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.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
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.
Nicholas Stix explains Obama's involvement in the mortgage shakedown that led to the mortgage meltdown.
That is all.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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
Police Officer Told He Must Attend Muslim Proselytizing Event
Nicholas Stix posts this interesting story.
Considering other stories about governments trying to force exposure to Islam, I have to question my previous statements that governments are trying to establish secular humanism as the official state religion, and wonder if they are just trying to privilege everything that is not Christianity.
That is all.
Considering other stories about governments trying to force exposure to Islam, I have to question my previous statements that governments are trying to establish secular humanism as the official state religion, and wonder if they are just trying to privilege everything that is not Christianity.
That is all.
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.
I wonder where all of the people who defended that Russian rock band named after female genitalia are?
That is all.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Great Quote from Steve Sailer
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Obama Charged with Falsifying Deportation Numbers
NumbersUSA has the goods.
Previously on this topic:
Apprehensions Down to Lowest Since 1972
Obama's Immigration "Enforcement" is Mostly Lies
That is all.
Previously on this topic:
Apprehensions Down to Lowest Since 1972
Obama's Immigration "Enforcement" is Mostly Lies
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)