Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Dreaming of a White Christmas Tree

Here's a picture of my Christmas tree, in the light and in the dark. If you had asked me when I was little, I could not have imagined other than a green Christmas tree. Then, in 2006, I saw a white tree with blue lights and it caught my eye. So I bought one, covered it with blue and silver, and wrapped a number of boxes to use as fake presents for decoration (I lived on my own but celebrated Christmas at my parents' house, so there would be no real presents under my tree). I have used it on and off since then. So here it is. That is all.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Thoughts on Susan Rice

Ultimately, from a policy standpoint, it doesn't matter much. But I am glad that she dropped out, because for her to be nominated after the Ben-Ghazi incident would basically cement that this administration can get away with absolutely anything, and that being black and female insulates you from any mistakes. In short, it isn't much of a victory, but it is the avoidance of an intolerable loss. What do I think about Kerry for Secretary of State? He would not be my choice, but I don't know that we could get much better under Obama, and I doubt that the GOP has anything to gain, either policy-wise or politics-wise, by opposing him. He isn't a completely offensive choice in the way that Susan "Cover-Up" Rice is. That is all.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Join NUMBERSUSA to Defeat Amnesty

I encourage any Glaivester reader who has not done so to go to NumbersUSA and to sign up for Action Alerts. NumbersUSA is an immigration restriction allows you to use your computer to send pre-written faxes to your legislators, and gives you alerts to make phone calls or take other actions to fight unrestricted immigration.

With a big amnesty battle brewing next year, everyone against amnesty needs to get involved!

That is all.

Monday, December 03, 2012

Thoughts on Jovan Belcher

I sort of like the animated series The Boondocks (I never read the comic strip much, so I am primarily qualified only to comment on the series). It shows a high level of self-awareness as to the problems of today's black culture, and is surprisingly less mean-spirited toward whites than one might expect (and in many cases, whites are satirized largely as SWPLs or as shallow rather than as racist).

I thought that this clip from the show probably offers actual insight into the process that likely fueled Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide.

I suppose one could be offended by dealing with a stupid, senseless murder like this using humor, but I think that some of the best humor comes from a sense of bitterness and anger at things that are just wrong; and the humor used in this piece is, I think, very appropriate to the situation. That is all.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

An Interesting Article on the "Fast and Furious" Operation

According to this, the Obama Administration leaked information to the press blaming gun dealers involved in the "Fast and Furious" operation for selling guns that went south of the border.

This certainly lends credence to the theory that "Fast and Furious" was an attempt to create a justification for more gun control.

But of course, we are supposed to think that this is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory.

That is all.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Incompetence and "Racism"

Jim Clyburn thinks that "incompetent" is a racially charged code word when applied to Susan Rice.

The proper response to this is to tell Mr. Clyburn:

"Regarding my feelings toward you and Mrs. Rice, let me say that my comments are not in any way racist.  And to prove my lack of racism, let me quote a famous black poet in regards to how I feel about these accusations."

That is all.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

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.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

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.

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

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.

Sunday, November 04, 2012

Commenting at The American Conservative


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.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

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.

Sunday, October 07, 2012

New Ad from NumbersUSA


I like it.

That is all.

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

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.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

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.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

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.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Sunday, September 23, 2012

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.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

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.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

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.

Friday, July 13, 2012

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.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

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.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

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.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

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.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

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.

Friday, June 15, 2012


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.

Friday, June 01, 2012

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.

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

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.

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

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.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

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.

Friday, April 13, 2012

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.

Sunday, April 08, 2012

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.

Friday, April 06, 2012

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.

Friday, March 30, 2012


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.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

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.

Sunday, March 18, 2012


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.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

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.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

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.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

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.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

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.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

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.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

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.

Monday, January 02, 2012

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.