Nicholas Stix has the low-down on the double-standard prevalent in our society.
That is all.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
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.
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, March 01, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone know what is going on here?
Rod Dreher doesn't have that stupid login to comment on his blog.
That is all.
Monday, February 20, 2012
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
Friday, December 30, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)