The museum should have never kowtowed to the angry rabble to begin with. Once you apologize, it is hard to make a boundary. You’ve exposed your belly and it will be lanced. Continue reading
When did people in drag get so whiny? I mean, Ru Paul is not a whiner, neither was Divine. They didn’t position themselves as pushing new beauty standards and Ru Paul still doesn’t to my knowledge. Drag queens play with gender and appearance and gender roles and are having fun and doing theater that is both free wheeling satire and social commentary. They LIKE to offend. They were not pushing for social acceptance. Divine was not screeching that all men had to marry wives that look like her though many do.
So, this new whiny attitude of “please open your mind and accept my hairy face and ass in a dress as beautiful – I am non-binary” is very unbecoming. This “please PLEASE see me as a beauty queen” is not a rebel cry of “fuck you” but rather — “please PLEASE PLEASE fuck me!” (excuse the French but nothing says sex like French). Anyway… since when was queer not a fuck you but a “cry for acceptance”? Didn’t it used to be called “gender fuck”? As in “fuck you — not PLEASE PLEASE LIKE ME!” Whiny!
A letter to my fellow trans people:
About the recent Caitlyn Jenner controversy regarding her support for Ted Cruz and her conservative views: It is true that not all transsexuals are in the tank for the far left, or are “feeling the Bern”. Some of us are not even voting for Hillary. Continue reading
Happy New Year 2016!
In spite of the PC madness on college campuses, the growing and very real threat of ISIS and assorted Islamic terror, the relatively sluggish economy and the comical chaos of a presidential race that may come down to Trump vs. Clinton (OH NO) — the American people are resilient, ornery and innovative. In other words, the whole nation isn’t going to hell quite yet. Continue reading
So, my big coming out here, in public as not a left winger or even a Democrat is here… I was interviewed by a reporter for The Daily Beast. Of course, on a trans issue as it relates to possible Voter ID laws. Never had a problem myself with ID and voting, even when I was earlier into my transition. I think I say it best in the article, and it is toward the end.
For Max Wolf Valerio, a transgender man, the political transformation from a Democrat to a Republican was more daunting than transitioning from female to male. Valerio, author of The Testosterone Files, a memoir about his transition, said obtaining a state ID is part of every adult person’s life in the U.S. and not an additional challenge. “Trans people are not hothouse flowers who wilt at the slightest obstacle or pressure. We are resourceful, resilient, and often, extraordinarily strong people,” he said.
While I fully support educating poll workers for the possibility of trans people being ambiguous, if there are Voter ID laws established, just as they would be educated for any oddity or stray possibility, I honestly believe that this issue is being blown way out of proportion. I mean, trans people use state issued IDs for getting jobs, buying booze, entering a nightclub, traveling, picking up an airline ticket — and well, driving a car. Many things… in many states, it is not that difficult to change your F to M, if you have a note from a doctor. In some states it is a bit more difficult, and name change is more difficult. But, we manage. There are trans advocacy organizations that are fighting to make these laws more reasonable or to liberalize them. I support these efforts by and large. I do NOT agree with the trans guy, the lawyer speaking in the video, Dru Levasseur, who states that it is a “privilege” to be able to have an ID congruent with your gender, the gender or sex (actually) that you change to. If that is true, it’s news to me… Anyone who reads my memoir would know… I was mostly unemployed and certainly without savings,living hand to mouth, when I got my ID and name changed on my California State ID in 1989. And, that was way before “FTM” had any credence as hip or trendy. Things were far more difficult then. Listen, if I can do it, just about any one can. Yes, California’s laws are fairly liberal but even so… This hysteria over Voter ID, and this painting of trans people as victims, well – it doesn’t wash. I hate and despise this constant portrayal of us as weak, inept victims. We can manage to get IDs, we are adults, we’ve been doing it for a long time now…
Further, please, Democrat party, please stop using us for your ridiculous political agenda! In this case, being against people showing an ID at the polling place! It is not that big of a deal, really… trans people can manage, yes — we can! To borrow a slogan.
I say it better in the article…
Neo-neocon is probably my favorite ex-lefty. She actually was never an extreme leftist but nonetheless she was not, as she is now, a neocon. My own political persuasion registers most strongly as neocon and as moderate libertarian on all those political tests. Neocon is misunderstood by many, and most neocons are former leftists (David Horowitz) who had a very radical and deep change of heart. It is characterized primarily by a hawkish foreign policy and often, socially liberal attitudes. That’s me: pro-Israel, anti-radical Islam, hawkish on defense, and fiscally fairly conservative — socially liberal (pro-choice with reservations but pro-choice, and — pro-gay marriage). And I don’t whine on about “white supremacy” or the “patriarchy” or even about “transphobia, homophobia, fatphobia, racism and sexism”. Those things exist, in some way, shape or form, but they are not the screen through which I view the world. I am a happier person for that. I believe in individual liberty and individual rights first and foremost over the primacy of collective identities.
I consider now, most of what I believed in the past, these obsessions with race, class and sexual orientation and gender identity to be “mind trash”. I mean, while certainly again, there are concerns about discrimination that are real, an obsession with who is “privileged” and who is not, with deconstructing for instances of these “isms” — is a waste of time. A big waste of time and of a life.
Neo-neocon writes often about her own journey from left leaning to right leaning and all the pain along the way. Mainly, the sudden and abrupt loss of friendships, sometimes, amounting to people leaving in the midst of a conversation at a party, and never speaking to her again. Yes, it can be that way. It is a common story, nearly all political apostates from left to right tell it and — it is most likely the hardest thing about this transformation. And, it is a transformation, a “paradigm shift”. Today, Neo-neocon writes below about this and refers to the Ace of Spades here at his blog…
A lot of things that have bothered you for…years — which haven’t seemed to make sense to you, because your brain was screening the truth from you — are suddenly going to make a lot of sense indeed. And you’re going to be kicking yourself for not seeing it sooner, like an optical illusion that suddenly changes from a lady’s face to a candle.
I think it’s a great description of a process I know well. But Ace, what’s with this “lady’s face to a candle” business? I always thought it was either two faces to a vase:
And, at Ace’s blog there is an excellent post about Media Matters and their anti-semitism:
I have read about recent outings of Media Matters as being very connected to the white house, like through an IV drip. Apparently, Media Matters gets daily updates from Valerie Jarrett, who is a top adviser to the Prez. And, they’ve attempted to target Fox News by finding dirt on the personal lives of their anchors and pundits, and – by even “planting a mole”. Pretty crazy stuff. Here more about Derschowitz and his take on Media Matters:
Here from a Daily Caller article by Jeff Poor:
In 2008, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz came out in favor of then-Sen. Barack Obama in his presidential election contest with Arizona Sen. John McCain. He said Obama and McCain had similar positions on Israel, but gave the nod to Obama because of his liberal stance on things “unrelated to Israel.”
That could change in the 2012 presidential contest between and the yet-to-be-determined Republican candidate. In an appearance on Jay Severin’s Boston Talk 1200 radio show, Dershowitz spoke out against two organizations that have close ties to the Obama White House: Media Matters and the Center for American Progress.
“Media Matters and Center for American Progress are two extremely left-bigoted groups that are so virulently anti-Israel and anti-supporters of Israel that they’ve gone over the line from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism,” Dershowitz said. ”They now use the term ‘Israel firsters,’ the way anti-Catholic bigots used to use the term ‘Vatican firsters’ or ‘Irish firsters,’ as if to suggest Americans who support Israel have dual loyalty. This false charge goes back to the Bible — goes back to the Book of Esther, goes back thousands of years. It was one of Hitler’s justifications for killing the Jews: ‘Dual loyalty, they’re not good Germans, they’re not good Americans,’ whatever it is.”
Dershowitz has been vocal against Media Matters in recent days, making that charge of anti-Semitism. However, his classification of the Center for American Progress as borderline “anti-Semitic” is noteworthy because both Media Matters and the Center for Progress have received money directly from billionaire left-wing financier George Soros, who has faced similar charges in the past.
“These two organizations have been found to be anti-Semitic by many of the objective monitoring groups,” he said. “And now they are closely associated with the Democratic Party and I have said very clearly there is no room in this tent for me on the one hand, and for Media Matters and for this other group on the other hand. We can’t be in the same tent. I will not be in a tent with fascists, with supporters of Ahmadinejad, with supporters of Hamas, with supporters of Hezbollah, with anti-Semitic bigots, whether they’re Jewish or not. Some of them are Jewish. Some of them are not.”
Read more: David Duke of the extreme left
Steve Jobs – an individual who changed the world, creating beautiful machines with air light efficiency. Thank you…
As I reflect on his creative journey, while typing this on my MacBook, I reflect also on all the recent “Occupy Wall Street” protests morphing all over the country. And, while I can well understand their frustration with crony capitalism, high unemployment and a sagging economy, a frustration they share with the Tea Party, I also see a lot of mindless anti-capitalist cries for “revolution” or for money they feel is owed to them somehow by banks, or the rich and successful. And, of course, there’s “Power to the People”, and other silly rejoinders. I know more than a few want to end free enterprise, or tether enterprise even more strongly to government control.
So, it’s a good time to remember entrepreneurs like Jobs, who couldn’t have created his beautiful machines in a system that did not encourage innovation and allow free enterprise. He came from relatively ordinary beginnings to discover his dream through hard work and a ruthless imaginative power that demanded the best. The wealth created by Apple products is not just shared by its founders, employees, or stock holders, but by anyone who owns one of these elegant machines.
Many of the protesters are Apple fans, I wonder how many of them are able to draw this simple connection?
I’m easing back into blogging, and just had to note the new perceptions of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that are appearing in the wider media. I cite two below. I especially enjoyed Thomas’s assessment of “the elites”. He is an anti-snob who received an Ivy League education and who remains especially suspicious of the elite Ivys and their audacity and monopoly on opinion in the media and (especially) the judiciary. I really gained a new respect from him from the sources I cite below (Jeffrey Toobin and Walter Russell Mead’s article on Toobin), enjoy if you haven’t already read about this new take on the man.
I also agree with Justice Thomas that Affirmative Action tends to negate the prestige of an individual’s accomplishment since it is forever cast under a veil of suspicion as to its authenticity. I mean, I’m half American Indian and half Hispanic (Sephardic New Mexico roots) and have often been told that “I must have gotten (x or y or z) because of Affirmative Action. I am always shocked and always protest that this is not the case, as I was usually at the top of my class in test scores and often in the gifted classes – but, of course, one can never defend oneself enough and the taint remains. Apparently, Judge Thomas knows this also from hard experience.
As most people are aware, Clarence Thomas has been an embattled and often belittled Supreme Court Justice from his nomination to the present day. Most people I know think he is a mute idiot and a token African American Justice chosen by George H.W. Bush to give him some kind of credibility regarding “diversity” while also shoring up the extreme constitutional conservatism of Scalia on the bench. He’s widely regarded as a mere intellectual follower of Scalia and widely derided by lefties of all stripes from mild and moderate to extreme as being a dummy. Well, apparently, it is becoming apparent even to constitutional scholars who are left wing and ideological foes, and who have held a scornfully low opinion of him, that actually Thomas is brilliant and that he knows exactly what he is doing and is following no one, first from a blog post by Walter Russell Mead commenting on Toobin’s article in the New Yorker:
If Toobin’s revionist take is correct, (and I defer to his knowledge of the direction of modern constitutional thought) it means that liberal America has spent a generation mocking a Black man as an ignorant fool, even as constitutional scholars stand in growing amazement at the intellectual audacity, philosophical coherence and historical reflection embedded in his judicial work.
Thomas may get the last laugh, and apparently, he is a man with a razor sharp intellect and strongly felt opinions who despises those he calls “the elites”. That is, the graduates from Harvard, Columbia and other Ivy League schools that tend to be the only people selected for important judgeships. While he is also himself a graduate of Yale, he refuses to do speaking engagements at Ivy league schools, and is the only Supreme Court Justice to select law clerks from schools that are not Ivy League, here from Toobin’s article in the New Yorker :
“We talk about diversity. The real problem of our Court is that it’s all Ivy League,” Thomas said. Currently, all nine Justices attended law school at either Harvard or Yale. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there are other law schools out there,” he said. Alone among his colleagues, Thomas usually selects at least some of his law clerks from less prominent schools. In recent years, his clerks have included graduates of the law schools of Creighton University, in Nebraska; Rutgers; George Mason; and the University of Utah.”
He has a low regard for his own education at Yale feeling that Affirmative Action sullied the brand saying: “When he recently received an honorary doctorate from the Stetson University College of Law, in Gulfport, Florida, he said, “Thank you for a law degree that I can put up on my wall.” The audience greeted the remark with polite laughter, but Thomas’s sentiment has a long history. Thomas graduated from Yale Law School in 1974, and he maintains a rich and public loathing for the institution. In his autobiography, published in 2007, he wrote, “As a symbol of my disillusionment, I peeled a fifteen-cent sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I’d made by going to Yale. I never did change my mind about its value.” Thomas has refused entreaties from a series of deans at Yale to sit for a portrait for the school…”
Read more Toobin article
Finally, Toobin testifies that Thomas may well soon have a chance to nullify many of the structures of the modern progressive (post New Deal) state, giving a new credence to the 10th amendment just as in the recent past, the 2nd amendment came to be viewed in a different light — giving new weight to the idea that the 2nd amendment protects individual gun owners’ rights and not simply the right of states to have an armed militia. I’m just getting clear with all of this right now, but I found this article very informative and surprising since I had also been boondoggled into seeing Thomas as at the least, a mediocre Justice. Apparently, once again, I have had to rethink this received and formerly unquestioned opinion. Soon, he may have a chance to declare Obama’s mandate to purchase health insurance unconstitutional, and this could have broad implications for other instances of the Federal government mandating policy to the states. And, Toobin, BTW is not a booster of conservative views apparently, but a liberal himself. He writes this in warning.
More here, directly from Jeffrey Toobin:
“These tempests obscure a larger truth about Thomas: that this year has also been, for him, a moment of triumph. In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.
The conventional view of Thomas takes his lack of participation at oral argument as a kind of metaphor. The silent Justice is said to be an intellectual nonentity, a cipher for his similarly conservative colleague, Antonin Scalia. But those who follow the Court closely find this stereotype wrong in every particular. Thomas has long been a favorite of conservatives, but they admire the Justice for how he gives voice to their cause, not just because he votes their way. “Of the nine Justices presently on the Court, he is the one whose opinions I enjoy reading the most,” Steve Calabresi, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law and a co-founder of the Federalist Society, said. “They are very scholarly, with lots of historical sources, and his views are the most principled, even among the conservatives. He has staked out some bold positions, and then the Court has set out and moved in his direction.”
Thomas’s intellect and his influence have also been recognized by those who generally disagree with his views. According to Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, Thomas’s career resembles that of Hugo Black, the former Alabama senator who served from 1937 to 1971 and is today universally regarded as a major figure in the Court’s history. “Both were Southerners who came to the Court young and with very little judicial experience,” Amar said. (Thomas is from Georgia.) “Early in their careers, they were often in dissent, sometimes by themselves, but they were content to go their own way. But once Earl Warren became Chief Justice the Court started to come to Black. It’s the same with Thomas and the Roberts Court. Thomas’s views are now being followed by a majority of the Court in case after case.”
The implications of Thomas’s leadership for the Court, and for the country, are profound. Thomas is probably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Court since the nineteen-thirties. More than virtually any of his colleagues, he has a fully wrought judicial philosophy that, if realized, would transform much of American government and society. Thomas’s views both reflect and inspire the Tea Party movement, which his wife has helped lead almost since its inception. The Tea Party is a diffuse operation, and it can be difficult to pin down its stand on any given issue. Still, the Tea Party is unusual among American political movements in its commitment to a specific view of the Constitution—one that accords, with great precision, with Thomas’s own approach. For decades, various branches of the conservative movement have called for a reduction in the size of the federal government, but for the Tea Party, and for Thomas, small government is a constitutional command.
In his jurisprudence, Thomas may be best known for his belief in a “color-blind Constitution”; that is, one that forbids any form of racial preference or affirmative action. But color blind, for Thomas, is not blind to race. Thomas finds a racial angle on a broad array of issues, including those which appear to be scarcely related to traditional civil rights, like campaign finance or gun control. In Thomas’s view, the Constitution imposes an ideal of racial self-sufficiency, an extreme version of the philosophy associated with Booker T. Washington, whose portrait hangs in his chambers. (This personal gallery also includes Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher.)
In recent weeks, two federal courts of appeals have reached opposing conclusions about the constitutionality of the 2010 health-care law; the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, upheld it, while the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, struck down its requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. This conflict means that the Supreme Court will almost certainly agree to review the case this fall, with a decision expected by June of next year. It is likely to be the most important case for the Justices since Bush v. Gore, and it will certainly be the clearest test yet of Thomas’s ascendancy at the Court. Thomas’s entire career as a judge has been building toward the moment when he would be able to declare that law unconstitutional. It would be not only a victory for his approach to the Constitution but also, it seems, a defeat for the enemies who have pursued him for so long: liberals, law professors, journalists—the group that Thomas refers to collectively as “the élites.” ”
Read more more Toobin on Thomas
I recommend everyone read the article! Quite an eye opener. Yes, Toobin talks about Anita Hill. Whether or not Thomas has a potty mouth and a weakness for bad sexual politics in the office is not historically clear, although I have always tended to believe Hill — but now that issue is not of great importance. Not when Clarence Thomas is poised to help make history. Apparently, Judge Thomas has more brains than he has been given credit for and finally, he may be able to vindicate himself and his views on a larger historical stage.
I’m not feeling real talkative today. But I have noticed the riots over the past few days in England as well as the stock market swings. I’ve read a good bit of Dr. Dalrymple so the riots are not entirely surprising, even if they are dismaying and larger than life. Since I am not feeling very talkative, here is a column from Ann Coulter, yes – her, about the causes. I think she’s on the right track. Here, from: The Sun Never Sets on the British Welfare System”
Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country.
Not only that, but in a triumph of feminism, a lot of them are girls. Even the “disabled” (according to the British benefits system) seem to have miraculously overcome their infirmities to dash out and steal a few TVs.
Congratulations, Britain! You’ve barbarized your citizenry, without regard to race, gender or physical handicap!
With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.
I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.
In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case — only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.
The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: “Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on.”
Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles — whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.
(Is Father’s Day celebrated in England? If so, how?)
The Daily Mail (London) traced the family’s proud Anglo ancestry of stable families back hundreds of years. The Nazi war machine couldn’t break the British, but the modern welfare state has.
A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian island of Goa. The trip was paid for — like everything else in her life — with government benefits.
(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I’m drawing a blank, too.)
While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.
Scarlett’s estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: “My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty s**t really).”
It’s a wonder that someone like Silas, who has never worked, and belongs to a family in which no one has ever worked, can afford a cellphone for social networking. No, actually, it’s not.
Britain has a far more redistributive welfare system than France, which is why France’s crime problem is mostly a matter of Muslim immigrants, not French nationals. Meanwhile, England’s welfare state is fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.
Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads or co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.
But liberal elites here and in Britain will blame anything but the welfare state they adore. They drone on about the strict British class system or the lack of jobs or the nation’s history of racism.
None of that explains the sad lives of young Shannon Matthews and Scarlett Keeling, with their long English ancestry and perfect Anglo features.
Democrats would be delighted if violent mobs like those in Britain arose here — perhaps in Wisconsin! That would allow them to introduce yet more government programs staffed by unionized public employees, as happened after the 1992 L.A. riots and the 1960s race riots, following the recommendations of the Kerner Commission.
MSNBC might even do the unthinkable and offer Al Sharpton his own TV show. (Excuse me — someone’s trying to get my attention … WHAT?)
Inciting violent mobs is the essence of the left’s agenda: Promote class warfare, illegitimate children and an utterly debased citizenry.
Like the British riot girls interviewed by the BBC, the Democrats tell us “all of this happened because of the rich people.”
We’re beginning to see the final result of that idea in Britain. The welfare state creates a society of beasts. Meanwhile, nonjudgmental elites don’t dare condemn the animals their programs have created.
Rioters in England are burning century-old family businesses to the ground, stealing from injured children lying on the sidewalks and forcing Britons to strip to their underwear on the street.
I keep reading that it’s because they don’t have jobs — which they’re obviously anxious to hold. Or someone called them a “kaffir.” Or their social services have been reduced. Or their Blackberries made them do it. Or they disapprove of a referee’s call in a Manchester United game.
A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can’t find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there’s no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.
But like Louis XVI, British authorities are paralyzed by their indifference to their own civilization. A half-century of berating themselves for the crime of being British has left them morally defenseless. They see nothing about England worth saving, certainly not worth fighting for — which is fortunate since most of their cops don’t have guns.
This is how civilizations die. It can happen overnight, as it did in Revolutionary France. If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the “Heil Hitler” salute and singing the “Horst Wessel Song.”
Melanie Phillips from the UK also opines here:
An illuminating report on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme (0810) this morning said it all about the British riots. Some teenage thugs who were hooding up to go looting were asked why they were doing it. Maybe they couldn’t afford the trainers and other goods they were setting out to steal? Yeah, we can afford them, came the reply; but since the goods were there to be robbed, it was an opportunity that couldn’t be passed up. What about their parents? Did they know where they were? Yeah, came the reply, but the most they do is shout at me. And as for the police, well the worse that can happen is that I’ll get as ASBO (antisocial behaviour order).
Some of the rioters and looters are as young as eight or nine. I then listened to a spokesman for Manchester city council appealing to parents to ensure that their children are not on the streets tonight. Why can’t people see what is staring us all in the face? We are not up against merely feral children. We are up against feral parents. Of course the parents know their children are out on the streets. Of course they see them staggering back with what they have looted. But either they are too drunk or drugged or otherwise out of it to care, or they are helping themselves to the proceeds too.
The parents are the problem; as are, almost certainly, their parents and their parents too. Not that any of them necessarily even know who their parents, in the plural, are. For the single most crucial factor behind all this mayhem, behind the total breakdown of any control or self-control amongst the rampaging gangs of children and teenagers who are rioting, burning, robbing, stealing, attacking and murdering, is the willed removal of the most important thing that socialises children and turns them from feral savages into civilised citizens: a fully committed, hands-on, there-every-day father.
Take note of that last line about the lack of a father. A “fully committed, hands-on, there-every-day father”, or even yes, two parents period – a family unit. I guess some of these people don’t even know their grandparents. This dissolution has been going on for some time. This is what the breakdown of the family looks like — murder and mayhem.
Not so good, no. As for me, I’m fine. Still in-between places but I do transitions well. I have a few now, and so – I am attempting to regain and keep my balance. And, have fun at least some of the time!
I’m not updating as much as I’d like in other words, since I am in the midst of a move, but I’m still here. Thanks to all who read.
Save liberty — smoke a cigar!
Apparently, cigarettes or cigars are being rubbed out in the UK from photographs of Winston Churchill, The Beatles, and FDR. No cigarette holder set firmly, squarely between the teeth of an attentive looking FDR – no. That would influence someone to take up the deadly cancer sticks. Possibly, your children could be removed from your home for seeing you smoke, if they haven’t already been removed for being fat, at least in the UK.
The UK and all of Europe is ahead of us in this niggling yet fiery war against improper offensive speech and dangerous unhealthy imagery, but since so many people I know want the USA to be just like Europe, this may change soon. In fact, it is already changing. Speech codes proliferate on campus. Young people, at least “well-educated” ones tend to take for granted the idea that speech should be censored and expression pulled through a wire mesh of politicized ideology to sift it down to its least offensive, most palatable — pap.
Here, Dennis Prager, a conservative who actually understands the difference between transsexuals and transgender people, as shown here in an interesting column on the “T” in GLBT and why it is not always the same as “transsexual”, writes about the growing list of words and phrases considered too offensive or dangerous to write or say or apparently, think…
First, his column on transsexuals and transgendered people, which particularly impressed me. You don’t find many people out there who begin to understand the difference. While “transgender” has been used as an umbrella term, and I try not to niggle too much about language, the fact remains that transsexual people are actually quite different in many respects from many who would consider themselves “transgender”. Prager appears to understand this:
“And few people, conservative or liberal, have any trouble accepting a transsexual, i.e., someone who has surgically changed his or her sex.
But what does any of this have to do with the transgendered, i.e., people who do not psychologically identify themselves with their biological sex, who act as if they were a member of the opposite sex, and who have not changed their biology? Why does the Left include the transgendered in its activism on behalf of gays?
While we may not agree on his opinions in that column regarding same sex marriage, (I believe in it strictly from the perspective of liberty), Prager is absolutely right that the left believes that differences between the sexes are socially constructed and therefore actually part of a greater paradigm of power and powerlessness; everything, even biology, is seen through a mesh of oppression/oppressor. Transsexuals are actually not necessarily interested in destroying binary gender — as it’s called, but this is often conveniently ignored.
And, since the world is viewed by the left as a veritable booby trap of sensitivities and oppressions, language is examined first from the perspective of who it might offend or harm.
Here, in a more recent column, Prager notes the left’s growing attack on speech. And, remember, an attack on speech is ultimately, an attack on — thought.
Dennis Prager writes:
“Graphic torture and frontal nudity may be shown on screen, but smoking cigars or cigarettes may not. A Churchill museum in London has removed the cigars from wartime Churchill photographs, FDR has had his ubiquitous cigarette holder removed from his photographs, and the cigarettes have been removed from the Beatles’ hands in the famous photo of them crossing Abbey Road.
The list of forbidden words and behaviors due to Leftist activism is quite extensive.
The latest example is the left’s war on any words or imagery that come from the worlds of war or guns.
Already, “crusade” has been removed from Americans’ vocabulary — lest it offend Muslims. Overnight, the left effectively banned the use of a perfectly legitimate word that usually described an admirable preoccupation with doing good — “that newspaper is on an anti-corruption crusade.”
Now, the left has announced that words such as “target” and “cross hairs” are offensive — on the idiotic pretense that such imagery causes people to murder. If I were the CEO of Target stores, I would be concerned — will my company be sued because of its name and logo?”
From this article:
Put left-wing speech control in the cross hairs
And, yes, I know it is old news by now, but I was particularly impressed by Palin’s spirited defense of free speech in her post-Arizona shooting speech. I don’t think I have ever heard an American politician speak with such fervor and clarity about speech and why it is important that it remain free.
Caroline Glick had some interesting comments in this regard, even noting that Palin is a “revolutionary leader”, and that the Tea Party movement is also “revolutionary” in its fierce and unapologetic call for more liberty.
“In certain ways, Palin is a revolutionary leader and the Tea Party movement is a revolutionary movement. For nearly a hundred years, the Left in its various permutations has captured Western policy by controlling the elite discourse from New York and Los Angeles to London to Paris to Tel Aviv. By making it “politically incorrect,” to assert claims of Western, Judeo-Christian morality or advocate robust political, economic and military policies, the Left has made it socially and professionally costly for people to think freely and believe in their countries.
What distinguishes Palin from other conservative leaders in the US and makes her an important figure worldwide is her indifference to the views of the Left’s opinion makers. Her capacity to steer debate in the US in a way no other conservative politician can owes entirely to the fact that she does not seek to win over Leftist elites. She seeks to unseat them.
The same can be said of the Tea Party. The reason it frightens the Left, and the Republican leaders who owe their positions to their willingness to accept the Left’s basic agenda, is because it does not accept the Left’s policy agenda. “
The Aim of Blood Libels
I’m playing catchup here folks, but I did want to note these articles and ideas