Posted on | April 14, 2014 | 43 Comments
Mississippi native Felix Vail, 74, has been accused of murdering his first wife in 1962. Two of his other wives disappeared in 1973 and 1984. You may wonder how he could have gotten away with it:
Enzo Yaksic, founder of the Serial Homicide Expertise and Information Sharing Collaborative, said in his research since 2001, that he has found that serial killers are typically caught within one to three years after they start their sprees.
But those that dismember victims (5 percent of the 2,600 offenders in the database) more often avoid detection for four years or more, he said.
If a victim’s body cannot be found, or if a body cannot be identified, proving murder is extremely difficult. No matter how strong the suspicion, the victim who simply disappears . . . Well, they’re just gone, you see? There have been a few cases where people were convicted of murder without the prosecution having the victim’s body, but these are exceptions that prove the rule. Every year, hundreds of homicide cases go unsolved, and there are many suspicious disappearances that might be murder cases, if the bodies could ever be found.
This means that there are always a certain number of serial killers at large and undetected. You never know who they are until they get caught. And some of them never get caught.
(Hat-tip: Kirby McCain on Twitter.)
Posted on | April 14, 2014 | 22 Comments
Accused Utah baby killer Megan Huntsman
A mother gave birth to seven babies while hiding the pregnancy from her husband and strangled them to death immediately after they were born, authorities said today.
The infants’ dead bodies were found hidden in cardboard boxes in 39-year-old Megan Huntsman’s garage by her estranged husband.
Huntsman, 39, is accused of killing her babies after giving birth to the children between 1996 and 2006, investigators said. She admitted strangling six of them and wrapping their bodies in towels before hiding them at home. The other child was not alive when it was born.
Her husband Darren West is believed to have been living with her at the time of the killings, and found the bodies this month after returning home following a prison sentence for drug offences.
Huntsman also has three daughters — one teenager and two young adults — who lived at the house.
(Hat tip: Kirby McCain on Twitter.) You can do the math. If Huntsman is now 39, she was no more than 22 when she first killed one of her babies in 1996, by which time she was already a mother of three young girls. How old was she when she first gave birth?
A crime like this will likely involve some very weird background.
Posted on | April 14, 2014 | 25 Comments
More than 100 city teachers, administrators and other school staffers have been caught in the last five years engaging in sexual or “inappropriate” relationships with students, The Post has learned.
The special commissioner of investigation for city schools, Richard Condon, has fielded 593 complaints about such illicit relationships since April 2009. His office substantiated 104 cases, it revealed Friday.
“I’m absolutely stunned at that number,” said Laura Timoney, a Community Education Council member whose 15-year-old daughter attends a city high school on Staten Island. “It’s shocking, but what do you do to stop this?” . . .
(Hint: Don’t send your kids to public schools.)
The student-staff hanky-panky constitutes only a fraction of all sexual-misconduct complaints, which include groping, molestation and assault. In 2013 alone, Condon’s office received 566 complaints against Department of Education employees with a “sexual component.” It opened 233 investigations and substantiated 24 percent, or 58, Condon reports.
(Hat-tip Dan Riehl on Twitter.) This is why public school teachers have unions: To protect their right to have sex with their students.
Posted on | April 14, 2014 | 31 Comments
Three people are dead after a gunman opened fire at a Jewish Community Center in Overland Park, Kansas. Reports indicate that the gunman, Frazier Glenn Miller, was a “raging anti-Semite” who nevertheless had once been invited to speak at Missouri State University by a professor who wanted “to show students what real extremism looks like.” We may suppose the carnage in Overland Park will now be counted as an “extra credit” project for honors graduates.
Perhaps Missouri State needs to invite some sane people to campus, because nobody at MSU seems to know what sanity looks like.
Posted on | April 14, 2014 | 12 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
Apologies for the lack of posting, but the last couple of days in the tax mines have been pretty hellacious. I’ve basically had time to do nothing but prepare taxes, eat, sleep, excrete, and clean up so I can go back to doing taxes. Regular posting (or something like it) should resume Wednesday. Maybe Thursday. We’ll see how it goes.
can’t sleep amendments will eat me
Posted on | April 13, 2014 | 44 Comments
Before a wig-wearing nutjob threw a shoe at Hillary Clinton, the footwear flinger gave her heart to accused Colorado mass killer James Holmes.
Alison Ernst, 36, of Phoenix, was identified Friday as the sneaker-tossing kook who targeted the former First Lady one day earlier during a speech at a Las Vegas casino.
And Colorado officials confirmed she was the loopy lady escorted from the courtroom after a bizarre — and bald-headed — outburst during an August 2012 court hearing for Holmes. . . .
Twenty months earlier, she arrived in a Colorado courtroom with her head shaved while wearing a red dress before declaring she held evidence “vital to the defense of James Holmes.” Two deputies quickly escorted her outside.
The Arizona woman later filed an off-the-wall lawsuit detailing her devotion to Holmes, who was accused of killing 12 people and wounding another 70 in an Aurora movie theater. . . .
“I seek a restraining order to stop Holmes from entering my mind through subliminal messaging and causing me to be obsessed with him on a daily basis.”
Almost as “off-the-wall” as Brett Kimberlin’s Second Amended Complaint.
Posted on | April 13, 2014 | 29 Comments
A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.
Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.
Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a “range war” against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.
“I have no contract with the United States government,” Bundy said. “I was paying grazing fees for management and that’s what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay.”
The federal government had countered that Bundy “owes the American people in excess of $1 million ” in unpaid grazing fees and “refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so.”
However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.
“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM Director Neil Kornze said.
Bundy still faces a federal court battle over the grazing fees, but the danger of a Ruby Ridge-type shootout has passed.
Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 72 Comments
The ongoing conflict between radical feminists and transgender activists, which I first noticed in January and revisited last night in the context of the Dana McCallum rape case, has escaped the notice of mainstream liberal journalism. Liberals tacitly side with the transgenders in pretending that the radfems — a/k/a TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) — have no legitimate grievance.
What the TERFs perceive is that male-to-female transgenders are cynically seeking to usurp and co-opt the “feminist” label for their own advantage, thus shunting aside biological women and demoting them to second-class status within their own movement.
Of course, the instinctive conservative reaction to all this is to pop some popcorn and enjoy the schadenfreude. But the very fact that liberals want everybody to ignore this obscure conflict should be a clue that the conflict is, in fact, highly significant. Much like the Hugo Schwzyer “male feminist” controversy, which long raged on the margins of Gender Theory discussion before erupting into headlines, the TERF war against transfeminism (and vice-versa) tells us a lot about the problems of contemporary progressivism.
Let’s start with Cathy Brennan’s site Gender Identity Watch. Cathy Brennan is a radical lesbian feminist whose adamant defense of “female-only space” against transgender intrusion has made her a primary target of the anti-TERF campaign. Make no mistake: Brennan’s enemies are trying to destroy her, going so far as to petition the Southern Poverty Law Center to label her site a “hate group.”
Well, who is hating whom?
Brennan has chronicled some of the obscene, violent and threatening reactions she has received from transgenders and their allies, and why? Simply because Brennan won’t back down from her radical (“essentialist”) view that womanhood is a matter of biology and genetics, as opposed to the gender identity view that womanhood is a “social construct.” It doesn’t matter, for the sake of this discussion, whether you agree with Cathy Brennan, although I do. (“The science is settled!”)
Brennan probably hates my heteronormative patriarchal Christian conservative perspective even more than she hates the transfeminist gender identity crowd, but that’s OK: Cathy Brennan has a right to hate me, and her hate does me no harm.
Well, why can’t the trannies tolerate Brennan’s hate? Because it hurts their precious little feelings, that’s why!
The anti-Brennan crowd contains some of the most pathetic whiners imaginable, who insist that being called by their preferred label is so crucial to their identity that it’s an act of hate to use the wrong label.
Exhibit A? Charlie Hale, a British “genderqueer, kinky, polyamorous pan/bisexual” male who insists on the pronoun “they.” (No, I’m not kidding.) Hale wrote a guest column for a feminist blog calling for ostracism of anyone who associates with TERFs, a column which got a mocking rebuttal from a TERF blog here. When I say “mocking rebuttal,” I mean, they re-posted some of the photos Hale posted on Twitter:
Despite being male, Hale identifies as a “queer feminist” on Twitter, where he/”they” constantly whine(s) about “cishet male sexuality,” i.e., the way normal men have sex. Also, Hale is avidly pro-abortion, which is rather convenient in view of the fact that there is a near-zero possibility that Hale could ever be capable of making a woman pregnant, even if any woman were insane enough to wish to be impregnated by him. (Or, I should say, “them.”) Among his/”their” work is “An Introduction To Non-binary Transgender Identities,” which might just as easily be entitled, “How to Cooperate With Charlie’s Psychotic Delusions of Infinite Human Plasticity.”
What Hale’s “genderqueer” agenda boils down to is a desire to compel everybody to participate in his/”their” hallucinatory approach to sexual identity, an ongoing project of deconstruction: “We’re here! We’re queer! We’re hopelessly confused!” Neither male nor female, gay nor straight, “genderqueer” is sexuality as a multiple-choice exam in which the answer to every question is “none of the above.”
You may well ask, “How do people get that screwed-up in the head?” Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they spent so much of their adolescence wacking off to hentai cartoons that it left them permanently incapable of relating to normal human sex. However, you may wish to read Charlie Hale’s account of his adolescence:
I love queer, nerdy, kinky sex — and it’s the only sex I’ve ever known. At 16, I had my first “proper” relationship: it lasted about 3 and a half years, all told, and we were each other’s first sexual partner. On top of the standard teen sex-related anxiety, we both had unresolved gender issues . . . that neither of us were aware of at the time. . . .
(Charlie’s teenage girlfriend became a “transman,” i.e., a female-t0-male transsexual. We need not wonder why.)
This made following the “normal” scripts of sex quite difficult: PIV sex was basically impossible and, frankly, didn’t interest me a massive amount. As well as getting very acquainted with using my hands and mouth, it turned out we both had kinky interests, too: we laid our hands on a few toys (as far as we could in our nervous, impoverished teenage state) and messed around, experimented, and tried to find out what it was that worked for us. . . .
(So, “PIV sex” — penis-in-vagina, normal sexual intercourse — “was basically impossible”? Let me tell you something, Charlie: Whenever there is a vagina in my vicinity, it’s always possible.)
Creativity is what I think defines queer, nerdy, kinky sex: the ability to experiment and — as is often essential in the case of trans people — improvise. The world outside of cisheteronormative sex is a wonderful one, but the social scripts surrounding sex are so strong that it doesn’t really come easily. . . .
(Pardon the unintentional double-entendre.)
While I had a very curious mind, and I’d had fantasies for years, the thing that really spurred us to experiment was the fact we couldn’t do what “all the other people” were doing. Our bodies and minds weren’t cooperative — due to things that, in hindsight, were probably caused by dysphoria — so we had to make our own way.
It wasn’t always rosy. Not following the ideas of sex that had been drilled into us was liberating but also challenging. Many times I remember my partner despairing, thinking that they weren’t “good enough,” because their genitals “didn’t work.”
Eh, you can read the rest of “Young Weirdos in Love,” if you wish. You get the point: Charlie spent three years in a dysfunctional relationship with a girlfriend whose vagina he never managed to penetrate with his penis, a failure he attributes in hindsight to “dysphoria,” probably because he doesn’t want to confess his own helpless sexual ineptitude. With his sour-grapes rationalization handy, however, he dismisses “cisheteronormative sex” with some intellectual jargon about “social scripts” that had been “drilled into us,” and congratulates himself on the wondrous “creativity” of “queer, nerdy, kinky sex,” as if normal male-female couplings are devoid of creativity.
This failed male, then, presumes to tell feminists they must banish from their conferences and publications — “no-platforming,” as it is called — anyone associated with radical feminists who refuse to accept transgenders as being the same as women. So if a feminist author participates in a “non-inclusive” (TERF) conference, then she must be blacklisted from other feminist conferences because, to quote Charlie Hale, “Inviting such speakers not only negatively impacts the climate of the movement, but actively makes marginalised people feel less safe and welcome in the event and the movement as a whole.”
And thereby — voila! — a man appoints himself the arbiter of who is acceptable within the Official Feminist Movement.
Does anyone think radical feminists are going to let themselves be bossed around by pathetic sissyboys like Charlie Hale?
Oh, hell, no.
— Actual Dykes (@ActualDykez) March 29, 2014
If hard-core Marxist lesbians wanted to be bossed around by men, they might as well just invite me to their conference — call it “The End of Feminism: Surrendering to the Patriarchy” — and then they could all take turns making me sandwiches.
Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 38 Comments
“More young women choosing dogs over motherhood” reads the NY Post headline. Sure, this is a part of our Postmodern, “____ as a social construct” culture. Yes, it has a veneer of plausibility, because it’s pushed in the media. But it’s dreck.
Must we even say this? These are pets, not children. Blurring the distinction between the two is not Progress; it’s decay. This is just further moral decline. But, as with the case of gay marriage, I don’t think that waxing ‘Old Testament’ and getting all ‘Bible Thumpy’ is a help. Newton’s Fourth Law, “For every message, there is a javelin directed at the messenger”* applies.
So the task is to figure out the best way to laugh at this, bless these womens’ hearts. And laugh while the men and women are young enough to escape their perpetual adolescence and mature into functional adults that carry a civilization forward.
Actual parenthood is an essential part of the overall human experience, for those who can. It’s taken me forever to get there–this post is as much directed to my younger self as anyone else. Though I was too busy earlier in life, and, to be honest, it took my Afghanistan deployment in 2011 to wake me and Mrs. Other Smitty up, I absolutely never would have said that a pet is equivalent to a child.
- Parenthood is great
- Raising children is a job; anyone disparaging it is an idiot
- Anyone saying Fluffy is a child, however, is an idiot
*I just made that up.
Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 15 Comments
Earlier this week, we noted Brandeis University’s cowardly surrender to the forces of political correctness (or perhaps, creeping Sharia). The president of Brandeis gets an earful from Jeffrey Herf, a University of Maryland history professor with a Ph.D. from Brandeis:
That the president of a university founded by Jews in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust should have rescinded an honor to a woman who has had the courage to attack the most important source of Jew-hatred in the world today is a disgraceful act and a failure of leadership. Instead of appeasing intolerance in your faculty, you should have taken this moment to reaffirm the values for which Brandeis has stood for so long and reconfirm the place of universities as models of tolerance and enlightenment in our troubled society.
Read the whole thing. If Brandeis University will not stand up against the forces of cultural jihad, who will?
Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 44 Comments
That was one of the slogans chanted by anti-Vietnam War radicals at protests circa 1967-68. Another one was, “Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is gonna win!” NLF was the National Liberation Front, otherwise known as the Vietcong, so that the Left was cheering for terrorists long before 9/11 and the Bush-era madness of Ward Churchill, et al.
The truth about the 1960s — especially the pro-Communist, anti-American allegiances of the so-called “peace movement” — is nearly forgotten now, and no one under 40 knows anything at all about it. Our education system is such a complete failure that the past is a tabula rasa for most young people, whose knowledge of history ranges from minimal to non-existent. And most of what young people think they “know” about the 1960s is substantially wrong. Anti-war protesters were not seeking “peace” in Vietnam, they were seeking Communist victory, and the reason they hated Lyndon Baines Johnson was because he was in favor of defeating the Communists.
It was therefore with astonishment that I watched MSNBC Thursday attempt to retrieve and repair LBJ’s reputation as a liberal hero. The occasion was the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Listening to hour after hour of paeans to LBJ’s wonders, I almost wished that someone might put the 1968 versions of Tom Hayden and Stokeley Carmichael into a time machine, and transport them to the MSNBC set where they could denounce Lyndon Johnson as the morally bankrupt old fraud he was.
There was once a sort of bipartisan consensus about this: Left-wingers hated LBJ for fighting the Vietnam war; right-wingers hated him because he wouldn’t fight to win in Vietnam. Quite a few young anti-war radicals of the ’60s grew up to become conservative Republicans and Reagan voters; the one thing they never became, however, was the kind of liberals who supported LBJ. This past week’s weird carnival of liberal Lyndon-love was offensive to me. Left-winger Michael Kazin also had about as much of it as he could stand:
LBJ, wrote my friend E.J. Dionne, presided over “a consensual period when a large and confident majority believed that national action could expand opportunities and alleviate needless suffering. The earthily practical Johnson showed that finding realistic ways of creating a better world is what Americans are supposed to do.” Not a word about those countless people in Southeast Asia whose lives reached their unnatural limits when they encountered an American infantryman with an M-16 or a bomb dropped from a B-52.
Of course, to remember what the United States, during LBJ’s tenure, did to Vietnam and to the young Americans who served there does not cancel out his domestic achievements. But to portray him solely as a paragon of empathy, a liberal hero with a minor flaw or two, is not merely a feat of willful amnesia. It is deeply immoral.
You can read the whole thing at the New Republic. Of course, Kazin is a Commie-loving pinko traitor, but at least he has the intellectual integrity to tell the truth about Lyndon Johnson.
This Is Not The Time To Go Wobbly On #ObamaCare: Abort It With The Prejudice Of All Stone-Hearted Feminists Combined
Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 9 Comments
In this one-time, symbolic sense, I’m willing to be seen encouraging an abortion. And, yes, a plan for something better, that supports liberty, the economy, mom and apple pie needs to be described.
And then, Just. Bludgeon. ObamaCare. Like. A. Baby. Seal.
In ways they’ve never discussed before, senior administration officials now admit they feared late last fall that the entire law might collapse under the weight of Democratic defections and aggressive Republican calls for repeal. The mathematics of veto-proof majorities always argued against repeal, but the nightmare of HealthCare.gov followed by the “political lie of the year” on individual insurance policies filled senior Obama advisers with Affordable Care Act existential dread.
Make a fundraise out of it. Print a full copy of the legislation and amendments, drill a center hole, drop in some rebar, and then sell $5 ticket to take a whack at a monument do diabolical falsehood.
ObamaCare is a river of lies, with headwaters in Hell. Let its legend as the antithesis of our Constitution grow and instruct future generations that Progress was a fool’s errand.
via HotAir QOTD« go back — keep looking »