The Other McCain

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

#ScottWalkerIsSoConservativeThat Like Washington & Lincoln, He Doesn’t Consider Degreelessness Disqualifying

Posted on | February 12, 2015 | 24 Comments

by Smitty

Category: humor, Republicans

A Sordid Scandal in Oregon

Posted on | February 12, 2015 | 37 Comments

By the time she was 30, Cylvia Hayes had already been married and divorced twice. She then reportedly was paid to be the “green card wife” of an Ethiopian immigrant. At some point, she became involved in Democrat Party politics in Oregon, running unsuccessfully for the state legislature in 2002. A year later, she began dating John Kitzhaber, a recently divorced Democrat state senator. When Kitzhaber was elected governor of Oregon in 2010, he said his girlfriend Cylvia would serve as the state’s first lady. The idea of the governor shacking up with his girlfriend apparently didn’t bother many Oregonians. It’s a liberal state where Obama got 54% of the vote there in 2012 and where 57% of voters in 2014 approved a measure to legalize recreational marijuana.

Fornication in the governor’s mansion? Who cares?

The general shabbiness of Cylvia Hayes’ character was exposed in 2014 by her ex-boyfriend, and that was before revelations about conflicts of interests involving Hayes’ consulting business. Kitzhaber’s office reportedly attempted to destroy evidence of the governor’s corrupt dealings and, at last, even Democrats in liberal Oregon have had enough:

Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Tina Kotek met with Gov. John Kitzhaber on Thursday morning and told him it was time to resign.
At a 1 p.m. press conference to discuss the meeting, Courtney said the discussion with Kitzhaber was difficult.
“He was upset,” Courtney said. “He was defiant. He was struggling.” . . .
Courtney said that he and Kotek have been trying to get security for Secretary of State Kate Brown, who would become governor if Kitzhaber were to step down.
Courtney said that he had received a note from the governor’s staff earlier in the day saying that Kitzhaber was attempting to reach the secretary of state to “set up the transition.”
“I don’t know what that means,” Courtney said.
Kotek said later that the governor has been consumed by all the legal investigations and media inquiries.
“The work of the state has to go on,” she said, “and he’s not able to focus on that right now.”
“It has become clear to both of us that the ongoing investigations surrounding the governor and Cylvia Hayes have resulted in the loss of the people’s trust,” Kotek said.

It takes an awful lot of corruption to become “too corrupt” to be an Oregon Democrat, but somehow Kitzhaber’s done it!

 

Category: Corruption, Democrats, Oregon

In The Mailbox: 02.12.15

Posted on | February 12, 2015 | 7 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Going to try and attempt a Live at Five tonight and a long-overdue book post before then.


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Japanese Men Revolt Against Valentine’s Day And Feminist Manhate
Michelle Malkin: “Success Story” Update! Cut-And-Run Obama Shuts Down Yemen Embassy
Twitchy: Does Sally Kohn Know How Our Government Works? Maybe Not…
The Quinton Report: Pro-Abortion Martin O’Malley To Run On His “Catholic Values” In 2016 (Where is the Inquisition when you need it? – WS)
Moe Lane: Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC), Last Woman Standing


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Obama’s Meeting With Muslim Leaders Included President Of Hamas-Tied ISNA, Other Islamic Supremacists And Subversives
American Thinker: February – Annual “White America Sucks” Month
BLACKFIVE: Ranger Up Presents Brian Williams
Conservatives4Palin: Vox – All The President’s Explainers
Don Surber: Bobby Jindal – “You Mean I’m Not White? I’m Shocked At This Revelation”
Jammie Wearing Fools: Incoherent Obama On Why He Lied About Gay Marriage Stance
Joe For America: Prosecutorial Discretion Means $24,000 Bonus For Illegal Aliens
JustOneMinute: Fifty Shades Of Silicon Valley
Pamela Geller: SIAD Starts Regular Demos Against Islamization In Denmark
Protein Wisdom: If You Like Your Internet, You Can Keep Your Internet
Shot In The Dark: Why Did Mike Freeman Let A Straw Gun Buyer Walk?
STUMP: Pension Obligations Bonds Are Of The Devil!
The Gateway Pundit: NYT Reporter Heartbroken That ISIS Treated Pro-Palestinian Activist Kayla Mueller “Like Other Kuffars”
The Jawa Report: Attention, Twitter User @MOJAHDON_ISIS!
The Lonely Conservative: Colorado Dems Block Efforts To Ban “Welfare For Weed”
This Ain’t Hell: Joni Ernst, The “Combat Veteran”
Weasel Zippers: Military Brass Demand Apology From NBC For Segment Smearing Chris Kyle
Megan McArdle: You Want Advice? Don’t Ask Journalists
Mark Steyn: No Jews To See Here


Shop Amazon Instant Video – Save on Romance Titles for Valentine’s Day

Category: Linkagery

Common Man-Hating Feminism

Posted on | February 11, 2015 | 69 Comments

“I’m so tired of masculinity. And male aggression. And male voyeurism. And male arrogance. And male mediocrity. And how we’re conditioned to normalize it.”
— Zuriya at Tumblr.com

What inspired that declaration? That 24-word anti-male outburst was published on Tumblr a week ago and has already acquired more than 3,000 likes or reblogs. The young woman who posted it is the child of Eritrean refugees, living in Southern California, and has absorbed from her American education many typical progressive attitudes inculcated by our public school system. She is a Muslim, and does not seem to recognize (or at least does not acknowledge) that the anti-male attitudes of her feminism are fundamentally incompatible with Islam.

“Why am I not solely dating women at this point in my life like men have so little good to offer this world.”

Good luck getting your imam to sign off on that idea, Zuriya. Now, let’s hear about your actual relationships with men:

I was talking about my boyfriend/partner/whatever . . . to a good friend a few weeks ago and like, I don’t get giddy about men. I never have. I have never seen men as an essential and important and necessary part of my life. If we broke up, I’d just keep it pushin TBH. I was with a guy for five years and I hardly felt butterflies. It just isn’t my demeanor. Men are overwhelmingly to some extent f–kboys and I’m just not concerned with getting into my feelings about them. Idk, outwardly displays of overzealous affection are just corny AF me.

And some more:

I love being in a long distance relationship. I have horrible anxiety and depression and have been trying through medication and lifestyle changes to get that under control. Right now, my priorities include work, school, my bills, friends and then my relationship. I’m grateful for this indefinite separation because it gives me time to get my life together. I’m not getting married for another few years at least, until I have my Masters and life set together . . . I need to be committed to myself before I can commit to someone else and this solitude gradually allows me to do that.

Well, there it is again, you see?

How often have we noted the correlation between feminism and mental illness? Depression and anxiety seem to be nearly ubiquitous in the feminist movement. Self-harm and eating disorders are also common, and we occasionally encounter diagnoses of personality disorders as well. There is a clear pattern: Young women who view men as irresponsible and untrustworthy “f–kboys,” women whose emotional instability is serious enough to require psychiatric intervention — such are the unhappy women who find that feminism’s hostility to the existing social order offers a rationalization of their discontents.

Have they never read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements? Do they not recognize themselves as the frustrated misfits Hoffer described?

Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. . . .
Those who clamor loudest for freedom are often the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. The frustrated, oppressed by their shortcomings, blame their failure on existing restraints. Actually their innermost desire is for an end to the ‘free for all.’ They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society.

So it is that the feminist movement attracts to its banner frustrated women “who see their lives as spoiled and wasted,” women who require a scapegoat to “blame [for] their failure” and who find in feminism’s anti-male ideology a ready-made excuse for their unhappiness. Yet for every miserable misfit grumbling about “masculinity . . . male aggression . . . male arrogance . . . male mediocrity” on the Internet, there are many more happy women going about their normal lives, without mental illness and without feminism. If we compared the objective circumstances of any two women, one self-identifying as feminist and the other rejecting the “feminist” label, what difference would distinguish them?

Are anti-feminist women on average more “privileged” than the militant man-haters? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I think generally the opposite is true: One does not commonly encounter working-class women reading Judith Butler and ranting about the gender binary and the heterosexual matrix. Whatever the normal woman’s complaints about her relationships with men, she does not construe her problems in terms of academic theory and political ideology.

Understanding the ‘F–kboy’ Syndrome

There isn’t a lot of theory in Zuriya’s feminism. She cites no authors and does not sling around trendy academic jargon. Rather, she expresses anti-male attitudes in the rhetoric of popular culture. For example, the term “f–kboy” seems to have originated as a homophobic putdown, suggesting effeminate weakness, but was adapted by women as an all-purpose slur, so that “f–kboy” is now “a pejorative toward men who are perceived as oversexed or disrespectful toward women.”

Is Zuriya correct? Are men “overwhelmingly to some extent f–kboys”? No, but a wise woman is naturally cautious toward any man who shows an interest in her, lest he prove to be a “player” who wants to run his game on her. Anyone observing the behavior of young men on the prowl recognizes the “f–kboy” type who seems to think himself entitled to an unlimited supply of enthusiastic partners for casual sex, and who has no interest in a committed relationship.

The question feminists cannot answer is, “Whence does this f–kboy attitude arise?” Where do these guys develop the attitude that every woman they meet is irrepressibly horny and ready to go?

Feminists are eager to blame “culture” and “society” for men’s bad attitudes toward women, because it would not advance the feminist agenda to admit that f–kboys are f–kboys because too many young women actually are irrepressibly horny and ready to go. These young women have adopted the ideas of sexual “empowerment” advanced by so-called “pro-sex feminists” and, abandoning all concern for their own dignity, pursued a false “equality” by enacting a simulacrum of what they suppose to be a male prerogative, shameless promiscuity. Ask any parent of teenage boys how it is. If your son is reasonably attractive and popular, he will be more or less besieged by lovestruck girls by the time he finishes middle school. Certainly, a good-looking teenage boy doesn’t need to expend any strenuous effort to land a girlfriend, and the reversal of customary roles (wherein the boy was the romantic pursuer and the girl was pursued) is so common that every day is now Sadie Hawkins Day.

This “Girls Gone Wild” culture of unrestrained female promiscuity, which “pro-sex” feminists have actively encouraged, creates an environment where the f–kboy attitude becomes commonplace. Lectures about “safe sex,” combined with a systemic hostility to religion and traditional morality, have the effect of turning public schools into training camps for sluts and f–kboys. Young people are taught that sex is only about hedonistic pleasure, and that any sexual behavior is acceptable so long as it is “safe.”

Schools now teach kids: “God is dead. Sex is fun. Use a condom.”

Parents in many cases actually endorse this attitude, because today’s young people were born in the 1990s, when “safe sex” became the prevailing mantra of public education.

Irresponsible parents raise irresponsible children, and the flight from responsibility — the childish desire to live in NerfWorld, where everything is padded to protect us against the consequences of our actions — produces f–kboys, selfish hedonists who cannot be trusted.

From a semi-humorous list of their habits:

He’s constantly begging for nudes.
F–kboys are hungry and desperate for female attention. They feed their f–kboy ways with nude pics from the dozens of girls they talk to on Tinder, OkC, Reddit, and other random sites. He hides his phone when he gets a Snapchat because he knows it’s gonna be some girl’s nudies. For every one nude pic you send, he’s getting like 10 others from other chicks. . . .
He’s disrespectful to his mother.
A man who doesn’t respect his mother is just a f–kboy you don’t have time for. If he treats his mom like sh*t, just think about how he’s going to treat you when the honeymoon phase wears off. Yes, it’s important to see how he treats both of his both parents, but how he respects his mother is a clear reflection as to how he views women in his life.
He never wants to be seen in public with you.
He always has some excuse for why you two can’t be seen together. He’s busy, doesn’t feel like going out, whatever. If a man isn’t proud to be seen with then obviously you’re just a sidepiece for this
f–kboy. . . .

Read the whole thing, and ask yourself: Where do guys get the idea they can treat women like that? Answer: From women who let themselves be treated like that. From women who have been taught that it’s “empowering” to be sexually promiscuous and pursue hookups, women who have been taught to scoff at virtue, women who have been taught that “equality” is the only moral standard.

The Inexorable Logic of ‘Equality’

Whether or not a regime of “sexual equality” is even possible, we ought to ask whether such equality is actually desirable.

“Wow, he’s so equal,” said no woman ever. A woman wants a man who is in some way her superior, a man she can respect and rely upon, someone who brings to a relationship personal attributes, economic assets and social status greater than her own. Of course, no woman wishes to be weak, helpless and dependent, and she does not want a man to treat her as his inferior, but she can never love a man she cannot also admire. A man must bring “value added” to her life.

Feminism’s advocacy of “sexual equality” actually deprives women of the opportunity for that kind of positive relationship. Feminists constantly derogate masculinity and express an ideological hostility to male achievement, viewing male-female relations as a competitive zero-sum game in which a man’s success can only be explained in terms of discrimination against women. If men achieve success only though the oppression of women, as feminists believe, then the most successful man must therefore also be the most oppressive man.

The logic is inexorable. If ending women’s oppression requires ending male supremacy, this will require the enactment of policies to deprive men of educational and economic opportunity, to redistribute wealth and social status from men to women. Men must be discouraged from pursuing high-paying careers in order that women may have a greater share of those careers, for how else is “equality” to be achieved?

Is it any wonder, then, that the young woman finds the men she meets are selfish, immature f–kboys whose only interest in women is whatever hedonistic pleasure they can provide? In a world where male-female relations are viewed as a remorseless power struggle between antagonistic competitors, what basis can there be for voluntary cooperation between men and women? Where are the incentives for men to be anything better than f–kboys?

Many problems facing young women today are actually caused by feminism’s “success” in destroying the social order. If feminism is the cause of your problems, the solution is not more feminism.




 

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 02.11.15 RTD Edition

Posted on | February 11, 2015 | 14 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Thank God it wasn’t the flu; a head cold was bad enough.


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Rosie O’Donnell’s Meltdown
Louder With Crowder: The Second Amendment – Muskets Only?
Doug Powers: Earnest And Psaki Back Up Obama – Not Only Jews Shop at Kosher Stores!
Twitchy: “Translation – Who Will Carry My Water?” Eric Boehlert Bemoans Exit Of “Most Progressive” Media Voices
Monster Hunter Nation: Sad Puppies 3 Update


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: “Vacation Cutting” – More Than 500,000 Women And Girls At Risk of Female Genital Mutilation In The US
American Thinker: The “Social Justice To Prison” Pipeline
BLACKFIVE: Free Fire Zone – A Declaration Of War Against The Jihadists
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Some Danzig While I’m Sick
Conservatives4Palin: Gov. Palin – Serious Problem With The Media’s Herd Mentality
Don Surber: Thank You, Arkansas, For Senator Tom Cotton. GOOD.
Jammie Wearing Fools: Democrat Imbeciles Who Babble About Income Inequality Spotted At Grammys Red Carpet
Joe For America: “I Have A Message For The President…Frankly, Sir, You Ought To Close Your Mouth”
JustOneMinute: Let’s Make A Deal!
Pamela Geller: Obama Refused Jordan’s Plea For Spy Drones
Protein Wisdom: The Shredding of Gabriel Malor
Shot In The Dark: Money In Politics – Talk Dirty To The DFL
STUMP: Here Is God’s Plenty – The Canterbury Tales
The Gateway Pundit: French Artist’s Call For Peace Leads To Brutal Beating By Local Muslims
The Jawa Report: Another ISIS Soulless Ginger Captured By Peshmerga
The Lonely Conservative: Pentagon Spent Half A Million Bucks On Viagra
This Ain’t Hell: Purple Hearts For Fort Hood Victims
Weasel Zippers: NJ Snow-Shoveling Teens Get In Trouble With The Law for Not Having Government-Issued Permit
Megan McArdle: Military Pensions Are “Bloated” For A Reason
Mark Steyn: The Life Of Brian


Shop Amazon – Valentine’s Day Gifts

Category: Linkagery

OMG! @Rosie Goes ‘Lesbian Cougar’?

Posted on | February 10, 2015 | 64 Comments

Two days ago we reported “The Tragedy of Lesbian Divorce” — Rosie O’Donnell’s divorce from her second lesbian wife, leaving their daughter without the security of a traditional lesbian family. What we failed to add, however, is that this means Rosie’s now on the hunt for fresh meat:

Speaking at the Athena Film Festival in New York City on Saturday, that 52-year-old comedienne joked that she now feels like a ‘lesbian cougar’ when meeting young pretty fans.
‘I just came from the screening of my new documentary for HBO that I did about having a heart attack,’ she told the crowd.
‘We had the premiere tonight up at Barnard college… I felt like a lesbian cougar. All these gorgeous twentysomething girls! Looking up at me going “I just used to watch you with my Grandma after school,”
‘The documentary was about falling in love with my wife, and adopting a baby. The premiere was today and last night it was announced that we’re no longer living together. That press line was fun tonight!’

Read the whole thing. Of course, it’s not like Rosie needs to convert those Barnard College girls to lesbianism. It’s been decades since any Christian family felt safe sending their daughters to Barnard.

Or Smith. Or Wellesley. Or Bryn Mawr. Or Vassar. Or Mount Holyoke . . .

Elite academia is decadent and depraved. The higher the tuition, the more likely the students are twisted degenerates.

 

 

Category: Celebrities, Education, Gays

The Low-Hanging Fruit of Feminism

Posted on | February 9, 2015 | 98 Comments

Andrea Grimes (@andreagrimes) used to be a pro-life Christian, until she went to college: “Suddenly: I was the dirty, filthy slut. I was the horny bitch.” By 2009, she had apparently contracted human papillomavirus (HPV) which resulted in cervical dysplasia — “atypical squamous cells” — a potentially pre-cancerous condition that required $5,000 in treatment.

This biographical background about Andrea Grimes is prelude to this: Did you know Columbia University has something with the Orwellian name of “Office of Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct”? I did not know this until I read Cathy Young’s article at the Daily Beast describing Paul Nungesser’s nightmare as the Columbia student accused of raping feminist Emma Sulkowicz. The Daily Beast article spurred a lot of screeching from feminists last week, with Julie Zeilinger ranting about “a disheartening ignorance . . . gender stereotypes . . . idealized virginal purity and simplified fallacies.” 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.

It is possible (although not necessary) to speculate what actually transpired between Nungesser and Sulkowicz on the night of Aug. 27, 2012. Both parties agree that they had sex, but Sulkowicz claims Nungesser began “choking and hitting her and then penetrated her anally while she struggled and screamed in pain.” Nungesser says none of the choking, hitting or screaming occurred, and that everything was consensual, including the anal penetration. It was more than six months later, in spring 2013, that Sulkowicz went to the aforementioned Office of Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct, claiming Nungesser had raped her. In between, however, there were friendly communications between Nungesser and Sulkowicz — reproduced verbatim in Cathy Young’s article — that certainly seem sufficient as exculpatory evidence, considering that there is absolutely zero evidence to support Sulkowicz’s version of the story. Furthermore, it appears that Sulkowicz decided to accuse Nungesser of rape only after Sulkowicz talked to a girl who had been Nungesser’s girlfriend during their freshman year. After comparing notes, we might imagine, the two of them concluded that Nungesser was a selfish creep and (this being the Rape Culture Era) that they were victims of sexual assault. Nungesser was ultimately exonerated, which feminists say is an injustice, but to repeat: There was zero evidence against him.

And now it’s time to hear from Andrea Grimes:

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: But what if she’s lying?
That’s the gist of yet another take on yet another high-profile rape case, this time in the Daily Beast, whose writer Cathy Young trotted it out as the least counterintuitive of all possible premises when it comes to sexual violence. . . .

(Much ranting about victimhood and then . . .)

But there is patriarchy. A perfect, many-armed monster, which lives and thrives in this perfect universe of its own design. And it wields the perfect weapon: rape culture.
The longer we wait for the perfect case to try in the court of public opinion, the more opportunities this many-armed monster has to craft its ongoing attack on justice, to perpetuate a culture of shame and skepticism that silences those who would challenge it.
The monster is smart, and it knows where and when to hide and when to strike. Of course it does. The world is its playground, its lair, a welcoming cavern outfitted with comforting amenities like the phrase, But what if she’s lying. . . .
The monster moves with a kind of vicious grace, countering every attack with cool, collected reserve. Just, you know, asking honest, innocent questions: Why was she wearing that skirt? What was she doing out so late? . . . Why did they have so much to drink? Why did they keep dating? What’s up with those text messages?
Couldn’t it all just have been … a misunderstanding?

You can read the whole thing, if you care to see what kind of paranoid rationalizations feminists use when “the perfect case” they were attempting to “try in the court of public opinion” turns out to be no case at all. Rape is a serious crime, a felony, and given what we now know about the Nungesser case, he could not possibly be convicted of rape in a criminal court. If he cannot be proven guilty of a crime, how can Columbia University justify disciplinary punishment against Nungesser for “Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct” which he denies and which his accusers cannot prove?

Exactly what system would this “dirty, filthy slut” Andrea Grimes wish to substitute for the due-process protections guaranteed by our Constitution to those accused of crimes? Exactly how is any male supposed to protect himself against the possibility of what we shall henceforth call the Sulkowicz Scenario, the casual sex partner who retroactively decides that an unhappy hookup was rape? Let us stipulate, arguendo, that Nungesser is a Bad Boyfriend and not very thoughtful or considerate as a sex partner. This does not make him a criminal, and trying to brand such a person a rapist is an act of spiteful vengeance.

Alas, if it weren’t for spiteful vengeance, there would be no feminist movement, inventing scapegoats — the “perfect, many-armed monster” of patriarchy — to exempt foolish women from responsibility for their own bad decisions. In the feminist worldview, all women are victimized by all men, so that the only question is how to inflict on men the punishment they deserve, for the crime of being male.





 

Category: Crime, Education, Feminism

Where To Go With A @BWilliams Fairy Tale? The Crack Animators Of Taiwan!

Posted on | February 9, 2015 | 15 Comments

by Smitty

Made of pure righteousness. Come for the RPG kicks; stay for Tom Brokaw on oxygen:

via Zero Hedge

Category: humor
« go back — keep looking »