Saturday, January 31, 2009

Thoughts on Families

I cannot help but think that this post and this post by Ta-Nehisi Coates can be interpreted as "I don't like to pass judgments on alternate family types because I do not want to pass judgment on my father."

The statement:

Families need to be utilitarian, not doctrinal. If it works, let it work.

is very nice, but it ignores the fact that not all family types work as well on average, and certain types that may work in individual cases are not ideal on a statistical basis and should not be what we aspire to.

And there is some of that ol' anti-racism in this, as well. One subtext here is that this is considered a normal way to do things in much of the African-American community and so we need to show more tolerance rather than be caught up in our European notions of what a family ought to be. Which of course ignores the question of whether the European of African models work better (as a societal norm, not in every individual case) in terms of creating a stable family life that is conducive to maintaining the things we like about modern society.

None of which to say that Ta-Nehisi is not a good sincere individual. Indeed, he seems to be a loving and responsible father, which is a good thing in this day and age (always good, but I fear it is becoming increasingly rare).

But nonetheless, one wonders in many cases (and for many people, I don't single out Coates as a special case) people's opinions on the moral and societal issues of the day are driven by a need to justiy their behavior or the behavior of those around them.

That is all.

What's up with Google?

Update: Fixed.

Update: Google and Youtube are now also listed as harmful. Something has gone wrong, it's not deliberate.

It does not appear that this is effecting news or blog searches, just web searches.

I do a search and I get almost all the results coming back with "this site may harm your computer." I click on the result anyway, and I get sent to a Google page that tells me to d oantoehr search or pick another result, and has no option for "take me to the site anyway." I click on the link to a Google explanation of why it thinks the site is dangerous, and I keep getting error messages.

These aren't strange or sites; these are wikipedia and lewrockwell.com.

The only site that isn't listed as potentially harmful is YouTube. What, is Google trying to prevent people from looking at any non-Google-owned site?

Fine. I'll search through Yahoo!

That is all.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

E-Verify Victory in Stimulus Package

Update: Sessions and Nelson are pushing for the Senate leadership to pass E-Verify provisions. Call your Senators now and urge them to add the language!

The House stimulus bill contains some very necessary provisions requiring any business receiving stimulus money to use the E-Verify system for verifyingthe eligibility to work of people applying for jobs (i.e. so that businesses getting stimulus money cannot use illegal alien labor).

It looks as if stimulus is going to pass no matter what we do, so let's at least call our Senators to make certain that provisions mandating the use of E-Verify are kept in the Senate bill.

And please consider registering at, and donating to, NumbersUSA.

That is all.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

To my Oklahoma Readers (If I Have Any)

Bills have been introduced to make ballot access easier in both the House and the Senate.

Please contact your (state) Representative and ask him or her to support Charles Key's HB 1072 and your Senator and tell them to support Randy Brogdon's SB359.

More on this as it develops.

That is all.

Strange Alliances

Update: Dondero has published a piece on Oklahoma ballot access reform!

Thank you, Mr. Dondero!

Previously I have been a little annoyed with Eric Dondero over his support of John McCain and have been a little less than respectful in the way I have referred to him.

There is a good chance that in the next few days he will publicize an issue that is important to me (ballot access reform in Oklahoma), so I just wanted to say thank you in advance to him.

That is all.

Dog Whistle Works Both Ways

This recent Sailer column got me thinking.

There has been a lot of talk lately about "dog whistle politics" where denotatively race-neutral terms such as "welfare queen" or "tough on crime" are supposedly connotative "dog whistles" whose desired effect is to play on white racism.

Supposedly, someone who claims to be "tough on crime" really is really saying "lock those uppity blacks up!" Someone who says he wants to reduce taxes and talks about getting people off of welfare is really saying "don't pay those lazy blacks!" etc. The implication is that only the racists understand the subtext, as a dog can hear a inaudible (to human ears) dog whistle.

Of course, not mentioned is the fact that the dog whistle works both ways.

Considering how much higher black crime rates are than white crime rates, isn't is possible htat the anti-racist (I'm not saying "black," because I am not convinced that most blacks are unhappy with tough on crime policies, as they disproportionately live in neighborhoods where they will be victimized) who is against being "tough on crime" is really saying, in coded langauge, "blacks should be able to commit crime because our society is racist!" Or that the person advocating against reduced welfare benefits and for higher taxes is really saying "we want to take other peoples' money!"

Funny how no one complaining about dog whistles ever thinks of that.

That is all.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

"And I forgot the next verse Oh well, I guess it pays to rehearse"

Ai yi yi.

Roberts, what were you thinking? Did you need cue cards?

And Obama, why the Hell didn't you rehearse this with Roberts beforehand?

Source of the title of this post.

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.

That is all.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Interesting Article

[I started this back in November and never bothered to finish it until now].

WARNING: LANGUAGE

While looking up a link on the gay mariage debate at Lawrence Auster's site, I found a link to a very interesting article, that, in my opinion, reveals the big problem with the same-sex "marriage" debate.

Written by the (apparently female) Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, "No on 8 wasn't no on hate" accuses same-sex marriage supporters of "homophobia" because their ideas about marriage are apparently too hetero-ish.

If we take a look at the failed No on 8 campaign, we can see the usual "we're just like you" charade, and it seems to me that this whole gay marriage effort already cedes the battlefield to the homophobes. Accept us on your terms, without making any structural changes except for a copyedit in marriage documents, that's how this argument goes.

Translation: the goal here is not homosexual inclusion into the current institution of marriage. It is not about that sort of equality, about just being able to be like straight couples. No, the goal is not to be able to participate in the same structures as heterosexuals, or to help end discrimination against homosexuals who want their behavior to fit the norms associated with marriage; to behave as heterosexuals would but with members of the same sex. Uh-uh. The goal, rather, is to adapt the institution of marriage so that it will fit in with homosexual norms and behavior.

After ranting on for a time about how wrong it is for gays not to be dyed-in-the-wool leftists on all issues, she sarcastically pens:

No, we are not men lingering in toilets or alleys for a taste of cock, we are not women teasing with whips or turning tricks on the corner, we are not furious gender deviants or ferocious sexual perverts, we're just like you -- we tuck the children in at night and we wage war inside the home where no one else can see.

And guess what? I know it sounds awfully strange, but somehow this argument doesn't exactly challenge structural homophobia.


Translation: public sex should be considered a fundamental right, and it is homophobic to suggest that any sort of sexual restraint should be encouraged.


Are we going to continue protesting on the terms of the right-wingers, with signs like "God Supports Gay Marriage?" Could anything be worse?

Translation: belief in God is a tyrannical thing that must be fought against.

If you read the comments, it soon becomes clear that the goal for many of these people posting on the site is not to expand marriage to include gays, but to denigrate marriage totally as an oppressive institution.

Now granted, one could argue that these folks who feel this way generally do nto appear to be for gay marriage, and therefore their goals cannot be used as examples of the potential problems with expanding marriage to same-sex couples.

But the issue comes down to the fact that these opinions are of a piece with the idea that heterosexual marriage is inherently discriminatory. The expansion of marriage to same-sex couples will be followed by demands that marital norms be watered down to conform to gay norms, with increasing acceptability of open marriages, polyamorous marriages, etc.

The goal here is not mere legal equality. The goal is the complete deconstruction of society by those who are marginalized by it, and who, not seeing anything beyond themselves, wish to therefore destroy whatever they are unable to participate in, like a blind person who wishes to gouge out everyone's eyes so that he is on the same level with them.

The point is, same-sex marriage is being promoted with the idea that gays are just like everyone else. I do not think that this is true, nor do I think that the pretty little image we are supposed to have of John and Jack, the loving couple just like eeryone else on the street, is what we will be in for.

That is all.

Monday, January 05, 2009

Conservatism and Same-Sex Marriage

Andrew Sullivan:

Joe Carter recently argued that it was inconceivable that conservatives could support such a thing, or that a conservative case can be made for it. If that is true, then the British Tories are no longer conservative: [link in the original quote - G.]

What is interesting here is how Andrew Sullivan is implicitly taking the position that conservatism is about "which team you support" rather than principles. The connotation of his statement is that whatever British Tories support must be conservative, and so if they support same-sex marriage, it is ridiculous to consider the notion unconservative. That there is no truly conservative party in the U.K. (and increasingly we in the U.S. are in that situation) does not seem to him to even be a possibility worth taking seriously.

That is all.
There was an error in this gadget