The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Didn’t I Tell Him to Resign?

Posted on | April 8, 2014 | 40 Comments

What I said about Rep. Vance McAllister (R-Adultery) yesterday:

A part-time district scheduler? Dude, if a congressman is making out with a part-time district scheduler, you know he’s gotta be banging Hill staffers two at a time. It’s probably just a. matter of time before we start getting more headlines: “Vance McAllister dirty texting,” “Vance McAllister nude selfies” and “Vance McAllister sex video.”

Well, McAllister does seem a bit careless with his texting, but nothing dirty — at least, not yet. Meanwhile, however, the congressman’s scandal is predictably going from bad to worse. It has been reported that the video of McAllister’s extramarital make-out session was leaked by the office manager of his district office in Monroe, Louisiana. And then there’s this ugly story:

The husband of the woman caught making out with Rep. Vance McAllister said the Louisiana Republican destroyed his life and marriage.
“I’m just freaking devastated by the whole deal, man. I loved my wife so much. I cannot believe this. I cannot freaking believe it. I feel like I’m going to wake up here in a minute and this is all going to be a bad nightmare,” Heath Peacock told CNN Tuesday. . . .
Heath Peacock said he didn’t know about the episode until Melissa called him a couple hours before the news broke.
“He has wrecked my life,” Peacock, 34, said of McAllister. “We’re headed for divorce.” . . .

Stick a fork in him, he’s done.


‘Diversity’ Debacle at Dartmouth: ‘Transformative Justice,’ Really?

Posted on | April 8, 2014 | 171 Comments

Dartmouth radicals after their protest last week.

To understand what is wrong with America’s elite institutions of higher education, we need look no further than the manifesto issued by radical students at Dartmouth College:

The Plan for Dartmouth’s Freedom Budget:
Items for Transformative Justice at Dartmouth

The document, sent to 13 Dartmouth administrators on Feb. 24, lists demands that seek to eliminate systems of oppression including racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism and ableism. . . .
We, the Concerned Asian, Black, Latina, Native, Undocumented, Queer, and Differently-Abled students at Dartmouth College, seek to eradicate systems of oppression as they affect marginalized communities on this campus. These systems — which include racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and ableism — are deployed at Dartmouth and beyond as forms of institutional violence. We demand that Dartmouth challenge these systems by redistributing power and resources in a way that is radically equitable. We believe that dialogue and resistance are both legitimate and necessary ways of disturbing the status quo and forcing parties to deal with the roots of the issues. . . .

Simple question: Where did these Dartmouth students learn to write such turgid and lifeless jargon? Even if one were sympathetic to these petulant brats, isn’t their rhetoric kind of tedious?

If Dartmouth has failed at nothing else, it has certainly failed to teach its students effective techniques of persuasive prose. The minute any responsible adult sees a phrase like “Transformative Justice,” the skeptical eye-roll reaction is reflexive.

The “marginalized communities” rant continues:

This Freedom Budget focused on redistributing power and restoring justice for communities who suffered economic oppression at the hands of rich, white power structures. This budget was not a proposal for better interpersonal interactions, but a proposal to transform oppressive structures. Dartmouth epitomizes power being isolated to rich, white males. As such, there is no better place than this campus to campaign for a Freedom Budget that will address the consequences of white male patriarchy today.

OK, let me intrude a few helpful points here:

  • As for “rich, white power structures,” exactly who the hell do these kids think built Dartmouth College and is currently footing the bill for their Ivy League education? Permit me to suggest that these “marginalized” students research who are the top 100 donors to the Dartmouth alumni fund in the past decade. If it weren’t for “rich, white males,” these kids wouldn’t even have a college to complain about.
  • These punks whine about “oppression” — did somebody kidnap them at gunpoint and force them to attend Dartmouth? No, they were among many thousands who applied to attend this elite school, and were fortunate enough to be accepted. Rather than being grateful for the opportunity thus afforded them, however, the miserable ingrates expect Dartmouth to throw them a pity party because of how they’re victims of “oppressive structures.”
  • Why are these kids so obsessed with white people? First, it’s “rich, white power structures,” then it’s “rich, white males” and “white male patriarchy” — white! white! white! The repetition conveys the intensity of their fixation, but why? Let’s see: Dartmouth College is in Hanover, N.H., and the census says New Hampshire is 94.4% white. So if you have a problem with white people, maybe Dartmouth isn’t the place you want to be, but since you decided to go to Dartmouth, whose problem is this? It’s as if you moved to Tijuana and then started complaining, “Hey, why are there so many Mexicans around here?”

Anyway, you can go read the whole list of silly “demands” issued by the Dartmouth radicals, but last week a few dozen of the aggrieved students “occupied” the administration building:

A group of about 35 students from a range of campus communities entered College President Phil Hanlon’s office during his open office hours on [April 1], stating their dissatisfaction to the administration’s March 6 reaction to the “Freedom Budget.” They demanded a point-by-point response to each of the student-authored document’s 70-plus demands for change regarding issues of diversity and inclusivity.
Equipped with poster paper, sleeping bags and pizza, many students displayed the intention of spending the night. As of press time, about eight students planned to remain in Hanlon’s personal office overnight and about seven others intended to stay in the outer atrium of Parkhurst Hall.
As students filed in to Hanlon’s outer office around 4 p.m., they were greeted by administrative assistants, who noted that they had been expecting them. Dean of the College Charlotte Johnson then told the students that she and Hanlon would be available to talk in a few minutes.
When Johnson asked why the group was there, Dondei Dean ’17 spoke first.
“We’re here to see President Hanlon. You probably know most of us already, but, just to sum up, we are extremely dissatisfied with the response that he issued,” Dean said. “It was not on our terms. We are here to see him and demand a point-by-point response, and we are not going to leave until we get one.”
Approximately 10 minutes later, the entire group was invited into Hanlon’s office. Dean, acting as primary spokesperson, told the president that the students were “deeply enraged” by Hanlon’s response to the “Freedom Budget,” stating dissatisfaction with both the length of the administration’s press release, which they said encompassed only three points, and their choice not to respond through The Dartmouth.

Uh, “Dondei Dean ’17”? This kid’s just a freshman. He only arrived at Dartmouth in September, and already he’s issuing demands? The Wall Street Journal took notice, and the Dartmouth Review editorializes:

 If there is any lesson to be learned from the sit-in, it is that the Freedom Budgeters are dead set on an approach that is not friendly to collaboration and compromise. Their hostile response to overtures of reason from President Hanlon, Dean Johnson, and their fellow classmates has made that abundantly clear. Instead, they intend to maintain their “struggle” by any and all means necessary, even if it takes them beyond the limits of civil discourse expected of Dartmouth undergraduates.

 Expel these brats. Let ’em be “oppressed” somewhere else.

In other words: Fetch My Latte.

(Hat-tip: American Power.)



On Opposing Fundamentally Flawed Ideas

Posted on | April 8, 2014 | 7 Comments

by Smitty

From the WSJ, emphasis mine:

In the latest “doc fix” for Medicare payments last week, Republicans tucked in a provision repealing an arbitrary $2,000 cap on deductibles in small-business health insurance. In a rational world beating White House industrial policy and allowing more consumer choice would qualify as a modest conservative victory. But some Republicans have convinced themselves that the only tolerable change to ObamaCare is to make it worse.

ObamaCare has never been other than a Progressive cramdown. It is the crapstone of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, represents the nadir of the 9th & 10th Amendments, and is thus the source of infinite butt-hurt.

There is no arguing with cancer itself. There is some room to discuss treatment, and the balance of treatment risks on the road to recovery.

Thus, some amount of compromise to mitigate risk of crashing the economy is certainly wise. However, that has to be undertaken with a clear vision of the long-term goal, and who is driving it. The fear with Romney, and among the reasons for his 2012 lack of traction with conservatives, was that no one believed (then or now) that he was fundamentally against the Progressive decline. Everyone (in my echo chamber anyway) felt Romney was strangely comfortable with the nanny state, and would repeal ObamaCare with much hue & cry by ripping the top page off the legislation and slapping a new cover sheet on the bureaucratic cancer.

Reform and recovery will come when we admit that Progress is toast, and it’s time for a new course for the country. The Left apparently hopes to wear down honest people with lies. Ain’t nobody got TIME for that!

Krugman Arsemageddon

Posted on | April 8, 2014 | 32 Comments

by Smitty

We had one of “those” incidents that you don’t document in detail, but can trigger a neologism, the other night at Schloss Smitty:

This tweet came to mind while reading Krugman’s “even if it’s true, it’s not ‘true’ true” rejection of Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government, which was the opening feature on Ezra Klein’s U2 tribute site, Vox.

Having read the original research paper in some detail, I’ll venture that the general issues to which it points are that

  • people aren’t going back to first principles when analyzing an issue, and
  • confirmation bias, which the paper essentially elaborates upon.

Summarizing, the authors say that everyone has their ideology, either collectivist for Krugman and ilk, or individualist for the rest of us adults. Presented with research, people either make it fit their ideology, or try to rationalize some way that the research has been corrupted.

Krugman attempts to have it both ways, accepting the Holy Research as stated, and then attempting to worm his way out of it:

Krugman Smitty
But here’s the thing: the lived experience is that this effect is not, in fact, symmetric between liberals and conservatives. Yes, liberals are sometimes subject to bouts of wishful thinking. I’m a Nobel Lariat: watch me tie myself in knots!
But can anyone point to a liberal equivalent of conservative denial of climate change, I’ll go with:
(a) Nobody argues “constant climate”, and
(b) a great example is the liberal argument that life begins when some pencil-neck, e.g. Krugman, or a jackwagon in a judicial robe, says it begins.
or the “unskewing” mania late in the 2012 campaign, Krugman may have half a point here; I know I didn’t want to believe America was stupid enough to re-elect #OccupyResoluteDesk. Forgive my irrational optimism, please.
or the frantic efforts to deny that Obamacare is in fact covering a lot of previously uninsured Americans? Oh, ObamaCare is covering all Americans in ruin, both insured and uninsured. Only somebody like a Krugman figure would deny this. What a poopy-head.
I don’t mean liberals taking positions you personally disagree with — I mean examples of overwhelming rejection of something that shouldn’t even be in dispute. For example, the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular, on which Progressives continue to gnaw with a termite-like frenzy.

Krugman’s self-blindness leads him to write later, emphasis mine:

At this point I could castigate Ezra for his both-sides-do-it article — but instead, let me pose this as a question: why are the two sides so asymmetric? People want to believe what suits their preconceptions, so why the big difference between left and right on the extent to which this desire trumps facts?
One possible answer would be that liberals and conservatives are very different kinds of people — that liberalism goes along with a skeptical, doubting — even self-doubting — frame of mind; “a liberal is someone who won’t take his own side in an argument.”

The reason for the asymmetry, Krugman, is that you’re a collectivist crapflooder drawing on a colostomy bag as vast as the national debt. Conservatives are wholly incapable of competing with the combination of hubris and humus you bring. It is with a certain amount of awe that I extend my definition:

arsemageddon, (n) 2: The collective wisdom of Paul Krugman.

If anyone can name a bigger idiot, I’ll cheerfully change this. Granted, Krugman has rivals, but I defy you to name a bigger one.

via RBPundit

New Report Debunks IRS Claims

Posted on | April 8, 2014 | 13 Comments

John D. McKinnon of the Wall Street Journal reports:

A new report from House Republicans sheds more light on the early stages of tea-party targeting by the Internal Revenue Service, identifying the first three cases sent to Washington for special review in 2010.
The report also underscores the difficulties the targeted groups faced. Two of the three dropped their applications in the face of IRS questioning, the report shows. A third is waiting for a resolution of its case, a spokesman said.
The GOP report, the latest salvo in a protracted political battle in Washington, is aimed at refuting Democrats’ argument that liberal groups also were targeted by the IRS over recent years. The report by aides to Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, emphasizes that the targeting began as an IRS inquiry solely into tea-party groups. It also contends that subsequent efforts by IRS officials to make the review more neutral were little more than cosmetic changes, and the basic focus on conservative grassroots groups remained.
Although IRS documents showed the agency also was on the lookout for applications by some liberal-leaning groups, “only Tea Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs,” the new report says. In addition, “public and nonpublic analyses of IRS data show that the IRS routinely approved liberal applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative applications.”

The entire report by the House Oversight Committee’s Republican staff is online (PDF) and the Executive Summary says:

  • IRS’s three “test” cases were all conservative organizations: Prescott Tea Party, American Junto, the Albuquerque Tea Party. (pp. 14-18)
  • Congressional Democrats made misleading claims about the targeting. Democratic Members of Congress, including Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member Sander Levin, and Representative Gerry Connolly, made misleading claims that the IRS targeted liberal-oriented groups based on documents selectively produced by the IRS. (pp. 7-13)
  • IRS selectively released documents supporting the misleading claims. The IRS cited 6103 protections for taxpayer information to withhold details about the targeting from the American public, but reversed its decision in August 2013 to release information helpful to its cause. (pp. 11)
  • MYTH: Progressive groups were also targeted.Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word “progressive,” all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons. (pp. 32-35)
  • MYTHS:  False Democratic claims of political targeting about specific groups exposed: Where the IRS identified liberal-oriented groups for scrutiny, evidence shows that it did so for objective, non-political reasons and not because of the groups’ political beliefs. (p.32)
  • ACORN groups – IRS employees testified that former ACORN affiliates were scrutinized out of concern that they were old organizations improperly applying as new ones and not because of their political beliefs. (pp. 40–42)
  • Emerge America – IRS employees testified that Emerge Groups were scrutinized after some had already been approved and the IRS became concerned about improper private benefit – not because of their political beliefs. (pp. 42–44)
  • Occupy Wall Street – The Committee has found no evidence that the IRS subjected Occupy applicants to burdensome and intrusive information requests or even seen evidence that “Occupy Wall Street” or an affiliate organization applied to the IRS for non-profit status. (pp. 44–45)

Again, you can read the full report (PDF). My interpretation is that Democrats who have repeated claims that there was no political bias in the IRS are essentially part of a cover-up effort. And make no mistake: There was (and still is) a cover-up. You can read more background on that in my 2,500-word report, “The IRS Outrage,” from the March issue of The American Spectator.


Shut Up and Resign Already

Posted on | April 7, 2014 | 19 Comments

Few things I hate worse than a Republican politician who screws around like a Democrat politician:

Rep. Vance McAllister (R-La.) asked for forgiveness Monday afternoon after a video purporting to show the congressman kissing a female staffer in his congressional office in Louisiana surfaced.
McAllister, who was just elected in a November special election, has been married for 16 years and has five children.
“There’s no doubt I’ve fallen short and I’m asking for forgiveness. I’m asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve,” he said in a statement issued from his office. “Trust is something I know has to be earned whether you’re a husband, a father, or a congressman. I promise to do everything I can to earn back the trust of everyone I’ve disappointed.”

(Shut up with the promises and apologies. Resign.)

The video, published by The Ouachita Citizen, shows grainy security camera footage of a man and a woman appearing to embrace in a dark office before walking out of a building together.
The news outlet identified the two people in the video as McAllister and his district scheduler, Melissa A. Peacock, on Dec. 23, 2013 — a month after the congressman was first sworn into office. The newspaper said it obtained the video from an anonymous source.
Records show Peacock was a part-time staffer at the time.

A part-time district scheduler? Dude, if a congressman is making out with a part-time district scheduler, you know he’s gotta be banging Hill staffers two at a time. It’s probably just a. matter of time before we start getting more headlines: “Vance McAllister dirty texting,” “Vance McAllister nude selfies” and “Vance McAllister sex video.”

It’s time for Rep. Cheater McHorndog to pack it in, go back to Louisiana and “spend more time with his family.” Good-bye.


HuffPo Women: Advice for Losers

Posted on | April 7, 2014 | 40 Comments

Am I the only person who reads the Huffington Post’s “Women” category? Because I’ve got a feeling that if any feminists paid attention to it, they’d be outraged at this pink-collar ghetto of insipid journalistic dreck. Some recent HuffPo Women headlines:

  • 8 Things America Gets Wrong About Sex — Barnard College alumna Amanda Duberman says Americans are not having sex “as freely, safely and enjoyably as other parts of the world.” So, apparently, folks in Bolivia, Belgium and Botswana have much better sex than us — or at least better sex than Barnard College girls have.
  • ‘Love Hormone’ Oxytocin May Intensify Orgasms — Dyslexics beware! Oxytocin is not the same as Oxycontin, which won’t do anything for your orgasms, and will only “intensify” your lethargy, slurred speech and impaired coordination.
  • I Fell in Love With a Man Who Refused to Text Me — She loves the Luddite guy with a “cute Australian accent” she married 12 years ago. He probably never dated any Barnard College girls.
  • The Problem With ‘Waiting For Marriage’ — Mandy Velez was a virgin attending the University of Pittsburgh until she “attended a sex-positive event on campus” featuring “a fun lesbian speaker.” Somehow, this event convinced her to have sex with her boyfriend. They “eventually broke up,” but now she’s been living with another boyfriend for two years, which means . . .? I dunno. There’s no obvious point. Just one of those silly “Vagina! Empowerment!” pseudo-feminist sex columns that get published routinely at HuffPo Women. Velez calls herself “a straight, cisgendered, reasonably privileged woman” and also uses the magic feminist phrase “sexual autonomy.”
  • Shedding Light on the Myths About Women Who Have a Lot of Sex — Marrie Lobel is “irritated” by “persistent half-truths and complete fabrications hyped as fact. It’s time to expose reality by shattering outdated perceptions of women who have a lot of sex.” None of the “myths” Lobel attacks involve Barnard College girls or sex-positive events with “fun lesbian” speakers. However, she does use the magic feminist phrase “patriarchal dogma.”

Anyway, that gives you an idea of what Huffington Post editors think women want to read. If following their advice doesn’t lead you to happiness, you can always check out “Huffington Post Divorce.”

UPDATE: Wow! How did I miss this Huffington Post pictorial of women’s armpit hair? Gotta be some Barnard girls there . . .


The Reverend Snitch

Posted on | April 7, 2014 | 29 Comments

The Smoking Gun has obtained documents showing that the Rev. Al Sharpton was once a confidential informant for a joint FBI/NYPD task force investigating organized crime. He wore a “wire.”

Maybe he hid it in his pompadour.


« go backkeep looking »