Monday, September 30, 2013

Payen Sie Attenzion!

David M. Schmidt urges us to know our place and let the proper authorities to their job. This is from the Libertarian Enterprise:


Attenzion alles lookenspeepers! Der Economy ist too complicated fur explainen by der "free market," "libertarian," und "Austrian economist" schmartypants antisozialistische extremist terroristen dumkopfs. Pay no attention to such Scheisse! Der Economy ist only fur mangalen by der Government experten und bureaucraten und der grosse dicke Bankstern. Mitout der Rules und Regulazions, der Taxes und Schpending, und der Borrowing und Printing, der kommt big problems mit der inflation, der unemployment, der grosse Depression, der hund und katze leben together! Totalistische Kaos! Und who would bild der Autobahnen, hein?!

So, to alles dumkopf peasants in flugoverland: Do not interfere with the important work that is here going on mit der schtupid questions und der kibbitzing. Der Authorized Journalists will tell you alles what ve need you to know. Just relax und stand mit dein hands in pockets und dein lip buttoned, und watch in amazement der Government at Work.
David M. Schmidt

Some REAL news for a change!

Ayuko Oka (丘 歩子) Rejoices at the discovery of a new Stooge Film!

Constant correspondent Dave Holle has uncovered an actually significant news item for a change, an event that could, conceivably, change cultural history.  He hastens to point out, however, that even the New York Post nods, and the caption under the photo is laughably wrong. As any true Stoogian (Stoogist? Stoogite?) could tell you, that is Curly Howard, not Curly Jo De Rita.  And even if it was Curly Jo De Rita, it still wouldn't be Curly Jo De Rita, because he spelled his name "Curly Joe DeRita." Sheesh!

Long-lost Three Stooges movie found in Australia, to be screened

Separation of Medicine and State

Free things always seem to have strings attached. If they don't at first, they always develop strings, because the people in charge of distributing freebies realize that they have been given some rather amazing power.  And even if the distributors rigidly resist the illegitimate exercise of power, they soon find out that all their freebies are finite, while the demand for the freebies are infinite, and therefore, willy-nilly, they come up with rules about who gets what in which circumstances. And if the government is in charge of the distribution, you find these rules being made by politicians and bureaucrats — not an ideal situation. The usual libertarian response is not to think up ways to somehow cause politicians and bureaucrats to make the right decisions — they almost never will — but to relieve them of the responsibility, and let decisions be made by individuals who have an incentive to make good decisions.  Nowhere is this more important than in the medical realm.  L. Neil Smith writes about:

Separation of Medicine and State

by L.Neil Smith

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

If there is a single thing that stands as both the signature and trademark for the Presidential Administration of Barack Hussein Obama, it is a willingness to rule against the clearly expressed will of the people.

It's interesting to note that, from the viewpoint of the victim, there's no practical difference between a "progressive" politician who expresses a desire to take care of you, and thinks he knows better what you need than you do, and a jackbooted fascist thug who demands that you do what he tells you or he'll kill you, because he's the boss.

If there is a single thing that stands as signature and trademark for what passes as opposition to that kind of thinking, it is a base, testicularly-challenged, craven, chicken-hearted, cowering, gutless, lily-livered, pusillanimous, spineless, weak-kneed, yellow-bellied, cowardice.

Put them all together, they spell Republican.

It's infectious, this kind of cowardice, it's a contagion. A guy elected by rock-ribbed conservatives, or swept into office on a tide of Tea Party enthusiasm, will nonetheless, after only a few months of contact with Republicans of the soft, worthless variety we've all come to detest, lose his resolve and become as ideologically flaccid as the low, belly-crawling, boot-licking, pee-in-the-pants wimps surrounding him.

Since my first national political involvement, the Barry Goldwater Presidential campaign of 1964, I've spent pretty close to five decades wondering how and why this kind of travesty happens. Barry was the Ron Paul of his day; like Ron, he suffered vastly greater injury at the hands of back-stabbing fellow Republicans—mostly wealthy, powerful, completely unprincipled figures like Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Cabot Lodge, William Scranton, and George Romney—than from anything that the liberals of their day and their slave-media could have done to him.

More recently, in what's known in my family as a flash of the blindingly obvious, it occurred to me that the problem is no more complicated than this: Republicans, by their very nature, can only _react_. They are conservatives who, despite all of their talk about God, moral certitude, and sacred tradition, have no real underlying principles of their own, but merely drift with the tides of time, struggling to conserve everything their fathers and grandfathers, opposed.

They always let the other side, so-called liberals, determine what the debate will be about. The idea that Republicans should initiate any kind of plan or program of their own is completely alien to them. Genuine innovators within their ranks are treated like the nail that sticks up: hammered down flat until they're indistinguishable from the rest. That's why conservatives need libertarian help so desperately. New ideas are not tolerated within their movement (to abuse a noun) they must arrive from outside or not at all, so they can be reacted to.

This unflattering truth has never been more clear than in the struggle against the many tyrannies inherent in so-called Obamacare. Unable to find or create some viable alternative, Republicans have crouched and frozen like frightened rabbits, able only to attack those few among their number who are not satisfied with committing political _seppuku_,
The best they have offered anyone is to modify this thuggish takeover of a major fraction of the economy—and the most intimate portion of people's lives—or to write an imitation of their own, as if it hurts less when we do it to ourselves—which has traditionally been the policy, of course, of the National Rifle association—but I digress.

Sometimes, all you need to effect change is to put a name to things. Thirty-odd years ago, we noticed that one state has no laws forbidding—or allowing—the carry of concealed weapons, and that this state has the lowest violent crime rate in America. Clearly this was an idea that needed to be spread around, but I knew, given the way the human mind works, that it would never get anywhere unless it had a name.

So I coined the term "Vermont Carry".

Republicans find themselves high-centered now in the mud-pit of Marxist medicine, for no better reason than this: although they know perfectly what they don't want, they don't have a name for what they do.

Please allow me to assist: the phrase they're looking for, the words that everybody needs to wake up from this Stalinist nightmare, are:

Separation of Medicine and State.

Normally, a phrase like that wouldn't occur to most conservative Republicans, the only context where anything like it can be found is with regard to the First Amendment. Despite the evidence of history, despite the testimony of the man who wrote it and the man it was written to satisfy, conservatives busy themselves tap-hysterically dancing around it, attemping to deny what it really means, exactly the way "progressives" desperately try to make the Second Amendment go away.
Separation of Medicine and State.

This, however, is a concept that conservatives can support with a joyful heart. It means that the relationship between an individual and the health professional he chooses is a completely private, personal, market-oriented thing. Moreover, it would restore to that relationship the same standard of confidentiality that has always been appropriate between a attorney and his client, or better yet, a minister and his parishoner.

Separation of medicine and state.

It does mean a politically difficult end to programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but that shouldn't be impossible to explain to voters: they were fatally flawed to begin with, and they are now far beyond repair. Two relatively simple changes—the elimination of all taxation of anything even remotely related to medicine or medical practice, and the institution of "loser pays" tort reform to put an end to stupid or crooked lawsuits—will make it possible for almost everybody to afford proper treatment. Any gaps that do remain can be easily filled by churches and foundations eager to justify their existence.

Separation of medicine and state.

It also means that the government, at every level from national to municipal, will be compelled to divest itself of every hospital that it owns or controls. Anybody who has ever had anything to do with the Veterans' Administration hospitals will breath a deep, ragged sigh of relief.
Separation of medicine and state.

Make no mistake: medicine was an enormous and increasingly expensive mess in this country long before Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton shoved their long, pointy communist noses into everybody's business.

In the 1960s, during the Kennedy Administration, like a nightmare straight out of Ayn Rand's _The Fountainhead_, physicians were subjected to supervision of their practices by a committee of their competitors—as if the individuals who make Pepsi, Royal Crown and Shasta had anything legitimate to say about how Coca Cola runs its business.

Medical second-guessing and elbow-jogging became a way of life.

For decades, to keep doctors' incomes as high as possible, the American Medical Association used its political power to restrict entry into the market, keeping the supply of doctors artificially low. (Under separation of medicine and state, their income might fall, but it could not be taxed, more than making up the difference; tort reform would would arrive as a kind of bonus.) Yet when it came to protecting their doctors from the violent intrusions of the government, the AMA—which is run by the same kind of minds as the NRA—perversely chose to fight a slow retreat, rather than take the offensive against collectivism.

Meanwhile, relying on lies about events like the Thalidomide disaster, the Food and Drug Administration imposed testing procedures that made lifesaving medicines outrageously expensive, while hundreds of thousands of individuals died, waiting for those medicines to be approved. The villainies of the pharmaceutical industry under this regime would provide material for an essay—or a book—all by themselves.

As prices inevitably rose under stringent, complicated government regulation, medical insurance became more and more important, until, in the end, it wasn't their customers—sick people—that doctors found themselves working for, and ordered around by, but the issuers of insurance policies who determined, among other things, that no physician should spend more than fifteen minutes with each of his patients. In time, we would inevitably have had these outfits telling us how to live every second of our lives, simply in order to save them money.

The horrible truth is, overall, that the system itself , crippled as it was by government interference, was begging for something like Obamacare.

The one cure is to get rid of that interference altogether.

Separation of medicine and state.

More doctors, lower prices, more and better medicines, perfect privacy.

Separation of medicine and state.

There's your program, Republicans, there's the "meme" that can pull you out of the political quicksand you find yourselves flailing in.

Separation of medicine and state.

Guts, spine, and gonads.

Separation of medicine and state.

Now go do something about it.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, and diversity is strength

Original quote HERE.
Thanks to DailyKenn for this one.  It comes from Young Conservatives.  

College student forced to go to “diversity training” and is called a racist, his response is legendary

It’s always nice to see someone standing up to the leftist establishment at their college. Notice how he doesn’t demand the school no longer offers “diversity training”, but that it should not be mandatory and paid for by tax dollars. That my friends, is the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Jason Morgan, a University of Wisconsin-Madison student earning his doctorate there, has told his supervisor he objects to the school’s mandated diversity training for teaching assistants (TAs) because leaders of the first session he attended essentially called him – and the whole class – racist.

The letter, sent by email Sept. 22, states all new TAs in the university’s history department are required to attend one orientation session, two training sessions, and two diversity sessions. Morgan, in his letter, called the first of the two diversity sessions, held Friday, “an avalanche of insinuations, outright accusations, and suffocating political indoctrination (or, as some of the worksheets revealingly put it, ‘re-education’) entirely unbecoming a university of our stature.”

Below Morgan’s letter has been reproduced in its entirety. Morgan, a College Fix contributor, also sent copies of the letter to various Wisconsin news outlets:

Dear Graduate Director Prof. Kantrowitz,

Please forgive this sudden e-mail. I am writing to you today about the “diversity” training that new teaching assistants (TAs) are required to undergo. In keeping with the spirit of the Wisconsin Idea, I am also blind-copying on this e-mail several journalistic outlets and state government officials, because the taxpayers who support this university deserve to know how their money is being spent.

As you are probably aware, all new TAs in the History Department are required to attend one orientation session, two TA training sessions, and two diversity sessions. Yesterday (Friday, September 20th), we new TAs attended the first of the diversity sessions. To be quite blunt, I was appalled. What we were given, under the rubric of “diversity,” was an avalanche of insinuations, outright accusations, and suffocating political indoctrination (or, as some of the worksheets revealingly put it, “re-education”) entirely unbecoming a university of our stature.

Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and students at probably every other public institution of higher education in this country, have long since grown accustomed to incessant leftism. It is in the very air that we breathe. Bascom Hill, for example, is roped off and the university is shut down so that Barack Obama (D), Mark Pocan (D), and Tammy Baldwin (D) can deliver campaign speeches before election day. (The university kindly helped direct student traffic to these campaign events by sending out a mass e-mail encouraging the student body to go to the Barack Obama for President website and click “I’m In for Barack!” in order to attend.) Marxist diatribes denouncing Christianity, Christians, the United States, and conservatives (I am happy to provide as many examples of this as might be required) are assigned as serious scholarship in seminars. The Teaching Assistants Association (TAA)–which sent out mass e-mails, using History Department list-servs, during the attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker, accusing Gov. Walker of, among other things, being “Nero”–is allowed to address TA and graduate student sessions as a “non-partisan organization”. The History Department sponsors a leftist political rally, along with the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, and advertises for the rally via a departmental e-mail (sent, one presumes, using state computers by employees drawing salaries from a state institution). In short, this university finds it convenient to pretend that it is an apolitical entity, but one need not be particularly astute to perceive that the Madison campus is little more than a think tank for the hard left. Even those who wholeheartedly support this political agenda might in all candor admit that the contours of the leftism here are somewhat less than subtle.

At the “diversity” training yesterday, though, even this fig leaf of apoliticism was discarded. In an utterly unprofessional way, the overriding presumption of the session was that the people whom the History Department has chosen to employ as teaching assistants are probably racists. In true “diversity” style, the language in which the presentation was couched was marbled with words like “inclusive”, “respect”, and “justice”. But the tone was unmistakably accusatory and radical. Our facilitator spoke openly of politicizing her classrooms in order to right (take revenge for?) past wrongs. We opened the session with chapter-and-verse quotes from diversity theorists who rehearsed the same tired “power and privilege” cant that so dominates seminar readings and official university hand-wringing over unmet race quotas. Indeed, one mild-mannered Korean woman yesterday felt compelled to insist that she wasn’t a racist. I never imagined that she was, but the atmosphere of the meeting had been so poisoned that even we traditional quarries of the diversity Furies were forced to share our collective guilt with those from continents far across the wine-dark sea.

It is hardly surprising that any of us hectorees would feel thusly. For example, in one of the handouts that our facilitator asked us to read (“Detour-Spotting: for white anti-racists,” by joan olsson [sic]), we learned things like, “As white infants we were fed a pabulum of racist propaganda,” “…there was no escaping the daily racist propaganda,” and, perhaps most even-handed of all, “Racism continues in the name of all white people.” Perhaps the Korean woman did not read carefully enough to realize that only white people (all of them, in fact) are racist. Nevertheless, in a manner stunningly redolent of “self-criticism” during the Cultural Revolution in communist China, the implication of the entire session was that everyone was suspect, and everyone had some explaining to do.

You have always been very kind to me, Prof. Kantrowitz, so it pains me to ask you this, but is this really what the History Department thinks of me? Is this what you think of me? I am not sure who selected the readings or crafted the itinerary for the diversity session, but, as they must have done so with the full sanction of the History Department, one can only conclude that the Department agrees with such wild accusations, and supports them. Am I to understand that this is how the white people who work in this Department are viewed? If so, I cannot help but wonder why in the world the Department hired any of us in the first place. Would not anyone be better?

There is one further issue. At the end of yesterday’s diversity “re-education,” we were told that our next session would include a presentation on “Trans Students”. At that coming session, according to the handout we were given, we will learn how to let students ‘choose their own pronouns’, how to correct other students who mistakenly use the wrong pronouns, and how to ask people which pronouns they prefer (“I use the pronouns he/him/his. I want to make sure I address you correctly. What pronouns do you use?”). Also on the agenda for next week are “important trans struggles, as well as those of the intersexed and other gender-variant communities,” “stand[ing] up to the rules of gender,” and a very helpful glossary of related terms and acronyms, to wit: “Trans”: for those who “identify along the gender-variant spectrum,” and “Genderqueer”: “for those who consider their gender outside the binary gender system”. I hasten to reiterate that I am quoting from diversity handouts; I am not making any of this up.

Please allow me to be quite frank. My job, which I love, is to teach students Japanese history. This week, for example, I have been busy explaining the intricacies of the Genpei War (1180-1185), during which time Japan underwent a transition from an earlier, imperial-rule system under regents and cloistered emperors to a medieval, feudal system run by warriors and estate managers. It is an honor and a great joy to teach students the history of Japan. I take my job very seriously, and I look forward to coming to work each day.

It is most certainly not my job, though, to cheer along anyone, student or otherwise, in their psychological confusion. I am not in graduate school to learn how to encourage poor souls in their sexual experimentation, nor am I receiving generous stipends of taxpayer monies from the good people of the Great State of Wisconsin to play along with fantasies or accommodate public cross-dressing. To all and sundry alike I explicate, as best I can, such things as the clash between the Taira and the Minamoto, the rise of the Kamakura shogunate, and the decline of the imperial house in twelfth-century Japan. Everyone is welcome in my classroom, but, whether directly or indirectly, I will not implicate myself in my students’ fetishes, whatever those might be. What they do on their own time is their business; I will not be a party to it. I am exercising my right here to say, “Enough is enough.” One grows used to being thought a snarling racist–after all, others’ opinions are not my affair–but one draws the line at assisting students in their private proclivities. That is a bridge too far, and one that I, at least, will not cross.

I regret that this leaves us in an awkward situation. After having been accused of virulent racism and, now, assured that I will next learn how to parse the taxonomy of “Genderqueers”, I am afraid that I will disappoint those who expect me to attend any further diversity sessions. When a Virginia-based research firm came to campus a couple of years ago to present findings from their study of campus diversity, then-Diversity Officer Damon Williams sent a gaggle of shouting, sign-waving undergraduates to the meeting, disrupting the proceedings so badly that the meeting was cancelled. In a final break with such so-called “diversity”, I will not be storming your office or shouting into a megaphone outside your window. Instead, I respectfully inform you hereby that I am disinclined to join in any more mandatory radicalism. I have, thank God, many more important things to do. I also request that diversity training be made optional for all TAs, effective immediately. In my humble opinion, neither the Department nor the university has any right to subject anyone to such intellectual tyranny.

Thank you for your patience in reading this long e-mail.


Jason Morgan

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Quote of the day! Thomas Sowell

Minnesota Kittens

It's been said many times before, but clearly needs repeating: If a cat has kittens in an oven, it doesn't make them biscuits. In our early days in America, we all were British, so it seemed like becoming an American basically involved a boat ride. That is, "American" was for all practical purposes a British subgroup. We started getting immigrants from elsewhere, mainly Germany, and such people as Benjamin Franklin were worried that too many German immigrants would skew our culture and turn us into something else.  He was right, of course.  As it happened, German immigration tapered off enough that his feared results didn't materialize after all, but he was right to caution everybody about it. It seems ironic in retrospect, because of course German culture and British culture are practically identical by current standards.

But the conventional wisdom is that, never mind the immigrants themselves, their offspring, born in America, are unequivocally Americans, no matter how they end up, and no matter how ridiculous the idea may be. We're all into the Ellis Island Myth, about how immigrants come here wanting to be Americans, and how they bring their children up to be Americans. That was never 100% true, although a lot of European immigrants did have that attitude. They didn't want to be Germans or Irishmen or Frenchmen or Poles any more, they wanted to be Americans, so they made damn sure their kids were imprinted with that goal, too.

Now? Forget it. We have a doublethink situation, where the old Ellis Island Myth is held up as gospel, but at the same time the idea of assimilation is considered bigoted or something, and multiculturalism is the new goal. Got that?  We believe in assimilation and in anti-assimilation simultaneously.  Doublethink is itself a liberal value.

To get to the point, then, if you have a Chinese born in Denmark, a Chechen born in Ireland, or a Somali born in Minneapolis, you have respectively a Dane, an Irishman, and an America.  And when they rape somebody or blow something up, that's what the news media will call them.  And the news consumer, not being hip to all this, shakes his head and wonders what made a Danish guy spy for the PRC, why an Irishman went on a killing spree, or why an American murdered dozens of people in a Kenyan shopping mall.

You see, the conventional wisdom is that a full-blooded Somali, born in the US and brought up as a Muslim, and taught to hate non-Muslims in general and Americans in particular, is just a regular American, like Archie or Jughead, and calling him a "Somali" is just plain bigotry. From the Occidental Observer:

On the Somali “Minnesotans”

In the incredibly unlikely case that you have not yet heard, Jihadist terrorists based out of Somalia struck a mall in Nairobi, Kenya — with death tolls running quite high. Then came the uncomfortable news that three of the terrorists were from… Minnesota. After that, the media chips fell where you would guess — the Somali-American community officially condemned the attack, then there was fear of reprisal, then Ms. Pamela Geller threw a polemical fit. What would you expect?

Moving beyond pundit reactions, it is worth noting some of the background to this. Like the rest of America, Minnesota started receiving an influx of Somali immigrants in the 1990s, and quickly became host to more of them than anywhere else in the New World. Since, “those of Somali descent are not asked about their ancestry during the census,” the exact number of them is hard to determine, some say 30 or 35 thousand, others say at least one hundred thousand — regardless, most of whom live in Minneapolis. Despite the media’s best attempts to portray these recent events in a “how could this happen?!” way, this is not the first time Somalis from the Twin Cities have gone to Africa for the glory of Allah. The list keeps getting longer too, and with each new addition, the ones preceding it must be forgotten. For example, the recruitment video specifically targeting Somali Minnesotans that came out last month is now being described as having “caused little stir.” The video’s obvious ineffectiveness is of course being noted now that there is something to indicate the opposite; much like how the conviction of four Somali Minnesotans earlier this summer for aiding al-Shabab has been completely forgotten. (Read the rest HERE.)

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Quote of the day

Do pass this one around.

Map of Europe: 1000 AD to present day

I have to admit, I like stuff like this.  From LiveLeak.


Cartoon by BALOO!

If you belong to an oppressed minority, you get free goodies.  In times past, there was a little social opprobrium attached to getting free goodies, but no more! And there was a time when being a victim was at least somewhat shameful, but that's flipped, too, and now a victim is the best thing you can be! It ennobles you and makes you a better person. So, of course, everybody wants to be a noble victim and get free goodies. It's hard to say where all this started. Some would say, in this country, that it started with American Indians. And it doesn't seem to have worked out very well for them, does it? But the really big victim group is Blacks, of course, who as a group have basically become professional victims, and who've parlayed a couple of centuries of slavery into a seemingly endless parade of apologies, reparations, and anything else they and their White liberal keepers can think of. So who wouldn't want a ride on a gravy train like that?  Now, oppressed minorities consist of Blacks, American Indians, immigrants legal and illegal, women, homosexuals, transsexuals, Muslims — It's easier to say who isn't an oppressed/privileged minority, i. e., White male American Christian heterosexuals.  In any case, over at Just Not Said, John Craig (who's been on a real roll lately) heralds the entry of yet another group into the exclusive (so to speak) Oppressed Minority Club:

Sociopath liberation

Given the benefits which accrue to those who cry discrimination, and given the escalating victimization sweepstakes which have ensued, it's a little surprising that more groups with well-defined psychological syndromes haven't applied for special victim status yet.

A few have. People with Aspergers have their advocates; people with Down Syndrome have their supporters as well. And the general push for civil liberties has resulted in a lot of schizophrenics ending up homeless on the streets.

But why haven't sociopaths agitated for special protected status yet?

If they do, perhaps their organizational manifesto could read something like this:

We are the real victims.

We are discriminated against for who we are, despite the fact that we have no choice but to be as we are. Is it our fault that we were abused as children, or didn't have a loving parent to bond with?

Is it our fault that we may have suffered frontal lobe damage? Do you blame the victims of auto accidents for the damage they undergo?

We deserve your sympathy, not your hatred.

Others criticize us, prosecute us, and hound us to the ends of the earth. We may murder at a higher rate, but we also get murdered more than any other group.

We are only 3% of the population, but we are at least 30% of those in prisons. And we are over 60% of those on Death Row. This is discrimination, pure and simple.

As the victims of oppression, we have a few demands. First, we no longer want to be known as "psychopaths" or "sociopaths." Those words have acquired too many negative connotations over the years. (Is it any wonder most of us feel compelled to stay in the closet?) Those words should simply be banished, like all the other pejoratives which have been used to malign other oppressed groups. From now on, we simply want to be known as the "conventional morality-free."

We need to move beyond the old stereotypes: 

Don't call us manipulative; call us socially effective. (We make the best salesmen.)

Don't say we have low impulse control; just say we're spontaneous. (Why be a stick in the mud?)

Don't despise our dishonesty; admire out creativity. (We are artists.)

Don't call us glib; just bask in our charm. (We didn't even have to go to charm school; with us, it comes naturally.)

Don't think of us as shameless; think of us as living in the moment. (Isn't that what the poets tell us to do?)

Don't dwell on how easily we get bored; marvel at how we are never boring. (There is no group more exciting than us.)

We are many, and we are strong:

We aren't just Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. In fact, we no longer want to be associated with them. We are political leaders, like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. We are business leaders, like Bernie Madoff and Steve Jobs. We are athletic heroes, like Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones. We are Frank Abagnale, the charming hero of Catch Me if you Can.

We are the Navy Seals who fell asleep in the helicopter ride on the way to get Osama bin Laden. We are the singers who never get stage fright. We are the clutch performers who never get nervous and choke. Don't hate us for our strengths (because we aren't weaklings like the rest of you).

We are the few (roughly, 2-3%). We are the proud (very proud).

We are the conventional morality-free.

And we no longer want to be stigmatized.

We want, instead, to be admired (lionized, actually).

Friday, September 27, 2013

Political Correctness is even worse than I thought it was.

In a recent post I pointed out that political correctness is worse than it sounds, and coincidentally, the Irish Savant has said the same thing, only more firmly and with more passion, such that I think it's worth repeating.  Voilà!

A reminder

Reading on-line comments (you know I have a thing about this!) I frequently notice a dismissive attitude to Political Correctness. Following yet another PC outrage it's dismissed as 'silly', 'stupid', 'nonsensical' or some such.

It is no such thing.

PC is an utterly intolerant system of control that restricts not just actions, but also speech and even thoughts. It has been carefully developed and applied over the last half century by evil and ruthless people.  Its nearest non-western equivalent was in the Soviet Union, and it's by no means stretching the case to say that. At least in the USSR a sorrowful retraction could result in forgiveness and an eventual return to normal life. For the PC enforcers in the West such a retraction serves only to whet their appetite for more blood.

Don't dismiss it as nutty.  It's anything but.

Le Rant des Guns de Neale Osborn Nombre Vingt-Six

Neale Osborn on guns, cops, lies about the Second Amendment, idiot school teachers, Starbucks, imaginary AR-15's, and an even more idiotic college professor. Illustration from the addictive anime feature, "Stella Women's Academy, High School Division Class C3"

Rant the 26th

A pregnant woman who didn't want a gun is glad hubby made her learn to use one. Link. And I am glad she had it, too. I guess those EEEVIL guns don't cause crimes, but they sure as shit ARE used to save lives. In this case, two of them, and one of those unborn. For an aside here, why is it okay for a woman to abort her baby, but it's murder if that "choice" is "aborted" during the commission of a crime? A woman's "choice" makes it so the death of the baby isn't murder? How does that work? either the fetus is a human, and it's murder to kill it, or it's a choice, and termination of the pregnancy is either forced or voluntary. DO NOT GET ME WRONG—If someone aborts a child against the will of the mother, by any method, it is two crimes—one is murder, the other is some form of assault. Whereas an abortion is only one crime—murder. Yeah, I know. Not very Libertarian of me, but it's my one break with the party that simply will not change.

Sooo, you guys think COPS are safer with a gun because of their training than civilians are? Link. The truth is, civilian gun owners tend to shoot our guns at the range 3-5 times more than cops do, and civilian CCW holders shoot even more, JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT! And we are 10 times less likely to hit an innocent bystander. Sucks to be an innocent bystander when cops draw their guns in NYC! and the guy was pointing a FINGER at the cops. Don't worry, though. The poor crazy guy is fine—they finally hit him with a TASER. Final score—one woman grazed, one woman with a bullet in the knee, and one mentally ill man tased and subdued.

Please check your local public school system for the following AP History book referenced here. Link.
Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."
Actual 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There's nothing subtle in how they twisted the 2nd Amendment.
The name of this text book is United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination.And the page in the picture is page 102. We encourage all parents to check their students history books for purposeful inaccuracies like this.
This kind of bald-faced lying revisionism cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. And in Texas, no less. Find out if this book is used in YOUR school system, and if so, challenge it. Read the history books your kids bring home for similar lies and deliberate distortions. We cannot allow a far left anti-individual liberties curriculum to stand. Teach a child a false fact early enough, and they will believe it. that is, after all, the original intent of the public educational system. To create workers JUST smart enough to fill the assembly line, but not smart enough to realize they are serfs. And in South Carolina, a teacher told a student to change the answer to the following question:
"Mr. Jones' gun was confiscated at a police traffic stop, even though he had the proper permit and license of ownership of the gun. Is this Constitutional?" The student originally answered "no," but the teacher told daughter to change her answer to "yes."
Link. read the article to see the actual test question photographed, with the forced correction. What is REALLY scary is that BOTH of these are in supposedly pro-gun states. and BOTH are from schools and/or texts from the controversial new federally mandated "Common Core" curriculum, which MUST be adopted in order to get certain federal funding. Big Brother is now controlling what your children learn in addition to listening in on your phone calls, reading your e-mails, and tracking all your financial transactions. A brave new world indeed.

Starbucks has caved... sort of. The CEO has asked gun owners not to bring their guns to Starbucks. But they HAVEN'T made it policy to ban them. Link. Well, it won't stop me from doing so when I need a really good hot chocolate. Unless they actually forbid carrying on premises, then it will stop me from shopping there AT ALL. After we gave them record breaking sales during our appreciation days, they turn and semi-cave?

After the Navy Yard shootings, in which a psychotic black man shot a bunch of people, many of whom were white, we, the gun knowledgeable, have decided to help our Dear journalist friends out on firearms identification. Link. using the linked chart, we have now made their stories about the shooter (he'd like us to mention his name) slightly more factual. Nearly every story I have read has the psycho using an "AR-15 Assault style weapon". Since the REAL stories all mention his SHOTGUN, the chart in the link now shows us what the journalists mean by "AR15". BTW, am I the only one noticing that the black shooter, despite shooting many whites (and other races, but most were white) has NEVER been called a racially motivated shooter? You can bet your ass that if the shooter had been white, and 2 of the 12+ victims had been black, this would be called a hate crime. But a Democrat voting black man is just "suffering from mental illness". Personally, I think he was a mentally screwed up man. The only question I have is who pointed him in that direction? NOTE—since writing this paragraph, the media HAS begun to mention he used a shotgun, so can we now blame this on Jackass-Joe Biden, the shotgun advocate?

Susan Calloway, AKA Mama Liberty, is a firearms handling and safety instructor, blogger, and author. She ALSO happens to be a friend. And whenever she chooses to pass them to me, I am going to include a few of her blog posts in the rant. Today's is at the Link.
Man Faces Prison for Shooting Carjackers
A Houston man is facing a pretty severe penalty for defending his property, after shooting and killing one carjacker and wounding another. He'll probably be ok under Texas law, but this was clearly not self defense. Since they had the drop on him, he did the smart thing and let them have what they demanded. Now, if he'd been openly armed, they probably would never have approached him, of course. But that's a separate issue. He may have had no chance to access his gun during the confrontation, though many do... and succeed. He's the only one who knows what the actual threat was at the time.
Read it. She always impresses.

WTF? A Kansas University professor not only refused to apologize, he doubled down on his demands that the next shooter in a gun free zone target NRA kids. Link.
"I don't wish what happened today on anyone," he said on the site. "But if it does happen again—and it likely will—may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today's death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat."
In his interview with Campus Reform, Timpf reported, he wished "a pox on our Congress and a pox on the NRA" for failing to have more gun control.
What an asshole. If a person on-scene had been armed, the shooter would quite probably have died sooner, and lives would have been saved. This idiot has the common sense of a rock. Fortunately, at least for now, he is not teaching students there. Of course, being tenured, he probably cannot be fired. Thanks a whole fricking lot, NEA.

While Starbucks hasn't (quite) banned guns from their stores, other stores and businesses have. Link. So let's stop giving those other places our business, and perhaps remind Starbucks of why they had some great weeks, and won't anymore. Now, let's be clear here. Stores have the right to ban ANY activity in their stores or outside service areas if they so desire. And We, the People, have the right to refuse to do business with them. Sooo, let's list a few big names that ban us.

Whole Foods has, since 2001. Not surprising, they are a left-wing liberal whack-job organization even if they HAVE come to their senses and called Obamacare fascist. And I wouldn't shop there to begin with. But I am sure many of you do. Stop, and TELL THEM WHY!

Peet's Coffee. We all know that one, because the Victim Disarmament crowd has been pushing people to shop Peet's and dump Starbucks, until Starbucks semi-caved. Tell Peet's why you are stopping.
California Pizza Kitchen doesn't allow guns on premises, but that's California, so for me, it's irrelevant.

Buffalo Wild Wings doesn't allow guns, but they serve beer to be consumed on premises, so it's probably a semi-wise choice in addition to being illegal in many states to carry in a bar anyway. But I NEVER consume alcohol while carrying, and 99.9% of gun owners don't, so it's probably irrelevant.
Walt Disney World and Disneyland prohibit guns. Since they seem like prime terrorist targets, if I cannot be armed in a prime target, I won't go to one. and I have told them why. you should tell them too.

Again, I sympathize, to an extent, Starbucks desire to leave the limelight. But I do believe it will hit them in their bottom dollar. I won't bother taking up coffee drinking just to patronize them. But if I DO enter a Starbucks (there is one at my local Barnes & Noble, where this bookworm visits often) I will carry, as I always do. Concealed, so they will never know it, unless I wind up defending myself AND their customers, now that thieves know it is less likely there will be armed patrons at Starbucks.
On one of my conversations on NewsVine, a friend asked if, perhaps, the gun grabbers mean well. I replied thusly;
Most are not well meaning. They are selfish idiots, who cater to their fears, and ignore history. They fear guns, because they know THEY cannot be trusted with one. Note that every single one of them claims that in some way, the mere ownership of (or even possession of) a gun immediately turns one into a crazed, child murderer who lives to shoot up a school, off their wives and children, or attack their place of work. Also note that every mass shooter, nearly every mass murderer, is a Democrat. And Democrats are the ones advocating gun control in all it's insidious forms. And that, my friends, is why they advocate for gun control—they fear what they would do if armed. And they transfer what they fear they would do to all of US, who have guns and have never done anything of the sort. That's why they think guns are substitute sex organs, why they think we all stroke and fondle our guns while plotting which school we are going to shoot up, and why they think guns create psychopathic killers. because it would be true.... if THEY were the ones who had a gun.
What say you?

This completes this weeks rant. Enjoy it!

Self-Hating Government?

When the government of a country acts against the interests of that country, there are a few possible explanations.  First, it could be simple incompetence, as I'm sure Napoleon would point out.  Second, it could be that the interests of the people controlling the government do not coincide with the interests of the country as a whole.  And a variation of that last, it could be that the people controlling the government simply dislike the country as a whole and want to destroy it, or change it so much that it amounts to destroying it.  It probably takes all three to explain our current government. But there's nothing new about having a government like that.  Gustav Venter writes about several such, with special attention to the South African leader, F. W. de Klerk, who turned the country over to the ANC, which is now actively destroying it:


FW de Klerk, pink peeling face bloated as if by cortisone, funereal smile stretched under dull eyes, his political ideas as obsolete as a typewriter, his opinion blighted by the ridicule of opponents – and his opponents are everywhere and everybody – his memory distorted by his misapprehensions and his reputation finally tarnished by extra-marital dalliance, will have what he has desired above all else: he will leave a legacy. "Legacy" in the mind of the career politician means "place in history." And a place in history FW de Klerk will have and it will be that of a rare enough political bird, and though he represents a well-developed example of a certain category, he certainly is not without company in his corner of history. There future historians will find him with a coterie of some of history’s most flamboyant figures. Montezuma, the Aztec king, will be there, as will Rehoboam the grandson of ancient Israel’s great king David, as will France’s "Sun King" Louis XIV and Phillip II of Spain, a lineage of Renaissance popes and England’s "Farmer" George the Third.
What distinguishes these men; why are they in that particular corral of history? They were leaders sure, as were thousands of others, but they are remarkable for having devastated their countries and their people, not by one massive miscalculation, but in persisting in a course of action that was so foolish that historians are at a loss to explain the slow meltdown of mental processes.
Popular historian Barbara Tuchman (popular historians are the same as regular or "academic" historians except that they write readable prose) considers the effect in her pondering (as opposed to ponderous) work, The March of Folly. She beautifully describes the nature and mechanisms of folly, but concedes that she does not understand why the leaders in our list persisted in it. And persist in it, that they did.
Farmer George lost America forever for England, Louis expelled the Huguenots and thus impoverished his country and then vaingloriously waged unnecessary wars which bankrupted France and shoved the country over the precipice towards revolution, popes Sixtus IV to Clement VII through their perversions and arrogance triggered the Reformation which split the church and eventually led to it forever losing its pre-eminent position in the world, but only two of the leaders in the list – Montezuma and FW de Klerk – rushed from heights of enormous power to prostrate themselves – and their people – at the feet of a ruthless but weak and outmanoeuvred foe.
Montezuma was the mighty leader of the Aztecs, a people so ruthless they habitually sacrificed people in an effort to cajole some goodwill from their imaginary gods. They were safely ensconced in the natural fortresses of the high mountains and were a prosperous lot. There was no reason to even contemplate a radical change in position or fortune. They had every reason to feel safe behind the aggressive bulk of a standing army exceeding six hundred thousand men. Then, at the height of their power, one Hernán Cortés came calling. He’d sailed from the Old to the New World, not with an armada, but with a few dainty wooden ships containing 600 men, seventeen horses and 17 small cannons in all.
Cortés was a conquistador, a Spanish invader and fortune seeker. He was utterly ruthless, decisive and fearless. And outmanned. His enemy had the decisive advantage of 1,000 men under arms for every one of Cortés's adventurers. Montezuma could have summoned his cooks to do his fighting and still overwhelmed Cortés and his avaricious band. This he did not do. What he in fact did was to meekly submit to the conquistador, thereby cracking the door to his country for the thin edge of the wedge. Soon he was deposed and his people subjugated under the unsympathetic heel of Catholic Spain.
This stunning capitulation still renders historians nonplussed. Tuchman has a tentative stab at an answer, but if she is not convincing it is because she is not convinced. She timidly ascribes Montezuma’s meltdown to the superstition of the Aztecs. "Their ‘gray’ faces, their 'stone' garments, their arrival at the coast in waterborne houses with white wings, their magic fire that burst from tubes to kill at a distance, their strange beasts that carried the leaders on their backs…" apparently was too much evidence for the idol-worshipping Montezuma who forthwith caved in. But who can tell?
If Tuchman cannot explain Montezuma's brain freeze, she is in her own mind sure what constitutes folly. In her "inquiry" she defines it as "policy contrary to self-interest" and lists three requirements for a policy to receive full recognition as folly. She writes that "it must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time, not merely by hindsight...Secondly a feasible alternative course of action must have been available." The third requirement is that "the policy in question should be that of a group, not an individual ruler, and should persist beyond any one political lifetime."
Montezuma's actions were decidedly contrary to his self-interest and that of his followers. He was ignominiously stoned to death and the Aztecs subjected under the iron heel of the avaricious conquistadors and eventually removed as a culture and distinct people from the face of the earth. (Read the rest HERE.)

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Glaivester, Renaissance Man

Many of you know that Glaivester has a pretty wonderful blog, which does more than any other that I know of (except maybe VDare, but that's a committee effort) to fight illegal alien amnesty, and which I visit every day HERE. What you almost certainly don't know, though, is that he's also a cartoonist (like our own Baloo) with a nice quirky drawing style and equally quirky sense of humor. He sort of reminds me of John Bergstrom.  You can see his work on Deviantart HERE.  And here's his latest.

The Boys in Brazil are now all over the world!

That cloning project really got out of hand. You know, the one with Gregory Peck and Hitler's DNA. Since that time, Hitler has showed up as Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat, Fidel Castro, and just the other day, Ted Cruz — and he said, sort of, that Obama is a Hitler clone, albeit with quite a few mutations. Obama's certainly not the first U. S. President to be Hitler.  Both Bushes were, and Reagan was, and I'm pretty sure Nixon was, too. And even though they didn't get elected, McCain and Romney were both Hitler. Come to think of it, most Republicans are Hitler, as are all the Tea Party folks and whoever is annoying the liberals currently. But Iran has the most Hitlers of all. Khomeni was Hitler, and Ahmadinejad was definitely Hitler, though evidently a term-limited Hitler, because he's been replaced by Hassan Rowhani, the latest Hitler. Pat Buchanan has his doubts about this equivalence, because he remembers Hitler as having rather more resources than camels and goats:

Is Iran the Fourth Reich?

In the fall of 1956, Nikita Khrushchev threatened to rain rockets down on London for the British invasion of Suez and sent his tanks into Budapest to drown the Hungarian Revolution in blood.

He blew up the Paris summit in 1960, banged his shoe at the U.N., and warned Americans, “We will bury you!”

He insulted John F. Kennedy in Vienna, built the Berlin Wall, and began secretly to place missiles in Cuba capable of annihilating every city in the Southeast, including Washington.

Those were sobering times and serious enemies.

Yet in the Eisenhower-Kennedy years, living under a nuclear Sword of Damocles unlike any the world had ever known, we Americans were on balance a cool, calm and collected crowd.

How then explain the semi-hysteria and near panic in circles of this city over the possibility President Obama might meet with President Hassan Rouhani and hold negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program?

We hear talk of Hitler in the Rhineland, of a new Munich, of America failing to act as Britain failed to act, until, back to the wall, it had no choice but to fight. The old Churchill quotes are heard once again.

But is the Ayatollah Hitler? Is Rouhani von Ribbentrop? Is Iran the Fourth Reich? Should we be very very afraid?

Iran, we are told, is the most dangerous enemy America faces.

But is this true?  (Read the rest HERE.)

Post-Traumatic Strauss Syndrome

When it comes to the Straussians, you shouldn't hide your head in the sand. That's an intricate pun based on the German language. But this is all about Leo Strauss, of whom hardly anybody has heard, who can be considered one of the fathers of neoconservatism, a form of Trotskyism cleaned up and dressed in a jacket and tie to fool Republican voters. So far, it seems to be working. Two of my favorite thinkers out there are Kevin MacDonald and Paul Gottfried, so this is a real treat — Keving MacDonald writing about Paul Gottfried.  I referred to the Gottfried book awhile back HERE. Enjoy:

Paul Gottfried and Claes Ryn on Leo Strauss

Kevin MacDonald

The academic life is probably like many careers in that ultimately you have to find an audience. Professors spend months or years on a major project, then try to get it published in the best possible venue. Then they hope for positive reviews and, ultimately, acclaim and influence. I suspect that if one did a study based on exit interviews of academics as they retired from the profession, not a few of them would express the feeling that the game was somehow stacked against them—that their work did not get the attention it deserved, that it should have been discussed in all the elite intellectual venues—the New York Times Book Review, the New York Review of Books, and ultimately, perhaps, become assigned reading in college courses everywhere. They should have been somebody.

Lots of academics probably feel this way, but no one has so explicitly expressed it quite like Paul Gottfried has. In his recent piece, ”Claes Ryn, Allan Bloom, Leo Strauss, and Me,” Gottfried is clearly frustrated. He managed to get his book, Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America, published by an elite academic publisher, Cambridge University Press—no mean feat. But intellectual fame and fortune haven’t happened, and Gottfried is not pleased:

I shall lay my cards on the table. I am outraged at how the usual suspects kept my book from being discussed. Despite my well-known views on certain delicate subjects, I tried to produce a fair study of a difficult topic and bent backward in showing sympathy for the movement’s founder and at least some of his disciples. The successful attempt to white out my work has annoyed me no end.

In order to explain this lack of attention, Gottfried refers to Claes Ryn’s “Allan Bloom and Straussian Alienation“:

The arguments marshaled by [Claes] Ryn indicate, as does my book, why Straussians reign in the NYT’s Sunday Book Review Section as well as in Conservatism, Inc. Although Ryn does not make this last point explicitly, perhaps for fear of reprisal, a fuller explanation is at least implicit in what he does tell us. His comments may also explain why my book, initially marketed by Cambridge with high hopes and considerable promo, received absolutely no attention in the national Main Stream Media.
For fear of the Straussians.

So how have the Straussians been able to dominate all the high ground of American culture? And in particular, how they have managed to completely co-opt what passes for conservatism? These questions are not really answered by either Gottfried and Ryn, but there are hints. Both emphasize that Straussian ideology has functioned to pave the way for a new elite with no ethnic or cultural ties to the old elite by conceptualizing America as a proposition nation without specific ethnic or religious roots. Given the very large role of Jewish intellectuals among the new elite, the motivation is obvious: If one doesn’t share the ethnic, religious, and historical roots of a society but wants to be accepted as the new intellectual elite, then define the society as having no ethnic, religious, or historical roots. Ryn notes that

the desire to have America be something different from its historical past and to make it perhaps also more palatable to an aspiring new elite is probably most evident and explicit in Bloom’s fellow Straussian Harry Jaffa. Jaffa has made a career of asserting that America must not, repeat, not, be understood as owing anything of importance to an old historical heritage. It must be seen as born out of a radical break with the past and as based on abstract principles of an essentially Lockean cast—Lockeanism understood concomitantly as a departure from earlier thought.

The subterfuge of the Straussians was to attempt to locate this proposition culture in the deep wellsprings of Western culture in order to make it more palatable to conservatives, a position that required them to completely disregard normal standards of scholarship. Thus Plato is presented as an ardent democrat. Ryn:

Allan Bloom contends that Plato, whose iconic status and authority he would like to invoke on behalf of his own beliefs, is markedly different from how a long tradition of classicist scholarship has understood him. Contrary to all appearances, Plato is not scornful of democracy and democratic man. He is a democrat in disguise.

Indeed, in the hands of the Straussians, all of Western philosophy comes down to alienation from society and from tradition—an odd proposal to say the least, and here Ryn also mentions the Frankfurt School as completely on board with the Straussians. The tension arises from the fact that rejection of society and tradition are usually considered to be of the left. As Ryn notes, ”in their disparagement of tradition [they] resemble the open, unqualified left.” In place of tradition and ethnic or cultural particularity, these philosophers opt for universalist abstractions in which the White race or Christianity are excluded as significant categories. (Keep reading HERE.)

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Political Correctness — Worse Than It Sounds

A problem with the term "political correctness" is that it sounds a lot more harmless than it is. It's come to have a connotation of silly prissiness, which it certainly deserves, but that distracts us from its actual profligate waste and downright lethal consequences. Political correctness, in which school kids are constantly marinated, causes them to be less than adequately suspicious and to get themselves raped and killed. Oh, they're told not to trust strangers, but they're also told that Blacks and other minorities are harmless and benign wonderful people who must be treated with respect and deference at all times, so they do, and get themselves raped and murdered.  It was political correctness that kept coddling Hassan and Alexis, till they both ran of the rails and murdered people. Political correctness causes immense waste of resources, because it leads to assigning jobs and responsibility to women and minorities who aren't qualified for them, and that leads to plane crashes and military disasters and criminals not being restrained when appropriate. And even if fatalities don't result, it leads to a depressing lowering of standards and morale all over the economy. And it makes everybody stupid, or at least it makes them seem stupid.  John Craig, at, gives us the benefit of his experiences:

Justice is blind; now so is law enforcement

Back in May, I linked a Wall Street Journal article which talked about a new trend: everyone, no matter how old, must be carded before drinking, since otherwise it's "discrimination" against younger people.

I had assumed that this silly trend died as quickly as it had appeared.

Not so.

Last weekend my wife ran a half marathon up in Rhode Island. They had set up a large tent at the finish where all the runners could gather for a post-race beer. My wife finished the race, and went to the tent, but was not allowed a beer because she didn't have a proper ID with her.

My wife is 57. While she looks good for her age, nobody would mistake her for a teenager.

The wonderful thing about political correctness is that it gives common sense a nice vacation. When political correctness takes over, common sense goes jetting off to some place like Fiji, where it's not even reachable by phone.

Carding 57-year-olds is the culmination of a non-discriminatory ethos which deems it evil to notice any human differences.

Another example might be how those TSA agents at the airports pay as much attention to little old ladies as they do to me.

Check out my picture on the right. (Go to his site HERE to do that.) I look vaguely like a guy who'd like to blow up a jet in order to get his 72 virgins. Okay, I admit it, I'm getting a little old for the virgins. But I still look kind of like I might have a soft spot for al Qaeda.

So please, frisk me -- and others who look like me. I'd far rather be the victim of racial profiling than the victim of a terrorist.

Let me put it this way: I'd prefer having to undergo a cavity search by a fat, ugly, old gay guy with warts on his fingers than having to sit on an airplane for several hours wondering when the bomb is going to detonate.

We need to send political correctness to Fiji, and invite common sense back home -- without asking it for an ID proving it's 21.