The Other McCain

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

Columbia Review of Rolling Stone’s UVA Rape Hoax Story to Be Released Tonight

Posted on | April 5, 2015 | 30 Comments

Associated Press:

News organizations following up on Rolling Stone’s horrifying tale of a gang rape at the University of Virginia exposed serious flaws in the report and the Charlottesville Police Department said its four-month investigation found no evidence that the attack happened — or that the man who allegedly orchestrated it even exists.
Now the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism is about to explain how it all went so wrong. The school’s analysis of the editorial process that led to the November 2014 publication of “A Rape on Campus” will be released online at 8 p.m. EDT Sunday.
The article focused on a student identified only as “Jackie” who said she was raped by seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house more than two years earlier.
It also described a hidden culture of sexual violence fueled by binge drinking at one of the nation’s most highly regarded public universities. Charlottesville Police Chief Timothy Longo said at a March 23 news conference that his investigators, who received no cooperation from Jackie, found no evidence to support either.
The article prompted protests on the Charlottesville campus, but the story quickly began to unravel. Other news organizations learned that the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, had agreed not to contact the accused men. Three of Jackie’s friends denied the writer’s assertion that they discouraged the alleged victim from reporting the assault, and the man described as the person who led her to an upstairs room in the fraternity house to be raped could not be located.

Let’s be clear: Jackie is a proven liar. Her elaborate “catfishing” scheme — using her make-believe boyfriend “Haven Monahan” in an unsuccessful attempt to attract the romantic interest of her friend Ryan Duffin — destroys her credibility. Period.

It is as if she said, “I was gang-raped at a frat party and I’m under surveillance by the CIA and the Bavarian Illuminati.”

There is no such thing as being semi-credible. A person who has demonstrated a habit of dishonesty cannot be accepted as a reliable authority. Sometimes liars do tell the truth, but once you know someone to be a liar — and Jackie’s “Haven Monahan” ruse was clearly a premeditated deception — you can never accept their word for anything without independent corroboration. So when the Charlottesville police investigated Jackie’s claims and found no evidence to support her story, and when she refused to cooperate with their investigation, this was tantamount to proof that the entire Rolling Stone story was a fiction.

However, this does not mean either (a) rapes don’t happen at UVA and other universities, or that (b) Jackie was never raped.

The New York Times has published former UVA student Jenny Wilkinson’s account of what happened to her in 1997:

We met while working at the same restaurant, we had mutual friends and we had gone out before. The night it happened, a Friday in late January, he attended my sorority’s date function with me. Late in the evening, he brought me a drink, my fourth of the evening; I started to feel sick shortly thereafter. Back on a daybed in the living room of my apartment, he sexually assaulted me. I have never remembered all of the details from that night, but I do remember thinking that he was raping me and that I needed to get away. Finally I did just that, dragging myself into my bedroom.
After he left, one of my roommates, who had been sleeping in her bedroom down the hall, helped me call my parents, who lived in Richmond. When they arrived 45 minutes later, my father called 911 to report my assault. The police met us at the hospital around 6 a.m. on Saturday.
A police officer was present during my entire medical examination. A gynecological exam showed some evidence of trauma; a blood test documented a blood alcohol content of 0.13, over the legal limit for driving a car; a toxicology report revealed trace amounts of three benzodiazepines in my system, including Valium and Librium. After the examination, the police took my statement. My attacker was arrested later that morning, charged, and released on bail.

The presence of those sedatives in her system certainly seems suspicious, and having a blood-alcohol level over the legal driving limit hours after she left the party indicate that she was too intoxicated to consent. The fact that she immediately reported this incident to police would seem to support the belief that she was indeed victimized — and yet the man she accused of rape was acquitted at trial. This may seem astonishing and outrageous, but Wilkinson explains why:

After the prosecution rested, the defense made a motion to strike the commonwealth’s case. The judge granted the motion, dismissing the charge. My attacker’s fraternity brothers cheered. The judge concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that the defendant knew that I was incapacitated and that he was acting against my will. The defense never had to call a single witness. The man who assaulted me walked away.

Read the whole thing, and understand what this is really about: Rape is a felony, requiring criminal intent or disregard.

While the presence of sedatives in Wilkinson’s system might raise the suspicion she had been “roofied,” (a) there was no evidence that her date was responsible for this, and (b) an 0.13 blood-alcohol level would have been sufficient to impair her judgment without any drugs whatsoever. In other words, why would a guy need to put a date-rape drug in a girl’s drink if she was drinking so heavily as to be “incapacitated” anyway?

Furthermore — please excuse me for playing the Devil’s Advocate defense attorney here — how drunk was the guy? This is highly relevant to understanding how such cases play out in court. Over and over as feminists have pushed their “rape culture” discourse in the past year, we keep hearing different versions of the same story: Two college kids, usually both teenagers and therefore too young to drink legally, go to a party, get drunk and have sex. “Rape!” says the girl. “No way!” says the guy. We are then plunged into a public “he-said/she-said” mystery involving two young people we don’t actually know, and everybody starts a sort of speculative guessing-game as to what really happened.

We are not detectives or prosecutors. Nor are we judge or jury. We’re just people reading news stories and opinion columns, bystanders to what is in fact an attempt to redefine the meaning of “rape,” and thereby strip a specific group of citizens — male college students — of their due-process rights. A student who could never be convicted of rape in a court of law can nevertheless be found “responsible” for sexual assault in a university disciplinary proceeding, effectively branded a rapist and expelled. In some cases that have come to public attention in recent months, what appears to happen is one of two scenarios:

  1. A girl feels shame or remorse about a drunken hookup and, to absolve herself of responsibility and expiate her sense of guilt, accuses a guy of rape;
    or
  2. A girl feels she has been disrespected by an ex-boyfriend and, resentful of the emotional injury she feels, decides that their previous sexual activity was rape.

Understand that neither of these scenarios necessarily involves a woman deliberately and maliciously lying. Emotions like heartbreak, remorse and envy can exert a powerful influence over the way we remember past events. If those events occurred while we were drunk, and we have been brooding over them for days or weeks or months, it is entirely possible for our minds to distort reality. And we have seen multiple accounts of these “he-said/she-said” cases where several months transpired between the drunken hookup and the claim of rape. Paul Nungesser hooked up with Emma Sulkowicz in August 2012 — not their first sexual encounter — and it was not until April 2013 that Columbia University officials informed him she had claimed this hookup was rape. Cathy Young’s article about this high-profile case suggests Sulkowicz decided to accuse Nungesser of rape only after she compared notes with his ex-girlfriend, who claimed her relationship with Nungesser was abusive.

Really? Are feminists willing to die on this kind of hill?

A guy dates two girls his freshman year. One of them is a regular girlfriend and the other is what is sometimes called “friends with benefits” or, more bluntly, a “f–kbuddy.” He and the girlfriend breakup and, after he has a third hookup with the other girl, he seems to lose interest in her, too. The guy has no reason to believe that either of these girls bears him any particular grudge. He’s moving on with his life, dating other girls, and then these two ex-girlfriends get together and start talking to each other and — BOOM! — he’s a rapist?

What part of “cold-blooded spite” do you not understand?

Common sense is more useful than an advanced degree in psychology in understanding this. Nothing can enrage a woman to burning resentment more than getting dumped by a guy and being left behind while he moves on with his happy life:

It seems that the one possible explanation no feminist can accept in cases like this is the most obvious explanation: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
The source of that saying, William Congreve, was probably a sexist pig, but (a) he’s been dead nearly 400 years, and (b) it’s true.

I don’t know Paul Nungesser, and maybe he’s a total jerk. I don’t know Emma Sulkowicz and maybe she’s an innocent victim. In that case, as in any “he-said/she-said” case, it is simply impossible to know with certainty what happened. A common-sense understanding of human nature, however, tells us that teenage romance is fraught with emotion and that conflicts between ex-lovers often involve acrimonious accusations of wrongdoing. (Ask a few attorneys what kind of scorched-earth tactics they’ve seen in divorce cases.) Yet we are not being asked to evaluate these college sexual assault claims on a case-by-case basis. Rather, we are hearing about these cases because feminists are trying to convince us that there is a “rape epidemic” on college campuses, and that this crisis of sexual violence requires drastic intervention.

All the actual data, however, point in the other direction. The incidence of sexual assault has declined significantly, down 64 percent from 1995 to 2010 and remaining stable at that lower rate. Whereas feminists (and their Democrat allies) have repeatedly claimed that 1-in-5 female college students are victims of sexual assault, “the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5).” And, in fact, female college students are less likely to be raped than are females of the same age who don’t attend college.

So, the rate of sexual assault is at or near the lowest level in several decades, and yet feminists have manufactured a “rape epidemic” that has made headlines for months? There is clearly a political agenda involved, and what we learn about the hoax perpetrated by Rolling Stone may help us understand what’s really happening. We have already seen enough of these hoaxes to know that feminists lie about rape.

The question we need to ask is why feminists are lying now, other than their usual motives of hate, greed, and revenge.

“Political careers, administrative jobs, government grants, book and lecture contracts are just some of vast financial benefits that rest upon continuing the ‘rape culture’ crusade on campus.”
— Wendy McElroy

People need to wake the hell up.





 

Category: Crime, Journalism, Media Bias, Sex Trouble

Mataconis Brings The Accidental Funny

Posted on | April 4, 2015 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

I’ve enjoyed banter with His Dougness for years. He’s certainly a prolific blogger, makes a lot of good points, and has the annoying tendency to gauge the realpolitik of a situation with a cynically accurate eye. That is, I don’t agree with him much, but credit where due: he’s got a professional’s eye for the cesspool that is our government.

So, going after John Bolton is just how Doug rolls:

Props to Dennis McIver down the thread for sending me off to find this gem from this February:

If you’re a ‘Stache fan, like I am, it’s a great listen.

Category: Blogging, Republicans

Samuel L. Jackson Accuses Falsely. We Need A New Response: Forgiveness

Posted on | April 4, 2015 | 25 Comments

by Smitty

This smacks of intelligence preparation of the battlefield all the way:

New York magazine recently tracked down actor Samuel L. Jackson to show him the Rick Perry nearly-invisible-N-word “scoop” and then asked him if he agreed with Morgan Freeman that the Tea Party was racist. Of course, he said.

He also thought the Perry story was a political plus: “it’s not going to hurt Perry’s reputation in a whole lot of places, so it’s not a big deal.” New York magazine said What? He replied: “Are you serious? He’s a Republican and this is America.”

First, on the Tea Party:

“It’s pretty obvious what they are,” Jackson told us. “The division of the country is not about the government having too much power. I think everything right now is geared toward getting that guy out of office, whatever that means,” he said, echoing Freeman. “It’s not politics. It is not economics. It all boils down to pretty much to race. It is a shame.”

Still dig your work, Samuel, but I’ve got to forgive you for spreading false accusations. It’s possible that you sincerely hold your position. You might even be able to find somebody with an antiquated, xenophobic notion or two that isn’t a paid stooge: I’m not claiming absolute knowledge here.

What I am saying is that I don’t think you can find actual, undoctored, non-planted evidence that any Tea Party leadership or meaningful group of conservatives adhere to racist notions.

Forgiveness is important, Samuel, and not just because Easter looms. Forgiveness is where we let go of the past as a psychic prison, and liberate ourselves from pejorative thinking about each other.

Facts and history remain: I’m not saying we just airbrush anything, Commie-style. But forgiveness is the key to maturing, to dispassionate review of the situation, to confessing our own improvement areas, to improving the future for the young-uns.

This forgiveness is not a commitment to being a doormat. It’s about the past. Rational people keep a wary eye on the future. We can seek to make incremental improvement where possible, but the irony of our day is that those screaming “Progress” seem to strive so ardently for the opposite. It as if there were a Racism Industrial Complex afoot, striving to keep people bound into little victim groups, where they are used to turn political power turbines. But that’s crazy talk. Nothing like that’s going on.

However, it would be kind of cool if those who spend so much time talking about healing actually had a record of mitigating some discord.

And sincere forgiveness is the first step.

God bless you, Samuel.

Category: Culture

What Feminists Believe: ‘Gender Is a Social Construct That Oppresses Everyone’

Posted on | April 4, 2015 | 22 Comments

Having explained “What Feminists Mean by ‘Equality,'” let me now introduce you to this typical expression of feminist belief:

I am a radfem. I want women’s liberation and the destruction of patriarchy. . . . I think men who do not support feminists are misogynists. I am a gender abolitionist because gender is a social construct that oppresses everyone.

Notice: “I think men who do not support feminists are misogynists.”

Words have meanings. “Misogyny” means hatred of women. Therefore, feminists believe that if you do not embrace their ideology, endorse their agenda and support their movement, this proves you hate women.

This accusatory tactic — “Agree with me or I will destroy your reputation by character assassination” — is seldom recognized as what it is, i.e., a totalitarian propaganda technique. It was developed to a high art by Communists in the 20th century, who became proficient at discrediting their opponents and critics by labeling them “bourgeois,” “fascist,” “imperialist” and so forth. Someone who criticized the violent thuggery of a Communist-controlled labor union was branded “anti-worker,” a lackey of “Big Business,” while someone who advocated a strong defense against Soviet-backed aggression was denounced as a “warmonger.” Modern feminism owes its origins to the radical New Left of the 1960s and “red diaper babies” (the children of Communist Party members) played a leading role in organizing the Women’s Liberation movement. Lest any feminist accuse me of making this up — “McCarthyism”! — I will refer them to the authoritative sources:

Once you understand how the feminist movement arose in this Cold War context of pro-Communist/anti-American left-wing activism, many other things about feminism become much easier to understand.

It is hardly surprising, for example, to see feminists employing Communist propaganda tactics. Feminism is simply a variant of what has been called Cultural Marxism, and their routine use of the “Alinsky Method” is predictable. Because these tactics have been used habitually by “progressive” activists for many decades, they often don’t even recognize them as tactics. Like others on the Left, feminists usually refuse to acknowledge that they are engaged in propaganda. They often repeat slogans (e.g., “gender is a social construct”) they don’t fully understand and cannot coherently explain. When feminists accuse you of being a “misogynist” merely because you disagree with them, you therefore should recognize this as a tactic. They are insulting you, presuming to be your moral superior, qualified to judge you and impugn your character by describing you with a demeaning epithet.

THIS IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR ARGUMENT.

The feminist proves nothing by calling you names. What they are attempting to do is to discredit you — to demonize you — so as to avoid having to defend their own claims and assertions. One of the mistakes people commonly make when confronted with this tactic of accusation is to become defensive: “I’m not a sexist. I believe in equality.” The problem is that this legitimizes the authority of the accuser, ceding their fitness to make such judgments. Nine times out of 10 in online discourse, however, the accuser knows nothing about you. They are simply reacting to your opposition by making the assumption that you are morally and intellectually inferior, so that they can slap a negative label on you — “racist,” “homophobe,” etc. — and thereby dismiss you.

In any such case, the question arises: “Who are you to accuse me?”

Who is this person? What are their qualifications to make this judgment? Where is the evidence of their moral superiority?

Let us now return to the blogger who says “men who do not support feminists are misogynists.” Who is this person? We don’t know.

There is no personal information on their Tumblr page, the title of which is an accusation: “Men’s Rights Activists are scared of women!” The page carries this declaration:

Hate stems from fear. Deep down men fear women. . . . Because of men’s cowardly betrayal of women — women are justified in rejecting men and for calling them to account via feminism. “Men’s Rights Activists” (the weakest of men) hate feminists because feminists stand up to men.

Personally, I have never called myself a “Men’s Rights Activist” (MRA), although many of those who have followed my series on radical feminism are associated with that movement. However, the feminist blogger uses the term “MRA” as a label, an epithet so general as to encompass everyone who disagrees with feminism.

So the accusation is meant to apply to me: I “fear women,” I have engaged in “cowardly betrayal of women,” I am “the weakest of men” and I “hate feminists because feminists stand up to men.”

This is a deliberate insult with no basis in fact, and I am therefore under any obligation to defend myself against it. Period.

Who dares insult me in this manner? Hint: The blogger’s avatar is a cartoon, and the lack of biographical information is a clue.

We don’t even know that this “radfem” is a woman, you see. With this in mind, let us now quote one of the blogger’s arguments:

Men and Violence — “but they can’t help it”
We are taught that physical violence is about expressing anger (usually in an ‘uncontrollable’ way) but this is a lie — violence is not about anger — it is actually about dominance and control and it is very deliberate.
We have been fed the lie for thousands of years that violence is about ‘uncontrolled outbursts of anger’. We have been told this to justify the violence — so men can get away with using it to dominate and intimidate (yes, within a misogynist and patriarchal society – and to enforce a misogynist and patriarchal society) and so there is no accountability or requirement for male violence to stop . . . but if you look at violence itself it always has a deliberate purpose (i.e. intimidation) and a consequence/result (i.e. dominance/control).
Yet we are continually told that violence is ‘senseless’. Senseless violence is never senseless to the person committing the violence — they always have their reasons.
We are lead to believe/brainwashed that grown men ‘cannot help’ their rages and so we — as women and as a society generally — must be patient with men. We are even asked to accept the idea that violent men are suffering themselves when they commit these acts of violence, hatred and destruction against us. We are asked to ‘understand’, feel pity and even blame ourselves. We are asked not to ‘provoke’ men. We are taught these ‘poor men’ cannot deal with their emotions in ‘more appropriate’ ways (such as to cry/verbalize their anger/express affection/etc.), so they must ‘act it out’ on our bodies and on our children. We are told it is not their fault. ‘Poor men.’
This lie means men are never expected to check their own thinking or belief systems, they are never asked to be accountable or to change. And women are required to become complicit in the lie — to accept being men’s punching bags and never expose these men’s private frailties (if we do we are ‘betraying’ them), because “they can’t help it”. ‘Poor men.’
Women are taught we must be understanding of male violence the way parents must be understanding of a toddler’s tantrum — because a child is in the process of learning to regulate their emotions and behaviors and cannot help it. But men are not children.
Violent men do have choice and control — demonstrated by the fact that they are only violent in somesituations — usually at home in private and towards their families — but these same men manage to stay in control in other situations such as at work, church, in front of police, etc — and this is the factor that proves the lie.
But all that is really happening is that men (both individually and collectively) are indulging in the quickest and most effective form of control/domination — i.e. violent intimidation. Even those men who are “not all men” benefit from their brothers violence. The threat of violence alone affords all men dominance over all women.
The prevalence of male violence is not accidental, not random, and not individual — and it is definitely notabout expressing anger. They can help it. It is time we all understood this — and it is time for all men (even the “not all men” men) to stop lying.
1 in 3 girls and women experience male violence
All girls and women fear it

I have quoted this 571-word rant verbatim, including the boldface and italic emphases in the original, so that it cannot be claimed that I am quoting anything “out of context.”

Is any of that true? As I say, we don’t even know that the person writing this is actually female, so that even the use of first-person plural pronouns (“we,” “our,” etc.) may be deceptive. For all we know, this was written by a deranged meth-addicted transvestite prostitute.

My point is that we are confronted with this long string of accusatory assertions about male behavior, offered without any citation of evidence or sources, so that the only reason to accept any of these statements is the writer’s own authority, which is . . .?

Nothing. Precisely nothing.

There is no reason to believe that this blogger is qualified to make any of these judgments. Is it true, for example that women are “required . . . to accept being men’s punching bags”? Is this true of the women you know? Are all women helpless victims of “these acts of violence, hatred and destruction”? The feminist blogger’s argument seems to deny the possibility that men and women could have loving relationships based on mutual kindness, trust and respect: “The threat of violence alone affords all men dominance over all women.”

Exactly who are these men who crave “dominance” over women so badly that they use the “threat of violence” to obtain it?

We cannot deny that such men exist. Obviously, there are violent bullies in the world, and the rest of us do our best either to avoid them or to protect ourselves against them. It is certainly true that men are generally more prone to violence than women, which helps explain why 93% of U.S. prison inmates are male.

Yet, despite the fact that more than 1.4 million American men are in prison, that leaves a much larger number of males — more than 150 million — who aren’t locked up, and surely not all of these men are using the “threat of violence” to exercise “dominance” over women. Are all men, as the feminist blogger claims, engaged in this “domination and control” of all women through “intimidation” and “violence”?

To ask the question is to answer it. These claims are self-evidently false, as is the claim that “gender is a social construct that oppresses everyone.” Gender is not a “social construct” and, even if it were, not everyone is oppressed by it. Free people are capable of making free choices — unless they are insane.

Insane people make insane choices. One of the insane choices that insane people make is to become feminist bloggers.

But you knew that already, right?

 

Category: Sex Trouble

What Feminists Mean by ‘Equality’

Posted on | April 4, 2015 | 61 Comments

She is a 21-year-old “biracial Cubana radical feminist” who calls herself a “PERF (penis-exclusionary radical feminist),” and let’s read her explanation of feminist gender theory:

Gender creates the differences between the sexes. It celebrates inequality and it glamorizes the subordinate status of females — therefore gender is the embodiment of sexism. . . . Gender’s intended purpose is to clearly mark the subordinate class from the privileged class. . . .
Gender abolition and women’s liberation go hand in hand because by doing so we are breaking down the tools of oppression while still conscious of the root cause.

You can read the whole thing. It is not my intention (because it seems to me unnecessary) to prove that she is wrong. Rather, my purpose is to show that (a) “gender abolition” is what feminists mean by “equality,” and (b) these beliefs are widespread among young feminists, because these theories — the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — are taught to them by the radical faculty who operate university Women’s Studies programs. And if you do not agree with them, you will be denounced as an ignorant bigot, a misogynist, a heteropatriarchal oppressor and perhaps also a rape apologist.

The fanatical rigidity of the feminist worldview can permit no dissent. Critics must be silenced and opponents must be demonized as “haters.” Feminism encourages the young True Believer to think of herself as intellectually and morally superior to others. She possesses the extraordinary insight necessary to obtain the radical gnosis, and is therefore qualified to enlighten others. Thus we find the 21-year-old Cubana feminist lecturing on environmentalism:

I mean, basically capitalism is a system that operates by sucking money from the poor to the rich. . . .
How can anyone support an ideology that says its OK that 1% of the population control the majority of the world’s resources? . . .
Right now, patriarchy is the ruling religion of the planet. Women are just another resource for men to use in their endless quest to prove their toxic masculinity and breed soldiers for civilization’s constant state of war. . . . This is why militarism is a feminist issue, why rape is an environmental issue, why environmental destruction is a peace issue. . . .
Misogyny and ecocide are connected — Misogyny is at root the hatred and prejudice of females, it is used to justify systems of male supremacy such as patriarchy. . . . The same themes of violation and extraction are seen in ecocide. . . . Ecocide is the murder of entire ecosystems and all life within, human ownership of and domination over the Earth. Ecocide is the ideology of progress functions to justify and rationalize the destruction of non human living things and of indigenous cultures.

Read the whole thing. Again, I do not consider it necessary to disprove her claims, and instead quote her merely to show how feminist theory informs a radical critique of capitalism, private property, masculinity, etc. All feminism is ultimately radical feminism, because the leaders of the movement are radicals who embrace an esoteric doctrine of “equality” that is at war with human nature.

Darleen Click bring us the news that California taxpayers have been ordered to pay for a murderer’s sex change surgery. Some advocates of feminist gender theory might argue that this is wrong, but the basic idea — gender is a fiction, an artificial “social construct” of patriarchy — is entirely consistent with the androgynous “equality” promoted by university Women’s Studies faculty. Meanwhile, Scott Ott reports:

A high school student in Emmaus, Pennsylvania, was compelled to change out of yoga pants which the school deemed too revealing.
The student, a physiological male who prefers to be treated as a female, was required to put on a pair of gym shorts and a polo shirt, because the principal apparently determined the clingy yoga pants displayed too vividly the form of “her” male genitalia.
The school has no qualms with students or staff self-identifying as the opposite sex, and accessorizing to suit the sex du jour, yet with a modicum of modesty. Bio-males may wear dresses.
But friends of the newly repressed student feel sure that the long arm of transgender hate has come to their small town in suburban Allentown.

The Emmaus High School principal will meet with students amid an outcry of discrimination that arose after a transgender student was told to change out of yoga pants that administrators felt were inappropriate.

Even the Allentown Morning Call complied with the student’s desire to be identified as a girl despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

(Hat tip: @GraceGabriel51 on Twitter.) Feminism’s radical gender theory necessarily leads to demands for official approval of deviant behavior. Once compulsory approval is achieved, no one can be permitted to criticize the lunacy of a “female” student wearing yoga pants displaying the bulge of “her” penis for everyone in high school to see. We all must participate in the lunatic’s delusions, because otherwise how can we ever abolish gender and the oppressive system of heteropatriarchy?





 

Category: Sex Trouble

Fundraising Idea: RINO Scalps

Posted on | April 4, 2015 | 32 Comments

by Smitty via Hot Air

USA Today:

“The grass roots in Arizona want McCain to retire or be replaced by a conservative in the primary next year,” said Ken Cuccinelli, the former Virginia attorney general who now is president of the Senate Conservatives Fund.

Glad that Cuccinelli continues to do the good work of recovering this country from Progressivism. Further down the article:

Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., who represents a conservative East Valley district, appears to be these groups’ top choice, but Salmon has not publicly made any move to suggest he would seriously consider taking on McCain. Most political watchers in Arizona are not expecting him to run.

State Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City, has said she is contemplating a U.S. Senate campaign, and supporters have started a PAC to encourage her to run. However, national groups have yet to embrace her.

This blog will plant itself firmly in the “Anyone but The IFNAG“. Request everybody link and spread this post. Let’s nationalize the AZ Senate race, and let the warhorse know it’s Long Since Time For The Pasture. Maybe the various PACs for these candidates can sell commemorative RINO scalps as a fundraiser. Conservatives around the country would contribute to retiring the old fart, I reckon.

Category: John McCain, Politics, Republicans

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | April 3, 2015 | 9 Comments

by Smitty

“God has an email address?” asked Ernest, looking skyward.
“Wut?” mumbled dad.
“It’s an @ symbol in the sky,” but it was too far for Ernest’s finger to click.
Dad warmed to the moment on their camping trip. “You can think of prayer as God’s in-box.”
“He sure must get Him some spam.”
“Yeah, but, see, when it’s all your creation, even the frustrating bits about pallets of riches hung up in customs are all good.”
“So, if I sent God a prayer-email about getting a new XBox for Christmas, you think that He might forward that to you?”

via Darleen Click

Category: Friday Fiction, humor

‘Recovery’ in the Obama Age

Posted on | April 3, 2015 | 31 Comments

Democrats discovered they can reduce the official unemployment rate by driving people out of the work force altogether:

The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force–meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks–rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That is the first time the number of Americans out of the labor force has exceeded 93 million.
Also from February to March, the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.8 percent to 62.7 percent, matching a 37-year low.
Five times in the last twelve months, the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but March’s 62.7 percent, which matches the participation rate seen in September and December of 2014, is the lowest since February of 1978.

(Via Memeorandum.)

 

Category: Economics
« go back — keep looking »