Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The latest on the despicable Sheldon Adelson, who wants to buy cheap labor for his casions and who holds no loyalty to the U.S.. The perfidy of Marco Rubio, lying about welfare and immigration. The heroic Lou Barletta scoffs at amnesty as a GOP vote-getter. That is all - for now.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Update: You will need to contact Rush as well, and tell him not to give in to Rubio. Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have recently gone soft on immigration; Hannity is "evolving" on the issue and Mark Levin agrees with Marco Rubio that we already have de facto amnesty, so why not make it official? Obviously, this is unacceptable. Please contact the Sean Hannity and Mark Levin shows and tell them that (a) anything that allows illegal aliens to stay here legally is amnesty, regardless of what labels they put on it, (b) amnestying illegal aliens will not significantly increase the GOP share of the Latino vote, and (c) we need to fight to end the non-enforcement of current laws, not to give in to it. That is all.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Via Baloo, I found an excellent article summarizing the liberal attitude toward guns. Money quotes: "Nonetheless, Leftists oppose guns at a primal level because they provide a way for citizens to exercise power without going through their managerial state." "Make no mistake – the horror stories from Britain of robbers suing homeowners for attacking them is not a system out of control. It’s a system operating precisely as it was designed to." "Therefore, the only freedoms that are allowed are ones that further “enjoyment.” There’s a reason why Prohibition of alcohol has become unthinkable even as prohibition of guns is now debated." That is all.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Update: More on this from Rush Limbaugh and National Review. In this article about how to deal with pedophilia (or, in English, paedophilia), there are some suggestions that make sense (e.g. trying to help people with pedophilic desires not act on them). However, also mentioned in the article is the people who are arguing for pedophilia's normalization. And really, in a modern sexually liberated society, why not? The entire concept of sexual morality for a liberal revolves around consent. Not that I am saying that consent is not necessary for sex to be licit. However, the sexual liberal also argues that consent is sufficient, and that consensual sexual relations can never be immoral. That is the entirety of the liberal test for whether or not sex is licit. This means that any sex they feel uncomfortable with they simply define as non-consensual in order to justify their sudden bout of atypical puritanism. It gives them cover for the unprincipled exceptions they make to their liberation. This covers pedophilic sex, bestiality, and to some extent any moral issues they may have with adultery (essentially adultery is bad because it lacks a third party consent, that is, it violates the agreement made with the spouse - of course, I don't think that most liberals argue from this that adultery needs to have any practical legal consequences, e.g. in the terms of a divorce or custody settlement; and of course, if the adultery is agreed upon, e.g. swinging, it is fine). Still, ultimately, other than forcible rape, I don't see how this can stand. Condemning bestiality on the grounds of consent is ludicrous when we do not require consent for forcible breeding of livestock or for killing and eating them. Without conservative concepts that make bestiality wrong because it is a total perversion of the purposes and practice of sex, it must now be accepted as another form of pleasure-seeking condoned by the primacy of hedonism. Even for pedophilia, denying children the autonomy to make sexual decisions flies in the face of liberal doctrine regarding sexuality. Unless you look at sex as something that is dangerous, and that if not used correctly becomes incredibly socially corrosive, the concept that we must protect people who are not old enough to appreciate their decision from getting sexually involved is rather ridiculous. It is the position that would be labeled "sex-negative" by sexual liberationists in any other context. In the article, one comment is telling: "The reason a child cannot give informed consent is that a child cannot know what is being asked of them. They cannot fully understand the nature of a sex act, not its possible consequences, nor its social significance. " What a sex-negative attitude! On the other hand, how true - but can sexual liberationists argue this truth much longer, or will the weight of their philosophy crush it? That is all.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
How about not much? There are so few school shootings and so few people killed this way that I question the need to create any large-scale proposals in order to stop the killing. I think that allowing some teachers to be armed would not be a bad thing, but ultimately, policies should not be determined by vanishingly rare events, unless they would produce a societal catastrophe (e.g. something along the lines of a major city getting destroyed by a bomb). That is all.