A Quote for Our Times

If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.

-Ryan W. McMacken

That is all.

Name-Calling and Assassination are Equivalent

In the grand tradition of the Michael Richards fiasco*, we get this headline:

Woman fired for Obama racial slur on Facebook.

The article goes on to say:

TURLOCK, Calif. (AP) — A California woman has been fired and reported to the Secret Service for her President Barack Obama racial slur and assassination comment on Facebook.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were writing the story, I would have led with the "assassination" part, but calling him a bad name is... uh... wrong too.

That is all.

*The fiasco is that everyone concentrated on the fact he said the "n"-word rather than the fact that he referenced lynching favorably.

Nicholas Stix, Are You Okay?

Update:  Peter Brimelow has posted that Stix is okay.

Does anyone know if Nicholas Stix is okay?  He hasn't posted on his blog for a week.  I hope he is getting through Sandy and the aftermath okay.

That is all.

Maine Approves Same-Sex "Marriage"

At this time, I am starting to suspect that the storms that are coming the way of the Northeast may be God's judgment on this country. 

Perhaps, like ancient Israel, we have fallen and now it is time to face the consequences.

That is all.

Commenting at The American Conservative

UPDATE:

It appears to be a technical issue. 

For the past week, none of my comments at The American Conservative have gotten through.  I have emailed both Rod Dreher (whose blog I comment on most often, to see if he banned me or something) and the Webmaster.  No one has gotten back to me.  Is anyone else having this problem?

That is all.

Don't Be a Condescending Twit

From Lawrence Auster's recent post on how to write when commenting on his blog:

Mathematical symbols should also be avoided. For example, many people today will write “30+” instead of “more than 30.” This is not desirable. Our medium of communication is the English language.

My advice:

People take more kindly to explanations of the rules when you don't do it in a way that makes you look like a condescending twit.

In fact, that is the biggest problem I have with Mr. Auster.  He has a lot of good ideas, but he gets a particular bee in his bonnet (like the split infinitive) and starts acting as if anyone who does not share his preferences is somehow subhuman or an illiterate.

By the way, there is no actual rule against the split infinitive, and the reason people don't like splitting it is because in many languages it is a single word.  Yet, I have never seen people argue that "I am not going" is a bad construction (as compared to "I am going not") because it splits a present construction that is a single word in many languages.  I really would not be annoyed if not for his statement (in one of his first posts on the subject, one I cannot find at the moment) that if there is no way to avoid splitting the infinitive without being ambiguous, that you should just jettison the adverb altogether, meaning that obeying a non-rule guideline is more important that expressing your precise meaning.

That is all.

Barack Obama is Partly Responsible for the 2008 Crash

What, you think he only started tearing down the country after becoming president?

Nicholas Stix explains Obama's involvement in the mortgage shakedown that led to the mortgage meltdown.

That is all.

New Ad from NumbersUSA

I like it.

That is all.

All Good Things

About 10-12 years ago, I was in a Dollar Tree store when I heard a song (barely) playing on the intercom.  I remembered the tune, but I did not know what the song was or who sang it.  It reminded me a little of "True" by Spandau Ballet, but I knew that was not it.

I sort of forgot about the song and thought eventually that I had probably misremembered the exact tune and would not recognize it again.  Then about six months ago, I heard it in Applebee's.  Unfortunately, I  was not in a position to listen carefully enough to find out more about it.  But I realized that I would likely hear it again, and maybe in another few years I would finally be able to hear it so that I could identify it.

Then I heard it today on the radio coming home from work.  I tried to memorize one line in order to look it up in Yahoo! at home.

"Now as the rain beats down."

Well, I found the song.  "Walk Away Renee" by Left Banke (I'm pretty certain that the first time I was listening to the Four Tops cover).

That is all.

Blog Appearance Change

Dear Readers:

JS-Kit/Echo (formerly Haloscan) is closing, so I reverted to Blogger comments, which unfortunately required me to upgrade my template.

When I have both the time and inclination, I'll try to customize my blog more.  I have some old copies of my old template, so I can start to add back in things that I had before looking at the html (eventually).

In the meantime, while I have downloaded my old JS-Kit comments, they appear to have disappeared from my blog.  Those that remain appear to have been added through the Blogger comment interface, even though I have no idea how that is possible when I did not have any link to add comments through Blogger.

In any case, comments have been mostly wiped, but I doubt that anyone who reads this blog is doing so to look at two-year-old comment threads.  New comments should be working for all who wish.  I will worry about moderation settings when I get enough comments to worry about them.

So I doubt that the user experience will suffer much.

That is all.

Will Pedophilia Be Normalized?

(Note: just to be clear, I object strongly to pedophilia, child molestation, etc. This post is not promoting the normalization, just pointing out that only [socially] conservative principles offer a consistent reason to be against it).

 It has occurred to me recently that if liberal sexual mores are applied consistently, pedophilia will eventually, inevitably, become normalized.

Despite all of the protests about how this is so different than sex between consenting adults, ultimately anti-pedophilia is simply another unprincipled exception that is required in order for liberals to be accepted by society.

Now that the gay rights battle has victory on the horizon, with it soon becoming scandalous even to disapprove of people having sex with someone of the same sex (note how "tolerance" and other live and let live slogans were taken down as soon as the gays sensed that they had the power to dominate), people are starting to attack "slut-shaming," that is, the idea that one should disapprove of promiscuity. The next goal is to make it scandalous even to disapprove of someone going home with a different partner every night. This is supposedly "sex-positive," whereas disapproving of any act between consenting adults is "Sex-negative," as if there are no negative consequences to society from one's sexual behavior.

In such a milieu, I do not see how a principled opposition to adult-child sex can really be held. The response is always something along the lines of "all sex is good, but it has to be consensual, and children cannot consent," but ultimately that is utter B.S.

The fact of the matter is that except for infants and those who are too young or mentally defective to understand sentences, children can consent. It is just that we as a society have determined (correctly, don't misunderstand me here) that their consent doesn't count.

If we are truly "sex-positive," though, on what basis does someone have to "qualify" for being able to consent? Why can't a ten-year-old, if his parents allow him to order what he wants at a restaurant, decide what he wants to do sexually, unless sex is somehow special and delicate, and dare I say, dangerous? Certainly it is all three of those things, yet of course to say so is "sex negative."

What sexual liberationists fail to understand is that the concept of "age of consent" is ultimately a legal fiction, and the seemingly invulnerable barrier to normalizing adult-child relations is ultimately a social construct, one that is in opposition to the attitude toward sex that the liberationists wish to impose.

Ultimately, what we have here is another "unprincipled exception," which I would define as "fighting the logical conclusion of one's ideas."

That is all.

Police Officer Told He Must Attend Muslim Proselytizing Event

Nicholas Stix posts this interesting story.

Considering other stories about governments trying to force exposure to Islam, I have to question my previous statements that governments are trying to establish secular humanism as the official state religion, and wonder if they are just trying to privilege everything that is not Christianity.

That is all.

Egalitarian Fundamentalism Hurting Freedom in Britain

John Derbyshire at VDARE (the link is not working currently due to the pledge drive) directs readers to this story of a politician convicted for making politically incorrect statements.

I wonder where all of the people who defended that Russian rock band named after female genitalia are?

That is all.

No Voter Fraud so No Voter ID Needed?

Yeah, right.

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to VDARE in two cases.

That is all.

Great Quote from Steve Sailer

"Modern coed guest worker programs and the anchor baby interpretation of the 14th Amendment don't mix, to say the least."

Or as I put it, "Unless we can get rid of birthright citizenship, an essential part of any alien guest-worker program is a massive spaying/neutering campaign."

That is all.

Obama Charged with Falsifying Deportation Numbers

NumbersUSA has the goods.

Previously on this topic:

Apprehensions Down to Lowest Since 1972


Obama's Immigration "Enforcement" is Mostly Lies

That is all.

Jacqueline Woodhouse vs.

This recent post by John Derbyshire made me think:

Why is P*ssy Riot getting so much more recognition and support than Jacqueline Woodhouse? Why are people castigating Putin but not the Brits?

"Who, whom?" indeed.

That is all.

Project Prevention

After much soul-searching, I have decided to start donating to Project Prevention. It pays drug addicts to get either sterilized or put on long-term birth control.

If we are going to save this country, we have to stop the things that are leading us toward Idiocracy.

That is all.

Jim Snow for U.S. Classrooms

Obama backs equal discipline outcomes for blacks and whites in U.S. schools, regardless of behavior. This is an outrage, and should be considered another of the policies of Jim Snow, as Nicholas Stix calls policies that are intended to create double standards that work against whites. That is all.

Illegal Immigration: Apprehensions Down to Lowest Since 1972

Brenda Walker has the goods.

That is all.

Obama's Immigration "Enforcement" is Mostly Lies

When talking to a group of Hispanic journalists, Obama admits to using fuzzy math to increase his deportation numbers. (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Brenda Walker).

Also, the claim that the is targeting criminals and therefore selectively getting the worst illegal immigrants out is also false. (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to VDARE again).

That is all.

Obama Retaliates Against Arizona - Someone Needs to Bring Impeachment Charges

Obama is going to refuse to deport those illegal aliens whom Arizona idnetifies under the 287(g) program. That means that the one thing that the Supreme Court allows Arizona to do - check immigration status - the President is going to stop from having any effect.

This is outrageous. The President is acting as a law unto himselfg. Someone fgile articles of impeachment, NOW.

That is all.

Charity v. Welfare

While not all of his conclusions necessarily square with mine (government-sponsored contraception could be a much-needed attempt to stop non-productive parts of society from breeding) Thomas Fleming has an interesting posting on why government welfare should not be considered a method of fulfilling our Christian charitable obligations, and indeed works against them.

This is contra all of the claims that being against the welfare state makes a person one of the "goats" in the Olivet discourse (of course this doesn't even take into account the popular premillennialist interpretation that this is regarding which of the living, non-glorified Gentiles are to be allowed into the millennium, not about the Final judgment, and that the issue is the treatment of Jews during the tribulation rather than being about general charitableness to the poor, in which case the "sheep vs. goats" distinction does not have anything to do with welfare or charity at all).

That is all.

King David Real After All?

New evidence supports the existence of an non-idolatrous, kosher-eating religion in Israel around 1000 BC, as well as fortified cities.

This suggests that the current fad for minimizing the significance of Israeli civilization or of Israeli monotheism as an important norm prior to the exile has been wrong all this time.

That is all.

Jared Taylor on Miscegenation

I have to say that I think that Jared Taylor makes some very good points. And realize, I say that as someone with two half-Puerto Rican neplings, a half-Korean nephew, and a half-black first cousin once removed (and another 25%+ black adopted first cousin once removed).

I suppose my position is that some degree of miscegenation is okay, provided that there are enough non-miscegenating people to keep a "purebred" line going. To make an analogy with dogs, it's fine to have some cross-breeds, but I would not want to lose poodles, bulldogs, shar-peis, collies, etc. in the process.

Know what I mean?

That is all.

So-Called Civil Rights Cannot Co-Exist with the First Amendment

Federale points out National Review was right the FIRST time about the "Civil Rights Act of 1964," and that the punishment of photographers who wish not to get involved in a same-sex "wedding" is a natural consequence of the egalitarian fundamentalist religion that is now being imposed upon the populace.

And let us be clear. There are lots of leftists out there today who, given the choice, would not pass the First Amendment today. Of course, they would still support the religious freedom of those who belong to religious minorities, but more on the basis of protection "the other" than on protecting religious freedom. But they would be against anything giving Christians the right to oppose liberalism.

That is all.

IMPEACH OBAMA NOW

Obama has just shown himself and his administration to be filled with tyrants and traitors.

There is only one solution. Obama and Napolitano need to be impeached on a charge of treason and dereliction of duty. I think we can throw in Eric Holder as well, but that is another post.

That is all.

The Love That Won't Shut Up

Does anyone else find this cartoon a little squicky?

Notice that the woman in the backseat knows that bringing up her sexuality makes the man in the front passenger seat uncomfortable, and yet she brings it up anyway, and does so gratuitously. Moreover, when he is obviously flustered, instead of changing the subject, she reaffirms that, by God, she will shove it in his face.

And there is no sense here that she was rude, or impolite, or anything.  No, mentioning your sexuality at every opportunity is de rigeur and only a bigot would be offended.

It's not a situation in which this came up naturally, and she is simply not hiding her sexuality.  No, she has to confront him with the fact she is gay even when there is no reason to do so. It's like saying, "Hi, I'm your friend's father. By the way, did I mention how much I love Asian porn?"

This is the nature of modern homosexuality. Brazen and assaultive.

That is all.

Voting Fraud More Real than We've Been Told?

According to "Federale" at VDARE, yes, yes it is.

That is all.

On Homosexuality

Jim Goad goads Dan Savage.

Steve Sailer on the seamier side of homosexuality in the entertainment industry. Going back to an old column he wrote (links in linked article), he questions whether or not the ultimate goals of the gay rights movement are as "live and let live" as we are constantly told.

In particular, I find some of the comments in the article on Steve's blog to be thought-provoking in terms of what is coming next.

That is all.

Pet Peeve of Mine

Does anyone else find it annoying when people use "BTU" as a unit of power instead of the proper term, BTU/h?

That is all.

A Few Interesting Links

Thomas Sowell on the folly of assuming that "disparate impact" equates to "intentional discrimination."

Thomas Sowell explains that we are a nationa of cowards, but not in the way that Eric Holder meant.

WND on media hypocrisy on race.

I don't mean to make this blog entirely about race, but I've had some of these tabs open for a while and I wanted to post on them, even though I don't feel like adding any of my own commentary at this time.

I'll try to find a non-racial issue to blog about soon.

That is all.

Thoughts on George Zimmerman

I think it is pretty clear that at worst, this was an accident; meaning that George Zimmerman did not have the intent to kill someone when he went out that night, or when he followed Trayvon Martin. As Martin's mother said on the Today show, things got out of control.

That does not mean that Zimmerman is not guilty of unjustifiable homicide, although I can't see any reasonable charge greater than manslaughter.

The real question here is whether Zimmerman is culpable and to what degree for the fight he had with Martin. If Martin attacked him on his way back to his vehicle, then he is innocent. If he accosted Martin and Martin responded by hitting him, then he is responsible - it should be pointed out that it is possible that Martin acted in an inappropriate, or even criminal way without Zimmerman being entirely innocent; if Zimmerman escalated the encounter and then Martin escalated it further, neither would be completely non-culpable (at least as I reckon it, I don't know enough about the relevant law to offer a good legal opinion, but I assume that two people can get into a fight without either being considered innocent).

It seems to me that the people on both sides of this (as a political issue, I am not talking about people directly involved with the case) are taking positions somewhat based more on fear and resentment rather than on trying to determine the truth.

Those who insist that Zimmerman was just a hothead and that Martin was a choirboy are, I think, terrified of being accosted by a non-cop and not knowing how to respond; should they run in case it's a mugger, or should they stand still for fear that the police will side with the accoster? And I suppose some blacks are genuinely scared that we are going to see legitimized lynchings by overzealous neighborhood watches.

On the other hand, those who want to completely trash Martin are scared ultimately that if Zimmerman is not acquitted, that it will send the signal that it is unacceptable to defend one's self. The great fear is that people under attack by thugs (and let's be honest, in particular black thugs) are now going to hesitate to defend themselves and get killed, or are going to be sent to prison for self-defense. Moreover, thugs will be aware of this and use it to intimidate people.

I personally think that the best thing to do in this case is to try to find the truth, regardless of what narrative it fits.

That is all.

A Little Good Friday Ritual

Yesterday I ate a meal with my mother (my father passed away on October 5 of last year) for Good Friday - I tried to make a little bit of a ritual out of it, looking at the transition from Passover to the Passion.

For the first course, we said grace, then I read Leviticus 23:4-8 and then Mom and I ate matzo balls with soup.

After that, we brought out some lamb (shoulder blade, I think) which I had baked in the oven in glass with aluminum foil over it, an approximation of a Passover Lamb. Then I read Exodus 12:1-16, after which I poured a little pomegranate juice into two cups, and took some and dabbed it with my fingers on the side of my plate and had Mom do the same (to represent the Passover Lamb's blood). Then we ate the lamb.

Afterwards, I read I Corinthians 5:6-8 and Hebrews 11:24-28, which compare Christ to the Passover lamb.

Then I read Matthew 26:26-29 and Mom and I drank some more pomegranate juice (we should have had some bread as well, but this was the first time doing this, so it wasn't perfect).

Then we took out the second course, which was ham. I read Acts 10:9-16, 10:27-28, and 10:34-43, poured some pomegranate juice on my mother's ham and my own, quoted 10:15 again, and then we ate the ham.

Anyone else have a new tradition they are trying to start or an old one they are trying to continue to celebrate Good Friday or Passover?

That is all.

Gabrielle Giffords v. Allen Coon: Does Rhetoric Lead to Violence?

Any conservative who had to put up with the constant refrain that the Tea Party was responsible for the Giffords shooting, or that small-government types were responsible for the "murder" (later determined a suicide) of census worker Bill Sparkman, might want to read this piece by Selwyn Duke on The American Thinker on the role that "anti-racism" might have played in the setting on fire of white 13-year-old Allen Coon by two black teenagers.

Of course, don't expect this to be part of the media narrative even if this story ever gets mainstream coverage.

That is all.

Wikipedia

Nicholas Stix suggests that on issues touching on race, Wikipedia is a leftist propaganda outfit.

Wikipedia can often be useful as a source for finding out general, non-controversial information. But it is fair to note that it will be biased on any issue where there is room for bias, and that bias is usually left-wing.

Always be careful of your sources.

That is all.

Quick Disclosure

Dear Readers,

I may be doing a little advertising on this blog in the future. So if some links take you to services rather than to other articles, do not be alarmed. Also recognize that I am scrutinizing the links personally, so I will only put in links that I feel comfortable with.

That is all.

Infanticide

This is an interesting issue. Whether it was a real suggestion or just a through-provoking thought experiment, it still brings up the main arguments for abortion, and raises the question of to what extent convenience and utilitarianism are the proper basis for morality.

I, of course, think that infanticide is horrible, and that there is a reason why it gets such a visceral response, and that we need to listen to that response rather than try to reason ourselves away from the aversion. Put another way, that this type of thing still shocks us is a good sign. This may not always be the case. What liberals today scoff at as a straw man position of the right may be the liberals' actual position tomorrow.

That is all.

Soft-Pedaling Black Hate Crimes

Nicholas Stix has the low-down on the double-standard prevalent in our society.

That is all.

Morality is Evil, Say the Feminists

Does anyone else find the feminist-discovered sin of "slut-shaming" to be a ridiculous label for people exercising normal moral discernment? Apparently, behavior that used to be called "sin," and that used to be considered unacceptable, even amongst those who argued for non-discriminatory sex (i.e. homosexuality), is now considered a protected class, if it is not absolutely lauded.

It is in this vein that Emily Roiphe criticizes liberals for not being far enough on the sexual liberation bandwagon.

Fortunately enough, Cassy Fiano at Pajamas Media actually puts up a defense of slut-shaming, pointing out the various problems that sexual promiscuity causes.

Of course, there are less immediately obvious problems that Cassy did not touch on, but are important to note, so that the liberals and feminists do not simply bleat "condoms, vaccines, and cures will solve all of our woes so that we no longer need self-restraint!" Most obviously, there is the fact that the rise of the slut also presages the rise of the pick-up artist. Those who hate Roissy had better be aware that if sluthood is the future of women, the cad is the future of men.

Sluts dislike this, of course, because those who would embrace sluthood would probably rather that the non-desirable men simply disappear and die, or else turn gay. Unfortunately for their desires, men will not roll over and play dead so easily.

Either way, though, the reason we slut-shame is that female promiscuity leads to sub-Saharan Africa. And no one, no matter what they say, actually wants that.

That is all.

Lynching

A kid gets set on fire.

That is all.

Separation of Church and State or Official Church of Secular Humanism?

Alberta decides to make homeschoolers more politically correct.

That is all.

Joseph Farah on Religious Freedom

I agree with this.

That is all.

On Abu Ghraib

I forgot where I was referred to this, but I think it is interesting.

It's an article about Abu Ghraib, the attempts to shift blame there, and the little slimeball Lindsey Graham.

That is all.

The Debate About Syria

The thing that worries me the most in this debate about Syria is that none of those advocating that we try to help the opposition overthrow Assad are asking what will replace him. Do they really think that those who are fighting Assad would be more friendly to our interests than he is?

And what about the Syrian Christians? Do they think that they would survive whoever replaces Assad? Or do they not care if they get slaughtered? Someone should ask that.

The general idea seems to be "Assad is bad. He is an ally of Iran. Therefore, whoever opposes him is necessarily good." This replaces serious thought about what the consequences of actions will be. Now, of course, there is the old saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but when, individually, both of these would be your enemy, the question becomes, "which enemy is the enemy and which is the enemy of the enemy?"

In other words, in situations like World War II, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" could be used either to support Stalin against Hitler, or Hitler against Stalin. You actually need to evaluate which enemy is more dangerous to you and your interests.

I wish that Ron Paul had pointed that out in his response.

That is all.

Why People Oppose Anti-Bullying

I think that Lawrence Auster makes an important point about the Dharun Ravi case:

As USA Today explains it (via John Derbyshire), the prosecutors’ case is weak, but they are going ahead with the trial anyway, because Ravi has been found guilty of Clementi’s death in the court of public opinion (led by loudmouth Gov. Christie whom some mindless conservatives still consider a conservative). If found guilty on all counts, Ravi could be sentenced to ten years in prison, basically for videotaping his roommate in the room they shared. As lawyer/observers point out, if Clementi had kissed a girl, there would be no case, no trial. The trial is an expression of the rising power of the homosexualist lobby. We should add that the power of the homosexualist lobby is indistinguishable from the tyranny of the homosexualist lobby.

There is a fear that anti-bullying legislation, and the like, are ultimately going to be used to make any criticism of homosexuality a punishable offense, and to make it so that crimes that would be considered minor when committed against heterosexuals will become serious felonies if the victim is gay. In other words, creating a privileged class.

This is troublesome.

And Auster also makes a good point that the sexual revolution as a whole must be fought in order to fight the individual elements of it.

That is all.

We Waited in World War II - Good For Us!

Much has been made over these statements by Rick Santorum:

But remember, the Greatest Generation, for a year and a half, sat on the sidelines while Europe was under darkness, where our closest ally, Britain, was being bombed and leveled, while Japan was spreading its cancer all throughout Southeast Asia. America sat from 1940, when France fell, to December of ’41, and did almost nothing.

Why? Because we’re a hopeful people... after a while, you found out things about this guy over in Europe, and he’s not so good of a guy after all. But you know what? Why do we need to be involved? We’ll just take care of our own problems. Just get our families off to work and our kids off to school, and we’ll be okay.

I'm not interested in discussing the portion I elided, because to be frank, I don't think anyone thought that Hitler was a nice guy, or that such an assertion needs a point-by-point refutation.

What I do wish to comment on, however, is the implicit point he is making that we were wrong to wait as long as we did to get into World War II, and that our waiting made things worse.

Actually, it was a great thing that we waited as long as we did. First, let's be clear. Any claim that we (that is, the U.S.) could have and should have stopped Hitler early on (say 1937 or 1938, before he invaded Poland) is ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that Britain and France were unwilling to do anything overt to stop him, and there is no way for us to get involved before Britain and France.

So what we are really discussing is whether we should have gone to war after the invasion of Poland, when Britain and France had already declared war.

It should be noted here that by the time Britain and France declared War on Nazi Germany, the Germans were already fairly powerful, powerful enough to conquer the latter and to neutralize any threat posed by the former. Germany was a formidable opponent.

However, Germany made one mistake. In 1941, after neutralizing the threat from the west, Germany turned its sights east and invaded the Soviet Union. A tremendous portion of its army was bogged down there.

This means that when we finally did declare war, Germany was overextended and we were able to let our "frenemy" the U.S.S.R., do all of the heavy lifting. I would imagine that if we had joined in the war effort in, say, late 1940 to early 1941, Hitler might have decided to put off the Russian invasion and the U.S. would have suffered three to four times the number of casualties that it did (remember, the vast majority of Germans killed in World War II were killed in the Eastern Front).

To argue that we should have declared war sooner is based either on the premise that Germany's strength had increased enough from August 1939-December 1941 so as to offset the drain the Soviets placed on them, or that Germany would have invaded the U.S.S.R. regardless of when we declared war on them.

While it may seem gauche to say so, the U.S. did well to wait as long as it did to declare war, because we got in late to face a severely weakened enemy.

That is all.

What the Hell is Up With Daniel Larison

I tried to comment on his blog, and it said I needed to login through WordPress. Well, I had forgotten my password, and so I reset it. For some reason, it took Wordpress several tried before it sent me a reset email, but even after I reset it, the blog did not recognize my password.

Anyone know what is going on here?

Rod Dreher doesn't have that stupid login to comment on his blog.

That is all.

"Pregnant" Male Soldiers

Why the "women in the military" position is stupid and why treating women "equally" is bad for the military.

That is all.

Everyone Has Sacred Cows

I was thinking the other day that it is probably more acceptable in our society to mock Jesus than Martin Luther King Jr.

I wonder how many people who think that religious folks should "just get over it" when their faith is mocked would be as sanguine when their secular idols are the subject of ridicule.

See this article by Leonard Pitts, Jr. on a strip club that uses Martin Luther King Jr. as a theme.

It brought to mind a question: how many people who think nothing of mocking Jesus Christ (I am NOT accusing Pitts of being among them) would recoil in horror if the same were done to the Reverend King?

And moreover, is the attempt to make it acceptable to mock Christ truly about letting go of taboos, or is it merely about replacing God with our secular gods?

That is all.

David J. Theroux on Secular Theocracy

An excellent article by David J. Theroux of the Independent Institute pointing out how hypocritical the modern omni-state is regarding "separation of church and state."

The problem with our modern government is that it actually wants to set up a church to itself and to establish a form of secular humanism as the official state religion. That's why I don't trust most people who talk about the "Separation of church and state." A true such separation only exists when government is very, very small. If there is a welfare state, then separation of church and state is impossible. It is just a question of which church the government supports - and if it officially supports none, then it in reality supports its own.

This form of secular theocracy can be called "cratotheism" - the belief that government is God.

That is all.

Coerced Participation in Experimental Vaccination Trials? Ridiculous.

Here is an interesting article about making participation in experimental vaccine trials mandatory (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lew Rockwell).

[Nota bene: this is about participating in trials for experimental vaccines, not about mandating approved vaccines].

The general argument is that we need to develop new vaccines, and someone has to test them. Relying on people volunteering out of altruism is not working too well; the number of volunteers has been decreasing in recent years. The major alternative, paying them more than a pittance for their time, has two problems: (1) it preferentially causes the risks to be borne by "society’s most poor and vulnerable,: and (2) it creates "an inducement that inevitably clouds an individual’s appreciation of risk, limiting the likelihood that consent is informed."

Both arguments are poppycock. The worry about the "poor and indigent" is based upon the assumption that (a) the poor and indigent would be better off without this opportunity to make money and (b) equalizing burdens justifies what is, in essence, slavery.

The second argument, that too much of a financial inducement makes consent "uninformed" or that it "clouds" a person's judgment, ignores the issue of why doing such things is wrong: namely, because it tricks someone into making a decision that, if they were better informed or better able to appreciate the risks, they would not make. However, the proposed alternative is forcing someone to take risks that they would not take; it is hard to see how this is better. This is like claiming that having sex with a person who is too drunk to consent is unacceptable, because they might not consent to it if they were sober; but telling a sober person that they have to have sex with you and you don't care if they consent or not is more acceptable.

The only possible benefit to mandatory participation over payment is that you reduce the risk of participation fraud; that is, someone who does not qualify for the trial lying to get in and invalidating the results. But the article does not address this as a concern, and there must be ways of screening that will reduce that to negligible levels.

That is all.

What's Wrong with Gingrich

Peter Wehner has an excellent article in Commentary where he explains why the "Establishment" does not like Newt Gingrich.

The bottom line: it isn't because Gingrich is a true conservative and they want a moderate like Romney; Gingrich's problem is not that he is "too extreme," in the sense of being too conservative. His problem is that he is too undisciplined, too mercurial, and simply not likeable.

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

That is all.

Predictions on the Presidential Campaign

I predict that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney will have first and second place in Iowa (who is first is up in the air), with Santorum third and Gingrich fourth.

Romney will win New Hampshire, with Paul in second.

Overall, Paul will get 15-25% of the vote. His percentages will not ultimately lose steam, but as the field narrows, his opponents will pull ahead somewhat.

Ultimately, the race will be between Romney and someone else (most likely Gingrich, but maybe not); Romney will dominate the non-southern states, and the opponent will do better in the south. I do not know who will win, but it will be close.

That is all.

Thoughts on "GLBT"

"Pleasureman" (formerly "Udolpho") has some interesting thoughts on transgenderism and homosexuality as mental illnesses:

People who lack knowledge of how psychology and psychiatry work are usually unaware of how hit and miss the treatment of mental illness is, and so it is easy to sell them on the idea that treatment of homosexuals and transgenders--or attempting to "cure" them as the left derisively and misleadingly puts it--is farcical pseudo-science at best and demented religious superstition at worst. Needless to say, conservatives, being largely ignorant of how psychology and psychiatry work, are unprepared to tell them differently: that we simply haven't come that far in treatment of mental disorders, but that management of symptoms is within reach and that there is reason to hope that further work on these disorders will uncover new, more successful approaches. After all you didn't see liberals saying let's throw in the towel on an AIDS cure because someone's shark cartilage cure didn't work.

There is also the point made that organized psychiatry and psychology are rather politicized (i.e. that their attempts to redefine transgenderism and variant sexuality as "normal" rather than "disordered" are due more to politics than to actual objective science), which means that the use of the American Psychiatric Association's positions to refute traditional ideas about homosexual behavior suspect.

Of course, I will admit that a lot of the posters on the site seem to dabble in antisemitism and I would be wary of some of the things they say, but this seemed to me to be a good point that not enough people bring up.

That is all.

When the Victim is White, Hate Justifies the Crime

News from London:

Somali women not given jail time for racial beating of white woman.

Ranting, however, is punishable by jail time if you are white - you get remanded to custody.

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

That is all.

Happy Thanksgiving

Despite all of the problems in the modern world, God will prevail in the end.

Let us remember to give thanks for everything and to trust in Him in all things.

That is all.

The Gay Issue

Reading this reminds me of the fact that our whole society is going down the tubes.

It used to be that we were urged to "tolerance," meaning essentially that we can have our beliefs but please don't force them on others.

Increasingly, though, we are being told that our beliefs are not worthy of tolerance. I remember a poster on Yglesias' blog (in what I think is a now defunct thread) saying that we are starting to understand that "homophobia is wrong" and that we will soon no longer tolerate it under the heading of religious beliefs, nor should we (in response to the foster couple who lost their right to foster because they refused to call homosexuality acceptable).

I have a feeling that a lot of people of the "Alas a Blog" ilk would not be willing to condemn the brick-throwing, or at least not without a lot of hemming and hawing. There is, I believe, a reluctance to consider that people who have traditional beliefs could ever be victims, as they are "official oppressors," and gays are "official victims." While I doubt that most people would directly say that throwing a brick through the window is a proper or legal way to behave, I think that most liberals of that ilk would find some way to assert that the people throwing the brick are less at fault then they would seem.

I've already seen them unwilling to admit that legal actions taken against people who publicly disapprove of homosexuality (in Canada, for example) are a violation of religious freedom. Not that they directly advocate the abridgment, mind you, but they rationalize each case ad hoc.

And let us not forget the "hate crimes" double standard.

We live in scary times.

That is all.

Posting Will Be Light

Not that I have put up a lot of posts the past few years...

But for those of you who did not see the comment I made at Steve Sailer's blog, my father passed away October 5. Which is poignant, as he did stained glass, and one of the things he made for me was a suncatcher with the multicolored "Apple" design.

Thank you to Steve, who sent condolences in the comments on the previous post.

That is all.

More on Galton Inequality

The Reluctant Apostate has improved on my design greatly.

I will probably be adding his version to my blog soon.

Rex May has posted on this as well and is selling merchandise.

That is all.

Mephedrone and Methylenedioxypyrovalerone

The new designer drugs are called "mephedrone and methylenedioxypyrovalerone."

They are not "bath salts."

I am sick and tired of articles that talk about "bath salts" without ever using the drugs' actual names. It would be like an article on heroin that only uses the word "smack," or an article about "crank" instead of about "methamphetamines."

There is enough confusion about what actual bath salts are versus the drug "bath salts" that it is stupid to use only the slang term.

That is all.

My Little Pony: Biodiversity is Magic

Does anyone else here notice that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic provides a template for what a multicultural multiracial race-realist society might look like?

There are three kinds of ponies (I assume they are races, but without knowing the herditary basis of pony-type, I cannot say for certain that the characteristics qualify as racial): earth ponies (normal), unicorn ponies (one horn in the middle of their head), and pegasi (winged ponies). Each has their own abilities: earth ponies tend to be more durable and have an easier time working the ground; unicorns can do magic, including telekinesis, with their horns; pegasi can fly, walk on clouds, and manipulate the weather.

What is interesting is that the three types of ponies have undeniable physical differences. You can't call the differences "social constructs" and no one tries to.

And yet, there is no resentment. Not a single time have I seen any of the ponies express jealousy or conflict based on these differences. Once one of the unicorns used magic to get wings, but it was to support her pegasus friend, not out of jealousy (although later she gets vain about her wings).

Interestingly enough, the show seems to posit that acknowledging biological differences between groups does not destroy unity or civilization.

An interesting, if unintentional, message from a kid's show.

Food for thought.

That is all.

Palin vs. Obama

Joseph Farah thinks that Sarah Palin should become a Democrat in order to challenge Obama in the primary. Supposedly, Republicans would join the Democratic Party in droves (where voting is partisan) in order to support her.

That's ridiculous. For someone to change parties and run like that just as a strategy to win, regardless of ideological agreement, she would have to be a huge attention whore. She would have to have no principles other than the desire for self-promotion, and could not really take any positions beyond minimal soundbites to excite the weak-minded.

Oh, wait. Yeah, she'd be perfect.

That is all.

Thoughts on 9/11

I remember that on 9/11, I was just starting grad school. I had breakfast with the guy running the labs I would be TA-ing.

After that, I went to the computer lab and checked out my political sites - at the time I was checking Jewish World Review. As I only checked the editorials, which were usually refreshed around 4 am, I didn't read anything as the planes were crashing.

Whatever else I was doing, I didn't hear or see anything about the attacks. I then went to freshman biology, which I was shadowing to help me be a TA. I saw someone listening to the radio on headphones outside the classroom. I heard someone talking (rather than singing) in their headphones, and assumed that they were listening to a sports game (this was about 11 am, I think). Someone asked him what was going on, and they said that planes had crashed into the World Trade Centers and the buildings had collapsed. My first question was "are you serious?" or something like that. They either mentioned the Pentagon and the plane in Pennsylvania, or I heard about them later when the class was over (I stayed in the class and went through the whole class as if nothing were different - I think I was sort of shocked and decided to go through the class and the nsort out what had happened).

As I recall, we had a cookout day that day (we were still were doing the "initiation" events for new students) and I walked around eating some burgers that had been grilled. I emailed some friends about remaining calm and not assuming anything. The rest of the day I think I watched news reports, etc.

I recall hearing someone blaring "Born in the USA" from another dorm that evening (I lived in the graduate/non-trad dorm).

The most interesting thing about my experience, now that I think about it, is that I was spared a lot of the early confusion because all of the planes had crashed and the towers had collapsed by the time I knew of anything, so there were no more surprises.

More on this later.

That is all - for now.

PEOCompare

I recently received a request to link to the Professional Employer Organization Blog, and have decided to do so.

PEOs apparently deal with helping small businesses with HR issues.

Please check this blog out.

That is all.

Celebrate Human Biodiversity

Another co-opting of a slogan:



The background is the famous Cavalli-Sforza map.

That is all.

The Galton "Inequality" Symbol

Inspired by the "Darwin fish," a variation on a common symbol; this time, I am attacking the (false) god of the age.

Feel free to take this graphic and distribute it.

That is all.

The Tyranny of the "Queer"

The scariest thing about a lot of the "queer" individuals out there (I am using that as a catch-all term for non-heterosexuals, transgenders, and others) is how a lot of them seem to want to force everyone else not just to accept their behavior; but to approach life on their terms; it's not enough that a person who is biologically malebe considered female if he so chooses to identify. No, I must deny that my anatmoy has any impact on my maleness.

It is not enough to accept homosexual couples or to accept a couple that consists of a man and a "trans women" as heterosexual; no, if I do not want to have sex with a "woman" with a penis, that makes me not heterosexual but a bigot.

It has gone beyond demanding that we accept their exceptions to the rules to demanding that we formulate our rules in accordance with theirs.

In proof, I suggest you go to this post and look at all of the comments by myself and "Schala." I would not suggest commenting on the post (at least not unless you are being non-confrontational and polite), as my goal here is not to cause trouble for a blog that is decent on some issues and that has always been respectful (and because it is one of the commenters, not the people who run the blog that I am using as my example). I just want to see an example of how tyrannical sexual liberationism can get.

I will grant that Schala's position is likely not a common one at this time, but I offer it as something to look out for in the future, as it is a logical extension of egalitarian fundamentalism and sexual liberationism.

That is all.

Anders Behring Breivik is Tyler Durden

Does anyone else see a parallel between Tyler Durden of Fight Club and Anders Behring Breivik?

Basically, from their own viewpoint they are men who see the world as an anti-masculine, decadent, effete place, and have decided
to fight back.

From outside, perhaps we need to consider that the world has become an anti-masculine, decadent, effete place, and by suppressing and denying natural masculine tendencies, effeminizing the world, we have closed off the productive channels to which male energy is put and in so doing have pushed it all into destructive channels. Where masculine virtues are minimized, masculine vices try to fill in the empty space.

That is, the things that Breivik railed against are also the exact things that created him.

That is all.

The "Idi Amin's a Scotsman Fallacy"

A lot of people on the secular left seem to want to blame Anders Behring Breivik's massacre on Christianity, as he called himself a Christian and associated his massacre with rebuilding Christian Europe.

Now, some, such as Bill O'Reilly, have tried to deny Breivik's Christianity through the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, that is, the fact he killed so many people means he isn't a true Christian. Essnetially, "No True Scotsman" is a way of begging the question.

While that is a ridiculous argument to use, there is, however, a genuine question as to what Breivik's actual beliefs were. In his manifesto, at one point he says:

"If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."

In fact, he even refers to "Christian-agnostics" or "Christian-atheists."

Now, of course, some atheists are insisting that Breivik was a Christian, purely because he called himself one, and are defending their extremist nominalism by insisting that claiming that he wasn't is automatically the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Bollocks. Breivik is no Christian because he rejects Christian theology. Those who call him Christian simply because he identifies as one are engaging in extremist nominalism (that is, that words have no meaning other than denoting everything that is identified by that word - in other words, there is no definition of Christianity other than anyone who considers himself a Christian). I call this the "Idi Amin's a True Scotsman Fallacy," after Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who referred to himself as the "last king of Scotland."

The "Idi Amin's a True Scotsman Fallacy" (i.e. the nominalist fallacy) is that by identifying with a group, you can be said to represent the group. For example, someone says that polygamy is an acceptable practice among Scotsman because the Last King of Scotland, Idi Amin, practiced polygamy. This is, of course, ridiculous, Idi Amin is neither from Scotland nor is there any evidence of significant Scottish blood as far as I know. His only claim to Scottishness is his decision to name himself the King of Scotland, which title, as far as I know, has not been recognized.

To deny that Idi Amin is a true Scotsman is not "no true Scotsman," it is maintaining a reasonable definition of Scotsman.

I should also point out that I doubt that most of those people arguing for Breivik's Christianity on nominalist groudns probably would not use the same argument if someone claimed allegiance to a group that they actually cared about. If Roissy called himself a feminist, or if David Duke called himself an anti-racist, I have a feeling that these people would pretty quickly start insisting on more formal definitions of these terms being used.

That is all.

Mark Stroman and Jerome Ersland

I'm glad they executed him. Maybe he is changed, and I'm not going to argue against personal forgiveness such as that which surviving victim Rais Bhuiyan has granted him.

But law is about more than just vengeance. It is about justice, and about setting standards for a society.

When someone kills a bunch of innocent people as retaliation for a terrorist act committed by someone else, they deserve execution.

This is as opposed to a case such as the Jerome Ersland case (which I first heard about from Lawrence Auster). While I think that Ersland's act in killing a would-be robber long after subduing him was, indeed, murder, I think that it would have been much more fair to have lowered the charges to second degree murder rather than first; even if the later shots were not justifiable, the fact that the victim was part of an armed robbery attempt should mitigate the charges somewhat.

That is all.

Thought for the Day

This post from "lying eyes" ziel got me to thinking:

The not-entirely articulated fear of the (white) American Middle Class, particularly those heading toward retirement, is that the GOP wants to take away their Social Security and cut their Medicare in order to give it to the wealthy, and that the Democrats want to cut their Medicare and take away their private earnings and savings to give it to minorities.

That is all.

Minority Privilege

Appparently, the 14th amendment requires "Jim Snow" laws, according to a recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Just remember this the next time you are told about "white privilege."

That is all.

Thought for the Day

Life isn't short.

Life is long.

It just seems short because 90% of it consists of killing time doing something that doesn't matter waiting to do something that does matter.

That is all.

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

September 11 avenged.

Can we go home now?

Update: Yes, I am copying Steve Sailer, but really, the question asked is so perfect, what else can one say?

That is all.

More on the Asherah Issue

Dominic Holtz, O.P. at March 24, 2011 4:17 am says exactly what I was trying to say, but much more concisely.

That is all.

They Didn't Read the Bible, Did They?

I don't know how many of you have read any of the recent news articles about Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who has claimed to have uncovered "new" evidence that the Bible has been heavily edited, and that originally, YHVH (Yahweh, Jehovah, generally considered the most intimate name for God) had a wife, Asherah.

She bases this on an inscription found on some pottery, and on other artifacts that apparently pair YHVH with Asherah. She also mentions that the Bible "admits" that Asherah was worshipped at the temple in Israel. We are also treated by Aaron Brody to the revelation that "The ancient Israelites were polytheists."

So this really shows how wrong the Bible was and disproves all of the Bible's statements that the Israelites only worshipped one God, huh?

Uh - no.

The Bible does not actually say that the Israelites only worshipped the One True God. The Bible says that they were supposed to, but it pretty clearly indicates that they tended to have a problem following the rules. That's why so many Old Testament passages refer to Israel as an adultress or a whore. It is completely consistent with the Bible to assume that a lot of Israelis may have syncretically "married" God to the pagan goddess Asherah.

As for the Biblical "admission" (I use scare quotes because the implication is that someone intended to cover this up but was not able to do so) that Asherah was worshipped in YHVH's temple? It's from 2 Kings 21:7:

[King Manasseh] took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple, of which the LORD had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever.

Wow - the Bible endorses polytheism here, right?

Wrong. Read the preceding passages (2 Kings 21:1-6):

1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2 He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, following the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. 3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. 4 He built altars in the temple of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” 5 In the two courts of the temple of the LORD, he built altars to all the starry hosts. 6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.

In other words, the presence of polytheism in Israel - even officially (humanly officially anyway) sanctioned polytheism, is firmly acknowledged in the Bible - even though it is condemned strongly.

Now you can argue over whether or not God is real and whether or not this condemnation of idolatry is really God's word or just the politico-theological writings of one of a number of factions (I believe in the former, by the way), but you really cannot argue that evidence of Israeli polytheism or of syncretic attempts to "Pantheonize" YHVH into one God out of many is in any way inconsistent with the Biblical account.

Even for a secularist, arguing that Asherah was "edited out" of the Old Testament is a little bit reaching - unless you have evidence that previous versions of the books of the Old Testament exist that mention Asherah or polytheism favorably, it would make far more sense to assume that the original Old Testament writings were by monotheists who were opposed to the polytheism around them. Saying that Asherah was "edited out" implies that the books comprising the Old Testament were originally written by people who were comfortable with polytheism. Even if you don't assume Biblical accuracy, it makes far more sense to assume that they were account written by polemical monotheists - Asherah-worshippers and polytheists were presented negatively from the outset, not "edited out."

The problem here is that too many people seem to think that somehow everyone mentioned in the Bible actually believed in the theology of the Bible. It is the same mindset that looks to the Bible to see passages describing wanton immorality and sin, and then determines that the Bible is an immoral book because everything it mentions it must condone, but in reverse - it assumes that whatever the Bible condemns, it denies the existence thereof.

In short, this story (not even a new one, the linked article itself mentions Raphael Patai coming up with this back in 1967) is a lot of noise with no real significance.

That is all.

Atheocracy

Sean Gabb has an excellent article on Lewrockwell.com detailing the slide of the U.K. into a secular humanist theocracy.

This is why so many Christians now bristle at the idea of a "separation of church and state." It used to mean that the state left he church alone. Now it increasingly means the state actively imposing secular humanism on the masses.

That is all.

Women in the Military

At the risk of becoming obsessed with Alas, let me point out how STUPID this post there is.

Apparently, being concerned about men would react to women in combat is "coddling" them.

Yet, apparently "the angry black woman" thinks that we need to accommodate pregnancies in the military, and has nothing to say about the lowered physical standards for women, or notices that if men treated women the same way they treat other men, they would likely be sued for harassment.

And of course, "A whole chunk of the DADT debate was shaped by this sense that men’s sensibilities are, apparently, just too damn delicate to deal with the possibility that Joe over there might like to look at penises now and then."

Of course, when women express similar concerns, we are supposed to have training sessions about sexual harassment, etc.. Of course women need to be coddled.

The hypocrisy here is astounding.

That is all.

Steve Sailer's Best Piece of Advice for the GOP in 2012

If the GOP wants to make 2012 different from 2008, it must try to nominate a good candidate for a change.

The implied insult to the previous few GOP candidates is priceless.

That is all.

Dirty Little Hypocrites

Alas on the Gabrille Giffords shooting by Jared Loughner.

Alas on the shooting of nine people by Omar Thornton.

Any questions?

That is all.

EPIPHANY!

And not the one that happened yesterday...

Kevin MacDonald:Jews::Rosisy:Women

Both MacDonald and Roissy take a few largely ignored facts about their preferred topic (in MacDonald's case, that a lot of Jewish behavior is driven by anti-white Gentile and anti-Christian animus; in Roissy's case that women have a secual attraction to destructive male traits) and proceed to center their entire view of the topic around those facts.

That is, MacDonald takes one particular issue that the modern Jewish community tends to have and expands it into its defining trait. Roissy treats women as if they were walking sex doll puzzles (arrange the colors in the right order to get laid), without much else of interest about them.

That is all.

TRON: Legacy Review

I really liked the movie. Go see it.

I will do a more detailed review soon.

That is all.

More on DREAM Act

In my last post, I said that you need to call your Senators and tell them to vote against the DREAM Act.

I just realized the most important thing to say in such a call: "this is a more important issue to me than keeping the Bush tax rates."

Make certain your Senators know how high a priority this particular issue is.

By the way, if your Senator is one of these:

ARKANSAS
Sen. Pryor (D)

FLORIDA
Sen. LeMieux (R)

MAINE
Sen. Collins (R)
Sen. Snowe (R)

MASSACHUSETTS
Sen. Brown (R)

NEBRASKA
Sen. Nelson (D)

NORTH CAROLINA
Sen. Hagan (D)

then they have already been converted to a "NO" vote. IF you call them, do it to thank them, not to harangue them on how to vote.

That is all.

Just Say "NO!" to DREAM Act

Remember to call your Senators and Representatives and to tell them to vote "NO!" on the DREAM Act amnesty.

Also, consider signing up for NumbersUSA action alerts, and to send free faxes to your elected officials.

That is all.

I Hate Exxon Mobil

Recently I got a Mobil credit card because it offered a $50 restaurant.com dining certificate (and a second if I bought more than 100 gallons of gas), figuring that I could use it to get some restaurant gift cards.

It turns out that all the gift card can be used to do is to purchase coupons that have tons of restrictions on them.

The dirty S.O.B.s got me to get their credit card by offering me something worthless. "Fill your plate," indeed.

While the offer I am sure does not meet the legal definition of fraud, it is morally dishonest to call it a "fill your plate" offer, as if what they were offering was free gift cards rather than, in essence, free coupons.

I have decided not to buy any more gas from Mobil and to boycott even their convenience stores to the extent it is possible to do so.

And I have decided to complain about it online, beccuse I have not seen anyone else do it yet.

At least all I lost was about 400 points on my Sears Citibank Mastercard (by not buying gas using it instead of the Mobil card - I got about 66 gallons before I realized how useless to me the gift card was).

That is all.

Thought on Joe Miller

As he has truly been surpassed in votes by Murkowski, and the only possible way for him to get elected is to get her ballots disqualified on technicalities of spelling (and apparently now even that will not be enough), he should concede and get on with it. Even if he would make a better Senator than she would, prolonging the recount process is not going to accomplish anything, and even if he were to prevent her from being seated on time (a la Franken), it won't really politically benefit the GOP, so there is not even a cynical partisan reason for him to hang on.

That is all.

"Paycheck Fairness" Act Fails - Good.

I think that the biggest problem with the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act is the one laid out by Attorney Lawrence Lorber:

what is going to happen is inevitably you will move toward a very rigid civil-service-like pay system, and there won't be any opportunity for significant merit-based raises... What you will have to do is assure that when you give increases you don't wind up with some sort of a pay differential, and you do that by not giving pay increases or by creating superficial promotions."

That is all.

Three Cheers for James Blunt

I never thought much of his singing, but if, as the BBC Reports, he was willing to defy General Insano's order to start World War III, then something is right with him in my book!

That is all.

Amazon vs. the TSA

Amazon recently removed a "how-to" guide for pedophiles from its elecronic book lists.

Of course, the easiset how-to book for getting away with pedophilic behavior need only contain one sentence:

"Become a Transportation Security Administration officer."

That is all.

Gay Rights-ers Real Goal: Destroy All Opposition

Christians are no longer allowed to adopt in Britain unless they surrender to secular humanist morality.

And notice the weasel words that Ben Summerskill uses to justify the policy:

"‘Many Christian parents of gay children will be shocked at Mr and Mrs Johns’s views, which are more redolent of the 19th century than the 21st.’"

Translation: Because we have got some Christians (or least soi disant Christians) to reject Biblical teaching on homosexuality, those doctrines are no longer to be considered part of Christianity. Moreover, the existence of non-traditional teachings invalidates the right to hold traditional teachings; a particular teaching cannot be considered part of your religion as long as we can get someone who claims to belong to your religion to reject it.

This sleight of hand happens frequently, when someone who criticizes a policy for violating their religious beliefs is pointed towards another person ostensibly of the same religion who supports the policy, as if that someone's belief invalidates everyone's who disagrees with him. It is as if freedom of religion only means freedom to identify as a particular creed rather than freedom to hold one's own particular beliefs.

Of course, I suppose that people who defend this policy will remind me that anyone who rejects the sexual revolution is automatically an oppressor and has no rights.

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

That is all.

The Austrian Concept of Inflationary Fed Policy in a Nutshell

A comment by "Wandarin" on one of Steve Sailer's posts:


"I'm confused by how this QE actually works in actual actuality"

Imagine a large hot-air balloon carrying a bunch of people with a gigantic hole in it. The person in charge of flying the balloon could:

a) Land, fix the hole, then take off again.
b) Keep firing the gas cannister thereby keeping the balloon in the air as long as possible before the gas runs out and the balloon suffers a catastrophic crash.

Now imagine the person in charge of the gas cannister:
a) Is responsible for the hole in the balloon and will be found out if the balloon lands.
b) Has a parachute
c) Gets money for every second the balloon stays in the air.


That is all.

Mike Adams on Anti-Bullying

I think that this article makes a decent point about the problems with the recent demand for more anti-bullying laws and/or policies on the heels of the Tyler Clementi suicide.

The major problem is that there is plenty of bullying going on against people with unpopular religious viewpoints (read: they don't endorse the sexual revolution) and many suspect that the gist of increases "anti-bullying" would simply be to increase bullying aginst the other side (because people who don't endorse the sexual revolution don't count, as Emily Nagoski reminds us).

That is all.

Paul Gottfried Defends Germany

I think that this article about Thilo Sarrazin by Paul Gottfried makes a compelling point about modern German politics; essentially, that there is a very trong element that wants German national suicide, under the pretext that anything else is a resurgence of Nazism.

Some of this may be due to paranoia directed at the Germans, but some of it I think is a willful spiteful decision to get rid of Germany in revenge for World War II.

It is high time that Germans learn to find a happy medium between ultranationalism and autoracism (hatred of one's own race), and at some point some of the laws designed to prevent a return to Nazism need to be reviewed in order to make certain that they didn't go too far in the other direction towards making self-annihilation mandatory. At the very least it needs to be realized that the proportion of the population that was exposed to Nazism is rapidly dying off from age. And, if they are going to hav laws against anything that smacks of Nazism, they should at the very least do the same thing with communism; it could be justified as a way of deprogramming those Germans from the eastern section.

That is all.

Pastors and Politics

(Be warned: if you click on the link, the comments on the page contain sound files that start playing automatically).

Doug Giles has an interesting article about what makes pastors lack boldness on social, cultural, and political issues in our climate, regardless of how much these issues impact church issues.

I think it's a good read, although I cannot agree with everything he says, and for this sort of article the Jonah Goldberg-esque cultural references are inappropriate.

That is all.

Tom Tancredo for Colorado

Dear Readers,

There is an excellent opportunity to support a candidate who is good on immigration and to get a Constitution Party candidate elected to the most prominent office yet!

Please, if you have any extra cash donate to Tom Tancredo's campaign!

-Glaivester

That is all.

Thoughts on Gays in the Military

It's finally occurred to me why leftists don't see any potential problems from having homosexuals in close quarters with other people of the same sex, including bunking together, showering together, etc., even when they are okay with segregating women and men in those situations.

It's because they are so convinced of the fundamental justice of letting gays serve openly, that any problems that may arise cannot possibly exist, because that would deny fundamental justice.

They are also so opposed to the idea of stereotyping gay men as predators that they cannot conceive of gay men acting inappropriately; any policy which would tend to protect people from a gay man who acts inappropriately is therefore unjust, and to be concerned about a homosexual the same way you would about a heterosexual automatically becomes homophobia; in effect, the lack of a double standard that favors homosexual men is considered to be discrimination.

In effect, of course, we are being told that homosexuals are more sexually enlightened than heterosexuals.

After I commented on this issue on a recent post by Thoreau on Unqualified Offerings, typical leftist joe from Lowell had a hissy fit, suggesting that I was "projeccting my own issues," that "Operating in an all-male environment where some of the men are gay is... no different from being around any other men," and overall suggesting that sexuality is not why we segregate men and women in certain situations.

Commenter Professor Coldheart was slightly more honest, in that he said that the results of putting homosexual men in close quarters with other men would be that: gay men who serve in close quarters with straight men will do the same thing they’ve done for the last ten thousand years of human history. They’ll either keep it under control, or they’ll make a pass at a guy, or they’ll find a quiet spot behind the HummVee for a combat jack. And somehow the Empire will abide.

The not-so-subtle implication here is that men who would be uncomfortable with another man making a pass at them should get over it - or put more bluntly, that we should tolerate sexual harassment if the harasser is gay.

And that is ultimately what will happen, I think. People keep telling us that homosexuals in the military hasn't been a problem for other countries, but considering how hard the government has tried to suppress information regarding the problems of putting women in certain military situations (i.e. not publicizing the number of women who are absent from ships due to pregnancy) and how little actual debate there is over issues such as the fact that certain requirements are being re-defined to accomodate women (i.e. stretchers are not operated by four rather than two people, because most women are too weak to operate half of a stretcher), and how there were attempts to present the Jessica Lynch story in a way to make women in combat seem more palatable, who here thinks that any problems that gays in the military might cause would not be suppressed, both by the countries which already instituted the rule (which are more into egalitarian fundamentalism than we are) and by us in the future.

What Professor Coldheart implies, and what I think the military will do, is ultimately make an unofficial policy that anyone making any charge of a homosexual behaving inappropriately will be immediately labeled homophobic, and be punished for it. The effect of this will be that a certain amount of same-sex sexual harassment will be unofficially required to be tolerated, and any objections will be seen as bigotry. Anything that gets in the way of egalitarianism will be crushed, and concerns about harassment will be swept aside the same way that they were largely swept aside by feminists when it came to Bill Clinton.

That is all.

Short Manifesto

It has come to my attention in recent years that many of the problems facing the U.S. are not the result of well-meaning fools; rather they are the deliberate result of a hostile elite class whose goal is the destruction of traditional society and the delegitimization of all traditional institutions, and indeed the destruction of the historical American peoples. These devastations are to be replaced with a semblance of radical individualism (not in terms of individual liberty but in terms of a lack of restraining social mores), the equalization of all forms of relationships, and the importation of hostile alien populations.

In the end, the destruction of the institutions by which society is formed will lead to the functions of such institutions being taken over by the state; where social mores restrained behavior now we will only have force of law. No distinction will remain between personal morality and criminal/civil law, as all moral objections to things which are not expressly prohibited by law will be effectively banned.

The most potent weapon I think that conservatives now have in their arsenal is contempt. The first step to confronting the enemy is to realize that he is the enemy. He* certainly sees us as such, and so we should not believe that we can make him friendly. We can certainly behave civilly towards him when the situation warrants, and when confronted with new people who are on the other side, we can give them the benefit of the doubt. But once a person sides with the enemy, and explicitly sees us as the enemy, we must not make the mistake of seeing him as a possible friend.

If someone announces that they have no interest in the preservation of traditional American society, they should be denounced. Any claims that we are being racist or intolerant should be met with "if you want to do away with my society, why should I care about your feelings?"

Above all, we need to realize that we are defenders; we are the ones who have been attacked. We are reacting to an attempt to delegitimize and to destroy us, and we should not have to apologize for that.

That is all.

*I use "he" here as a generic personification of all leftism, not aimed at the gender of the writer of the particular piece I am referencing.

Naked Leftism

Checking out Alas, I came to this piece.

I think it is very instructive in understanding the leftist mindset, and why the supposed beacons of "tolerance" are so willing and eager to try to destroy all dissent. Does anyone doubt that if this woman were in charge, being an evangelical Christian would be criminalized and all who dissented would be sent to re-education camps?

Q. When does a liberal believe in tolerance?

A. When he isn't the one in power.

That is all.

Holland, Stop Prosecuting Geert Wilders!

Randall Parker and Dennis Mangan take the Netherlands to task for their persecution prosecution of someone for simply standing up for his own country against incompatible invaders.

That is all.