officialdom.

      Sensible, non-abusive answers only, please.

      • ziggy zoggy

        SkagLady,

        The Obama administration knows a thing or two about organized crime, but it didn’t learn it’s skills from the Mafia. Wealth distribution doesn’t cause crime. Wealth redistribution does.

      • Jakareh

        Actually, the crime rate there isn’t so high. It used to be and under the rule of the socialist mafia it will soon be again.

        • Drakken

          Do you hear that sucking sound? That is the sound of people moving their wealth and business out of NY. As for the rest? Let it burn.

      • Drakken

        Psst! Shortbus, no matter how many times you effing commi’s try communism, it always ends up with stacks of dead bodies. This time when you commi’s try this nonsense, the response will make a Serb blush.

      • http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/ Nixys

        Are you for real? Are you a time traveler who just stepped out of portal to Victorian England? What the hell, lady?

        Hint: The old-school Italian crime Mafia is dead, now alive in movies only, it’s a non-factor in the modern world. Crime rate now corresponds with ghetto gangster drug subculture, mostly now black and Hispanic young males. It also thrives in blue states with stricter gun laws.

        Redistributing wealth won’t stop crime, it will just make everyone poor and miserable, and as soon as someone’s kid invents some supercomputer in high school, the peasants will be back to squabbling and killing one another in the next generation.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “I always get the gut feeling that ‘mafia’ organisations run everything in your cities under the umbrella of officialdom.”

        Who do you think runs and supports these “mafia” organizations? What band of brothers, what union of associates is likely to be organizing this corruption?

        • BagLady

          ‘They’ are all in it together. If you’re not a Bildeberger, you’re doomed. All of you who are just out of reach of that pitiable trickle down pittance that is swept from the Members’ table. My advice to anyone raising a family: get yourself to a tax haven. The closer you are to the big money the better chance your children have of getting a good education and not suffering the ‘corruption of poverty.

  • http://fdnyretiree.com/ Ed FDNYRetiree

    Wow, what a surprise!

    NYC liberals elected a maniac who will plunge the city even further into the abyss, this time to never emerge.

  • jakespoon

    Well,New Yorkers knew what he was before they elected him, so they get what they voted for.

  • mtnhikerdude

    Welcome back “Squeegee City” .

    • bigpete

      Avoided the city when the squeegee men ruled. Will avoid it again upon their return.

  • Porkys2istan

    “In Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s very first year in office, the murder rate fell 20 percent.”

    As a (mostly) liberal I’ll admit the ‘touchy feely’ approach to law enforcement (and foreign policy) utterly fails, but I always get steamed when any conservative quotes crime statistics from the late 80′s and early 90′s.

    Exactly 20 years before 1990 the Supreme Court upheld a woman’s right to an abortion. Every year since then (up until recently) the number of abortions have gone up. So what effect did that have on our society?

    MILLIONS of children were NOT born to unwed mothers, were NOT born into poverty, were NOT born with fetal alcohol syndrome, were NOT born because of rape, were NOT born to teens, were NOT born to drug addicts, and were NOT born to women with without college educations. Every year, until about 1990 EVERY crime statistic in America became progressively (no pun intended) worse. And then IT ALL STARTED TO GET BETTER, by the mid 90′s crime rates had dropped dramatically across the entire nation, and it can all DIRECTLY be attributed to the millions of criminals and poor people who were NOT BORN. With so many people NOT committing crimes the prison industrial complex almost ran out of ‘customers’ but ‘three strikes’ and mandatory minimums (for non-violent offenses) kept the prison guard UNION (oh the irony) fully employed.

    Try to keep that FACT in mind before lavishing praise on ANY politician for crime statistic in the 1990′s. And try to remember how Roe v Wade stopped this country from disintegrating into a crime riddled apocalyptic hell scape, especially the next time you try to limit a woman’s access to legal abortion.

  • JaneSmith100

    Exactly! Ann is BRILLIANT AS USUAL & knocks it out of the park. If you live in CA or even on the West Coast, please join us on Facebook on the indie/righty/even libertarian side! I am xposting this article & will link
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/californiastatepolitics/

  • tanstaafl

    Vox populi, vox dei. This translates as – “My God, how did we get in this mess?”. Robert Heinlien

  • A Z

    “The left simply refuses to believe that locking up criminals has any effect on crime”

    The left is saying that cost -benefit analysis does not enter into the criminal’s thinking. That is a tall tale right there.

    If criminals do not compute cost and benefit (or risk and reward), why do they cover up their crimes? Game theory of good sense would tell you they are trying to reduce the chances of getting punished. this tells you that the leftist line of reasoning is pure bunk.

    • Jakareh

      Like everything else liberals say, what they say about crime is nonsense. Only a truly insane criminal, one who is no longer capable of rational thought, would fail to consider the costs and benefits of his action. If Joe Lawbreaker knows that by raping a woman/robbing a Seven-Eleven/doing a drive-by shooting there is a 99 percent chance that in three months he will be breaking rocks or he will have a noose around his neck, he will think long and hard before proceeding. The truth is that leftists don’t want to punish criminals because they consider them “class allies”. Solzhenitsyn discusses this extensively in “The Gulag Archipelago”.

  • http://fdnyretiree.com/ Ed FDNYRetiree

    De Blasio will make the David Dinkins days look like a cakewalk.

  • nomoretraitors

    No, it’s not too late to say “I told you so” and when it happens I will say it again with relish

  • Figureitout1953

    Is this the same woman who said that “Breaking Bad” was quite like Jesus’ parables?

  • BagLady

    I use the word ‘mafia’ loosely to encompass all of this ilk; rather like many use Al-Queda to refer to all renegade Muslim gangs.

    • http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/ Nixys

      Oh. Thank goodness you’re not actually as clueless as I was giving you credit for, then.

      “Mafia” has a pretty specific meaning in New York, though, you know.

      • BagLady

        We all have our ‘mafias’ even without Sicilians in our midst ….. sadly

        (Note: I use lower case because the word has become a common noun …. in my humble opinion).

        • BagLady

          PS. Oh, and by the way, I am far too self-confident to be rocked by insults to my IQ. I had assumed readers were worldly enough to see poetic licence in prose. (NB. I use the CORRECT spelling of ‘licence’ — ignoring the red line — as a noun as opposed to ‘license’ as a verb).

          A little more civility on this site wouldn’t come amiss.