Saturday, May 31, 2014

If it ain't broke it don't need Federal aid.

Or, in the usual way of putting it, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, which may be the best definition of genuine conservatism ever.  And in that sense, I'm a conservative Now, he's an analogy for you: Social institutions should and do evolve, ideally just like living things do, by mutation and natural selection. Mutation is random change, wherein an individual of a species acquires a new characteristic because of a mistake in DNA copying. Let's say that in a herd of cattle, one is born with longer legs and can therefore run faster. He's more likely to survive by outrunning predators, so he has more offspring, and the next generation has a bunch of long-legged critters in it, and they outperform their short-legged cousins. After a few generations, the whole herd has long legs.

In human social affairs, there's an occasional random change in social institutions, where somebody accidentally sets fire to his hut, and his pet pig burns up, and it's discovered that the burnt pig tastes great. Then everybody burns his hut down to get roast pig. There's an old Chinese story to that effect. After awhile, some genius realizes you don't need a whole hut every time, but can just roast pigs over fires. The original burning was a random change, analogous to a DNA change. But switching to a fire especially made to roast pigs is a planned change, and once tried, it behaves just like a random change. If it works, it spreads till everybody is doing it. The "if it works" part is the essence of both Darwinism and rational conservatism.

But sometimes wannabe geniuses get an idea for a change, and instead of testing it on a few individuals or groups to see if it works, they establish the new practice by decree or force, because being geniuses, their ideas don't have to be tested. And that is the essence of no evolution that ever took place, and of liberalism, where intentions are all that count. Changes are made for ideological reasons, not for practical reasons, and are an end in themselves, not needing testing.

But here it gets tricky. Once some new ideological notion is put into effect, like Affirmative Action, and it doesn't work at all, the geniuses get to work lying and fudging statistics to prove that in spite of all appearances, it does work, or would work if we were stricter about it and poured more money into it or silenced the opposition to it more thoroughly.

So to modify the saying to fit the liberal Zeitgeist:

"If it ain't broke, break it, then spend billions trying to fix it by breaking it further.'

And that covers about all "progressive" ideas for the last century or so.

Jerry Pournelle, at his Chaos Manor site, shows how one progressive idea, "Whole Language" has followed that pattern:

If we are interested in improving our schools so that our system of education is no longer indistinguishable from an act of war, the first thing to do is get rid of Federal Aid to Education. All of it. The problem is that with Federal money comes Federal control and the Federal Bureaucracy, and the Department of Education has proven over the years that it can do only harm, not good. The Constitution doesn’t give the Federal government power or control over education, nor does it give Washington funding power; and prior to Sputnik American education got along just fine without Federal Aid.
Sputnik scared some people and the social theorists who were certain they knew better than the loutish local school boards that had built the best public education system in the world used that fear to get the Federal camel’s nose into the tent. Full control followed, and the more money the Feds pumped into the schools, the worse they got. There also social theorists who thought the solution to the science and technology problem was to see that every American got a world class university prep education, and that became the goal. This was done just as another set of education theorists decided that since readers – people who read with ease and understanding and facility – do not pause and “sound out” words as they read, the whole notion of phonics was not only unnecessary, but in fact harmful. It only slowed pupils down. Since those who read well read by “whole words”, then the proper way to teach reading is to teach them to recognize and read whole words; you don’t need to tell them that letters have sounds, and syllables have sounds, and letters and syllables can be combined to teach you to say words. Just recognize the words as words and be done with it.
That, after all, is the way these professors of education read. It’s the way you and I read. Why should it not be the way that beginners read. And as the Department of Education was taking over the whole process of teaching, this was forced upon the schools, while Departments of Education in the various teacher’s colleges and universities no longer taught teachers how to teach phonics and phonetic reading. We entered the era of “See Spot run” said Dick. “Run Spot run,” said Jane. This required expensive new textbooks, a great windfall for publishers, with “controlled vocabulary” so that children would not be exposed to too many new words all at once – since they had no way whatever to read a word they had not been taught, even if it were a word they had been using all their lives.
And the Education Professors, bless them, neatly set back the art of reading several thousand years to before the invention of the phonetic alphabet, and turning English, a 90+% phonetic language, into an ideographic language. And they were proud of doing it.
The resulting disaster should be sufficient reason for never having a national education system again.
The local school boards with school supported by local school taxes built the American system of public education. There were abysmally bad school districts under that system, but the overall national result was the envy of the world. And the problem with “helping” the bad school districts was that with that “Help” came control. Up through World War II, the number of male conscripts who could not read was considerably lower than the illiteracy rate in today’s United States – and the number of conscripts who had been through fourth grade and could not read was very low. Essentially everyone who had made it through fourth grade could read well enough to pass the Army’s literacy tests and take the Armed Forces Qualification Test. (The famous old test in which a score of 120 or above qualified you to apply for Officer Candidate School. We don’t do that sort of thing any longer.)
When I was growing up, the University of Tennessee accepted all Tennessee residents who graduated from an Academic Preparation program in a four year high school. Tuition was low. Dropout rate from the academic prep program was relatively high, but not from high school itself – you simply took a different high school program not geared to college prep. Dropout rates from UT itself was fairly low. Other states had different programs. And somehow the United States went from having no military and few arsenals and munitions factories to become the Arsenal of Democracy, building the strongest army, the largest navy, and the largest fleets of aircraft ever seen. And all of this without any Federal Aid to education.
What a nation has done, a nation can aspire to.
(This is part of a longer post you can read HERE.)
Quibcag: Sorry, I don't know who the girl is.

Friday, May 30, 2014


If the people of the United States were deciding things, instead of its feckless government, we would right now be expelling all illegal immigrants and closing our border. We would also refrain from meddling in the Middle East, Affirmative action would come to a screeching halt, there would be no talk of gun control, and taxes would be held to a minimum. Public university faculties would be purged, professional feminists would have to get real jobs, and there would be no talk of "White Privilege" or "Male Privilege" on the campuses or anywhere else. It would be a curmudgeon's paradise.

But the people don't decide. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a king or a dictator behaving more contrary to the popular will than our "democratic" government is right now.

And the elite like it that way, and want it to be more so, if anything. For example:

We have always been at war with Eurasia, and we always will be if David Brooks has his way. This is from Vox Day's website.

A call for permawar

David Brooks openly calls for "constant garden-tending", or in other words, an ongoing state of aggressively militaristic global policing by the United States:
As Robert Kagan shows in a brilliant essay in The New Republic, for the past 70 years, American policy makers have understood that underreach can lead to catastrophe, too. Presidents assertively tended the international garden so that small problems didn’t turn into big ones, even when core national interests were not at stake. In the 1990s, for example, President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton took military action roughly every 17 months to restrain dictators, spread democracy and preserve international norms.

This sort of forward-leaning interventionist garden-tending will be even more necessary in an age of assertive autocracies. If the U.S. restricts intervention to “core interests,” as Obama suggests, if it neglects constant garden-tending, the thugs will grab and grab and eventually there will be horrendous conflagrations. America’s assertive responses will not need to be military; they rarely will be. But they’ll need to be simple, strong acts of deterrence to preserve order.
This is insane and this is wrong. The reason that "the number of countries that moved in an autocratic direction has outnumbered those that moved in a democratic one" has been because the supposedly democratic countries have demonstrated to all and sundry that they are not democratic at all. The United States, Italy, Greece, Ukraine, Ireland, France, the UK, and above all, the European Union, have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that their "democracy" is a sham.

Switzerland is the only genuinely democratic country in Europe. It is the only country where the will of the people can actually, at times, override the will of the government elite. The government there has voted twice to join the EU. The people voted it down twice and that is why Switzerland is not in the EU. Contrast that with, for example, the UK, where the people have never voted to join the EU and the government has repeatedly lied to them and denied them the opportunity to decide for themselves if they wish to belong to it. Or Ireland, where they voted down the Lisbon Treaty, then were forced to vote again until the will of the Irish elite had been accomplished. Or the USA, where one of the largest invasions in human history - 50 million strong - was aided and abetted by the three branches of government.

The concept of representative democracy has failed abysmally. It is no wonder that people are now trying other options. It's hard to believe that Brooks is crazy enough to demand the US engage in national sovereignty-violating military action twice every three years. This is the madness of the neocons reaching terminal velocity.
Quibcag: I don't know where the marching girls came from, alas.


I've blogged about LIBERALS AND HATE before, and the phenomenon whereby they describe any dissent from their own fuzzy little opinions as "hate." But when liberals actually do exhibit hatred — usually very explictly — by calling for Sarah Palin to be raped or some conservative or another to die horribly, that's considered their "opinions." Matt Bailey puts it all very clearly, as he so often does.
Quibcag: The girl demonstrating "hate" is Akane Tendo from Ranma ½ (らんま½).

Shinseki's gone.... Now let's fire OBAMA!

A quick one to pass around:

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Hate Speechers Gonna Speech

We all know what hate speech is. It's Cliven Bundy using the word "Negro." (It's okay when Joe Biden or Harry Reid uses it, somehow.) It's pointing out that little girls just naturally like to play with dolls. It's saying something less than totally enthusiastic about intermarriage, like pointing out that it's not the best career path for young White ladies. It's mentioning that Chechens tend to act like Chechens, or that Sub-Saharan Africa is a hopeless mess. Strangely, saying that the Israelis give the Palestinians a raw deal is hate speech, and mentioning that Palestinian immigrants to the US just might not be the most desirable (see Fort Hood) is also hate speech. Essentially, it's anything a White male gentile says that has anything at all to do with race, ethnicity, or sex, unless he's screeching that race, ethnicity, and sex have no meaning whatsoever.

And the worst kind of hate speech, as Karol Traven reminds us, is the true kind.

Well, we're all racists, of course, all us White guys, anyway, and one of the worst of us all is Fred. And here, from his site at, he owns up to it at last:

The Confessions of St. Fred

Acknowledges Vertebrate Privilege

May 24, 2004
I am done for, and damned. Yes, a poor sinner who has strayed from the path of righteousness, and now sits brooding over a bottle of Padre Kino, Mexican rust-remover marauding as red wine, for I have done the unpardonable: I have said--I cringe with shame--that some cultures are superior to others.

It gnaws my soul.

Please don’t misjudge me. I am in most respects a good American. I have nothing against brainless, passive-aggressive, narcissistic sanctimony, nor preening academic mediocrity, nor intellectual vacuity. No. I tell you, I love all of these things. I am devoted to our traditions. I believe to the roots of my teeth that bovine complacency is the bedrock of democracy. Indeed, the only criticism I can make of our national intellectual life is that it would embarrass a microcephalic box-turtle.

Oh god. Wait. I didn’t mean to imply that microcephalic box-turtles are in any way inferior. They are just otherly abled. I apologize, and acknowledge my Vertebrate Privilege.

Let me recount my fall from grace as a warning to those that will hear. Long ago, a callow youth, I was reading the Huffington Post (this column has no respect for chronology), which informed me that no culture is superior to any other: They are just different. To think otherwise, it huffed, was to concede oneself to be among the Fallen, and perhaps a Republican.

I read this and the scales fell from my eyes (though I had no interest in going to Damascus, where they were using nerve gas). I thought, Yes! It’s true! Hosanna! All cultures are equal! Jewish culture is not superior to Nazi, just different. Why hadn’t I seen it before? The culture of Switzerland is not betterthan that of North Korea, and the South of Bull Conner was in no way inferior to the most dappled, liquid-eyed liberalism of Massachusetts!

For years I believed this, enraptured, and prattled like a jaybird. I was among the Saved. Then…Woe! Woe!...Padre Kino got the best of me. Oh, Demon Rum! Drink has ever been my downfall (and uplift, and maybe side-straddle. After a couple of bottles, it’s hard to tell.)

Anyway, I was in my cups and, prompted by the Devil, thought: All cultures equal? Exactly how is a pack of nekkid savages in the rain forests of Papua-New Guinea, who eat weird pasty white grubs and each other, who speak a language consisting of seven word none of which means anything, who have never even heard of Carlos Santana—how could they possibly be the equals of Europeans who brush their teeth and wrote Hamlet’s soliloquy? Equal how? In the eyes of God, maybe. If so, I figured the Old Boy must need glasses.

So low had I sunk.

Floating in the vile effluvium of the corrupting grape, I engendered worse thoughts. Regarding Islam, for example. How equal was this medieval horror? Here is a faith that will not let its girl children learn to read, and indeed holds them down screaming and mutilates their genitals with a razor blade and no anesthetic. Equal? To what? If to anything at all, I decided to avoid both. I have daughters. I don’t care how dry a Moslem’s head may be, if he came near my kids, he would eat a baseball bat.
You see. Wine. Booze. The Great Purple Father was making me lose all devotion to equality. Shun strong liquor, I implore you, lest you start to favor the death penalty for such victims of intolerance as Ted Bundy, who was misunderstood by society.

But back to Islam. Before, alight with the equality of all cultures, I had thought clitoridectomy to be a minor surgery, not much different from sending girls to Wellesley. Actually, Wellesley had seemed worse, as on campus girls underwent forced exposure to oppressive dead white men like Plato, while Moslem girls faced nothing worse than gangrene.  But suddenly I wasn’t sure. My Huffington-flavored faith wavered.

I even reflected at one point that European culture had invented everything that kept many of the rest from living in the animal shelter. Where they would probably eat the animals.
See how awful he is? For the rest of his self-criticism in an attempt at redemption, you must go to Fred's site HERE.
Quibcag: For no other reason than that I wanted her to, Hinagiku Katsura (桂 ヒナギク Katsura Hinagiku) from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく!, Hayate no Gotoku!) illustrates this quibcag.

L. Neil Smith Discovers a Radio Program

You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar, and you can catch even more of them with a rubber chicken and a seltzer bottle. That is, funny often works better than serious, when you're trying to get a point across. That's how half of this blog team, Baloo, makes a living. This is so obvious as not to need illustration, but if you have any doubts, think about Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Lenny Bruce, H. L. Mencken, George Carlin, and Jonathan Swift. And of L. Neil Smith himself, for that matter. All his stuff is funny. His first novel, Probability Broach, is a scream, for example, and he gets the principles of libertarianism across with humor. Often slapstick humor. Just like Mark Twain gets across all kinds of moral principles across through the Hee-Haw narrative of Huckleberry Finn.

Come to think of it, there are a lot of good science fiction authors out there, and some funny science fiction writers, and a few libertarian science fiction authors. But I can't think of any who are all three at once except Neil. So he knows funny when he sees it. I'll have to look this show up. Neil tells us about it:

Eat It Every Day
by L. Neil Smith

When I get up every morning, I turn the radio on. These days it's actually my smart phone and I "Heart" Radio. I listen mostly to a guy in Denver who has weathered many a storm of political controversy and acrimony.

He's also what Ayn Rand called "muscle mystic" and a total asshole (he'd be the last to deny the latter) and perhaps most disappointing, a surrender-monkey (America is doomed no matter what we try to do). So whenever I get tired and fed up with the same old stupid mantras he repeats over and over, and with his bullying of individuals who have called his show, I switch to another program I discovered about a year ago.

The station I hear them on is KPRC in Houston, Texas. The show is Walton & Johnson. I hereby guarantee that there is absolutely nothing else like it on the air or on the Internet. The pair remind me, by turns, of the Three Stooges, of Dan Rowan and Dick Martin, and of Homer and Jethro. Their program represents the last bastion of true free speech standing against the rapacious hordes of the Politically Korrect Klux Klan, and sort of a redneck Monty Python's Flying Circus.

As with all exercises of genuine free speech, you may not care for the results from time to time. In addition to John Walton and Steve Johnson, who have been together 31 years, you'll hear other voices—voices Johnson creates—discussing the burning political issues of the day or completely trivial nonsense, in surprisingly libertarian terms.

Often explicitly libertarian terms.

One voice is that of is Billy-Ed, who sounds like a reject from King of the Hill, and was originally an engineer, according to the press kit, never intended to have access to a microphone. But somehow for the last 20 years he has managed to get in front of one every day. Billy-Ed proudly resides in his luxury double-wide with his wife Praline.

Another voice is that of Mister Kenneth, who met Walton & Johnson while cutting their hair at his world famous salon "Head Shed", down in the New Orleans French Quarter. Mister Kenneth came on the show in 1984 to demonstrate his George Michael Wham Cut ... and would not leave. He sounds just like every intelligent gay person I have ever known.

Last but not least, Mr. Eaux joined the show in 1983. He met Walton & Johnson while selling them a set of walnut-handled steak knives from the trunk of his El Dorado. Billed as a "militant black", I find that he makes more sense then the other characters most of the time, and Johnson's voice portrayal of him is a radio-acting tour de force. He sounds just like the late Michael Clarke Duncan (look him up).
An occasional guest voice is that of Shirley Q. Liquor (comedian and libertarian Chuck Knipp—I strongly urge you to look him up, especially in connection with RuPaul's enthusiastic endorsement of his act). The unbelievably idiotic public pronouncements of Houston Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee are almost as funny as shirley's, if unintentional.

Kinky Friedman shows up now and again, although I've yet to hear him.

Walton & Johnson wisely limit their news to 45-second segments, but feature daily "taser reports" which seem to be the only thing anyone is doing about this thoroughly evil menace. They are quite jocular about it, while never failing to convey its fundamental barbarity.

They are also mortal enemie of the latest kind of racial witch-hunting in which a person honestly states his opinion about someone or something (an opinion you may or may not agree with, but are obliged, by the rules of civilized conduct, to protect his right to express) whereupon uncounted and uncountable professional minority parasites and the round-heeled mass media—becoming more openly communistic with every day that passes—use whatever he said to deprive him illegally of everything he may have worked a lifetime to earn. If anyone still wonders why I oppose the pseudoconcept of "thick libertarianism", this is what that sort of irrational compost leads to.

Walton & Johnson end their all-too-short program each morning by reminding the boys and girls of America to "eat it every day", perhaps hoping that the boys and girls will tire of what they're being fed and spit it back in the faces of the government and media who fed it to them.

It's going to be interesting to listen to them over the next few weeks as the "Silver or Lead" attempted invasion by the drug cartels into Texas develops. My personal expectation is that these murderous scumbags will discover that, against the best advice of many a bumper sticker, they are messing with the wrong population. Texicans are descended from a people who told a king to go and diddle himself in 1776, and offered an insane military dictator the same advice 60 years later.

Walton & Johnson are likely put it differently, ask where Barack Obama and his drones are when we really—well, nobody really needs Barack Obama, but it makes you wonder what ever happened to cruise missiles. I'd say "Silver or Lead" represents a clear and present danger.

Wouldn't you?
Quibcag: Here we have Marii Buratei (蕪羅亭 魔梨威), of Joshiraku (じょしらく), doing her sit-down comedy act, which is evidently how they do it in Japan.  The irony here is that Baloo stole the joke from Woody Allen, who said the same thing about himself and Dostoevsky. 

Steve Sailer, Journalist of Our Time

Cartoon by BALOO
Guys like Matt Drudge report the news and break stories. Bloggers like me comment on the news, and point you to the news as reported by Drudge and others. Steve Sailer pretty much does both. As in the title, he's the Journalist of Our Time.

One of Steve's strengths is seeing patterns. He finds relationships among events that most of us miss. And as an aspect of that, he's very interdisciplinary, relating politics, history, anthropology, sports, and a number of other fields that are seldom brought into focus together.

Me, now, I'm an old retired coot who blogs. I do my best to pass on the things I've learned in a clear and, when possible, humorous way. I'm no more a journalist than Limbaugh is — I'm a commenter and editorialist. Steve is journalist, reporter, commenter and editorialist, all rolled up together. And he does it full time. That's how he makes a living. So let's help him make a living. He's having a fund drive right now — he calls it "panhandling," so let's all go over to and kick in. I can't think of a better cause.

Need a sample? Here's a recent post where Steve puts the SPLC in perspective:

SPLC attacks Nicholas Wade's "Troublesome Inheritance"

The good old Southern Poverty Law Center is out to get Nicholas Wade:
Troublesome Sources: Nicholas Wade’s Embrace of Scientific Racism
By Jon Phillips on May 28, 2014 - 3:25 pm, Posted in Academic Racism, Extremist Propaganda

In the ongoing on-going War on Racist Sexist White Men, the SPLC is the gold standard source since it's run by poor Southern blacks. As we all know, it was founded in 1957 by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and fought on the front lines during the great victories of the 1960s Civil Rights era. And, thus, the SPLC is legendary in the history of the Sixties.

Oh, wait, no ... that was the SCLC, not the SPLC. Funny how their acronyms are so similar. Must be a coincidence. *
If you want to know what that asterisk points to, you'll have to go to Steve's post HERE.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

The X-Men as a Politically Correct Morality Tale

And now for something completely different. Many years ago, I read a book called Children of the Atom, by Wilmar H. Shiras, which was about a group of unrelated kids who, one way or the other, were offspring of people who'd been exposed to radiation. So they were mutants. Not super-power mutants, just very, very intelligent. And as such, they had problems with coping with other people, and the book is the story of how they manage. Sort of a typical SF theme of the 1950's, but very well executed, and I remember it fondly, though I haven't read it for fifty years. And when I first became aware of the X-Men comic book, I figured Shiras' book must have been in part an inspiration for it.

Well, since then, X-Men has become a much bigger deal, leading to a whole series of movies that try very hard not to be for teens and pre-teens only, and are at least partly successful. Since superheroes have burst out of the comics ghetto, beginning with the early Superman and Batman movies, they can't be ignored as an enormous influence on pop culture and culture in general.

For better or for worse, the superheroes have become politicized, and have unfortunately been mostly called into the service of the Zeitgeist, spreading PC propaganda to old and young. Especially the young. There was always an element of this, but it's getting worse, if anything. And the X-Men, in particular, seem to be all about the God of Diversity. You be the judge. Irmin Vinson gives us a detailed history of the X-Men franchise, from its comparatively non-political genesis to its current preachy PC message.

A Different Kind of Holocaust Commemoration

Over the thirty or so years since his internment in Auschwitz, where he served as a Sonderkommando, Lehnsherr’s rage at humankind has at various stages in his career fueled apparently incompatible goals: Mutants (“Homo superior”), those like him blessed with unusual abilities not vouchsafed normal men, will either subjugate humans (“Homo sapiens”), with Lehnsherr himself becoming our messianic dictator, or else they will found their own homeland, a Zion apart from the intolerance that had destroyed his family and put him in a concentration camp. “Mutants,” he pledges, “will not go meekly into the gas chambers. We will fight” (Uncanny X-Men #161).
His nom de guerre is Magneto, the mighty master of magnetism in Marvel’s X-Men comics, and he made his first appearance in the United States in 1963 (X-Men #1) during the civil-rights era. Although his creator, the genial Stan Lee, was unaware of his Auschwitz lineage, unaware of his name, and even unaware that he was a Jew, in recent years he has claimed a racial motive behind the juvenile tales of battling supermutants in which Magneto would figure so prominently: “The only point that I was trying to make in the X-Men was that we shouldn’t hate or fear people because they’re different. So beneath the surface it was an anti-bigotry story. I didn’t think anybody would notice.” On this reading, which is popular among some fans today, the bigots of the early X-Universe were Euro-Americans, and the principal real-world referent of human intolerance for mutants in the comic was White intolerance for Blacks in the United States. The travails of mutants, Lee now claims, provided “a good metaphor for what was happening with the civil rights movement in the country at that time.”
Mutants are creatures of the atomic age, most of them having acquired their powers through some contact with radiation. Their numbers are growing, and many of them are evil. Conscious of the danger to humanity that evil mutants threaten, Charles Xavier, himself a mutant, gathers together a small force of teenagers endowed with “ex-tra powers” (hence “X-Men”) and trains them to harness their mutated abilities for the welfare of the human race. Some mutants hate humans, Xavier explains, and “some feel that the mutants should be the real rulers of the earth.” Notable among these is Magneto, the most powerful of the evil mutants, who vows “to make homo sapiens bow to homo superior” (X-Men #1). It is not an idle threat, for a mutant is an abnormal but genuinely superior version of a human. He knows more than us; he is stronger than us; he is smarter than us; he has powers we can scarcely imagine. Difference and superiority are conterminous: if you have one, you have the other.
(Read the rest HERE.)
Quibcag: This is possibly the greatest superhero of all A-Ko, daughter of Superman and Wonder Woman (we've all wondered about that possibility, and Japan has made it a reality) of Project A-ko (プロジェクトA子 Purojekuto Eeko). You can see a short film of her at the end of THIS POST.

Michelle Obama — The Belly and the Brain

If you want Michelle to keep on being proud that she's an American, make sure the right stuff is in your kid's belly and your kid's brain.  The right stuff being what she wants there. Rabbit food both places. This from Stuart Schneiderman's Had Enough Therapy?

Michelle Obama Wants to Control Mind and Body

Most people think well of Michelle Obama. To use the phrase that her husband famously directed at Hillary Clinton, she’s “likable enough.”

Now that her effort to take control over the nation’s school lunchrooms has been failing, she has decided to do as her husband did: to politicize the issue by blaming the right wing.

One suspects that this is going to impact her favorability ratings, unfavorably.

Yesterday she said:

The last thing that we can afford to do right now is play politics with our kids’ health, especially when we’re finally starting to see some progress on this issue,” Mrs. Obama told the group, adding, “It’s unacceptable to me not just as first lady, but as a mother.

Yet, the real problem is not the Republican Congress. It’s the simple fact that children refuse to eat what Mrs. Obama thinks they should eat.

They are rebelling against tyrannical authority. What could be more acceptable than that?

Besides, for all we know, a menu that is designed to make children into“indolent herbivores” does not fulfill their nutritional needs.

Here’s what happened in Boston, via CBS:

With First Lady Michelle Obama pushing healthy foods in school, half a dozen Boston schools were among those who bought into lunchroom salad bars in the battle against childhood obesity. A couple years later, none remain – to the chagrin of parents hoping to pry their kids away from junk food….

The school salad bars were a pilot program scrapped amid cost overruns, sanitary concerns, and according to some, the simple truth that very few kids partook.

Politically correct food costs too much. The kids refuse to eat it. And, raw salad bars breed bacteria. You end up with hungry kids and wasted food.

The Atlantic reports on what happened in Los Angeles:

But the new menus were the most austere measure yet, cutting kid-friendly favorites like chocolate milk, chicken nuggets, corn dogs, and nachos. Instead, little Jayden and Mia would dine on vegetarian curries, tostada salad, and fresh pears.

A student rebellion ensued—kids brought Flamin’ Hot Cheetos to school rather than much on quinoa salad—and L.A. Unified was forced to settle for a middle ground between Alice Waters and Ronald McDonald.

Under the new new menu, “Hamburgers will be offered daily,” the L.A. Times reported. “Some of the more exotic dishes are out, including the beef jambalaya, vegetable curry, pad Thai, lentil and brown rice cutlets, and quinoa and black-eyed pea salads. And the Caribbean meatball sauce will be changed to the more familiar teriyaki flavor.”

How is it all working out? The Atlantic does not paint a very optimistic picture:

But a new study suggests that despite the softened menu standards, students are still beelining toward carbs and meat and avoiding fruits and vegetables.

For the study, published in the April issue of Preventative Medicine, researchers examined the lunch trays of 2,000 randomly selected Angeleno middle schoolers over five consecutive days. Though the students are offered a fruit and a vegetable each day, 32 percent of students did not take the fruit from the line, and almost 40 percent did not take the vegetables. Among those whodid take a fruit or vegetable, 22 percent threw away the fruit and 31 percent tossed the vegetables without eating a single bite.

So in essence, just over half the students both took and ate some fruit, and about 42 percent both took and ate a vegetable.

Salads were the most common vegetable to be left untouched, while whole fruits, like apples and oranges, were far less popular than fruit cups or juices. Girls were both more likely to take fruits and vegetables from the line and were less likely to waste them.

Wanna-be tyrants like Michelle Obama, who want only the best for you, believe that these healthy food choices are exactly what children need. They think that they are being challenged to take control of children’s minds. They are so convinced that their idea of nutrition is more accurate than a child's free choice that they are willing to impose it on the recalcitrant young. Those who favor these programs have learned from behavioral economics that if you force children to eat what is good for them, eventually they will learn to like it.

At a time when nutritionists have discovered that high fat diets do not necessarily cause obesity, this pursuit of folly deserves to be called out.

In the meantime, Mrs. Obama does not just want to dictate what children eat for lunch. She has now set her sights on a higher goal: policing thought.

Aside from the fact that many children are becoming indolent herbivores, they are also being taught political correctness in school. So, Michelle Obama wants these children to police the thought of their friends, parents, and grandparents.

Obviously, some of the thoughts are reprehensible, but do we really want to turn children against their parents. Isn’t this what they do in totalitarian dictatorships when they are trying to root out counterrevolutionaries?

And, why would they not report their parents to the secret police? Why would they then not report their parents’ errant thoughts and sick jokes on social media?

Here are her words, reported by The Blaze:

“[O]ur laws may no longer separate us based on our skin color, but nothing in the Constitution says we have to eat together in the lunchroom, or live together in the same neighborhoods. There’s no court case against believing in stereotypes or thinking that certain kinds of hateful jokes or comments are funny.”

To address these limitations in the law, Obama asked students to take steps to “drag my generation and your grandparents’ generation along with you” in the fight against racism.

“Maybe that starts simply in your own family, when grandpa tells that off-colored joke at Thanksgiving, or you’ve got an aunt [that] talks about ‘those people,’” she said. “Well, you can politely inform them that they’re talking about your friends.

“Or maybe it’s when you go off to college and you decide to join a sorority or fraternity, and you ask the question, how can we get more diversity in our next pledge class?” she added. “Or maybe it’s years from now, when you’re on the job and you’re the one who asks, do we really have all the voices and viewpoints we need at this table?

Being a radical leftist means never admitting to failure. If your school lunch program does not work, blame the right wing. If your affirmative action program has not integrated public schools, blame the elderly for their impure thoughts.
More of Stuart Schneiderman on this subject HERE.

If you think you can stand it, here's her little speech:

UKIP — Something we need to emulate

The Brits are lucky. They actually have a political party that is in favor of British sovereignty and which wants immigration severely limited. A few generations ago, the United States had a sensible immigration policy, put into law in 1924, which ensured that our ethnic balance would remain the same. This was completely destroyed by LBJ in 1965.

The US, of course, has both a sovereignty problem and an immigration problem. Our sovereignty is in danger from the United Nations and our tendency to put together all kinds of dopey coalitions for the purpose of foreign interventions. The Brits have the same problems, plus their membership in the European Union, which is totally idiotic.

Sean Gabb, the go-to libertarian in the United Kingdom, thinks highly of the UKIP. Here's what he has to say at the Libertarian Alliance:

Nigel Farage and UKIP: A Step in the Right Direction

Nigel Farage and UKIP:
A Step in the Right Direction

Sean Gabb
(Unedited Version of Article Published by VDare on 9th May 2014)
For anyone not completely in love with the New World Order, most of the news coming out of England is depressing. I will, in this article, try for an exception to the rule. I grant that, since my subject is the rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), and since I am a fairly enthusiastic supporter of that party and of its leader, Nigel Farage, I may be guilty of wishful thinking. All the same, the party is currently doing well, and Mr Farage seems to be doing still better. Unless you are committed to the British National Party, and are suspicious of what may be called “The Conservative party in exile,” I think I can show that the rise of UKIP is at least a step in the right direction.
In my darker moods, I suspect that all the things that have gone wrong with England since about 1914 are symptoms of an underlying decline. Let us assume: (1) that ability, however defined, is largely inherited; (2) that, in a reasonably open and expanding society, the more able will rise into the business and professional classes; (3) that the availability and acceptance of effective birth control methods will cause a decline in the birth rate among these classes; (4) that the less able classes will continue breeding at higher rates. Let us add to this the disaster of two world wars, in which the able suffered proportionately greater losses, and mass-emigration of the able, and high taxes on business and professional incomes, thereby depressing birth rates still further, and a generous welfare system to support the breeding of the less able. Take all this into account, and the surprise must be not that England is now in a mess, but that it somehow remains one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world.
But this is only a tentative hypothesis. Indeed, it may be falsified by the country’s continuing wealth and power. Whether they are symptoms of this underlying decline, or effects of a cultural change within the ruling class, let me describe the main specific grievances held by everyone who thinks England has gone badly wrong.
First, there is the exercise of power not through our own representative institutions, but through unaccountable and often invisible global institutions. England has only ever been a democracy in the sense that we were allowed to choose between options put before us by our rulers. But that was usually enough to keep us happy. But our domestic politics are increasingly a dance to an offstage band. Our foreign and military policies are set by NATO and the UN – which ultimately means that are set by the American ruling class. Our economic and social policies are set by the European Union, behind which stands the World Trade Organisation and the IMF, among others.
This is not to say that our own ruling class has become a nullity. It may be regarded as a branch of the American ruling class: it certainly has much influence in Washington at every level. As for the EU and other global institutions, whatever it really wants it generally gets. The losers have been the people at large. We have two main parties to vote for. Whichever of them wins, we keep the same regime.
Second, the draining away of power from our own institutions has been promoted by the Balkanising of the population. We have no idea how many foreigners – white and non-white – are living among us. The Government claims the population is about 60 million. Tesco, the biggest supermarket chain in the country – and this should be in a position to know how much food is bought – believes the figure is closer to 80 million. One problem with immigration on this scale is that institutions that evolved in a nation with a common identity become unworkable. There is no single public opinion. Instead, the country is becoming a patchwork of mutually suspicious nationalities, many of which believe they have more to gain by lobbying favours from the ruling class than by combining to make it accountable. This has now been as good as admitted. According to Andrew Neather, one of Tony Blair’s speechwriters, the purpose of the mass-immigration policy followed after 1997 was to rub our faces in diversity. It was to raise an impassable barrier between our old and present ways.
Third, there is the growth of a police state. This is a natural consequence of the first two. The people at large must be kept from complaining too loudly about dispossession. Also, peace must somehow be kept between the various groups of the people. You cannot have the Moslems preaching jihad against our wars in the Islamic World. You cannot have the natives complaining about the presence of the Moslems. Political correctness is the legitimising ideology of the new order of things, and many of the oppressive laws made in the past generation have been made at the demand of the racial and sexual equality fanatics. But, as said, freedom in the sense traditionally known in England is not compatible with unaccountable government and a Balkanised population.
As a libertarian, I share these grievances, though with reservations. I absolutely reject our military and foreign policy, and our police state. I am slightly less certain about our membership of the EU. It can be argued that, since 1945, England, France and Germany have had a common interest in settling their historic differences, and organising the smaller European countries into a bloc able to stand up to the Americans and the Russians and to any other hostile non-European power. There is the more recent fact that, if our ruling class chooses to rule via Brussels, the EU is a cartel with several dozen other member states, not all of them ruled by certifiable lunatics. Without the need for oppression to be harmonised across the whole European continent, it may be that England would already be an Orwellian nightmare state. But mine is a minority view within the English right. The general belief is that national recovery is impossible unless power is repatriated to London, and made once again accountable.
Founded in 1993 by the historian Alan Sked, UKIP began as a single issue movement. Its whole object was to leave the EU. During the previous twenty years, both Labour and Conservative Parties had found it occasionally convenient to sound Eurosceptic. But Conservative and Labour Governments in the 1960s had applied at different times for British membership. A Conservative Government got membership in 1973. After a pretence of renegotiation, followed by a biased referendum in 1975, a Labour Government kept us in. The 1983 Labour manifesto promised to take us out. Margaret Thatcher made Eurosceptical speeches, but her Government deepened our membership, as did her Conservative successor, John Major. Long before it came to power again in 1997, Labour had given up even the pretence of Euroscepticism; and the Blair and Brown Governments were full partners in the creation of a federal European state. From the 1950s, the Liberal and then the Liberal Democrat Party had been unwavering in its Euromania. UKIP was set up to fight and win elections until it could gain a big enough majority to withdraw from the EU.
Though never a member, I was a witness to the early debates within UKIP. Broadly, there were two factions. One, centred on Professor Sked, saw the party as purely concerned with leaving the EU. The party would have no other policies. This would allow it to draw support from across the political spectrum. Do you want higher or lower taxes? His faction would ask. Do you want state or private ownership of the railways? Do you want more or less immigration? We take no position on these. But vote for us, and we will give you back a political system that will respond to your wishes on these things.
The other faction was made up of renegade Conservatives. They hated the EU because it stood in the way of delivering the economic liberalism and national renewal promised by Margaret Thatcher – promised by her, though never delivered, and still promised without measurable inclination to deliver by the next Conservative leadership. By about 2000, they had won the internal struggle. This was probably inevitable. Since the 1980s, the white working classes had been withdrawing from politics. The core Labour vote was increasingly made up of tribal loyalists, by ethnic minorities, and by interest groups whose interests were best advanced at a European level. There was limited Labour defection to UKIP. But Conservative voters came over in their tens and hundreds of thousands – Conservative voters and activists, and even a few politicians. Then there is the question of ideology. There is a traditionalist Labour case against the EU – the protection of jobs and living standards for British workers, working class patriotism, and so on. But the required policies of protectionism and state direction were out of fashion. Economic liberalism and middle class patriotism, on the other hand, were still in full bloom; and these provided the main case for national independence. The more Conservative UKIP sounded, the more support it got. I have called it the Conservative Party in exile. That is what it was made by the feet on the ground. Every UKIP activist I know started in the Conservative Party.
UKIP has failed in every parliamentary election. But our electoral system is biased in favour of the two established parties. Electors have only one vote, and the question they must ask is “Which party do I want to have a big enough majority in the House of Commons to form a government?” More recently, the question has become “Which party do I most want to vote against?” The answer to both questions is either Labour or Conservative. The Liberal Democrats have enough concentrated support to get a few seats. So have the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. But the main political game is between the two biggest players. Bye-elections are a different matter. But, while UKIP has done increasingly well in these, it has not done well enough yet to win a seat in the Commons.
Elections to the European Parliament are a wholly different matter. This is a body with little real power. Most decisions in the European Union are made by the Commission, which is its permanent bureaucracy; and the Commission’s main rival is the Council of Ministers, which is an ad hoc committee of politicians from the individual member states. The five-yearly Euro-elections, therefore, are seen as an opportunity for people to vote for the party they really like. Here are the UKIP results for the past twenty years of elections:
Election year
total votes
 % of overall vote
seats won
Source: Wikipedia
The next elections are a few weeks away, This time, the opinion polls suggest that it will win them outright – beating the Conservative and Labour Parties, and possibly annihilating the Liberal Democrats.
Because of its past and expected success in these elections, UKIP has, for this year’s Euro-elections, been given equal status by the media and the Electoral Commission with the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties. It will have the same number of election broadcasts on television, and its policies will be given equal weight. After its first decade of virtual blackout in the media, and a second of at best limited coverage, a party flatly opposed to the existing order of things will fight the coming Euro-election as an insider.
Much of the credit for this remarkable achievement belongs to Nigel Farage. He has fully accepted the logic of UKIP’s position. He stands for EU withdrawal on “Thatcherite” grounds. His economic policies are free trade and low taxes and skeletal regulation. His other policies are to secure the borders and deal with illegal or fraudulent immigration, and to restore our traditional liberties by stripping all political correctness out of law and administration. I have no reasonable doubt that he believes what he says. I have spoken in private with him several times, and watched him speak with others. What he says in private is an abbreviated and more scathing version of what he says in public. UKIP is a force in its own right. But that force is greatly magnified when its leader is a man of conviction.
The leaders of the three mainstream parties in Britain are effectively interchangeable. David Cameron (Conservative) is related to the Queen. Ed Miliband (Labour) is an ethnic Jew. Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) is half Dutch. The differences end there. All three are rich. They all have the same politically correct opinions, and are committed to the same globalist agenda. In foreign and military policy, they all take their orders from Washington. None has had a proper job outside politics and government. They are all patronising liars. Their only meaningful point of difference is over which of them should lead the dance to the off-stage band.
Mr Farage has made UKIP unbeatable in any fair debate. Its policies have solid and growing support. Any fair discussion of them will only increase their popularity. Because he believes in them, Mr Farage is a devastating advocate. In March and April 2014, he took part in two televised debates with Nick Clegg, who as well as leader of the Liberal Democrats is also Deputy Prime Minister. The idea was to put Mr Farage against one of the most intelligent and engaging front men for the ruling class, and give their debate maximum coverage. The organisers believed that Mr Farage would be revealed as a bag of wind mouthing a few populist slogans. If this what they truly believed, it must be evidence for what I suspect about national degeneration. I cannot imagine what hubris led the Deputy Prime Minister to agree to these debates. He lost the first round, and was utterly crushed in the second. The only complaint anyone can make about the Farage performance is that it might have been even better than it was. He is now the most popular politician in the country. No one doubts the opinion polls, that UKIP will win the European Elections. The only question is whether UKIP can break through to win seats in Parliament in 2015.
But fair debate is only part of the ruling class response. Ignoring UKIP has failed. Arguing with it is failing. But smearing it may still work. Therefore the steady drumbeat in the media of claims that UKIP is filled with racists, sexists, homophobes and general lunatics, and that Nigel Farage is a bad man in his own right.
In 2006, before he became Prime Minister, David Cameron said in a radio interview that “Ukip is sort of a bunch of … fruit cakes and loonies and closet racists mostly.” In 2013, Andrew Feldman, one of Mr Cameron’s university friends, and a close political ally, called UKIP activists “Swivel-eyed loons.” He later denied this to the newspapers, but hardly anyone believed him. Before he could issue his denial, there was a further surge of Conservative defectors to UKIP. Also in 2013, Michael Heseltine – a strong supporter of the EU, and one of the Conservative politicians who helped bring Margaret Thatcher down in 1990, called UKIP a “racist party.” He said: “Of course it’s racist, who doubts that? Farage isn’t racist but his party is very attractive to a racist agenda.”
Every utterance made on the Internet by a UKIP activist or candidate is trawled by the media and political classes, and carefully examined for evidence of political incorrectness. One has been exposed for calling Islam an “organised crime under religious camouflage,” another for suggesting that Nigerians are criminals. Godfrey Bloom, a UKIP member of the European Parliament, was reported to have called the Third World “bongo bongo land.”  Earlier this year, a UKIP local councillor was given national coverage when he suggested that the winter floods were God’s punishment for allowing the sin of gay marriage.
Turning to Mr Farage, he has been subjected to repeated and vicious attack. The mainstream media are filled with claims that he fiddles his expenses in the European Parliament, that he is an adulterer, and that he runs UKIP as a tyrant.
I have to admit that the words reported appear to be true, and the specific accusations against Mr Farage appear to be substantially true. But nothing reported comes close to suggesting that UKIP or its members are preaching violence against homosexuals and the ethnic minorities, or calling for Christian theocracy. The words reported are either fair comment, or used to be part of the common currency of politics when England was a free country. As for Mr Farage, no one is perfect. The mainstream politicians mostly lead private lives of astonishing squalidness. And the only alternative to autocracy in a political party is rule by monomaniacs with a partiality to five hour committee meetings. Mr Farage tyrannises over UKIP, and good luck to him in my view. Certainly, the claims have failed. They are given wall to wall coverage in the mainstream media. The talking heads solemnly assure each other that Mr Farage will struggle to survive. Hardly anyone pays attention. UKIP remains on target to win the European elections. Wherever he goes, Mr Farage draws bigger crowds than the Prime Minister.
One further criticism is worth dealing with in the current forum. This is that UKIP and Mr Farage are not sufficiently nationalist. My simple answer is that I like economic liberalism and middle class patriotism. But UKIP has occupied nearly the whole ground vacated by the British National Party since its implosion; and, if opposed to mass-immigration, it has no interest in doing business with the European nationalist parties. My longer answer is that the defeat of political correctness is the first step to overthrowing the present order of things. After that, we can argue about what comes next. For this, UKIP is a more powerful opposition movement than the BNP ever was. Economic liberalism and civic nationalism are the default prejudices of the English mind. For all it tries to reach out to these, the BNP has always been an exotic import in terms of ideology. For all they have tried to live down their past – for all, perhaps, they have rejected it – the leaders may be too compromised by what they said and did before about 2000. UKIP has no inconvenient baggage. And, if pan-nationalism is to have any meaning, it must surely allow every people to express its nationality in its own way. The French and Germans must have their national statism. America must have its constitutional purism behind trade barriers. Let us have our warmed-over Victorian liberalism. We shall see which brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
In closing, UKIP is the main rising force in British politics. It thrives on open debate. Smearing it is dismissed at the Plan B strategy of a political class too worthless and  too discredited to survive in an honest marketplace of ideas. This may be advance notice of a political earthquake. It may be part of a longer process of dissolution. It is, undeniably, a step in the right direction.
Sean Gabb’s novel, The Break, comes out in e-book on the 2nd June 2014. You can read the first 20 per cent for free.
Quibcag: Ayumu Nishizawa (西沢 歩 Nishizawa Ayumu) of Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!) will eat anything.