Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Even More Japanese Cute Stuff - Joshiraku (じょしらく)


Baloo speaking here.  Ex-Army has discovered another very cute Japanese animated cartoon here, and, as I'm a cartoonist, he asked me to do a blog post on it.  Well, dirty old man that he is, he's usually right about this sort of thing.  Undeniably cute, eh?  I think it rises to Hatsune Miku level, don't you?  Anyhow, this is called Joshiraku (じょしらく), and it purports to be about a strange Japanese art form called Rakugo (落語).

To quote from Wikipedia:

Rakugo (落語?, literally "fallen words") is a Japanese verbal entertainment. The lone storyteller (落語家 rakugoka?) sits on the stage, called the Kōza (高座?). Using only a paper fan (扇子, "sensu") and a small cloth (手拭, "tenugui") as props, and without standing up from the seiza sitting position, the rakugo artist depicts a long and complicated comical story. The story always involves the dialogue of two or more characters, the difference between the characters depicted only through change in pitch, tone, and a slight turn of the head.

The idea seems to be that these five girls are practitioners of Rakugo, and each episode begins, if I remember right, with one of the girls concluding a performance, bowing, and leaving the stage. It's oddly reminiscent of the early Seinfeld show, which began with a bit of Jerry's standup routine, related vaguely to the plot of the following episode.

And it's a bit like Seinfeld in other ways.  For one thing, there doesn't seem to be any moral stance to it at all, and is totally devoted to being funny and has no message.  And it also has somewhat the same stream-of-consciousness fabric, one gag leading randomly to another, without any unifying thrust — it this it also reminds me of Zippy the Pinhead .  Moreover, it's highly character-driven, with the slightly neurotic girls (again like Seinfeld characters) clashing their personalities together to attain humor.  It works.  I'm getting a kick out of it, anyway, just like Ex-Army.  Well, you can read a translation of the manga HERE, if you're in a hurry, but I recommend that instead you go watch the first few episodes in order HERE. I should warn you that though it's almost entirely benign, it lurches into shocking vulgarity from time to time.

Here's a clip.  Enjoy:


Joshiraku OVA 1 by dm_5133bf989863e

Attacking Iran

Some hats just aren't appropriate for some people.  As I've said elsewhere, I don't think there's a politician alive who looks less Jewish than Mitt Romney.  So on him the yarmulke looks even less appropriate, if possible, than the hat on the other guy. As silly as Mitt looks, he's contrived to get himself the most unobtrusive yarmulke possible, so he actually looks less silly than most politicians do in that getup.  Just Google-image yarmulke + [the name of any politician] and you'll see what I mean. Especially Gingrich. But that's not the point of this, amusing as it may be.  The point is that Mitt is giving away the store on his visit to Israel, as American Presidents and Presidential candidates have been doing at least since LBJ.  He has publicly given his blessing to Israeli aggression against Iran, and at least implied that we might be actively helpful.

Pat Buchanan, in his book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, describes how the Brits guaranteed the defense of Poland, thereby encouraging them to be adamant and to refuse even to discuss returning land that Germany had lost in WW I, thereby just about ensuring WW II.  Could this "guarantee" on Mitt's part help ensure another fine mess in the Middle East?  See what Pat has to say about that HERE.

Monday, July 30, 2012

No Comment Necessary Department


U.S. Sees Israel, Tight Mideast Ally, as Spy Threat

So says the Associated Press.  How can that be?  Our noble, plucky, little ally Israel.  Mitt is over there right now, looking idiotic in a skullcap, inasmuch as he's probably the least Jewish-looking politician around these days.  It reminds me of the story about Pierre of the North Woods.  Pierre complains because, "Pierre, he has fought a hundred Indians, but do they call him Pierre the Indian Fighter?  Non!  And Pierre, he has chopped a thousand trees, but do they call him Pierre the tree chopper?  Non!"  And then it ends up vulgarly. You should be able to figure it out.

Anyhow, the point is, the parts of our government charged with watching out for spies have concluded that Israel is a spy threat, mainly, I suppose, because Israel spies on us a lot, what with Jonathan Pollard and the whole Israeli art students thing.  The more you spy, the more likely people are to point out that you do.

Steve Sailer has looked deeper into this, and has a nice piece about the four countries that spy on us the most.  Guess who is one of them? Check it out HERE.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Vigilantes Verboten

There's been a lot of talk about how, if even one of the people in that theater in Aurora had been armed, the killer might have been taken down before he managed to kill and wound that many people.  Of course, some screeching liberal wusses have declared, with no facts or logic to back their assertion, that an armed citizen trying to bring the guy down would have "just made things worse."  That makes no sense whatsoever, but that's the way of the liberal.  Others have pointed out, however, that the theater management explicitly prohibits firearms on the premises.  So if the killer manages to beat the multiple murder and attempted murder raps, he may still be in trouble for bringing guns into the place. (This is a grim joke, everybody.)


But what I didn't know was that it's not just theater policy.  The very city of Aurora has its own little anarcho-tyrranical set of laws.  Mike Adams says:


Two days ago I asked the commonsense question, "Why didn't anyone fight back against James Holmes, the shooter who shot so many people in the Batman movie theater?"
Now the answer has become clear: Because Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:
  • Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
  • Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.
Thus, any person who would have shot James Holmes and stopped the massacre would, themselves, have been arrested as a criminal!

In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to stop a massacre (Read the rest HERE.)

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Higher Edumacation

I took my first class in college when I was still in high school, back in 1963, then I went to college for real, graduating in 1968 and heading off to the Army right away.  Even back then, there seemed to be a lot of dummies to accomodate among the students.  But I don't remember anybody who was actually illiterate or totally stupid.  Even athletes those days were expected to maintain some minimal academic level, or pretend to.

Many years later, I found myself teaching freshman English as an adjunct at a prestigious Midwestern university.  The students definitely seemed a little dimmer on the average than they had been in my student days, even though it was a pickier school than the one I'd attended.  And now I live in yet another college town, and college students have ratcheted down a few more notches.

Reasons for all this?  One is that the people who actually teach are from my own cohort or younger, for the most part, and my own generation consists of a lot of draft-dodgers with no academic talent who went to college anyway, to hide, and are now academics themselves.  Another factor is the Great God of Diversity, which states that all colleges must have X percentages of "minorities" present among the students and the faculty, no matter how damn dumb they are.  And the overwhelming factor is that they have to dumb the place down, or everybody will leave.

In my day we weren't rocket scientists.  I wasn't very well educated out of high school by my own standards.  But I did know math up to a decent level.  Knew about punctuation. Something about history.  Not terribly bad.  You see, in those days they hadn't thought of a lot of the crap they occupy students' time with nowadays.  There weren't any courses in Black studies or Women's studies or similar nonsense.  So we couldn't help learning a little something here and there.

But all that's gone now.  It is completely possible to get a college degree without learning anything at all if you're a minority, and without learning anything at all except how to suck up to minorities if you're a non-minority.

If you doubt my word, just ask Paul Gottfried, an actual college professor.  His essay, about the most devastating evaluation of today's college students I've ever seen, is HERE.

Syria — Our next quagmire?

I've had things to say about Syria before, and the place remains newsworthy.  I repeat that it's idiotic to use a Western template to judge anything in the Islamic world.  By our standards, the whole area is barbaric, totalitarian, and outrageously unstable.  But having acknowledged that, we can see that some  parts of it are better than others.  In my own layman's opinion, most Muslim people are probably better off under secular dictators, who tend to be relatively tolerant about religion and, maybe consequently, about other things as well.  As I've said before, their only other alternative is to be under a religious dictator.  Actually, they do have one more alternative — to be conquered and dominated by a non-Muslim country.  But it seems that nobody in the Islamic world is crazy about that, despite some obvious advantages to it for some people.

But back to Syria.  We're constantly propagandized with stories about how mean Assad is being to his own people, and blonde newsladies with agonized expressions are calling on the United States to "do something" about it all.  First, most Muslim governments are mean to their own people, and that's even more true about Arab Muslim governments, so that's actually irrelevant.  If Assad is being extra-brutal right now, it's because the population, or parts of it, are being extra-unruly.  And no, they're not rioting for democracy or freedom. They're rioting against the Assad family, which they hate, and for dictatorship by some group or groups that they like better.

So, ignoring the blonde newsladies, just who wants US money and troops to be poured into that particular meat grinder?  Why should anybody in the West care who runs Syria?  Kevin MacDonald singles out the neocons and globalists as the main culprits who want us to dash ourselves against that particular rock.  Considering how neocons and globalists advocate a lot of other horrible ideas, that sounds highly likely to me.  MacDonald's essay on the subject is HERE.

Oh, a last-minute addition, here.  I almost hate to post it, because I'm supporting Romney, but in the interests of the truth, I have to point out that he, like everybody else from Bachmann to Obama, is a complete idiot on the subject of the whole Middle East mess.  So I'm supporting Romney almost entirely on the basis of a single fact — He doesn't hate me because I'm White.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Guns don't kill people, masks kill people. Huh?

There's a lot of suing going on in the aftermath of the Aurora massacre, I understand, but nobody's saying they want to sue the theatre for prohibiting firearms.  It did prohibit them, you see, therefore making self-defense impossible, but didn't make up for that by hiring enough armed security guards to protect all the patrons.  Seems actionable to me.  And that goes for any other businesses.  I know a woman who worked as a waitress in a diner.  In the kitchen, she saw one of those signs prohibiting firearms on the premises.  She said to the manager:

"If you put that damn thing where the customers can see it, I'm quitting."

Do you see her logic?  Why can't everybody see her logic?

Anyhow, if I were running these theaters, I'd hang a sign like:

ALL OUR CUSTOMERS ARE INVITED TO EXERCISE THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON THESE PREMISES.  THAT MEANS WE WELCOME ARMED PEOPLE.  CRIMINALS ARE ADVISED THAT WRONGDOING ON THESE PREMISES MIGHT THEREFORE LEAD TO INJURY OR DEATH.

But instead, the theatre plans to prevent future tragedies by prohibiting masks.  Here's RamZPaul's reaction.  His website is HERE.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Adjö, Sverige

Cultures and countries die out all the time.  Some die of old age, in a way, like Islamic culture, and end up as fellahin, as I think Spengler put it.  (Oswald, not the blogger)  Some are swallowed up into other countries and sort of die of absorption, as if assimilated by the Borg. Some are just killed outright by other countries — The Inca Empire sort of went that way.  But some commit suicide.  Several nations of the West are somewhere along the way to suicide, some more than others.  And it would seem that the leader in this movement is Sweden.  Is there something self-destructive about Scandinavian DNA?  Even when they immigrate?  Anyhow, they're belt-and-suspenders suicidal, using two methods just to be sure.  The first method is to trash its own culture and history as much as possible, to insure lack of reproduction and literal suicide on the personal level.  One of the more bizarre manifestations of this tendency is an obsession with destroying any distinction between the sexes as they're doing HERE.

The second method is related to the first, but calls for a different strategy.  In case Swedes can't be counted on to destroy themselves completely — something could always go wrong, like an outbreak of sanity — the Swedish government is inviting immigrants, from the most dysfunctional countries possible, to move in and take over.  Of course, they offer them generous welfare benefits and other free goodies.  And, here's something you can't make up.  The government explicitly and openly announces its intention to make Sweden resemble Malasia.  Literally.  Sweden and the Swedish people are so bad, they will be improved if they behave more like a multicultural Asian dictatorship.  Check it out HERE.

Obama's Collectivist Statement

From BALOO'S WEBSITE
We've all heard about Obama's bizarre statement that people who build businesses don't actually build businesses, but somehow somebody else does it for them.  This seems to be part and parcel of the collectivist left-wing narrative.  Both praise and blame are for society as a whole, and never for individuals.  You know how it always goes when it comes to blame.  The perp, the shooter, is never actually to blame — society or some collective group is always at fault. We're hearing that right now about the Aurora massacre.  The chuckleheads on the networks are asking "Why?", when why is perfectly clear.  Holmes decided to do it.  Nobody made him do it.  It's not because of violent video games, or availability of guns, or anything else.  Holmes did it.  Likewise, of course, whenever somebody does something good, you have to spread the praise around, too.

Now, the Obamatons have replied to all this by saying that Obama's dopey remark was somehow taken out of context.  That he really meant something a lot more innocuous.  Did he?  Pat Buchanan says no, the popular interpretaton of Obama's statement is correct, and gives us the entire quote to prove it, HERE.

Monday, July 23, 2012

The Other Shooting in Aurora

Did you know that there were two shootings in Aurora?  The one we've all heard about gets, of course, endless coverage, because our betters see it as a reason to disarm us all.  The other shooting has the opposite message, so the news media is supremely uninterested in it.  Thanks to J. Neil Schulman for locating this piece:

On April 22 of this year a convicted felon, just out of jail, went to an Aurora, Colorado, church and shot and killed a member of the congregation before being killed himself by a congregant carrying a gun.

On July 20, following the horrific shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, President Obama offered his condolences to the victims of the more recent tragedy. "Our time here [on Earth] is limited and it is precious," the president said. "And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things which so often consume us and our daily lives. It’s about how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another." (Read the rest HERE.)

Aurora — a Delight for the Gun Controllers

From BALOO'S WEBSITE
That is what it's all about, folks.  Gun control.  Aurora was horrible as all hell, of course, for all the obvious reasons.  A clearly evil and probably crazy person murdered people and hoped to murder more.  Murders go on all over the country — all over the world — all the time and always have and always will.  That's the way humanity is.  It produces people like that now and then.  You know, it also produces all those other people in that theater, who live in the same state and same country with the same gun laws and somehow, nevertheless, didn't take advantage of the legal availability of the same weapons to do some mass-murdering of their own.  Think about that a minute.  Even in places with no gun laws at all, the vast majority of people would never murder anybody.  But the gun control advocates favor disarming everybody, not just murderers.  Interestingly, the same liberals favor lax sentencing for murderers after the fact.

Gun controllers love events like Aurora, because they can use them to "prove" their points, that people can't be trusted with weapons and must be disarmed.  Gun controllers don't like events like THIS, because they can be used to prove that gun control advocates are full of crap, and that armed citizens don't promote crime at all, but inhibit it. John Morgan analyzes all this in greater detail HERE.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Mike Lester on Gun Control

Time to run Mike Lester's cartoon again.  This is the best description of the situation I've ever seen.  Mike's website is HERE.

Of Cabbages and Kings

Cartoon by BALOO.  Visit his website HERE.
Actually, in spite of Baloo's disturbing cartoon here, kings can't get away with everything, any more than politicians of other sorts.  Sometimes they go a little too far and get their heads cut off or are wiped out in some other manner. Considering all the countries that used to have kings and don't now, it happens quite a lot, actually.  But we still have a few left.  We have the strange Emperor of Japan, who is all-powerful and even divine in theory, but is evidently powerless in practice.  We have some kings in the Middle East who actually do wield power, along with the kings of Europe who are pretty much figureheads who do not have actual power, in Scandinavia, the Low Countries, the UK, and Spain.  And then there are odd monarchs I know next to nothing about in odd places like Lesotho, Thailand, Swaziland, and Tonga.  And, of course, we often forget that the Pope is the legal ruler of Vatican City.

But I, like most Americans, know only a little bit about the British royal family, and virtually nothing about monarchy elsewhere.  Indeed, the only one I knew much about was old Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia back during the Vietnam War.  Remember him?  He's now in exile in North Korea, not a terribly popular place for royalty, and his son, believe it or not, is currently the King of Cambodia.

But I'm just an old coot blogger, and the closest I've come to royalty is meeting Wm F. Buckley once. So I'll defer to Taki, because he's not only acquainted with royalty, but is related to it.  His essay on what's currently going on with European royalty, and especially with those wild and crazy Brits,  is HERE.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

This Theater is a Gun-Free Zone — Feel Better Now?

A liberal friend of mine in Australia got sarcastic about my POST concerning Piers Morgan's reaction to the Aurora massacre, saying in part:

Nothing in that story surprises me. So why did the system break down? I mean the scenario is that a gun nut gone wild should be countered by a legitimate gun owner who has his concealed carry permit, surely? Denver certainly has concealed permit legislation. Oh, wait...maybe the gun nut IS a concealed permit holder? So where are these gun totin' heroes? Why weren't they there to save their fellow citizens? If we can't guarantee a legit gun owner will be there to blow the brains out of a gunman with a grudge against society, what the hell is the point of concealed carry? Get real, mate. Only the abolition of gun ownership and severe penalties for owning and carrying sidearms will bring the USA back from the brink. Your society just is not grown up enough to be entrusted with big boy toys.

I replied:

Cinemark has a policy that only law enforcement officers may carry weapons in their theatres. Stupid policy, but it helped guarantee that the massacre would be successful. And of course legit gun carriers act all the time to deter crimes of violence, but newsclowns like Morgan don't consider that sort of thing newsworthy.

Which, of course, means that the killer was probably well aware of the policy, and therefore knew that the theater would be ideal for his purposes.  More on that by Chelsea Schilling HERE.  And Vox Day says THIS.

And, if you have any doubts about the efficacy of armed civilians in crime deterrence, I reprint DailyKenn's piece on the subject:


Not one had a gun?


When two armed robbers crashed into a central Florida Internet cafe this week, a 71-year-old man toting a handgun, loaded and ready, sent them to flight. In so doing he may have saved dozens of lives.

When a solitary man burst into a movie theater in Colorado, he opened fire on over a hundred movie goers, picking off those who tried to flee. Twelve were killed, dozens injured; some in the melee and chaos of the moment.

Apparently, not one of the movie-goers was carrying a weapon.

Imagine the outcome had the 71-year-old been at the Aurora, Colorado theater instead of the Florida cafe.

It should be apparent that gun ownership is not the problem.

Gun crime continues to claim lives in nations where toting firearms is illegal.

Two people died in Toronto, Canada last week when a gunman opened fire at a street party. 23 were injured. Canada's repressive gun laws did nothing to dissuade the killer from going on a deadly rampage. Again, had the 71-year-old been in Toronto that night, lives likely would have been saved, and few would have been injured.

It should be noted that self-defense is only one reason to carry -- and use -- a gun.

By firing on would-be robbers and potential killers, the 71-year-old man protected others as well as himself.

Had anyone at the Aurora theater taken the rabid gunman down, a dozen lives may have been saved. It's more than self-protection. It's protecting others.

The next tragic episode of gun violence may well occur in Georgia. A federal appeals court upheld a state law that banned guns in churches. The law also forbids firearms in government buildings, courthouses, prisons and jails, state mental health facilities, bars without the owner's permission, nuclear power plants and polling places and their immediate surroundings.

If a bad guy is looking for a place to do serious damage without serious opposition, he may well make the trek to Georgia.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Scotland — Legend and Truth

Back when Braveheart first came out, a friend and I saw it separately. After we'd both seen it, he asked me what I thought.  I said "Commanches," and he nodded.  I was sort of kidding, but I think now that I was closer to correct than I thought I was.  The thing is, most of what we think of Scotland is wrong, or at least very oversimplified.  The kilt outfit we always see doesn't go back very far at all, certainly not to William Wallace's time.  And there's evidently an extremely profound difference between lowland Scots and highland Scots.  And our view of Scotland and Scots, at least here in the United States, is very much romanticized.  I think the Brits are more realistic.  According to my wife, who visited Scotland recently, nobody there wears a tam o'shanter, any more than Tennesseeans go around in coonskin caps.

But Braveheart made me think of Commanches because of the way the Scots were portrayed.  Warlike, savage, grubby, and clannish — clannish in the literal sense.  And what I hadn't thought of is that they're similar in another way.  Distance in time and space has ennobled them in many ways.  In times past, I understand, Scots in general and highland Scots in particular weren't considered cool.  On the contrary.  Steve Sailer quotes Thomas Babington Macaulay at length to demonstrate what everybody used to think of Scots HERE.  Anybody actually in Scotland, please feel free to set me straight if I have anything wrong here.

Release Jonathan Pollard? Sure! — Why not Charlie Manson, too, while we're at it?

Jonathan Pollard is a spy.  He's a US citizen who stole classified material and gave it to a foreign power, Israel, who further betrayed us by sending some of the material to the Soviet Union, and that led to the deaths of several of our agents there.  So the illustration here, by "Liberal Logic" is very misleading.  The first guy spied on Pakistan on our behalf, so we owe him.  The second guy spied on us on behalf of Israel, so we owe him a rope.  Now, LiberalLogic101.com does a lot of good stuff, but I'm afraid he's one of those neocons to whom Israel is far more important than the United States is.  A discussion of this illustration of his on FaceBook resulted in his accusing those who took issue with his position of anti-Semitism. 'Tis ever thus.  The fact that there are plenty of Jews who think Pollard is a filthy traitor is apparently not worthy of notice.  Here's what Allan Brownfield has to say about all this.



The Strange Campaign to Secure the Release of Convicted Spy, Jonathan Pollard 


by Allan Brownfeld 

fitzgerald griffin foundation 

read online, Tweet, email, and/or

share at Facebook at

http://www.fgfbooks.com


ALEXANDRIA, VA -- The efforts of the Israeli government and a number of leading American Jewish organizations to gain the release of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard are growing. Even some prominent former U.S. government officials have joined this campaign, among them former CIA Director C. James Woolsey and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Early in July, Israeli President Shimon Peres promised to continue to work for Pollard's release in a meeting with the spy's wife, Esther, in Jerusalem. When he was in Washington, D.C., in June, Peres asked President Obama to commute Pollard's sentence.

Among those who have recently called for Pollard's release are the Union for Reform Judaism, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman.

Pollard was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1987 for stealing more than a million pages of highly classified documents for the Israelis. U.S. Attorney Joseph deGenova told reporters outside the courthouse, "It is likely he'll never see the light of day again." The Israeli government, after years of denial, finally admitted in 1998 that Pollard "acted as an official Israeli agent."

In his book, Capturing Jonathan Pollard: How One of the Most Notorious Spies in American History Was Brought to Justice (Naval Institute Press), Ronald J. Olive, who served for many years as a naval intelligence investigator, reports, "It is alleged that Israel doubles the salary yearly for Israeli spies caught and imprisoned on foreign soil. If Pollard's spy salary of $2,500 a month plus the promised $30,000 annual bonus were doubled (the figures come from Pollard) he would earn approximately $3.6 million over 30 years. In my knowledge, no other spy in history, in jail or released from it, has been so handsomely rewarded."

From his prison cell, an unrepentant Pollard still claims to have been double-crossed by U.S. prosecutors, who had promised not to seek a life sentence. Mr. Olive explains that the government did not recommend the term. It was meted out by U.S. District Judge Aubrey Robinson, Jr., after reading a still-secret memo from U. S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger detailing the grave damage Pollard did to national security. It has been alleged that the material Pollard provided led to the murder of U.S. intelligence agents in the Soviet Union and elsewhere - agents who were named in the documents he turned over to the Israelis.

As part of Pollard's plea agreement, he swore not to disclose any classified material he obtained while working for the U. S. Navy. Further, he swore not to "provide information for purposes of publication or dissemination" unless it was reviewed by the director of naval intelligence.

Intelligence specialist Joseph Goulden points out, "To the astonishment of prosecutors and investigators, three weeks before his sentencing, Wolf Blitzer, a correspondent for The Jerusalem Post, wrote a long article stemming from a jail-cell interview with Pollard. It also ran in The Washington Post under the headline 'Pollard: Not a Bumbler, but Israel's Master Spy'. Pollard told Mr. Blitzer what he provided the Israelis: reconnaissance satellite photography of PLO headquarters in Tunisia, specific capabilities of Libya's air defenses, and far more."

"In general," wrote Blitzer, who now works for CNN, "Pollard gave Israel the pick of U.S. intelligence about Arab and Islamic conventional and unconventional military activity, from Morocco to Pakistan and every country in between. This included both 'friendly' and 'unfriendly' Arab countries."

Joseph Goulden reports, "The U.S. Attorney's Office considered voiding the plea agreement and putting Pollard on trial but decided not to bother, given that the life sentence was at hand. When Pollard comes up for parole, hopefully some government lawyer will dust off the already violated plea agreement and cite it as a reason to keep him beyond bars."

Discussing the campaign in behalf of Pollard's release, Martin Peretz, a longtime friend of Israel who edited The New Republic from 1974 until 2011, writes in The Wall Street Journal (June 25, 2012), "There is no end in sight for the campaign to persuade President Obama to let convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard go free.... the agitation, a phobic mixture of fantasies of Pollard's innocence and imaginings of anti-Semitic motives on the part of an indeterminate officialdom, has been relentless."

Peretz notes, "All kinds of comparisons are being made. One is to the great democrat Natan Sharansky, who was kept in the Siberian gulag for 13 years and released because there was no evidence at all of his espionage against the Soviet Union.... A

different analogy that comes to mind is the ongoing zeal among nutty left-wingers for the release of Black Panther Mumia Abu Jamal, imprisoned in Philadelphia for 30 years after having murdered a policeman in a revolutionary act. This effort never stops."

In the case of Pollard, writes Peretz, "There is no doubt about his guilt, no illusion of his innocence. And he did not spy for Zion out of idealistic motives. This is a retrospective improvisation. In fact, before he decided to deliver reams of sensitive intelligence and defense documents to Israel's security apparatus, he was negotiating with Pakistan -- yes, Islamic and Judeophobic Pakistan -- to do similar chores for it. (Pakistan is not the only regime with which he was dickering as a prospective agent). Still, there are folks in the American Jewish community and in Israel who cannot let go of their image of Pollard as a man of virtue and bravery. Hence the stubborn unrest... on his behalf."

Israeli President Peres was in Washington, D.C., in June to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Israeli literary figures Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua, and David Grossman wrote, "We feel we cannot reconcile your receiving it when the U.S. is still holding Pollard in prison.... Receiving the medal would make a mockery of Israel."

Martin Peretz concludes, "What makes a mockery of Israel is pretending that Pollard is a man of virtue, a martyr, when he wasn't even a gull."

Before his death in 2006, the man who hired Pollard in 1979 as a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy was sharply critical of those who lobbied in Pollard's behalf. Rear Admiral Sumner Shapiro, director of naval intelligence from 1978 to 1982, was offended as a Jew by the role Jewish groups played in calling for Pollard's release: "Whether it was Pollard's initiative or the Israelis', the idea that an American Jew would spy for anyone bothers the hell out of me.... to have Jewish organizations line up behind this guy and try to make him out a hero of the Jewish people, it bothers the hell out of me."

The time may come when, for humanitarian reasons, Jonathan Pollard may be released from prison. But to clamor for his release because, somehow, he is a man of virtue, a martyr, or the victim of prejudice holds the motives of those promoting the cause open to serious question.

###

The Conservative Curmudgeon is copyright (c) 2012 by

Allan C. Brownfeld and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, http://www.fgfbooks.com. All rights reserved. This column may be forwarded or re-posted if credit is given to the author and fgfBooks.com.

###

Allan C. Brownfeld is the author of five books, the latest of which is THE REVOLUTION LOBBY (Council for Inter-American Security). He has been a staff aide to a U.S. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

See his biographical sketch and photo at:

http://www.fgfbooks.com/AllanBrownfeld/aBrownfeld-bio.html

Piers Morgan is a steaming pile of leftism

I hereby invite Piers Morgan to take his sorry ass back to the UK, where they have plenty of gun laws.  I can't imagine why he left.  And I invite everybody else to join me in boycotting his show and anything else the scumbag is connected with.

What apparently was an evil insane person just shot up a movie theater in Aurora, so Piers Morgan and others like him think that therefore, sane good people should all be disarmed by the government.  We have enough home-grown malignant morons like that.  We don't need to import any.  Story from Breitbart HERE.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Lawrence of Arabia, More than Meets the Eye

I'm 66, and I remember being very much impressed by the movie Lawrence of Arabia when it first came out At that age, I didn't know a thing about Lawrence or Arabia, but my impression is still that the movie wasn't all that bad as a historical record, as such things go.  But you can read about that in the Wikipedia article. But even if the movie is fairly accurate, it certainly doesn't tell the whole story, and it's always been interesting that Lawrence, who had several potential years of activity left in him, died accidentally at a time of crisis in history.  Who knows what his contributions might have been had he lived. (My friend  Baloo reminds me that he and L. Neil Smith kept Lawrence alive in their graphic novel Roswell, Texas.  You can read that HERE.)

Well, today I came across a short piece that suggests quite a lot about what Lawrence might have done next.  And hints that his accidental death was very convenient for certain people — kind of like the unexpected deaths of Huey Long and George Patton.  Check all that out HERE.

Government Built Your Business and Your Whole Life

Really, that should have settled the election, when Obama made the idiotic statement that the people who build businesses aren't the people who build businesses.  It's politicians and government bureaucrats who build businesses. That should have convinced virtually all American voters that he's an incompent jerk.  Unfortunately, that kind of trash thinking appeals to many deluded Americans.  Obama really thinks that, of course, because in his Third-World World, it does seem to work that way.  No actual free enterprise in most of the Third World, just petty dictators taking bribes to grant monopolies to crony capitalists. And that way of life is what Obama's been trying to establish here for the past few years.  As I've said before, he's not trying to set up European-style socialism at all.  That would be worse than what we've got, but still bearable.  He's trying to set up African-style corruption.


Anyhow, our system isn't at all what Obama seems to think it is.  Our government is supposed to ensure the rule of law and protect citizens' rights, so that free enterprise can flourish without the use of force and fraud.  It's not supposed to create business, pick and choose among businesses, reward businesses or punish businesses.  DailyKenn explains this better than I can:


America's first Trump; Obama's last blunder


Obama made a blunder this week.

That may not be news. It's happened frequently during his tenure, beginning with his bungled oath of office.

But this blunder was big enough to merit media attention, at least from fair and balanced news organizations.

According to Obama, America's entrepreneurs owe their successes to government. Without bridges there would be no Kentucky Fried Chicken, no Apple Computer; no business of any kind.

Obama has it backwards.

Government infrastructure has not built America's business. Rather, America's business, through hefty taxation, has funded government infrastructure.

Obama is a stereotypical liberal who fails to understand the heart and soul -- and history -- of America.

We are a nation of freedom (or were a nation of freedom) and free enterprise.

Consider a little known American businessman from the early years of our history.

John Jacob Astor showed up on the shores of our nation from Germany in 1784. He became a legitimate citizen, learned to speak English, and plied his wit and wisdom as a hard-core capitalist.

Although governments often interfered with Astor's enterprising, he became the nation's first mulit-millionaire, the fourth wealthiest person in American history, and the first Donald Trump.

Astor made his first fortunes in the fur trade. It was Astor, not government, that developed the first town on America's west coast. It was Astor, not government, that brought prosperity to fur traders, including American Indians.

And it was Astor whose visionary foresight recognized the potential of New York City.

Astor began buying property in and around Manhattan. He rented the property and raked in huge profits which he selflessly doled out to support the arts and education.

In time, Astor had amassed about $20 million; over $100 billion when adjusted to inflation. By comparison, Warren Buffet's net worth is around $44 billion, Bill Gates is worth $61 billion, and Carlos Slim, the wealthiest person on the planet, is worth about $69 billion.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

The Bain Refrain

People are beginning to notice the coincidence that the bad guy in the latest Batman movie is named 'Bane,' and some people are suggesting that it's a deliberate reference to Romney's Bain Capital.  And I can certainly understand why they'd suspect such a thing, considering the outrageous political correctness to be found in the comics, especially superhero comics, these days.  But it's not.  It is, this time, just a coincidence, and if you look at Bane in the illustration you'll agree that he's not what you'd think of as the symbol of a firm of financiers, good or bad. He's more of a street thug type.  Those of us who pay attention to the comics know that Bane was a Batman villain twenty years ago, before Romney had even entered politics.  And those of us who pay attention to both politics and comics know that Mitt Romney is actually much more like a certain breed of superhero — A wealthy, good-looking guy who uses his resources to buy gadgets and costumes to fight crime with.  You know the type — Don Diego de la Vega, Sir Percy Blakeney, Bruce Wayne.  Yeah, Bruce Wayne.  Romney could actually be Bruce Wayne in a movie.  Obama could be, well, maybe Ebony White.  Grown up.  But not nearly as reliable.

And you know who agrees with me?  The guy who created Bane.  Read what he has to say HERE.

Miscegenation Nation

Miscegenation is a bad idea.  I'm against it.  There used to be laws against it, for very good reasons.  But now it defines us.  We have a President who's the product of a typical case of miscegenation — Slutty White mother, irresponsible, undependable Black father, brought up largely by the White grandmother.  Sound familiar?  It's interesting to think about how these things actually manifest. While I was on vacation recently, I actually saw a couple, rather middle-class looking, he Black, she White, with a clearly mixed kid.  It hit me how rare that is.  Not the mixed-race kid.  No, no.  They're everywhere from the White House down.  All the time you see mulatto kids being led around by White mothers, and very frequently by White grandmothers, and you never see any fathers around.  Also, you see lots of White girls accompanied by Blacks, without any kids.  What happens, of course, is that when the kids show up, the fathers tend to wander away.  You know, like Obama Sr.

In the days of Obama's momma and her baby daddy, interracial sex was still looked on askance, because all the right-wing bigots said it would have bad consequences, like mixed-race kids being abandoned by feckless fathers.  And, as is so often the case, the right-wing bigots were right, and the liberals were tragically wrong.  And the country is full of bewildered White girls — one hesitates to call anybody that naive 'women' — saddled with mulatto kids and living at the welfare trough.  And these mulatto kids are growing up, on welfare, with damn few decent role models.  Most of them are Trayvon wannabees, I expect.

Steve Sailer has been blogging a lot on this subject lately.  The best thing is to go to THIS POST, and then look at all the posts right before it.  It is all quite enlightening.  But I want to add something.  All my life, we've been bombarded with propaganda urging White girls to have sex with and marry Black men.  It started with the Sidney Poitier meme, that Blacks are Just as Civilized as Whites if not More So, which happens all the time on film and practically never in real life, of course.  And then it moved on to saying that Blacks are cooler and more masculine and just better in all ways than White men.  White girls have been taught all this, in school and in church, and are now informed in various ways that it's actually racist and churlish to not have sex with Blacks.  It used to be shameful to have interracial sex, and now it's shameful to refuse to.

And here's some more on the same subject at Spearhead.

If you can think of some way to turn this tide back, I'd like to hear about it.

The African Intellectual Tradition

Let me summarize the history of Africa for those of you too old to have learned the revealed truth in public school.  Africa was a huge, peaceful continent full of scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, saints, statesmen, and all-around damn good people. Best ever.  Then a bunch of smelly, hairy Europeans thought up slavery, invaded Africa, and despite being inferior to Africans technologically, intellectually, and every other way, managed to win and enslaved the whole place and exploited it, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Then they kidnapped a bunch of Africans (right-wing White racists will try to tell you that Africans had slavery themselves and actually sold African slaves to the Europeans, but we know Africans would never do anything nasty like that, and it's probably all due to a bad translation or racist lies or something), carried them out of Africa, and forced them to be ignorant and violent.  Today, Africans all over the world keep struggling to demonstrate their intellectual superiority, but Whitey keeps putting them down and refusing to educate them.

Got all that?  Good. Then you're ready to learn more.  I'm about to give you a link that will demonstrate two things — that Blacks/Africans, as a group, are capable of basically nothing worthwhile that doesn't involve a ball, and that White liberals, especially Canadian White liberals, are the most self-destructive, ditzy flakes on earth.  As you may have guessed, the LINK is to a Kathy Shaidle piece, this time on Africentric (sic) education in Toronto.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Another Non-Liberal Actor

I've blogged before about how dangerous it is to your psyche to look into personal facts about actors you like.  Since so many of them are left-wing idiots, the chances are that they're going to disappoint you.  Actors who portray hard-core law & order cops turn out to be flaky liberals who abhor violence.  Actresses who seem admirable on TV are slutty in real life, etc.

So, it's a pleasure to find out the opposite, now and then, that somebody you'd assumed was a Hollywood liberal actually isn't.  We all know that Mel Gibson isn't, but how many more like him can you name?  Looks like another one has turned up — Kevin Sorbo.  I always enjoyed his stuff on the Hercules show, and his performance on Andromeda was good, even when they show itself lost its focus. HERE'S the story on him.

Condoleezza Part II

Caricature by Greg Halbert
Yesterday I said that I didn't want Condoleezza to be Vice President.  Well, I don't wan't her to be President, either, for a number of reasons.  First reason:  By all accounts, she's a liberal Republican.  Maybe not quite so liberal as her male counterpart, Colin Powell, but certainly liberal in the Rockefeller/Northeast sense.

Of course, what we have here is the phenomenon found among virtually all White Americans, on the left or on the right, that makes us cheer on any Black American who behaves in a halfway responsible manner, to the extent of promoting them way beyond their actual level of competence.  We badly want to reward good behavior on everybody's part, especially on the part of Blacks, for whom we feel some sort of special responsibility.  Think about it.  There are thousands of businessmen as competent and charismatic as Herman Cain, and hardly any of them would be taken as seriously as he was if they declared for President.  He got a leg up because he's Black.  So did Powell, so does Condi.  Condi gets two, and maybe three, legs up — She's Black (by appearance, considerably more so than Obama), she's female, and the third leg is that she might maybe perhaps be slightly lesbian.  We don't know.

And there's one more reason to give thumbs down to running her with Romney.  Pat Buchanan thinks it's a bad idea.  And Pat Buchanan knows a whole bunch of stuff.  What he has to say is HERE.

Monday, July 16, 2012

The Condoleezza Crush

No, I don't want Condoleezza Rice to run for Vice President, and I don't want her to be Vice President.  In the first case, does anybody think she'd attract a single Black vote that isn't going to go Republican anyway?  And do we really want Liberal Republican Mitt Romney to have a Liberal Republican running mate?  Don't we want conservatives to vote Republican? We really need them, you know.

Well, Mitt isn't an idiot, and he knows first of all that he's not going to get any Black votes to speak of, because Blacks are going to vote 96% or so for Obama again, because that's the way Blacks are — Virtually all very, very tribal — And they're going to vote for Obama because he's Black, and that's all there is to it.

So why float this notion of Condi Rice?  Here's why.  He wants to attract as many White votes as he can, and that includes the White morons who voted for Obama 1n 2008 to show how liberal and enlightened they are.  A lot of them, by now, just might feel that they've gone far enough just voting for the looter Obama once, and it might be okay to vote for Romney this time, provided they can convince themselves that Romney is as big a liberal idiot as they are.  And one way to convince idiot liberal Whites that one is a liberal oneself is to float the idea of picking a Black running mate.

At any rate, I hope that's how Romney is thinking.  It would certainly explain the Condi thing, and his trip to kiss ass at the NAACP conference or hoedown or whatever it was.  Anyhow, Richard Spencer sees this the same way I do, and explains it somewhat better HERE.
Hillary's Small Arms Treaty Swindle 
by L. Neil Smith 



Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
First published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
© Copyright JPFO. Inc 2012

About every twenty-fifth message in my Inbox concerns the efforts of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to impose, on every American she claims to represent, a treaty written by and for the United Nations that would result in the end of private firearms ownership in this country.

Smart money has it that Hillary was appointed Secretary of State in the first place for no other reason than to keep her out of Barack Obama's administrative hair—just before he took over foreign affairs—so she had to find something else to do with her spare time.

Hillary and her Yoonie goblins obviously agree with her husband that the Founding Fathers "gave" us too many rights and now maybe some of them need to be taken "back". They think they're being clever—a common failing among critters toting diplomas from overrated Ivy League colleges—having found an end-run around the Second Amendment that has caused them so much heartache throughout the past several decades.

Under Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, they reason—to the extent that reason's involved—a treaty possesses equal authority to any American law, including the Constitution itself. The proposed U.N. small arms treaty would nullify the Second Amendment. Shamefully, there are lot of people and organizations, nominally on "our side" making money—or political hay—from these circumstances.

But here's what the original document has to say:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

At first, it looks like Hillary and her U.N. goons are pretty much correct. " ... all Treaties made ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... "

Not so much, actually.

This is the point where I should tell you that I'm not a lawyer. However, unlike a lawyer or two I know (and so do you), I can read and think.

Lawyers are especially fond of grandly informing you that the rights you believed the Constitution guaranteed you are not quite what you always thought they were—because, after all, you're not a lawyer.

"But come," as the late President Lyndon Baines Johnson used to put it, "let us reason together". (I love quoting LBJ to support any position he bitterly opposed; I figure if we could wire his coffin up while it was spinning, we could light the lights in a couple of small cities.)

As the victim disarmament crowd is fond of pointing out, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... and all Treaties made, or which shall be made ... " are of equivalent authority under Article 6, Section 2. But there is a notable, if unnoted, exception: amendments.

What is the essential nature of an amendment? An amendment, by its very passage, supercedes and takes precedence over the provisions of whatever document it happens to be amending. That is exactly what amendments are for; that is exactly why people write and pass them. And that is exactly what makes the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the U. S. Constitution—"the supremest Law of the Land".

Accordingly, the Second Amendment, by its nature as an amendment, supercedes and takes precedence over the rest of the Constitution, every other law on the American books (including every gun law, making them all illegal) and any treaty ever signed or unsigned, ratified or unratified.

Q., as the saying goes, E.D.

Even if the Bill of Rights were only equivalent to other laws and treaties, then ratifying the U.N. weapons treaty—which was intended from the outset to spare international thugs by disarming individuals fighting against their own oppressive governments— would not nullify the Second Amendment. It would only mean we have two laws of equal authority that contradict one another. But don't worry, that isn't the case, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment along with it, is tops.

Trust me.

I'm not a lawyer.

Not that it would help much if I were. On more than one occasion, I've heard lawyers (I think the first was Don Kates, or maybe Gary Kleck) admit that their formal schooling in the Second Amendment— an embarrassment to the legal establishment—was sketchy at best and that interested laymen usually know more about Second Amendment case law.

And lawyers, especially those who get kicked upstairs by their colleagues to become judges, are often wrong. Their track record, especially on matters related to the Bill of Rights, isn't anything to you or I would want to brag about. Their "body of law", is a rickety contraption of lousy reasoning, outright corruption, blatant lies, and contradictions.

If you're in any doubt at all, ask Dred Scott (you'll need a Ouija Board) whose status as somebody else's property was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court. And it's important to remember that although the court made the ruling, it was lawyers who brought the arguments.

Ask the eleven states (especially Texas) whose legal and natural right to withdraw from a "voluntary" association was illegally suppressed by the Lincoln Administration, at the cost of 620,000 lives.

Ask the millions later drafted into military slavery because the court, in the 1890s, absurdly claimed that—although amendments by their nature supercede the document being amended—the government's power to "raise an army" somehow takes precedence over the crystalline mandate of the Thirteenth Amendment, explicitly forbidding involuntary servitude.

Ask the millions more whose lives were stunted and distorted by policies of racial segregation that were long upheld by the courts at every level, even though they clearly violated many provisions of the Constitution.

Or ask the legions of falsely imprisoned victims of the Supreme Court's flawed ruling in U.S. v. Miller (1939) in which the judges held that it was just peachy to outlaw "sawed-off shotguns" because they have no military application (which is the perfect opposite of today's hoplophobic contention that a weapon's potential military application somehow makes it illegitimate) clearly demonstrating the court's abysmal ignorance of close combat in trench warfare—only 20 years after a World War of which most of them should have been vets—never mind the very purpose of the Second Amendment, or the way that they consistently ignore the fact that whenever the Constitution, in the parlance of its times, mentions "the people", it means the individual.

Then again, the Supreme Court (any court, for that matter) is part of the government, and as the great teacher and philosopher Robert LeFevre pointed out, it is the government that writes their paychecks. Thus any part that they may take in disputes concerning government power versus individual rights represents a blatant conflict of interest.

Furthermore, if "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is truly "necessary to the security of a free state", as the Second Amendment implies, then any attempt—legislatively or otherwise— to deprive Americans of their weapons constitutes an offer of aid and comfort to every enemy America has, and the charge for doing that is treason.

Aaron Zelman taught us that, historically, mass disarmament of the kind Hillary Clinton and the U.N. advocate is almost always a prelude to genocide. No matter who wins the next election—or any other— we all have a lot of work to do, not just to prevent that kind of mass murder, but to make this the kind of country we always thought it was. As we work, it will be important to remember that we are the goodguys—the law belongs to us. They are the badguys, the breakers of the law.

If I'm wrong, show me where; show me how. Maybe somebody ought to send this to Judge Napolitano and ask him his opinion. As I have freely admitted all along, I'm not a lawyer. But I can read and I can think.

And what I think is this: that if justice and the rule of law still mean anything at all in this poor, sad, battered land of ours, and if logic still prevails in the universe, then, at the very least, nobody can nullify the second article of the Bill of Rights—or any Constitutional amendment—simply by passing a law or signing a treaty.

Somebody tell Hillary.

A fifty-year veteran of the libertarian movement, L. Neil Smith is the Author of 33 books including The Probability Broach, Ceres, Sweeter Than Wine, And Down With Power: libertarian Policy In A Time Of Crisis. He is also the Publisher of The Libertarian Enterprise, now in its 17th year online.


Visit the Neil Smith archive on JPFO. >br>© Copyright Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership 2012. jpfo.org

Original material on JPFO is copyright, and so it cannot be used or plagiarized as the work of another. JPFO does however encourage article reproduction and sharing, providing full attribution is given and a link back to the original page on JPFO is included.


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
Pay L. Neil Smith

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Exclude Inclusiveness, or, Anti-Social Darwinism

Photobucket
Whenever I hear the word "inclusiveness," I reach for my keyboard.  Seriously, it's another one of those words like "diversity," which means about the same thing in popular propaganda usage, and has an actual dictionary meaning, but which has degenerated into just another piece of Marxist PC jargon. The idea, you see, is that it's bad to "exclude" anything, so "inclusiveness" is automatically a good thing.  Is it?  When you prepare a meal, you exclude non-food, right?  A "Ladies' Room" by definition excludes non-ladies, doesn't it?  We're dealing with a set of words here — diversity, inclusiveness, and their converse, discrimination — which are all about the human ability to select one thing over others, based on criteria of one sort or another.  This is the ability, really, on which all thinking is based, all intellect, all civilization, all culture, all survival.  And, in typical hippy-dippy fashion, we're supposed to toss it all out and start from scratch with no standard but "inclusiveness."

Inclusiveness means that we have to spend billions on affirmative action.  Inclusiveness means that we have to take immigrants from anywhere in the world, the more screwed-up the better. Inclusiveness means we must have girls in combat units, no matter how dangerous their presence is to themselves and everybody else. Inclusiveness means that we must hire racist Black cops in every municipality. Inclusiveness means that schools may not separate disruptive students from the rest, especially if the disruptive students belong to an elite group like Blacks or Hispanics.  Oh, and they may not separate retarded or severely mentally disturbed students either.  That would be unfair or something.

Brett Stevens sees this phenomenon as an attempt to make us all mediocre, and a rather low level of mediocre, at that.  He calls it "Anti-Social Darwinism," and tells us about it HERE.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Archie gets weirder

Okay, this is just weird.  And disturbing.  Really disturbing.  But is it more or less disturbing than THIS was?  I'll report, you decide.  Is Jughead's counterpart... Jugjugs? Seriously, now, I read the Archie stuff when I was a kid, and my own kids did too, later.  And I encouraged it precisely because it was wholesome and completely nonweird. Nothing objectionable at all in any of it. Then something happened.  Anyhow, the full story is HERE. And you can read the history of Archie Comics HERE.  And if you still want wholesome teenage entertainment, you can get a little bit of it HERE.  But don't stray far from Ph&Ph. Some of that other Disney stuff is as disturbing as Archie.

Friday, July 13, 2012

Jesse the Forerunner


Riddle: "What's the difference between Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama?"
Answer: "I don't know, either."

But, seriously, there are differences.  Jesse is probably at least 20 IQ points higher in intelligence than Barack, and much more of a self-starter.  Barack is an empty suit, while the Jackson suit is all too full of things. Icky things. Barack is a puppet, and Jesse is a puppeteer. 

Both, though, have the ethics and morality of an alley cat.  Over at "Just Not Said," it's argued that Jesse is a sociopath.  It starts out:

Mentioning Jesse Jackson Jr. the other day reminded me of his father. You'd think Jackson would be yesterday's news, but he continues to insert himself into the middle of every racial controversy that flares up.

Jackson has led a life characterized by shamelessness, hypocrisy, dishonesty, lack of inhibition, manipulativeness, and the need for attention.

Jackson grew up in Greenville, North Carolina. While in high school, he worked at a fast food restaurant, where, as he later boasted to black audiences, he took pleasure in spitting in white people's food before it was served to them.  [Read the rest HERE.]

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Brave — A Review

I snuck out again, being an old retired guy who has only self-imposed schedules, to see Brave this time.  Now and then I know I'm going to love a movie — I did with the Secret World of Arrietty, and I did with this one, too.  Actually,  I knew I was going to love it for its pure visual beauty.  The trailers made that clear. But I really had no idea if I was going to like the plot or not, which is quite a bit more extensive and deeper than the publicity would indicate. In the first place, you naturally expect a typical Disney Princess, and Merida is not that.  She's a lot more.  And in the second place, you kind of expect a tomboy type, and, surprisingly and gratifyingly, she isn't that way at all — nor is the plot any kind of a feminist statement, which one would think almost inevitable given the basic initial plot. (Though plenty of people think it is a feminist statement.  Google Brave Pixar Feminist to see.) Finally, it also manages to evade the Prince Charming syndrome as well.  In short, it skips around all the usual clichés and makes it to classis status, in my opinion.  But I'll say no more about that.  Don't want to do any spoilers. I will say that the trailers lead you to expect rather more slapstick humor than there is, and less serious stuff.

It's best if you have Scottish ancestors, but really, if you have any European heritage at all, primeval Scottish symbolism like you'll see in this movie has got to speak to your DNA. Scottish culture, or at least our conception of it, seems delightfully primitive and basic — It goes back to when we didn't even have pants, so to speak.  The Scottish type mythology that forms the basis for an important element of the plot also appeals to something basic in the European soul, something that predates Christianity.  And there's just enough of it to make the plot work, and to set the atmosphere and background for the action.  For that matter, there's just enough of a lot of Scottish things — Just enough bagpipes, just enough tartans, just enough castle, and just enough brawling Scottish chieftains. And there's a homage-joke to Braveheart, as well. Indeed, a commenter at Isteve said the movie should have been called “Brave♥.”  I saw it in normal mode, and I have no idea how much 3-D adds, but I might go and see later.  But, one way or the other, do go see it in the theatre.  Its sheer gorgeousness justifies that.

NAMS have no agency

I like a nice confusing title now and then.  To explain, NAM is short for non-Asian minority, and here in the Western world, it applies to non-Whites who are also not "Asians," or those people we used to call "Orientals" and who are scientifically referred to as "Mongoloids."  Basicially, it means Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese. And in the United States, it also sort of includes some Asian Indians, who are Asian in a sense.  So, then, a NAM is a non-White who also does not belong to any other comparatively well-behaved ethnic group with a work ethic and a bias against lawless behavior.  Any human classification is fuzzy around the edges, of course, but by and large, NAMS include Black Africans, Arabs and Muslims from the Middle East in general, American Indians, Polynesians, and just about anybody our benighted ancestors referred to as 'Wogs.'

True enough, it's not always fair to classify people like that, because there are some quite decent, hard-working people from any and all ethnic groups and races, but groups do exist and have characteristics, and it's even less fair to ignore their existence.

Now, our benighted ancestors, again, thought of such NAMS as being unable to behave any differently, that they really didn't have the capability of acquiring a work ethic, the ability to defer gratification, and sufficient impulse control to contribute to a civilized society.  That seems kind of, well, unfair right there. It's the notion that NAMS lack agency, or the ability to choose how to behave instead of simply reacting to stimuli like automatons.

Interestingly, that's exactly what modern liberals seem to think.  Whenever NAMS misbehave, it's never, ever, their fault, but always, ultimately, Whitey's fault.  When Trayvon decided to beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement, he had no choice, really, because of racism and the legacy of slavery, and because Zimmerman "dissed" him, or because Zimmerman should have hidden inside and let Trayvon rule the street.

And this applies to everything.  Crummy scores in school certainly aren't the NAMS' fault, but Whitey's, who fails to educate them.  High crime rates?  Whitey, again. Even when NAMS kill one another, the poor things aren't to blame, because Whitey is the ultimate cause of all evil.

John Derbyshire looks into the situation, and demonstrates that when one ghetto gangbanger kills another one, it's all really Cotton Mather's fault, HERE.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

An Honest Leftie

BUY THIS ON MERCHANDIZE HERE!
I've been around awhile, and I can remember back when a lot of lefties had principles and stuck to them, rather than just being the cult-followers and general yahoos they are today.  One of them is still around, the unique Nat Hentoff, and he has this to say about Obama:

For the first time in our turbulent history, a sitting member of a presidential Cabinet, Attorney General Eric Holder, has been held in criminal contempt of Congress by the House of Representatives for failing, when subpoenaed, to provide key documents in an aborted gun-trafficking investigation.

Stripping that historic contempt of any meaning, the Justice Department, of which Holder is the boss, refuses to prosecute him. That’s because Holder’s boss, President Barack Obama, has characteristically invoked executive privilege to keep those documents sealed.

Since 9/11, we have become a nation in which the president frequently acts as a king, without acknowledging the legislature and the courts. [Read the rest HERE]

Anders Behring Breivik's Closing Statement



American news media have pretty much given up following the Breivik trial, for the most part, but it has been going on, and here is Breivik's own closing statement.  Makes for interesting reading:


I think we can all agree that on July 22 a barbaric action occurred. What happened on July 22 in the government quarter and on Utøya were barbaric acts.

And I remember that on July 21 I thought after several years of planning, “Tomorrow morning I will die.”

(“Breivik took a deep breath and leaned forward before continuing.”)

I came to within 200 meters of the government quarter. Then I remember I thought, “In two minutes I will die.”

And what am I going to die for? That’s what I’m going to talk about now. [Read the rest HERE.]


Previous posts on Breivik HERE and HERE.

Exploding Chinese Refrigerators


Computers, watermelons, toilets — Things just tend to explode in China.  Is it a capitalist thing, a communist thing, or just a Chinese thing?  We may never know.

More detailed information and related stories HERE.