The Other McCain

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

In The Mailbox, 10.06.14

Posted on | October 6, 2014 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Alabama and the Nationals lost and I overslept. Screw the news.


Doug Powers: Fanboy Of Scaremonger Al Gore Accuses Conservative Of Scaremongering About Ebola
Twitchy: Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings Celebrates Liberian Ebola Patient – “He’s Our Citizen Now”
American Power: Thomas Duncan Has Died – First US Ebola Patient, Lied About Exposure To Disease
American Thinker: Is The CDC Playing Immigration Politics With Ebola?
Conservatives4Palin: Democrats “War On Women” Falling Flat In Colorado Senate Race
Don Surber: Every Single Thing This President Has Tried Has Failed
Jammie Wearing Fools: Of Course – Obama Travels With Illegal Aliens On Way To Speech
Joe For America: Hey Barack, When You’ve Lost Leon Panetta…
JustOneMinute: Racist AND Sexist!
Pamela Geller: Hamas-CAIR Rally Against Islamic State Draws About Ten People
Protein Wisdom: “What Isn’t Government’s Job These Days?”
Shot In The Dark: #LetOurCelebritiesGo
STUMP: Public Pensions Watch – Don’t Get Your Hopes Up, Chicago
The Gateway Pundit: ISIS Takes Abu Ghraib – Jihadis Now Within Artillery Range Of Baghdad Airport
The Jawa Report: Libs Say We Can’t Protect Ourselves Against Ebola Because, You Know, Slavery
The Lonely Conservative: Why Did The White House Have The Koch Brothers Tax Information?
This Ain’t Hell: WW2 Vet Andrew Haines Gets His Viking Funeral
Weasel Zippers: More Spreading Disease – NJ Preschooler Dies From Enterovirus, 500 Children Across The Country Infected
Megan McArdle: Ten Recipes Even You Can’t Screw Up


Also, Monday Open Thread.


Shop Amazon Fashion – Men’s Clothing

Category: Blogging, Linkagery

Simone de Beauvoir, Pervert

Posted on | October 6, 2014 | 41 Comments

One of the things they don’t teach in Women’s Studies classes is that pioneering feminist author Simone de Beauvoir was a pervert who was fired from a teaching job for seducing teenage girls:

In 1943, Simone de Beauvoir was fired for behavior leading to the corruption of a minor.
Once again, the apologists of de Beauvoir might rush to say that the 1943 moment was a singular incident . . . But nothing could be further from the truth.
De Beauvoir’s sexual interest for children is a theme spreading throughout her life. She was amongst the first philosophers who tried to unite the genre that had begun in the 1930s (and that lasted until 1980s in Western Europe) of female pedagogical pedophilia. She attempted this unification with her essay “Brigitte Bardot and the Lolita Syndrome,” published for the first time in Esquire magazine in 1959 and then republished multiple times until the mid-1970s. . . .
The 1959 essay was just the beginning. In 1977, de Beauvoir, alongside most of the Marxist French intelligentsia, signed a petition demanding nothing more and nothing less than the legalization of pedophilia and the immediate release of three individuals who were due to serve long jail sentences for sexually exploiting several boys and girls aged 11 to 14. . . .
The 1977 petition triggered an entire discussion at the societal level in France about the laws concerning age of consent, a discussion in which the abolitionist camp (of which de Beauvoir and her lover were part of) united into Front de libération des Pédophiles (FLIP — the Pedophiles Liberation Front) and the intentions of the members of FLIP were explained quite clearly by themselves in the discussion broadcasted on the radio in April 1978 by Radio France Culture. . . .
All these make de Beauvoir not just a pedophile apologist but an active supporter. However, what makes her an abuser is her activity through which she was recruiting pupils, abusing them, and then passing them to Jean-Paul Sartre, sometimes separately, sometimes in an integrated ménage à trois. The Telegraph writes in a review of Carole Seymour-Jones’s book, Simone de Beauvoir? Meet Jean-Paul Sartre, a book meant to analyze de Beauvoir’s relationship with Sartre, the following:

For long periods, the couple became a “trio”, though the arrangement rarely worked out well for the third party: at least two of de Beauvoir’s former pupils found themselves becoming first her lover, then Sartre’s, only for the couple to close ranks against them once the fun wore off. . . .
For Seymour-Jones, de Beauvoir’s affairs with her students were not lesbian but paedophiliac in origin: she was “grooming” them for Sartre, a form of “child abuse”.

For de Beauvoir (as well as for Sartre), age didn’t matter as long as the partners were younger than her and Sartre. The possibility that others might get hurt or sexually exploited wasn’t even remotely on the eminent feminist’s radar, who thought that “grooming” girls in order for Sartre to take their virginity (Sartre’s words, not ours) was in and of itself an act of sexual empowerment for those girls.

 You can read the whole thing at A Voice for Men. It was written by a Romanian writer, Lucian Valsan, who remarks:

A while ago, a group of coffee-shop feminists were trying to convince me that feminism is not as bad as I say it is and that if I just read more about feminism, I would eventually understand. . . . Of course, those feminists were unable to fathom that someone had taken their ideology seriously enough to read its literature and then rationally end up utterly rejecting it. As with any other cult, such a thing is inconceivable for the true believers of the sect.

Indeed. I know exactly what he means. Readers may be interested in Carole Seymour-Jones’ book, A Dangerous Liaison, as well as Bianca Lamblin’s memoir, A Disgraceful Affair:

It is the story of Bianca Bienenfeld, a 17-year-old student who was seduced by her philosophy professor, de Beauvoir, and then passed on to de Beauvoir’s partner/lover Sartre. The three lived in a menage ‘a trois between 1939 and 1940, when the relationship ended and the teenager was abandoned.

Probably won’t find those books in your Women’s Studies syllabus.





 

 

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

Never Let a Crisis, Etc.

Posted on | October 6, 2014 | 15 Comments

Democrat shamelessness is highly contagious:

After [ABC “This Week”] host  George Stephanopoulos highlighted how “Nate Silver’s team at FiveThirtyEight gives the GOP a 59% of retaking the Senate” [former Obama administration official] Van Jones shamefully urged Democrats to use Ebola as a talking point in 2014:

We can’t let the Republicans get away with some of the stuff they’re doing this week, just trying to bash Obama. Hey, you know, government is always your enemy until you need a friend. This Ebola thing is the best argument you can make for the kind of government that we believe in.

Video and transcript at Newsbusters.

 

Category: ABC, Election, Media Bias

Jerry Seinfeld Accidentally Explains The Obama Administration

Posted on | October 6, 2014 | 11 Comments

by Smitty

Alternate title: “If only Barack Obama had delivered this for his Nobel Prize acceptance. . .” I shared the clip a second time with Mrs. Other Smitty this morning, and I realized that Seinfeld was really explaining how this country could possibly be duped by a no-talent rodeo clown. See if you agree:

Via Instapundit, we have “Obama hasn’t come up with one original idea yet“. Of course not. #OccupyResoluteDesk’s task was not to come up with original ideas; it was to talk about ideas as if they were original.

Past the snark, this is an important result. It invites the question: how can we teach people to pull their heads out of Happy Land long enough to approach politics in a semi-sober manner?

If we can’t, then there is probably no escaping Her Majesty, and further ventures into ineptocracy.

via Breitbart

Category: Barack Obama, humor

Rule 5 Sunday: The Consolations Of The Elbows

Posted on | October 5, 2014 | 12 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Normally on weekends when I’m away from the keyboard due to social obligations and/or work, I do the FMJRA first and leave the Rule 5 post for whenever I can get to it -on one particularly horrible occasion, Wednesday. After last night’s excruciating eighteen-inning playoff game between the Nationals and Giants, though (which my Nationals managed to lose) the last thing I want to do tonight after a satisfying day of watching people die bloodily on Game of Thrones is fight with Excel so I can return everyone’s linky-love from last week. Nope. I’m going with Rule 5.

#rolltide

As usual, avoid clicking on the following links when and where you shouldn’t.

Valley of the Shadow rattles the tip jar with the help of Mila Starfyre, Randy’s Roundtable returns with Michea Crawford, and Goodstuff offsets the depressing news from Bangkok with Kate Mara, among others. Ninety Miles from Tyranny checks in with Morning Mistress, Cameltoe, and Girls with Guns; at Animal Magnetism, it’s Rule Five Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon. Blackmailers Don’t Shoot chips in with Rule Five Monday with Anna Kendrick and Is Jennifer Lawrence Dating  A Washed-Up Rock Star? while First Street Journal has the theoretically unpleasant Basic Training and Ebola Rant.

EBL’s herd this week includes clueless State Department flack Marie Harf and Redskins cheerleaders.

At A View from the Beach, it’s Keeley Hazell, Eels Hitch a Ride Up the River (bet’cha wonder how this got here), Black Chick Covers White Chick, The Thrill is Gone . . ., “Dark Side of the Moon”,  In Keeping with the Nautical Theme, Now I’m Going to Watch Rugby, He Gets a Fancy Safety Suit . . ., and A Waste of Good Beer!

From Soylent Siberia, it’s your morning coffee creamer, and after that the links are all garbled. Sorry ’bout that.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Felicity Jones, his Vintage Babe is Susan Denberg, Sex in Advertising is covered by the Mile High Club, and of course there’s the obligatory 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury, it’s Timi Yuro and Karolina Tyminska.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next week’s Rule 5 Sunday is midnight on Saturday, October 11.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Think Progress Arm-Waving

Posted on | October 5, 2014 | 6 Comments

Arm-waving is a technique frequently used by the Left that needs to be called out more often. The technique involves hyping up a make-believe controversy when someone on the Right — a conservative journalist or Republican politician — says something that is arguably true and not necessarily offensive to anyone, yet is stated in a provocative or colorful way. The Left gets all excited and calls attention to the statement simply because of who said it.

You saw this in 2012 when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut,” in the context of criticizing her demand for free contraceptives. Never mind the actual issue, said the Left, Rush said a bad word and therefore — REPUBLICAN WAR ON WOMEN!

This kind of arm-waving — the jumping up-and-down agitation, the “look at this!” gesture — is the antithesis of argument. It is an appeal to emotional prejudice. What is actually being argued about, the pros-and-cons of the issue, disappear in a cloud of synthetic outrage. Let it be admitted that conservatives sometimes also do this; still, when the Left does it, the intention is not merely to obscure the argument, but to discredit and silence their conservative opposition.

Consider this Think Progress headline:

George Will Complains About Obama
‘Monitoring Sex On Campuses’

What is this? George Will wasn’t talking about Obama. He was talking about declining public confidence in government:

Teasing this segment, you [host Chris Wallace] said, can we have faith in government? I think we have much more to fear from excessive faith in government than from too little faith in government.
You asked, can we trust the government to do its job? What isn’t its job nowadays? I just made a list of it. It’s fine-tuning the curriculum of our students K through 12. It’s monitoring sex on campuses. It’s deciding how much ethanol we should put in our gas tanks. It has designed our light bulbs and it’s worried sick over the name of the Washington football team.
Now, this is a government that doesn’t know when to stop.

Well, is the government “monitoring sex on campuses”? Yes, says the Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women:

In Fiscal Year 2013, the Campus Program funded 28 projects, totaling over $7 million. Since 1999, OVW has funded approximately 388 projects, totaling more than $139 million, for grantees addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking on campuses.

In May, it was announced that federal investigators were “checking whether 55 colleges and universities illegally handled sexual violence and harassment complaints.” All of this was premised on a demonstrably bogus statistic, the claim that 1-in-5 college women were victims of sexual assault, a statistic produced by a survey that counted as “sexual assault” incidents that were not assault and were not even necessarily sexual. Actual reported cases of sexual assault have been declining for more than 15 years, and the government’s intervention appears to be mainly motivated by crackpot feminists who have ginned up a phony hysteria about a “rape epidemic” on campus that does not actually exist.

Anyone who looks at what actually is happening in terms of sex on campus will find that the problem is quite nearly the opposite of what the “rape epidemic” rhetoric suggests. That is to say, college administrators have set up star-chamber proceedings to deal with complaints about sexual activity — typically, drunken hookups — to treat them as disciplinary problems, rather than as crimes. Why? Because these incidents typically involve “he-said/she-said” disputes, where there is no real evidence of a crime, so that the police couldn’t possibly prosecute. Yet in these campus disciplinary tribunals, the accused male students are denied due process, so that they may be punished on the basis of a mere accusation. The reason that feminists are complaining about a “rape epidemic” on campus involves a number of cases in which these pseudo-judicial proceedings set up by college administrators have failed to “convict” the accused male on the mere say-so of his female accuser. It is commonly claimed that, by failing to expel a male so accused, administrators are allowing a “rapist” to roam free on campus, despite the fact that the “rapist” has been convicted of no crime.

Every attempt to discuss this issue in terms of facts and common sense is shouted down — “Shut Up, Because Rape” — by feminists. Yet if the question is whether the government is now monitoring sex on campus, the answer is clearly YES, THEY ARE.

Why, then, is Think Progress arm-waving about George Will mentioning that the government is doing this? Because George Will dismantled the “rape epidemic” nonsense and refused to be intimidated by Democrat Senators who criticized him.

“Oh, no! George Will is telling the truth! He must be stopped!”

They’re arguing so hard their arms might fall off.

 

Category: Media Bias

They Want to Kill Us All

Posted on | October 5, 2014 | 45 Comments

People need to understand what this means:

Islamic State militants have released a video depicting the murder of British aid convoy volunteer Alan Henning, three weeks after warning that he would be the next to die.
Henning is the fourth western hostage to have been killed by the group, following the filmed beheadings of US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and Scottish aid worker David Haines.
A further hostage, Hervé Gourdel, from Nice in France, was murdered by Jund al-Khalifa, a group with links to Isis, on 24 September.

Aid workers and journalists are non-combatants. When the Islamic “militants” (a euphemism that our decadent media prefer to “terrorists”) are publicly murdering Western non-combatants, what is the intended message? What do these killers intend to convey to us, in the West, as well as to their audience in the Islamic world?

It should be apparent that these Muslims, by their deliberate and premeditated killings of helpless civilians — including people who had come to provide humanitarian aid to Syrians suffering in the civil war there — are saying to their fellow Muslims:

“KILL THEM ALL! Death to all the Americans!
Death to all the British! Death to everyone
everywhere who does not join the worldwide
Islamic caliphate! Kill the women! Kill the children!
Spare no one! KILL THEM ALL!”

What the ISIS “militants” are doing, in other words, is exhibiting the attitude of murderous ruthlessness they consider necessary to their success, and which they wish other Muslims to emulate.

After 9/11, a lot of liberal hand-wringers kept asking, “Why do they hate us?” What have we done, liberals asked, that has inspired the kind of hatred that would cause people to hijack jetliners and crash them into skyscrapers? Implicit in such questions was the naïve idea that, if our policy was to blame for their hatred of us, then by changing our policy — choosing a policy of peace — we could end their hate. This was the meaning of the question, “Why do they hate us?”

BECAUSE THEY HATE, answered Brigitte Gabriel in her 2006 book.

This is not about us, this is about them — the people who hate us, the people who want to kill us all. It is a narcissistic delusion for liberals to believe that somehow we have caused Muslims to hate us when, in point of fact, the Koran and other Islamic scriptures command them to hate us. The texts that Muslims consider sacred order them to kill us all, and promise the greatest blessings for those martyred Muslim warriors who die while pursuing Mohammed’s murderous commandments.

We cannot negotiate with this hate. We cannot compromise with this hate. No policy of ours will permit us to co-exist in peace with this hate. We cannot choose peace when Islam chooses war, and we cannot hope that “tactical air strikes” will suffice to defeat their deadly hatred. The only option left to us is to give them war without limits, war without mercy, a determined, relentless and unceasing war that will not be satisfied with anything less than complete victory over these murdering Muslim monsters who want to kill us all.

 

Category: Iraq, Islam, Syria, Terrorism

Don’t Do It, Ben Affleck!

Posted on | October 5, 2014 | 27 Comments

Don’t make me take sides with Bill Maher!

Bill Maher and author and neuroscientist Sam Harris battled actor/director Ben Affleck on Real Time on Friday concerning Maher’s recent remarks criticizing Islam.
“Why are you so hostile about this?” Maher asked Affleck.
“It’s gross, it’s racist,” Affleck replied.
“It’s so not,” Maher insisted, though Affleck compared it to using the term, “Shifty Jew.”
“You’re not listening to what we are saying,” Maher insisted.
“You guys are saying, if you want to be liberal, believe in liberal principles,” Affleck said, referencing Maher’s monologue last week. “Like, we are endowed by our forefathers with inalienable rights, all men are created equal.”
Harris, who had complained about criticism of the Muslim religion being dismissed as Islamophobic, countered that liberals should be allowed to criticize bad ideas.
“Islam is the motherload of bad ideas,” Harris argued.
“Jesus,” Affleck said in frustration.
“That’s just a fact,” Maher said, backing Harris up. . . .
“It’s the only religion that acts like the mafia,” Maher said. “They will f*cking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”

Bill Maher is one of the worst human beings on the planet. He is vile, despicable, loathsome. But is Ben Affleck worse?

What’s going on here, I think, is a generation gap between liberals. Affleck (42) is younger than Maher (58), and that totally explains the difference in their worldviews. Affleck is one of these young fools who, with no useful memory of Cold War history, has no real concept of what an existential threat to civilization really means. Maher, wretched amoral swine though he is, at least is old enough to look back at the 1970s and ’80s and say, “Thank God for the Gipper.”

 

Category: Bill Maher, Islam
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin