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.