Thursday, April 30, 2015

A Liberal Gets Fired For Honesty

Tonight’s article is about someone I assume is a liberal... she thinks like one. I’ll prove that at the end. Anyways, the article is about a single mother who was “fired” from a job for something she said on Facebook. Naturally, she thinks it’s unfair. And what she presents is a case study of liberal hypocrisy.

We know little about the mother in question because the article doesn’t really focus on her. I suspect the reason for that is that the author of the article is afraid the public won’t like this poor victim-wannabe if they knew more about her. What we do know is that she’s a 27 year-old single mom who lives in a suburb of Dallas and she goes by the name Kaitlyn Walls... making her one of the tidal wave of Kātlins that struck at about the same time.

Caitlin interviewed for and got a job at a day care center. The day her new job began, she wrote this on Facebook:
“I start my new job today, but I absolutely hate working at daycares.”

“LOL, it’s all good, I just really hate being around a lot of kids.”
Whoops. Sure enough, someone told the employer what Katelyn wrote and her offer was rescinded. She then ran to the press to enshrine her victimhood. Based on the comments to the article, however, she didn’t get the response she expected. She says she actually cried at the hate she received. Boo hoo.

In the article, Kaitlin assures us that firing her (an inaccurate assessment of what happened) was unfair because she didn’t mean it. In fact, she assures us that “I don’t hate children. I have my own…I love her.” And she lets us know that “It really hurt because I wasn’t trying to offend anybody.”

Ah, the smell of self-centeredness.

Let me start by pointing out why “firing” her was not unfair:
(1) Working at a day care center requires an affinity for children. Not only did Catelyn just admit to not being suited for the job (“I hate working at daycares”), but she specifically admitted to having an attitude that is a huge red flag in that industry: “I just really hate being around a lot of kids.” People with that attitude are the ones who end up on camera smacking kids or otherwise abusing them, something a day care center cannot tolerate. So it not only makes sense to “fire” her, but it’s really the only choice a responsible day care center would have.

Her suggestion that somehow she didn’t really mean it doesn’t hold water either. People don’t spit out negative untruths about themselves. “Man, I really hate short people! LOL!” No, people don’t do that unless the thing they spew out is something they already believe.

Further, how is the employer supposed to know the difference between those who are just saying offensive things for fun and those who really mean it? And does it matter? It doesn’t seem to matter to liberals when the thing said offends them.

Also, this idea that she loves her daughter, is misdirection, not a defense. There is a substantive distance between loving your own child and disproving your own assertion that you hate groups of other people’s kids.

(2) Most likely, Kateline lied during the interview. I have no doubt that she was asked how she liked working at day care centers and what she thinks of watching groups of kids. You can be sure she told the employer that she loves both. Her Facebook post reveals that to be a lie. And an employee who lies about something that significant will lie about anything. That is a good reason to fire an employee who would otherwise occupy a position of trust.

At the very least, Kaitlynn just revealed a poisonous attitude of the kind that gets people fired even without ever being caught saying anything specifically bad.

(3) Caitline also has shown that she lacks the necessary filter to be given a position of trust. The day care center can more than reasonably worry based on this incident that she will be gossiping about the children in her charge and their parents. Again, that is reason to fire someone.
And let me toss this out there. I don’t know Catelynn, but I can guess with 99.9% certainty that Caitlyn would bitch up a storm if an employee at the daycare center where she leaves her little Bryttannee said, “I hate little kids.” She would probably be all over Facebook writing that the center needed to fire this rotten, insensitive human. You know I’m right.

What I find interesting here is the liberalism...
● “I didn’t do wrong because I didn’t intend to offend.” That’s very liberal: only intent matters.

● “What I did doesn’t matter because I didn’t mean it.” Again, liberals believe intent is all that matters.

● “It should be up to the employer to prove that I was serious and that I intended something wrong.” This is a classic example of how liberals decide disputes: the most powerful partner bears the responsibility unless there is absolute proof of intentional wrongful conduct by the whinier party.

● “I can’t imagine why this would be bad other than if I really meant it.” Demonstrating an utter lack of responsibility and a lack of a grasp on the bigger picture. This belief again fits perfectly with liberalism, which loves to narrow issues to the here and now and simplify them to strip away any responsibility on the part of their designated victim.
From the comments, you can also add these defenses of her:
● “The employer shouldn’t be allowed to ‘pry’ into things Katelinn said online.” How is it prying when something is said for all the world to hear? This is a classic example of the liberal penchant for relieving bad people of the responsibility of their actions. This is also the liberal penchant for elevating procedure over substance... who cares if we now have proof he was the killer, we get that proof the wrong way.

● “The evil person in this is the person who reported her comments to the employer.” Liberals love to deflect blame. You see this when liberals attack the police who do the arresting rather than the criminal who gave cause to be arrested.
And again, it would be very liberal to apply one standard here and then a different standard when they find themselves on the other side.

Nice, huh?
[+]

Monday, April 27, 2015

Baltimore Or Less -- Open Thread

You know, I actually liked Baltimore. Sure, it's a burned out toilet with drug dealers and hookers alternating corners, corrupt cops taking pay offs, and "neighborhoods" where you enter at your own risk. It looks every day like the picture to the left. Sure, my good friend had his house broken into three times in his first year and his car six times -- he stopped locking it to prevent the druggies from breaking the windows -- and he got to watch a store owner pistol whip a crack whore. Sure, the city is everything we've come to expect from decades of government dependency, but gosh darnit if I didn't like to spend time there... at least in the inner harbor.

Oh, and have you noticed that everyone seems to want to burn the city? The British did it in the War of 1812. Union troops did it in the Baltimore Riot of 1861. Ten died in the Great Railroad riot of 1877. Six died in the Baltimore Riot of 1968. Now they're at it again in 2015. Clearly, Baltimore was built on an ancient Indian burial ground.

Anyway, share your thoughts here... or eRiot.
[+]

At The Film Site: Mini-Major Discussion: Polygram Filmed Entertainment

[+]

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Where Is The Left On Obama's Wars?

Silence. That’s what you generally hear from the left about the Obama wars. There is no Code Pink. There is no nightly body count from Brian Williams... oops. There are no angry leftists like Obama standing on the floor of Congress offering aid and comfort to the bad guys and damning the President for his war mongering. Yet, Obama is perhaps our most militaristic President since LBJ.

One group that does sometimes touch upon this very lightly is Politico. Note this article ==> LINK. The article first notes that Obama has pledged as late as his inauguration in 2013 to end “a decade or war.” But they note that the number of conflicts in which Obama has involved us has actually increased. Right now, according to the article, the US take “lethal action” in at least five countries and has deployed US troops in three active conflict zones, including involving us in two Arab civil wars.

So much for peaceful Barry O.

Anyways, here are the conflicts the Politico article mentions, and the problems they are hearing from government insiders:

Ukraine: In the Ukraine, the Russians are apparently planning another offensive and Team Obama wants to send anti-tank missiles. There is a worry that the Russians will consider this provocative.

Yemen: In Yemen, Obama has supported Saudi bombing against the rebels as a means of preventing Iran from gaining control over the country. He has just recently sent naval vessels to the area to stop the Iranians from sending military supplies to the rebels as well. There is serious concern this will lead to a direct confrontation with Iran.

Iraq: In Iraq, Obama has been bombing ISIS troops near Mosul and is apparently planning to send special forces to help pick targets in the next offensive planned for later in the year.

Afghanistan: Obama has basically stopped the withdrawal from Afghanistan and given the troops expanded authority to conduct combat operations against the Taliban.

“The Middle East and North Africa”: The article then lumps the fight against al Qaeda into one giant fight involving “the Middle East and North Africa.” Of course, there’s more to it than that... a lot more.

The left tries to dismiss this by blaming Bush. Indeed, intellectual whore Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress, which lies to support leftist causes, basically blames Bush and then says that Obama has done an “admirable job of managing the costs” of these actions. How about solving them rather than just managing their costs, Brian? I can manage the costs of a house fire by sitting on my ass, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good solution.

Interestingly, part of dirty Brian’s criteria for why Obama is doing so well is that the nation isn’t as divided as it was under Bush. Really? So if I throw a tantrum at your guy, but I hypocritically don’t throw the same tantrum against my own guy, then I can say that’s evidence that my guy is better? Wow, that’s intellectually dishonest... or stupid.

Anyway, speaking of leftist tantrums, note that you hear NOTHING about landmines... drone strikes... human rights at Gitmo... illegal wars... disproportionate use of force... rotten allies... fighting for oil... etc. Not a single leftist grievance made against Bush, each of which applies equally or greater to Obama, gets voiced anymore. Why? Because the left doesn’t believe this crap, they just use it as a weapon, just like they don’t care about the homeless, the spread of AIDS or income inequality when the left is in charge.

And lo, for he waseth elected and all the bad shit suddenly left the newscycle. -- Liberalus 4:20

Oh, and did you notice that troops no longer come home with PTSD, they aren’t suicidal (at a rate lower than the civilian population), they aren’t losing their jobs, the ranks are no longer filled with poor black kids dying for rich white Americans, their commanders suddenly care about them again and they aren’t being sent into the field under-equipped. It's a military miracle!

As an aside, here are some of the things Politico skipped, problems Obama is letting fester:

Syria: Obama has been a little bit pregnant in this one, sometimes choosing to help terrorists against murderous dictators and sometimes declaring an avoidance on both their houses without really bothering to try to solve the crisis.

Libya: Under Obama’s watch, Libya has imploded unchecked into a terrorist nest.

Africa in toto: After emerging from millennia of darkness, Africa looked like it was trying to enter the modern world. Then Islam did its thing and now Africa is a basket case of religious killings and terrorist/rebel movements. US troops are involved in several countries, but not enough to solve any of the problems... just enough to supply weapons and act as targets.

China: The Far East is having a serious problem and its name is China. China has been expanding its military, saber rattling, and doing things like occupying disputed islands. They just built a military base on one. They are slowly destabilizing the entire region to the point that dickless Japan is thinking about building a nuclear arsenal and an offensive military. Oy. Obama claims the US will stand up to China, but he’s ignored the problem.

North Korea: SSDD.

Honduras: Ha ha ha! We are almost at the six year mark since Obama declared the coup illegal and swore to bitchslap them... and they are still holding out.

Besides these, you have other problems like Mexico’s narco war and pending collapse, the continued teetering of Greece, the surge of immigration from Craplandia to various First World places, rebel movements all over the world, massive Islamic terrorism, etc. There are also future problems coming: (1) demographic bombs in India and China, (2) Chinese control over parts of Africa, (3) the Iranian bomb, (4) when Putin hits menopause, just to name a few.

Reagan once asked, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” If we ask this about Obama, the answer is that the world has gotten less safe every single year he’s been in power.

[+]

Thursday, April 23, 2015

You Can't Choose Your Ancestors

Do you remember all those emails that were hacked from Sony? That group of emails leaked by Wikileaks between Sony executives that included unflattering personal inside jokes about Obama and embarrassing peculiarities of lots of Hollywood stars. Now, I don't support hacking, but those emails continue to be the gift that keeps on giving. Among those emails was one about Ben Affleck and his "embarrassing" ancestry.

In October 2014, he was the subject of an episode of "Finding Your Roots" on PBS hosted by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (of Beer Summit fame). On the show, Dr. Gates researches the guest's family tree and then they sit down and ooh and aaaah about their ancestors. But the email revealed that there may have been a few branches cut out of Mr. Affleck's tree for the show. It turns out that one of the branches on Affleck's family tree was a 19th Century Southern slave-owner named Benjamin Cole of Georgia. He was so embarrassed that someone like that could have been an ancestor that he asked the producers to cut out that particular branch from his episode and they obliged. Not only has this revelation landed the PBS production in hot water for breach of integrity, but poor Ben's embarrassing secret has been revealed.

"I didn't want any television show about my family to include a guy who owned slaves," Affleck wrote. "I was embarrassed. The very thought left a bad taste in my mouth."

Affleck is now on his apology tour and it just smacks of being way overly sensitive in that Liberal way that only Liberals can be. I mean, seriously, what difference does it make (thanks, Hillary!). Does Affleck really think that he will lose his Liberal street cred and people will refuse to see his movies because of something one of his distant ancestors did 150 years ago?

Now I should say this. I have at least one Southern slave-owner in my family tree too and the papers to prove it. And depending on how far back I go, I have ancestors who were slaves in Eqypt. But as a half-way intelligent person, I have the ability to put that kind of thing into its proper historical context. It was what people did in this country and we have to admit that it was perfectly legal up until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. I cannot be embarrassed by my ancestors because A) there's is nothing that can change that history and B) my family hasn't owned slaves for generations now. Am I being a little bit insensitive?

Let's discuss. And if any of you have any embarrassing ancestors, the time to reveal it would be now...

On a similar note, New York City will soon be revealing its slave selling past. A memorial plaque will be set up on June 19th at the site of a 18th Century slave market ironically on Wall Street.
[+]

At The Film Site: Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

[+]

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Leftists Say The Stupidest Things

Leftists love bumper stickers. And if you think about it, that’s because bumper stickers are perfect for leftists. Why? Because both share the same intellectual flaws. Consider this...

Bumper stickers are blurbs of “wisdom” which have been dumbed down to the point that any moron can understand them and can think they are bearing witness to something deep. In essence, they are the equivalent of the statements of Confucius or the parables of Jesus.

But there is a problem with bumper stickers. Whereas Confucius and Jesus had fully-realized philosophical theories which they were spreading through their slogans and stories, bumper stickers don’t have such a backing philosophy. To the contrary, bumper stickers are entirely compartmentalized, with each standing on its own without reference to any other bumper sticker and none of them relying on any sort of intellectual reliability.

Hence, it is quite possible to have two bumper stickers that actually express polar opposite thoughts appearing on the same car, just as it’s common for leftists, who have similarly compartmentalized minds, to hold contradictory beliefs. That’s why leftists love bumper sticks.

Anyways, today I want to take down some of the dumber bumper stickers I’ve encountered. Here are some of the ones that always make me shake my head:

COEXIST: This is a personal favorite of mine. This is usually aimed at Christians by atheists. But Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus all do a pretty good job of coexisting. They seem to respect each others’ religions and tolerate the competition. Sure, there are some crazies, but we’re only talking about a handful.

The problem with coexisting begins when the atheists enter the room. Atheists seem to despise the religions and are constantly using the court system and whatever other powers are available to try to silence them. Failing that, they like to try to shout them down. But the atheists are nothing compared to Islam which, like the Necromongers in Chronicles of Riddick, takes the view that everyone else better convert or needs to die. And even putting those murderous assholes asides, the left has recently embraced anti-Semitism. So maybe it’s time these came off the Volvo smokers.

Listen To/Believe/Trust The Children: Oh boy. This one is truly for morons, or people who’ve never met children. Essentially, we are to believe that children are so pure and so untainted by the world of adults that their thoughts are things we should follow and adopt. Snicker snicker.

Oh, where to begin. First, most children learn very quickly that violence is the easiest way to satisfy their desires. Children learn to lie very quickly too, and to tell half truths. Children lack the ability to analyze facts too and many children lack the ability to separate reality from fantasy, making their opinions entirely unreliable. What’s more, children have an amazing ability to develop prejudice, to act in ways that are racist, sexist, lookist or ageist. And man do they suck at delayed gratification and conservation. Essentially, children are little monsters imbedded with the worst elements of human nature until their parents teach them not to do those things. So we should trust and listen to those things? No sale.

Arms Are For Hugging: Arms can be for many things. They don’t need to be so limited. As for the anti-weapon message, without weapons, the good guys become victims of the bad guys... who don’t believe in hugs.

Think Globally, Act Locally: You first.

Hate Is Not A Family Value: Nope, sure isn’t... it’s a leftist tactic.

Against Abortion? Then Don’t Have One: This one is interesting on many levels. First, it fundamentally misunderstands the objection to abortion. Essentially, this is the same as saying “Against Murder? Then Don’t Murder Anyone but let the rest of us do as we please.” Secondly, this flies in the face of the leftist view expressed in all their other issues that everyone needs to be forced to conform to their slightest whims. Why is it that on this single issue there should be choice, but on every other issue it’s goose-stepping uniformity?

Keep Your Hands Off My Body: Not a problem... have you looked in the mirror?

What are some of your favorites?
[+]

Mindless Propaganda...

I go on record by saying that Facebook is not the forum for political discourse. Usually, I avoid engaging there because no one wants to have a real discussion and it just isn't worth losing "friends" over differences of opinion. But sometimes someone posts something that I find so outrageous that I just cannot help myself and I have to call them out.

A few weeks ago a "friend" posted the following meme and I was shocked:

If you look at the meme as a whole, it purposefully conflates Islamic extremist actions with fundamentalist Christian rhetoric. I could not help but be left with the impression that Bible-thumping Christian extremists are currently hanging people in a public square somewhere in the world for sins against the Bible. That is just how bad the Bible and Christians are.

I posted a comment to please tell me where this is happening! I pointed out that the recent photo suggests that this happening now. My "friend" admitted that he wasn't really looking at the photo together with the words. He was more interested in the truth in the words and that the photo was of no consequence. It was obvious that I was just "obsessed" with the photo and we should just "agree to disagree". Seriously, he did not even notice the photo. I was particularly confounded by that because he is a theatre professional who gets paid to put words and images together on stage.

Anyway, I see a lot of this kind mindless propaganda being posted lately. Dozens of memes like this are posted weekly and it is disturbing. Though this may be incendiary, it is very similar to the way the Nazis used artists to create posters of hooked-nosed Jews to wreak havoc. I refuse to "agree to disagree" on stuff like this.

I admit that I probably over-reacted, but let's discuss.
[+]

Monday, April 20, 2015

Sunday, April 19, 2015

If You Don't Have The Facts, Invent Them!

I’ve pointed out before that the left has essentially imploded as an ideology. All that is left of their ideology is a list of grievances. What’s more, these grievances are essentially invented by the left because they don’t have actual facts upon which to base their claims. Hence, it should come as no surprise that the left is busy inventing “facts”. Here are two examples:

● Fake Rapes: By now you’ve all heard that the left is trying to invent a rape epidemic. The reason is that the left has come to realize that the only way they have left to push “women’s rights” (read: special draconian legal powers for feminists) is to make the public think that women are in massive danger in society and only a total reformation of the laws can save them.

The first shot at creating a belief in a rape epidemic occurred as far back as at least the 1970s, when feminists invented the statistic that one in five (sometimes said one in ten) rapes aren’t reported. The problem feminists faced at the time was that the federal government keeps pretty good statistics on crime and there just aren’t very many rapes in this country. What’s more, the numbers have been falling steadily. So they needed to find more rapes. That meant inventing them and doing it in a way that couldn’t be easily disproved. Hence, they created the claim that one in five rapes will never be reported, with the idea being that the “real” number of rapes was 5 (or 10) times higher than reported. Along with this, you started hearing that one in four women will be raped in their lifetimes.

Unfortunately, for them, these numbers are obviously bullship. So they invented the idea of date rape and women who didn’t know they were raped until after they realized that they shouldn’t have given consent. Still, no one outside of feminist circles bought this crap either.

Recently, they’ve been busy trying to invent rape stories. This is why Rolling Stone’s fabricated their rape story against the frat and why Lena Dunham fabricated a college rape... in addition to dozens more.

Well, now we have a totally new insane claim which is meant to sell the idea that the Americans everyone thought were good during WWII were really a pack of rapists. This claim comes from a German chick who wrote a book claiming that the World War II allies (Americans, Brits and French... no Russians), raped 285,000 German women. This is ludicrous on its face. Indeed, the military took this crime seriously and reports that 552 rapes occurred, 159 American soldiers were eventually charged, and 29 were hung, and her claim would have there being 516 times the number of real rapes.

So where did the 285,000 figure come from? Get this... the chick started by assuming that 5% of births to unmarried German women between 1945 and 1955 were to American rapists. That is 1,900 births. She then assumes that for each of these, there were 100 rapes which did not result in pregnancy. Consequently, she estimates there were 190,000 rapes by Americans. The other 95,000 rapes were of British or French origin.

Now think about this. This woman has solid evidence only of 552 rapes. Instead, she invents a theory without any backing that 5% of unmarried women who gave birth were raped... with no reason to think this is true. She then combines this with an equally stupid and unsupported theory that there were another 1,000 rapes for each of those fantasy rapes. Essentially, she has invented a fantasy and multiplied it by another fantasy. And she is using that total fantasy, which flies in the face of all reasonable and reliable evidence by a factor of 500 times, to assert her claim that the Americans were dangerous rapists.

Why? Because she hopes, like other feminists, that this will make people think that there is a rape epidemic everywhere because if the supposed good-guy Americans raped that many women, then rape must be going on everywhere.

That is desperate and despicable, but it is the new battleground for feminists and other leftist tribes... invented facts.

● Fake Gays: Gays, like feminists, have been trying to get their numbers up for as long as I can remember. Indeed, many of them still cling to a long discredit number that 1 in 10 people is gay. (This figure was obtained from surveying mental institutions where gays were being treated, and is three to ten times higher than every single legitimate attempt to study the number of gays, which puts the number between 1% and 3% of the population.)

Well, with their numbers falling from one in ten to one in three, the gay lobby needs more ammo. And if you don’t have any, these days you might as well invent it. Hence, a new book claims that pretty much everyone in American history was gay. Washington, Hamilton and Lincoln were all supposed to be gay. As were all the men of Jamestown. And what proof does this turd have? He claims “gaydar” and he says of the Jamestown men, “It’s only natural that men would sleep with each other when there are no women around for months on end.”

Uh, no. That’s not how us heterosexuals think, Mr. Kramer.

Moreover, “gaydar” is not a valid tool of research. Gaydar is not evidence. What’s more, some of the gaydar evidence he points at is things like Washington picking decorative uniforms for his troops, which makes Washington “basically a big queen.” Only, if Kramer had done any research at all, he would have found that the American uniforms were modeled on the British uniforms, only they were blue, and every single country in the world at that time wore roughly similar uniforms.

Basically, Kramer is inventing this. He is doing that in the hopes of claiming that gays have always been openly woven into the fabric of society and that somehow the idea that homosexuality is abnormal is a modern invention.

It’s bunk.

This is what the left has sunk to. How sad.
[+]

Friday, April 17, 2015

Kit's Thoughts: Open Thread

by Kit

Not much to say today as I am nearing exams in college, so consider this an open thread. Discuss what you want. I'm posting some thought starters below, with maybe more to come as the weekend progresses.

Starting with…

The new Star Wars trailer!

Like it? I'm going to admit when he said, "You have it, too" and the score swelled I got a chill down my spine. And that last line? Heck yes!

I still have my reservations but I will probably see it.

Here are some quotes by G.K. Chesterton that I think will provide some fodder for discussion:

First, on the importance of optimism:

"There are two main moral necessities for the work of a great man: the first is that he should believe in the truth of his message; the second is that he should believe in the acceptability of his message." (Twelve Types, "Thomas Carlyle")

"The pessimist is commonly spoken of as the man in revolt. He is not. Firstly, because it requires some cheerfulness to continue in revolt, and secondly, because pessimism appeals to the weaker side of everybody, and the pessimist, therefore, drives as roaring a trade as the publican. The person who is really in revolt is the optimist, who generally lives and dies in a desperate and suicidal effort to persuade all the other people how good they are. It has been proved a hundred times over that if you really wish to enrage people and make them angry, even unto death, the right way to do it is to tell them that they are all the sons of God. Jesus Christ was crucified, it may be remembered, not because of anything he said about God, but on a charge of saying that a man could in three days pull down and rebuild the Temple. Every one of the great revolutionists, from Isaiah to Shelley, have been optimists. They have been indignant, not about the badness of existence, but about the slowness of men in realizing its goodness. The prophet who is stoned is not a brawler or a marplot. He is simply a rejected lover. He suffers from an unrequited attachment to things in general." (The Defendant, "Introduction")

"Pain, it is said, is the dominant element of life; but this is true only in a very special sense. If pain were for one single instant literally the dominant element in life, every man would be found hanging dead from his own bed-post by the morning. Pain, as the black and catastrophic thing, attracts the youthful artist, just as the schoolboy draws devils and skeletons and men hanging. But joy is a far more elusive and elvish matter, since it is our reason for existing, and a very feminine reason; it mingles with every breath we draw and every cup of tea we drink. The literature of joy is infinitely more difficult, more rare and more triumphant than the black and white literature of pain." (The Defendant, "A Defence of Farce")

And for any parents reading:

"The most unfathomable schools and sages have never attained to the gravity which dwells in the eyes of a baby of three months old. It is the gravity of astonishment at the universe, and astonishment at the universe is not mysticism, but a transcendent common-sense. The fascination of children lies in this: that with each of them all things are remade, and the universe is put again upon its trial. As we walk the streets and see below us those delightful bulbous heads, three times too big for the body, which mark these human mushrooms, we ought always primarily to remember that within every one of these heads there is a new universe, as new as it was on the seventh day of creation. In each of those orbs there is a new system of stars, new grass, new cities, a new sea." (The Defendant, "A Defence of Baby Worship")

"But the humorous look of children is perhaps the most endearing of all the bonds that hold the Cosmos together. Their top-heavy dignity is more touching than any humility; their solemnity gives us more hope for all things than a thousand carnivals of optimism; their large and lustrous eyes seem to hold all the stars in their astonishment; their fascinating absence of nose seems to give to us the most perfect hint of the humour that awaits us in the kingdom of heaven." (The Defendant, "A Defence of Baby-Worship")

You can purchase The Defendant on the kindle for free or you can go to Project Gutenberg. Your choice.
[+]

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Doonesbury Goes Soft on Free Speech

Gary Trudeau, creator of the cartoon strip Doonesbury, gave a speech this week at a ceremony at Long Island University as this year's recipient of the George E. Polk Career Award. The George Polk Awards in Journalism are a series of prestigious American journalism awards presented annually by Long Island University in New York.

In his acceptance speech, Trudeau expounded on the recent slaughter of 12 staff members at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by Islamic terrorists over a series of unflattering cartoons of Mohammed. According to Trudeau, they bear the brunt of blame for their own slaughter.

Below are some of the more disturbing cuts from the text of his remarks delivered on April 10 - [Click on the link for the full text]

The Abuse of Satire
By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence...Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks."

"What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism."

"It’s not easy figuring out where the red line is for satire anymore. But it’s always worth asking this question: Is anyone, anyone at all, laughing? If not, maybe you crossed it."
[Emphasis added]

Needless to say, this has been met with much criticism. The obvious criticism was how he blames the victims for being hateful and got what they asked for. But most importantly, the criticism was along the lines of who gets to define "free speech". If we define hate speech as anything that is offensive, then we must give up the concept of free speech altogether. Because there is nothing that cannot be is not offensive to someone.

Honestly, the gall of Gary Trudeau who has spent his career in offensive political and social satire having the nerve to define free speech down to what is safe and inoffensive. Yes, the "free speech absolutists" as he calls them deserved what they get because these "powerless, disenfranchised minorities" must express their outrage and pain over cartoons with indescriminate slaughter.

Being outraged over a offensive cartoons is one thing, but expressing that outrage by slaughtering people is inexcusable. And accepting that we must shut up or die is unconscionable.
[+]

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Do Feminists Believe In Women?

I’m going to make a point about feminists and in the process Hillary Clinton, and I’m going to use the NFL to do it. How do you like them apples! No laughing.

One of the surest ways to know that something is NOT true about another person is if they feel compelled to tell you that it is true. In other words, the more someone assures you that they really be smart, the more obvious it becomes that they are not. You see this with actresses a lot, most of whom are dumber than dirt. What you will see is that suddenly everyone who knows them goes out of their way to tell you how brilliant this idiot is, e.g. Zoey Deschanel. When you see that, you can rest assured that they are rock stupid.

Other great examples include Robot Al Gore trying to prove to us that he is indeed the world’s greatest lover as he bragged about sex acts he’s never done... and missed his wife’s lips when he tried to publicly kiss her. Brrr. Taylor Swift trying to assure us that she’s not some idiotic slut is cute as well. Then there are the vast number of people you will run into who assure you that they are selfless and that they live their entire lives for their kids and husbands/wives. This used to be a favorite of my white trash clients who live off the largess of their friends and relatives and the federal government as they spend their days gambling or watching Jerry Springer and they make their kids clean their homes. I see a lot of this among the martyr-moms at Starbucks too... all without the slightest sense of the irony they are emitting.

Then you have the people who feel the need to tell you how competent they really are. The more they say it, the less likely it is to be true.

So what does this have to do with feminism? Well, I can’t help but notice that feminists won’t shut the hell up when it comes to assuring us that women are in fact competent and can do anything men can do. History and hu(wo)man nature suggests that the reason they keep saying this is that they don’t actually believe it. Yep.

And let me be clear before I am well hung in effigy, I’m not saying that women can’t do the things men can do, what I’m saying is that feminists apparently don’t believe that to be true. Indeed, this seems particularly true given that feminists start worrying that someone might speak the truth and shatter the facade. Indeed, look at the worry driving feminists now that Hillary’s critics might use a magic word to destroy her reputation for competence. Doesn’t that tell us they think her reputation is a fraud?

In fact, interestingly, you never hear this concern expressed about competent men. Why? Because there isn’t a single word that can undo the public’s view of a competent man’s competence. It is only proof that he isn’t competent that can harm his reputation. Heck, the same is actually true of genuinely competent women. I never see women like my doctor or Maggie Thatcher or that ugly chick who runs Germany worry that someone may call them entitled or secretive or suggest they are riding their husband’s coattails. Why? Because people respect competence and they don’t let opinion undo a well-earned reputation. So why do feminists think this is such a big deal unless they truly are worried about the competence of Hillary... and women?

Anyway, that brings me to the NFL.

Last week, the NFL announced that they had hired the first female referee. The reason for this is obvious. After the Ray Rice elevator experience and the ensuing explosion of bad PR, the NFL wants to be seen as pro-chick, so they hired one to be a referee.

Now, it just so happens that this women is an excellent college referee and has passed all of the NFL’s tests and classes with flying colors. In other words, she really is competent and likely does deserve the job. So imagine my (total lack of) surprise when the liberal/feminist world went nuts. First, they acted like it was a miracle that a woman had been handed such a position, even though there are many women working their way up the ranks already, and they acted like she had gone on some strange adventure. What a way to reinforce the idea that women should avoid fields dominated by men. “Hey little girl, wanna be the only non-peniser in a room full of nerds? Be a scientist!” Yeah, that will make them see that as the field for them.

In any event, more interestingly, the feminists and liberals all went out of their way to assure us that, by Godiva, a non-peniser could do this job just as competently as a peniser. Seriously, was there ever any question?

The job does not require feats of strength or long-distance urination. All you need to do is be able to run around the field (which she can do if she takes off the heels), stand in places where you won’t get hit except on truly rare occasions (admittedly Ray Rice’s girlfriend can’t pass this test but other women can... what? too soon?), drop a handkerchief, and know the NFL rulebook. So as long as you can run, litter, and quote the rulebook then anybody can do this job... except Romanians for obvious reasons.

There simply is no reason to think that women will be any less capable than men at doing this in the slightest: lacking a penis does not make one any less capable of blowing calls, mis-spotting the ball or helping the Patriots win games. In fact, I can’t think of a single thing NFL referees do that males do better than females. So why keep bringing it up like it’s a real question that she can do the job unless you have some doubts?

What’s even worse, once the chicky newsreaders got involved, they started asking this non-peniser questions like, “Will you wear makeup?” Uh... get the Favre out. Why in the world would a chick who wants to prove that women can do anything men can do start by asking questions like that which drive home the point that because she's a woman, the job isn't her primary concern when she does the job? Talk about setting up her reputation for failure!

This is what makes me laugh about feminists. They talk a good game at times: women be the same as men! But then they won’t stop hysterically assuring us that women are capable and competent and smart and all that stuff men are... just don’t use words to wipe out the facade they’ve created... oh, and can you wear a pink tutu on the field?

Good grief, Charlene Brown.

I think I have discovered something. Of all the people who occupy this planet, only feminists seem to think that women are inferior (well, and fundamentalists, but that’s for a different reason). The rest of us seem to think women are, like, you know... people.

[+]

Open Thread - Secretaries of State Edition

Two Secretaries of State and two topics for today:

Number One: Below is a transcript of current Secretary of State John Kerry form his Sunday appearance on "Meet the Press" with Chuck Todd defending his current negotiations and recent non-agreement agreement pending with Iran:

QUESTION: Let me move to Iran because Iran is on the state sponsor of terror list. Why – how is it that you can do a nuclear agreement and trust a country to abide by that agreement that you also believe, that our government believes, is a state sponsor of terror?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the bottom line is the word you used, “trust.” We don’t trust. There is no element of trust in what we’re doing. You have to build trust, and that takes place over a long period of time.

This is an agreement that is based on transparency, accountability, verification. You have to be able to know what is happening. And we believe the President’s responsibility and my responsibility in support of him is to guarantee and protect the security of our country and of our friends and allies. And we believe that this agreement does that. We know that the American people overwhelmingly would like to see if we could resolve this question of Iran’s nuclear program peacefully. And that’s what we’re trying to do, but it requires a protocol of visibility, of accountability, of insight, of transparency --


SECRETARY KERRY: -- so that we know what Iran is doing. And over a long period of time we believe that we can indeed do what’s necessary to make the guarantees that are important to everyone. Now --


SECRETARY KERRY: -- what’s key here is that what we have done shuts off the four principal pathways to a bomb for Iran in the Natanz facility, in the Arak plutonium facility, in the Fordow underground facility, and also the covert program. We think that – we don’t think – the science tells us that we have an ability to know what Iran is doing and to be able to shut off those pathways to a bomb. That makes the world safer.

QUESTION: And there are plenty of people that say if your – what you say the agreement is is the agreement, there are plenty of people, even some Republicans, who say it’s a good agreement. However, the leader of Iran, the ayatollah – and everybody knows this is the guy that calls the shots – he tweets this out in English: “I trust our negotiators but I’m really worried as the other side is into lying and breaching promises. An example was the White House fact sheet.”

And when you look at the differences, whether it’s President Rouhani and what he has said or what the ayatollah has said: The United States has said there’s going to be a gradual relief of sanctions based on progress, the Iranians say there’s immediate sanction relief; the U.S. says there’s limits on uranium enrichment, the Iranians say there’s no mention of enrichment limits; the U.S. says there’s restrictions on Iranian research, the Iranians say there is no restrictions on research and development.

Why are they publicly lying, if that’s what they’re doing?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to get into accusations back and forth. That doesn’t help our process. It’s not going to solve any problems --

QUESTION: Are they being truthful? Are the Iranians truthful here?

SECRETARY KERRY: Let me just say this to you, Chuck. They’re going to say the things that they feel they need to say with respect to their deal at home. And all I can tell you is this: When we did the interim agreement, there were these same kinds of discrepancies, or spin if you want to call it that, with respect to what the deal was or wasn’t. But in the end, the deal was signed and the deal has been agreed to and lived up to. No one contests that Iran has lived up to every component of that agreement, and the deal is what we said it was.

Now, with respect to the fact sheet that we put out, just yesterday the Russians released a statement saying that the statement released by the United States is both reliable and factual. So I will stand by every word that I have uttered publicly, and I will be briefing the United States Congress in full – the House tomorrow, the Senate the next day – and we will lay out all of the details to them, some of which are obviously classified, but we will have a long discussion about what the facts are.

QUESTION: All right. But if the Iranians insist that immediate sanction relief has to take place, immediate, that all sanctions have to be gone, will you walk away from that deal?

SECRETARY KERRY: Again, I’m not going to get into one side’s or another side’s characterization of what the deal is or isn’t. We’ve made clear what our needs are, what our expectations are. We’ve made it very clear that if we can’t achieve our goals we will not sign a deal, and we’ve said that again and again to Congress, to the world. We want a good deal. We believe that the outlines, the parameters that we have laid out thus far, are the outlines of that good deal. Now, is it perfect yet? No. Are there things that need to be done? Yes. That’s why we have another two and a half months of negotiation.

And what we’re looking for --


SECRETARY KERRY: -- is not to have Congress interfere with our ability inappropriately by stepping on the prerogatives of the executive department of the president and putting in place conditions and terms that are going to get in the way of the implementation of a plan.

QUESTION: I understand.

There are two quotes in this interview that bother me. The first is Kerry's public declaration that "[t]here is no element of trust in what we’re doing." I find that odd for the Secretary to pronounce that he has no trust of the people with whom he is negotiating. Not odd that he does not trust them, but odd that he would make such a public declaration. I cannot put my finger on why I think this is odd, but just that it is odd.

The other statement that bothered me is that he is looking for Congress not to " stepping on the prerogatives of the executive department of the president and putting in place conditions and terms that are going to get in the way of the implementation of a plan." Hummm, isn't that why we have Congress. Isn't it the function of Congress to check and balance the "prerogatives of the executive department"?

Number Two: The second Secretary of State issue is actually of the recent declaration of Hillary Clinton that she is officially running for President (Yay!). You may or may not know that her main office has opened in hip and cool (and very expensive) Brooklyn, New York. Well, at least there are few New Yorkers who are not necessarily pleased that Hillary is running -

Over one hundred posters have been popping up all over NYC since her announcement on Sunday. No one knows who is putting them up, but it is clearly a pointed response to Clinton's "Super Volunteers'" warning to the press that there are certain words that they dare not use when describing Candidate Clinton as they would be considered code words for micro-aggressive misogyny. Yeah, that's a thing now and you have been warned...

[+]

Monday, April 13, 2015

Sunday, April 12, 2015

No More Hillary!

Please let it end. Just let it end. Hillary announced this weekend that she’s running for the position of the first woman to make Obama look good, and frankly, I don’t care. I have Hillary fatigue. Ok, one more time...

Designated statistic oracle Nate Silver of the New York Something says that Hillary has a 50% of winning the presidency. I don’t buy it. I don’t think Hillary survives the primary. Why? Oh, let me count the ways:

(1) She’s fricken dull... and ugly. She is as exciting as getting a sweater for Christmas. She’s got no motivation to be president either. She seems tired.

(2) She’s awash in scandals, particularly scandals that resulted in her and Bill getting loaded with cash from corporate and foreign sources. This just won’t play well with the anti-rich crowd who staff the Democratic primary.

(3) She’s gaffe prone... and pissy... and a liar. Her people are incompetent too. When she launched this weekend, her website was apparently a mess of mistakes. Her book tour was a disaster. Every time she opens her mouth in public, she inserts her foot.

(4) She’s a corporate shill. Her leftist credentials are faked and the left has finally realized this. SNL keeps mocking the crap out of her. Leftist blogs are screaming to be rid of her in favor of a true believer.

(5) Her lack of friends is becoming acute, especially with so many of them publicly avoiding helping her now. Obama and John Kerry both refused to speak well of her this week, as did Mayor de Blasio of NYC. All those people are ready to jump ship to O’Malley at the first safe chance. Even her feminist friends in the publishing industry have stopped protecting her. Just this week, they let a book be published in which White House non-political staff gave their stories about their decades of service. Hillary was horribly presented as nearly psychotic, paranoid and just not a decent human being.

(6) Her record is nonexistent despite holding a number of jobs. And what little she is known for is things like being squeezed out of her duties at the State Department as Obama told jokes about her drunk texting him... or lying about her mistakes.

(7) The liberal MSM is starting to get a giant liberal woody for O’Malley. Once they start writing fantasy articles about him being the new JFK, Hillary is done... and they started that last month.

(8) Clinton fatigue. More people have it than chicken pox. Good God, there isn’t another political figure who bores me more at this point. Obama is fricken Batman and Darth Vader combined by comparison. I would rather read a book on the growth of mold colonies than listen to her speak. This isn’t even political (because I have no idea what her views really are... assuming she has any), she just doesn’t have enough personality to make me even the slightest bit interested in seeing her. All I know is that she’s like the promise of another Adam Sandler film... or a two day standardized test.

So can we please be done with her? Hillary, please spare us. Just go away.
[+]

Friday, April 10, 2015

Kit's Thoughts: "The South was Wrong!"

by Kit
Since this is week was the 150th Anniversary of the Surrender at Appomatox I figured I should do a post expounding on why the South was wrong to secede. Now, with National Review being firmly pro-Lincoln this is not a controversial task but anti-Lincolnism and pro-Confederacy ideas still rear their heads from time to time, especially in an era of federal over-reach.

So here, in probably my longest post for this site so far, I state just why I believe the South was wrong.

Secession is Illegal

This is often the heart of the pro-Confederate arguments. The argument goes as follows: America was founded in an act of secession since the colonies did secede from Britain. Indeed, they claim, secession is a right enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.

First, by declaring independence from Great Britain the colonists were committing Treason, which was punishable (like many crimes at the time) by death. The act of seceding from Great Britain was as illegal as if we had tried to send an assassin to London to shoot George III. It is a fact that just about every single movie, book, and documentary about the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution seems to recognize from 1776 to History Channel’s The Revolution to Bruckheimer’s National Treasure where Nicholas Cage listed the various penalties the Signers faced for putting their signature to that document.

he Founding Fathers seemed to recognize this when Ben Franklin said, “We must all hang together or we will all hang separately.”

Democracy requires some level of authority. The national government of any nation must have some right in maintaining its sovereignty over the lands within its borders. If any part of the country, any town, province, municipality or state, can remove itself from the authority of the parent government you have anarchy. States can use the threat of secession as a form of extortion to stop laws from being passed or to ensure laws favorable to them are passed. Something which the South had been doing for several decades prior to the Civil War —successfully.

As for its legality, I would only point out that the US Constitution, though it never mentions secession, grants Congress the right to “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” and it states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” It also defines Treason as “levying war against [the United States].” So, we have at least two instances of the Constitution granting the federal government the right to suppress attempts to overthrow its authority.

What further definition does one have of “rebellion” and “insurrection” than a group of states (1) declaring themselves independent, (2) seizing federal military installations and armories, and (3) firing on those installations that refuse to comply? If that is not insurrection then the word has no meaning.

Imagine if California seceded and Jerry Brown sent the National Guard, or some military force he raised, to seize the various military bases along the West Coast? How would you expect the federal government to react? Sit by, idly or sent the rest of the military in to bring California back into the fold? (stop laughing)

Right of Secession vs. Right of Revolution

That brings us to the basic difference between the revolutionaries of 1776 and the secessionists of 1860; the Right of Revolution vs. the Right of Secession. As, Harry V. Jaffa points out that the Right of Revolution is articulated in the Declaration of Independence. It is summed up in the vast part of the document’s second paragraph:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” LINK

In sum: Individuals are created equal with “certain unalienable Rights” that governments must exist to secure and protect and when a government repeatedly acts to deprive the people of those rights then they have a right, a “duty,” to overthrow the government and replace it with a better one.

It makes no claim of a legal right to overthrow the government or to declare independence enshrined somewhere in the laws of Great Britain. Instead, it claims a moral right, one outside of the written law, based instead in the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” James Madison, who has president would send troops to Pennsylvania to enforce a Supreme Court ruling, himself recognized this difference in a letter to Daniel Webster on Mr. Webster’s speech against nullification, i.e., a state’s right to nullify, or declare itself exempt from, federal laws at will; when “the claim to secede at will,” and “the right of seceding from intolerable oppression,” pointing out that “The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.” LINK

Thus, since the act of secession is illegal, the question comes down to whether or not the motivations and reasons behind the act are right. It is not enough to say they were “well-meaning”. We must ask whether there had been a “long train of abuses and usurpations” by the government they were rebelling against or their actions were motivated by “light and transient causes.”

The South fought for Slavery AND its Extension

Many like to point to the various actions of Lincoln’s administration, the suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland, the burning of Atlanta, and the raising of armies; all actions that occurred after the first couple of states had seceded and begun seizing federal installations. That is, after the war had already begun to kick into gear. Therefore, we must look to events that occurred prior to secession to see if the South was on the right side, especially the event that triggered the first wave of secessions; the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency.

When one looks at the election one does not see, as today, two big parties with a couple of minor parties, such as the Libertarians or Greens, that never attract any large numbers of votes. You see, starting with the biggest vote getter; Lincoln for the Republicans, Breckinridge for the Southern Democratic Party, John Bell for the Constitutional Union Party, and Stephen A. Douglas for the Democratic Party. The reason is what happened at the Democratic convention and the answer as to why the South seceded. And this is where it gets lengthy.

The primary issue of the election of 1860 was not the existence of slavery in the Southern states but the existence of slavery in the territories. Just about everyone in the North except for a slew of abolitionists thought the federal government had no right to abolish slavery where it existed or even wanted it abolished. Indeed a number did not want it abolished in the South for fear of freed black slaves moving north to take their jobs and rape their women (I never said the North wasn’t racist). But they did oppose the extension of slavery. Abolitionists, concentrated mainly in places like Boston, opposed it for obvious reasons, and the Free Soilers, concentrated more in the Mid-West, opposed it largely on the grounds that black slaves would soak up available jobs for whites and massive plantations (Big Plantation) would push out white farmers. The Southerners wanted it extended to the territories because it would allow slavery to extend.

By the 1850s the country had slowly but uncomfortably settled on Popular Sovereignty; letting the territories themselves decide. However, In the recent Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court had ruled that Congress had no power to bar slavery in the territories, thus making Dred Scott a slave, and, further, it did not have the power to grant the territories the right to deprive slave owners of their right to property. Though this last part was non-binding as it had nothing to do with the case itself, it was clearly setting the stage for any future rulings should the issue of Popular Sovereignty come before the court.

The Republican Party, representing Free Soilers and Abolitionists on the slavery issue, flatly opposed extending slavery to the territories and Lincoln pledged he would treat the Dred Scott decision as unconstitutional. The Democrats, however, were more divided on the issue. The Northern Democrats, under Douglas, supported a platform of keeping Popular Sovereignty but the Southern Democrats wanted a Democrat platform that would protect slavery in the territories. An impasse was reached and the Southerners bolted and formed their own party, the Southern Democrats.

Thus the showdown of 1860:Lincoln running on a halting of slavery’s expansion won most of the North and the Southern Democrat’s Beckinridge, running on the aforementioned platform of a de facto extension of slavery to all of the territories won most of the South and Maryland with Bell’s Constitutional Union Party winning Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and the Democratic Party’s Douglas winning only Missouri.

Several Southern states had threatened secession if Lincoln won the election and, starting with South Carolina, did just that. Seven of them seceded before Lincoln had even reached the Presidency. Many people claim economic issues such as the tariff were the cause of the South’s secession. But a simple reading of South Carolina’s declaration reveals that the word “tariff” does not appear once but the word “slavery appears 6 times and the word “slaves” appears 5 times and cites “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and then spends the next several paragraphs citing attempts by the Northern states to thwart the Fugitive Slave Act and says “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”

We can go further, Vice President Alexander Stephens made his “Cornerstone” speech in March of 1861. He discussed how the Founding Fathers saw slavery as a moral wrong but one “they knew not how to deal with” but felt it would eventually fade away and, therefore, founded the United States upon the assumption of “the equality of the races.” The Confederate States, Stephens argues, is built on a different idea (emphasis mine):

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” LINK

For State’s Rights and the Tariff, indeed. So the question comes back, did the South have the Right of Revolution? Was it worth it for the South to start a war, and they did start it by seizing federal installations, over the right to extend the enslavement of human beings into the territories, even if those who lived there opposed it? Did they have the right to secede because an election did not go their way?


There is where I must end things. I am already well past 2,000 words and I think it best to wrap it up. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the methods and strategies Lincoln used to end the Civil War from the suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland to the burning of Atlanta. There are also many legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at some of the strategies America and the CIA employed in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and International Communism, but that does not mean America was not right to oppose the Soviet Union, nor does it mean Lincoln was not in the right to oppose secession and slavery.

The South was fighting for slavery and they were willing to fight not only to preserve it but to extend its practice at the very least from the Atlantic to the Pacific. A practice that was truly abhorrent in its very nature; it proclaimed an inequality of men under the law and gave the right of one man to own another human being. As the film Amazing Grace put it, slavery said “you belong not to God but to a man.”

The Civil War, along with smashing slavery and secession, it firmly established something else; the idea that America is a country of the Middle-Class. You see, before the Civil War some in the South were promoting the idea of the “Mudsill Theory,” an idea that proclaimed a need for a lower-class to work so that the upper classes can do the job of thinking for civilization, LINK, a quasi-feudal notion. Lincoln described it as follows:

“By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital -- that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent; or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far they naturally conclude that all laborers are necessarily either hired laborers, or slaves. They further assume that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again that his condition is as bad as, or worse than that of a slave.”

Translation: Civilization requires great men of capital to put the little men to work as labor and thus it requires little men to work in perpetuity for the great men. Lincoln called this nonsense, pointing out that:

”Even in all our slave States, except South Carolina, a majority of the whole people of all colors, are neither slaves nor masters. In these Free States, a large majority are neither hirers or hired. Men, with their families -- wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, labor with their own hands, and also buy slaves or hire freemen to labor for them; but this is only a mixed, and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.”

Trans: Most people are neither workers. A truth that Marxists can never comprehend. He goes further, bringing up the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” view of America:

“The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor -- the just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all -- gives hope to all, and energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all.”

And on that note, I really do end things. Have a great weekend.

Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson
—Harry V. Jaffa’s writings and speeches on the Civil War. I will point you to his debate with anti-Lincolnite Thomas DiLorenzo, here: LINK and his interviews with Peter Robinson here and here.
—PBS’ documentary series The Abolitionists for the story about Angelina Grimké
—The various writings cited above; the Declaration of Independence, James Madison’s letter to Webster, and the Cornerstone Speech.
—I also used wikpedia as an occasional source. So, sue me.

[+]

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Planned Parenthood & Twitter - A Cautionary Tale

There is a saying I learned when I was building sets that has come in handy for many other things other than carpentry - "Measure twice and cut once". It is especially true when posting on public political forums, Facebook, and Twitter. It is just better to understand what you are reading and writing, and think before posting a comment. Here is my cautionary tale...

After Rand Paul announced he was throwing his hat in the ring on Tuesday, a group of avatars were posted on his campaign page that can be downloaded to be used to show support across social media. The little avatars exclaimed "Musician for Rand", "African-American for Rand", "Nevadan for Rand" etc. In their haste to counter, Planned Parenthood posted all of these little avatars as a meme on Twitter with the following comment - "Hmmm, what's missing? "Women for Rand" Guess even Rand Paul knows that women won't support Rand Paul"

Sen. Rand Paul's "Show Your Support" page doesn't have anything for women.

Immediately, the responses started pouring in. Not at all what they were expecting though. All were along the same lines of "What? Women can't be...". Whoopsie, in their haste to pounce on the "War On Women" theme, no one noticed that none of these avatars were the least bit gender-specific - Doctors, Lawyers, African-Americans, Musicians, Veterans, Student, Runners and the various states etc. Now "Sportsman" and "Fisherman" could be debatably masculine, but seriously even woman play sports, hunt, and fish.

So to cover their mistake, they tried to back-track a little with this:

Women are many things—doctors, veterans, more—but w/ his record, seems even Paul knows "Woman for Rand" won't be one.

That "clarification" didn't help much because it was pointed quickly by the rabble over and over that there is no "Men for Rand" avatar either. To their credit, Planned Parenthood didn't delete the tweet, but no one from Planned Parenthood tried to defend it either most likely hoping that people would lose interest.

Now, there is more to this tale than just pointing out how brainless Planned Parenthood has been which is fun (I admit it). But we all know we post comments without thinking sometimes. I admit I do. But the real moral of this story is..."Think twice, post once". The internet is forever.

[+]

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

And Now the News...

Some thoughts on the news...

● Rand Paul has declared his candidacy for the presidency. He’s doomed before he even starts, but I don’t think he plans to win. I think Paul is aiming for a VP slot. Paul’s plan seems to be to bring in young people to vote for him, just as Obama did in 2008 and his father often did. Unfortunately for the GOP, they don’t tend to stick around once their guy is ousted.

The right has really tried to savage Paul lately. They’ve gone after him as a conformist who gave up his views and moved onto the cocktail circuit just to appease the establishment. Of course, that’s not true, but that is the reaction I’ve come to expect from the lunatic fringe. Interestingly, they seem to see his competition being Ted Cruz, and between those two, the right will back fake-outsider Ted over real-outsider Rand.

● It turns out that the Soviets Ruskies hacked the White House and got Obama’s information. Other than Obama’s basketball brackets, however, he doesn’t really do any work, so I wonder what they got? And even then, you can’t trust anything you read from this administration. So I wonder why the Ruskies bothered? Frankly, it would have been more productive to hack Rolling Stone... or Brian Williams’ diary.

● Rahm Emanuel just got re-elected the Lord and Designated Rapist of Chicago. I can’t say that I’m surprised because liberals are stupid... if at first you don’t succeed, just keep trying the same sh*t until the abject failure no longer looks so bad. In effect, they have voted for more crime, killings, failing schools, drugs and corruption. Oh well. The people have spoken, and let us hope that Rahm now gives them exactly what they voted for... fast and hard.

● There’s a new drug called Flakka in Florida, Texas, and Ohio. It’s a crystal-like drug that you smoke and it gives you something called “excited delirium,” which is a state where you sweat, suffer from paranoia, you become delusional and you hallucinate. Unfortunately, these symptoms are inseparable from liberalism.

● Speaking of which, another celebrity has talked about having sexual fantasies involving Obama. This time it’s a crapper, er rapper. Liberalism really is a mental condition. In any event, I’m hoping liberals elect someone who looks like Nancy Pelosi after a life on crack... someone rode hard and put away wet... someone dragged by Bill Clinton through a trailer park. Why? Because I want their next sexual fantasy, which you know they will have – it’s inevitable -- to be as difficult and disgusting as possible. :D Plus, I can’t wait until they start trying to dress like Mrs. Quasimodo’s same-sex yet uglier wife. A fashion icon! LOLOLOLOLOL!

● Finally, from the pilots behaving badly file, two Indian pilots were grounded after fighting in the cockpit. Maybe pilots are more dangerous than we thought? Or maybe it’s just smart to avoid India.
[+]

When Truth Isn't Good Enough, Just Lie! Part 2

On December 18 2014, I posted about an article in Rolling Stone magazine called "A Rape On Campus:A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely [see photo] about a student at UVA who had been brutally gang-raped by a group of frat boys when she was a freshman in 2012 and how the "facts" of the article had all been found very quickly to be a complete fabrication.

When Truth Isn't Good Enough, Just Lie!
[the link to the original RS article is no longer available]

Much has happened since December. Firstly, at the end of January 2015, the local Virginia police department made public the results of their exhaustive investigation and concluded that they could find no evidence of a rape at the UVA Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house had taken place. They softened the blow, by stating that something may have happened to "Jackie", the subject of the original article, but it didn't happen at the frat house or by the frat boys. Oh, yeah, she refused to participate in the investigation.

At the same time, Rolling Stone asked that the august and learned fellows at the Columbia School of Journalism conduct a thorough investigation to find out exactly what went so terrible wrong. Their conclusion which was published Sunday evening (to minimize the damage), boils down to Sabrina Erdley and the editors of Rolling Stone pretty much broke every rule of the report - A Rape On Campus: What Went Wrong?.

The result of this exhaustive self-analysis? Writer, editors, fact-checkers, and publishers were all to blame and they have promised to do better from now on. No one loses their job or livelihoods and certainly Sabrina Erdley will be hired to write other articles for Rolling Stone. Hey, s**t happens. Let's all move on...except for the giant, very expensive lawsuit that those falsely accused frat boys are filing even as we speak.

Interestingly, Sabrina Erdley and all the feminists at Salon and Jezebel who so rabidly defended the story and vociferously called out anyone who dared to question the facts of the story are now ironically claiming to be the victims. And Erdley refuses to take responsibly for her own journalistic malpractice as she claims she was just duped by "a really expert fabulist storyteller” - Jann Wenner's pathetic description.

And the media wonders why we don't trust that what they report is the truth...

If you are interested in more, here is an article from posted by John McWhorter that explains how this is a "story about media addicted to seeking sensationalism over accuracy...[and] the idea that the pursuit of justice can be separated from facts; that metaphorical truth can be more important than literal truth. The Truth About UVA and Ferguson Isn't Good Enough for P.C. Crowd
[+]

Monday, April 6, 2015

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Iran: What's the Dealio?

Obama and Iran have entered into an historic agreement. Essentially, they have agreed to disagree and to look the other way while Iran builds a nuclear bomb. This is perhaps not the deal most people expected, but with Obama in charge was there really ever any other possibility? Here are the problems with the deal.

(1) It's Iran: In all deals with Iran, there is always one overriding problem: you just can’t trust Iran to keep to anything they agree to. No deal with Iran is worth the paper it is printed on. So if you reach a deal with Iran, then you are already a failure... and a moron.

(2) Fuzzy Promises: Turning to the deal specifically, the next problem is that the deal leaves all the key areas fuzzy. Here are some examples:
● Iran will be limited in its research and development into improved centrifuges, though apparently the limits are rather fuzzy and both sides already disagree about what they are. Those improved centrifuges, by the way, can’t be used to enrich uranium for ten years. After that, all bets are off. So expect an "Obama bomb" in 2025.

● Iran must uninstall some of its current centrifuges. That sounds good, except they are allowed to replace them with the more efficient centrifuges they are working on. Also, the numbers don’t make sense. When this process began, they had 12 centrifuges. They brought this up to 20,000 over time. They only run 9,000. Now we are told they need to reduce that amount to 6,000. That’s way more than 12, and it leaves 14,000 centrifuges ready to be run whenever they feel like breaking the agreement.

As an interesting aside, we are also told that Iran can’t enrich any more uranium. But if that is true, why let them spin the 6,000 centrifuges? The only reason to do that is to enrich uranium... which they aren’t allowed to do... except they can spin 6,000 centrifuges.

● Iran is required to reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium from ten tons to just a few pounds – less than is needed to make a bomb. But no timeline is given for this, nor is a method specified. Obama is claiming Iran will export the material to places like France, but Iran is claiming they can dilute it rather than getting rid of it. That will leave the stuff ready to be returned to military use at any point. It's a bit like "diluting" bullets by storing them with chocolate.

● The IAEA and the US wanted Iran to admit that they have been researching bomb design and detonators and to identify what they've achieved. Some groups even suspect Iran has developed a detonator. Iran has refused to answer this. The agreement is really vague on this point and even team Obama only says that Iran “will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns,” with no mention of what those measures are.
Essentially, on every significant issue, Iran has agreed to do something, but that something is always nebulous and vague and, even then, disputed.

(3) Trust, Don't Verify: Obama’s talking points meant to sell us on his “brilliant” plan also do a good deal of misleading bait and switch work. For example, Obama claims that the agreement subjects poor Iran to extensive snooping by international inspectors, with some surveillance lasting for up to 25 years! Sounds great, only, there will be no inspections allowed of military sites... where the Iranians would be building the bomb. Sure, you can look in my garage, but not in my secret lab in the basement.

And don’t worry about all those centrifuges Iran has because they aren’t allowed to spin them at the secret sites... only, no one is allowed to snoop at those sites, so no one but Iran will know what is happening there. Yet, John Kerry flat out lies in an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe: “To be clear, there is no aspect of this agreement that is based on promises or trust. Every element is subject to proof.” Right. Except the key provisions.

Obama also claims that sanctions could be snapped back into place if Iran cheats, but the agreement doesn’t actually allow that. Instead, it includes a dispute resolution provision that will likely take years before sanctions could be re-imposed... if ever.

So there you have it. I can’t say I’m disappointed per se because this is exactly what I would expect from an agreement negotiated by Obama. Seriously did you expect anything better?

Anyways, the way I see this going is that Iran will do whatever it wants and Obama will try to cover for them until it becomes too obvious to sustain. Then he will blame the next administration. In the meantime, Saudi will develop its own nuclear bomb. What happens next is anybody’s guess. Pakistan and India have avoided a nuclear war and Pakistan is batshit crazy. But Pakistan also doesn’t have Israel as a scapegoat, nor do they have a terrorist wing who would happily transport a bomb to some western city and set it off.

I guess the only thing we can say for sure is that Obama’s policy of pretend problems don’t exist is about to leave the world a much more dangerous place... again.
[+]

Friday, April 3, 2015

Kit's Thoughts: Holy Week in Retrospect; Open Thread

by Kit

Well, it is now Good Friday and what an adventure this Holy Week has been. Again, there is little central theme to this, just a collection of thoughts that have occurred to me over the course of the weekend.

Over the past 6 years of the Obama presidency, especially since the Republicans grabbed the House in 2010, we have heard much from Progressives about the insanity of the American system of dividing power into separate branches because, according to them, it slows down and impedes laws necessary for the public good —like a disastrous healthcare law or Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, which may be the biggest negotiations-breakthrough with a belligerent nation since Chamberlain’s achievement at Munich in 1938.

Of course, the events in Indiana should be proof to progressives of the importance of legislate “looking before they leap” when making the law as the controversy over the state’s poorly-written, overly-broad, and hastily-passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act hit a fever pitch. A fury of animadversions hit the state, the charge led by Tim Cook, the openly-gay Apple CEO who does business in China (which outlaws gay marriage) and Saudi Arabia (which outlaws gays). This law was followed by what may be another poorly-written, overly-broad, and hastily-passed law supposedly barring discrimination of gays resulting in a deluge of attacks from the Religious Right.

Suffice to say, we can expect this evidence to go over the heads of those who will demand their needs or causes be immediately fixed and rectified by the law at once by any means necessary without regard to damage it may cause to the fabric of the law by either laying a dangerous precedence that gives far too much power to a certain branch of the government (Obama’s immigration edict) or being too broad or vague and thus creating confusion among the citizenry about what they can expect from the law (see, above).

Then, as if to remind us of the ease at which we in America still live, a group of gunmen belonging to the Islamist terrorist group Al-Shabaab, illustrating the sort of nihilism associated with ISIS, attacked a Kenyan teaching college at Garissa, specifically singling out the Christians for execution while freeing the Muslims. They also did this at the mall attack in Nairobi two years ago.

The message of the attack is clear. It is the same message sent by groups like ISIS and Boko Haram when gay men are thrown off the roofs of buildings, school girls are kidnapped and forced into marriage, hostages are beheaded, POWs burned alive, villages are razed, moderate Muslims are crucified, and Christian and Yazidi men are executed while their wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters are sold into sexual slavery. It is the same message sent by Radical Islamists when they murdered the people inside Charlie Hebdo.

Everything must burn to make way for their twisted vision of the world. We can’t be negotiated or reasoned with because there is no need for us to negotiate or reason with you. You will lose and either convert or die and we will triumph because God is on our side.

And the danger is not that they might achieve their aim and conquer the world, there is no chance of that. They are unlikely to even conquer half of it, as the Soviet-backed Communists did for a time in the 20th century. The danger is in the damage these nihilistic sociopaths and those inspired by them might do before their ideology is sent into the dust-bin of history. Just because Hinkley was delusional in believing he could win Jodie Foster's affections by killing President Reagan did not make him any less of a threat to President Reagan.

And that might depend upon the Right and the Left of our body politic and culture recognizing that (1) moderate civilized Muslims exist, a key issue for American Right, who is obsessed with searching for something to replace communism as a Global Threat to Freedom and Democracy, and (2) for the Left to understand that excusing the actions of extremists because of some Marxist-influenced theory of oppressor/victim dichotomy where the most depraved and violent actions of the “victims” must always be “understood” (and therefore pardoned) in the context of their victimhood and the hands of their oppressors, that sometimes the “underdog” is actually the bad guy.

It is something that should unite all Americans, be they an agnostic gay interior designer in San Francisco, an evangelical Baptist construction worker in Georgia, and a Muslim cab driver in New York because these murderers would kill all three if they had the chance without batting an eye.

And on that somber note, I wish you a Happy Good Friday, a Happy Passover, and a Happy Easter.

Consider this to be an Open Thread. Discuss what you wish, be it the depravity of Al-Shabaab, the amorality of Harry Reid, or what you plan to do this Easter weekend. I intend to do some homework and, if I get the chance, watch Ben Hur and Easter Parade.
[+]