The Other McCain

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

Socializing, And Stuff Like That

Posted on | August 25, 2014 | 22 Comments

— by Wombat-socho


As previously mentioned, a couple of weeks ago, we’re doing a couple of get-togethers in the Northern Virginia area to celebrate the smiting of the Dread Pro Se Litigant Brett Kimberlin and whatever else needs celebrating while drinking the beverages of choice, eating sundry nibblements, and having actual face to face conversations. Crazy, right? Anyway, the first of these will be this Wednesday, the 27th of August, at Alexandria’s RockIt Grill, four blocks from the King Street Metro. There’s allegedly parking behind the bar off S. West Street, and of course parking on the street. Me, I’m taking the Metro unless I get a lift from someone. If you plan on being there, please drop me an e-mail so that I can ask for a large enough space for our party. Start time for the Pre-Smittypalooza Midweek Knees-Up & Happy Hour will be 5 PM though I don’t expect most folks to actually show up until 6, what with rush hour. Happy Hour runs from 3-7; wifi is available for those of you feeling antisocial.


A couple of weeks later, on Friday, September 12, to be specific, we’re going to do it again, this time in Herndon at Jimmy’s Old Town Tavern, far far away from any Metro stations. Free parking is available in the municipal lot across the street, Happy Hour is from 4 to 8, and I see no reason not to start at 4, especially if we want to avoid the DJ. They also advertise a Friday Fish Fry special if you like that sort of thing; it’s certainly the only one I’ve seen featuring pierogies and kielbasa. Should be interesting. Again, RSVP so I know how much space to stake out.


Category: smittypalooza

Sex Trouble: Feminism, Mental Illness and the Pathetic Daughters of Misfortune

Posted on | August 25, 2014 | 76 Comments

“The idea that acts of violence can be excused due to a victim’s dress, state of intoxication, location and sexual history is absolutely ridiculous and feeds into a cultural view of sexual assault as not a real crime.”
— Liz Sheridan, SlutWalk Chicago organizer, 2014

“Yesterday’s mental illness is today’s social policy.”
— Kathy Shaidle, “Feminism’s Rotting Corpse,” 2012

If you want to understand feminism, begin by studying abnormal psychology. Perhaps no fact about the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s and ’70s is more significant than this: Shulamith Firestone, a pioneering leader of so called “Second Wave” feminism who co-founded the radical feminist group Redstockings, was a paranoid schizophrenic who died alone at age 67, having spent decades on public assistance because of her mental illness.

Feminists can blame Firestone’s pathetic fate on the oppressive patriarchy if they wish, but sane people must suspect that the cause-and-effect are quite opposite. That is to say, while feminists believe that the patriarchy makes women crazy, the rest of us suspect that crazy women made the patriarchy — inventing this imaginary conspiracy of “male supremacy” as the phantom menace of their paranoid minds, a fantasy bogeyman, a rationalization of their own unhappiness and misfortunes.

Here is where the meaning of the famous feminist dictum “the personal is political” exposes the real truth of their ideology. Rather than looking at feminism as a political movement to redress legitimate grievances shared generally by all women, we must understand feminism as a personal movement, concerned with the specific grievances of a distinct minority of women. To oppose feminism is not to say that the personal suffering of these women — the aggrieved minority — is not real, but rather to say that their unfortunate experiences cannot be generalized to justify a revolutionary political agenda that aims to transform society. If we change society for the benefit of the angry few, we risk destroying a society whose benefits provide happiness to the many. Feminists see no problem there; when they talk about “equality,” they mean to equalize misery, too. And most feminists are profoundly miserable.

Women who are sane, normal and happy do not become feminists, because such women do not need feminism. Once you understand feminism as an expression of unhappy women’s psychological needs, the general insanity of feminist doctrine makes perfect sense. This phenomenon was evident in March 2014, when a controversy arose at the University of South Carolina Upstate (USCU) because the university’s Center for Women’s & Gender Studies hosted Leigh Hendrix’s one-woman show, “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less.”

Question: Do college girls actually need to be told how to be lesbians? If they are so inclined, do students at USCU (or anywhere else) lack the requisite knowledge to accomplish homosexual activity? Are they smart enough to go to college, yet too stupid to Google this stuff?

Whatever didactic purpose was served by Ms. Hendrix’s performance as part of a USCU symposium called “Bodies of Knowledge,” controversy flared after the event made national headlines:

The show is a one-hour performance that follows Butchy McDyke, a motivational speaker and expert lesbian, as she “deftly guides her captive audience in an exploration of self-discovery and first love, coming out, lesbian sex, queer politics, and a really important Reba McEntire song.”
Hendrix encourages her audience to shout “I’m a big ol’ dyke!” in a show that is “one part instructional seminar, one part personal story, and one part wacky performance art.”

The First Amendment protects Ms. Hendrix’s right to perform her show, but compelling the taxpayers of South Carolina to fund it? That is another matter altogether. South Carolina is one of the most conservative states in the country, and UCSU is in Spartanburg, in the most conservative part of the state. Your right to shout “I’m a big ol’ dyke!” does not include the right to get paid by taxpayers to shout it in a crowded theater full of college kids in Spartanburg, S.C.

Whose crazy idea was this event, anyway? The news reports about the symposium quoted Professor Lisa Johnson, the Director of the Center for Women’s & Gender Studies at USCU, and so I started researching Professor Johnson. I quickly discovered that she is — brace yourself, because I’m afraid this may shock you — a crazy lesbian.

Sex and the Borderline Professor

In 2010, Professor Johnson published a book about her struggles with borderline personality disorder — “a serious mental illness,” according to the National Institutes for Mental Health. In her book, Girl in Need of a Tourniquet: Memoir of a Borderline Personality, Professor Johnson describes herself as a “psycho girlfriend” with a history of dysfunctional relationships with both men and women. Her book describes “what amounts to a nervous breakdown as the result of an affair with a married lesbian colleague.” Professor Johnson in 2010 described herself as a “newlywed lesbian” whose partner was apparently her former student:

Stacey Haney was one of Professor Johnson’s most honored students at USCU, receiving one of four Campus Consciousness-Raising Awards for the 2006-2007 school year and also winning an Award for Scholarly Achievement in Women’s and Gender Studies for the 2007-08 school year. Professor Johnson selected the annual CWGS [Center for Women and Gender Studies] award winners in her role as the center’s director. Haney served as president of the student group Upstate Feminists, and in 2008 presented a paper at the Wofford College Conference on Gender entitled, “Butch is Back: The Marginalization of Butch Feminists Across the Feminist and Queer Communities.” Haney, who graduated from USCU in December 2008, subsequently served as a teaching assistant at CWGS . . .

Professor Merri Lisa Johnson.

Is there a law against mentally ill university professors marrying their former students? Not that I know of, not even in Spartanburg, S.C. But shouldn’t the taxpayers of South Carolina have some input on who is employed to teach their daughters? And if it appears that lesbian lunatics are running the Women’s Studies asylum, don’t lawmakers have a fiduciary responsibility to intervene? Evidently, South Carolina legislators thought so, and eliminated the budget for USCU’s Center for Women and Gender Studies in May 2014.

Gay activists may condemn South Carolina as a bastion of homophobia, but the controversy at USCU highlighted the correlation between feminism and mental illness just as much as it did the correlation between Women’s Studies programs and lesbianism. Are there sane heterosexual women teaching “gender theory” at our universities? It’s possible,but when you start checking the curricula vitae of Women’s Studies professors and reading the syllabi for their classes, you gather the impression that lesbianism is both the personal and political agenda of feminism as taught and practiced on campus in the 21st century.

We may avoid speculation about the connection between homosexuality and mental illness, except to note that homosexuality was considered a mental illness per se until 1973, when it was eliminated from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in a vote of the American Psychiatric Association that was controversial at the time. There are sane lesbians, according to the APA, but just because you’re gay doesn’t mean you aren’t also crazy, and if you spend some time examining Women’s Studies textbooks, it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that all the really crazy lesbians now have Ph.D.s.

Professor Sue Wilkinson and Professor Celia Kitzinger are so inseparable they share a Wikipedia entry. The British Guardian newspaper reported on this lesbian academic duo in March 2014:

Eleven years after they married, two university academics celebrated becoming legally wed on Thursday, as the law in England and Wales changed to recognise same-sex marriages performed overseas.
Celia Kitzinger, 57, and Sue Wilkinson, 60, who married in Canada in 2003, cracked open champagne and put on the wedding rings they had not worn in England since losing a high court battle for recognition eight years ago.
As the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act came into force at 12.01am, other couples were for the first time able to register their intention to marry under the act, by giving statutory notice; the first ceremonies will take place on 29 March.
Both Kitzinger, professor of conversation analysis, gender and sexuality at York University, and Wilkinson, professor of feminist and health studies at Loughborough University, said they had never believed legal recognition of their marriage would occur in in their lifetimes.
“At midnight we were just by ourselves at a secret romantic hideaway deep in the country, and we actually opened the window of our room and we heard the bells of the local church ringing midnight,” said Wilkinson. “And when the church clock went ‘bong’ we put on our rings and opened a bottle of champagne. It was just magical, special, lovely.”

Professor Kitzinger has been “out” as a lesbian since she was a teenager, and is an editor of the journal Feminism & Psychology. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that Kitzinger and Wilkinson have spent the past two decades attempting to reverse the previous psychological orthodoxy so that, among feminist scholars, it is now heterosexuality which is considered abnormal for women. This was the avowed purpose of Kitzinger and Wilkinson’s 1993 book, Heterosexuality: A Feminism & Psychology Reader:

The set of questions we asked [in seeking contributions to the book from feminist writers] was a deliberate reversal of those which psychology has traditionally addressed to the topic of lesbianism: “What is heterosexuality and why is it so common? Why is it so hard for heterosexuals to change their ‘sexual orientation’? What is the nature of heterosexual sex? How does heterosexual activity affect the whole of a woman’s life, her sense of herself, her relationships with other women, and her political engagements?”

Citing lesbian feminist Adrienne Rich, Kitzinger and Wilkinson complain that, in much early feminist literature, “heterosexuality is simply assumed as the natural, taken-for-granted way to be for most women, obscuring the overt and covert violence with which ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ is forced upon us, through . . . the socialization of women to feel that male sexual ‘drive’ amounts to a right, the idealization of heterosexual romance, rape, pornography, seizure of children from lesbian mothers in the courts, sexual harassment, enforced economic dependence of wives and the erasure of lesbian existence from history and culture.” This is quite a laundry list of grievances, and if some random woman on a street corner were to start jabbering this radical stuff in public, she’d probably be put on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. However, when these words are published in a book by a pair of tenured feminist professors, no one dare criticize their academic gibberish for fear of being condemned as a homophobe and a sexist, to boot.

Heterosexual Feminist? How Dare You!

In the introduction to their book, Kitzinger and Wilkinson describe their “entirely different experiences of heterosexuality”:

[Kitzinger] has always been lesbian, came out aged 16, has never had, or wanted to have, sex with men, and developed a feminist awareness through the experience of living as a lesbian under heteropatriarchy. [Wilkinson] was happily and exuberantly heterosexual, married for 15 years, becoming lesbian only relatively recently through the impact of feminism on her emotional and sexual experience.

Does feminism cause lesbianism, or vice-versa? The answer from Kitzinger and Wilkinson seems to be, “Both.” Their 1993 book may be seen in retrospect as the moment when the “Lavender Menace” — as Betty Friedan called her fear that radical lesbians would take over and discredit the feminist movement — ceased to apologize for its agenda. The lesbian takeover of feminism, especially within the academic enclaves of Women’s Studies, has now progressed so far that it probably never occurred to Professor Lisa Johnson that anyone would think it weird for her to marry one of her lesbian students. Nor, perhaps, did Professor Johnson think it was unusual to stage a university symposium featuring “Butchy McDyke, a motivational speaker and expert lesbian” inciting her audience to shout “I’m a big ol’ dyke!” This kind of craziness has become so commonplace within the feminist echo chamber that they don’t even recognize it’s crazy anymore, not even if the Republican-controlled legislature cuts off their funding.

This craziness is not recent, however, and has existed within feminism for decades. In 1993, when the lesbian academics Kitzinger and Wilkinson sent out letters seeking contributors to their book on heterosexuality, some of the responses were amusing:

Only when we started to compile a list of heterosexual feminists as potential recipients of our letter did we realize how rare such a public identification is. It would have been much easier to compile a list of self-identified lesbian feminists. “Heterosexual” is not a popular label, and many feminists express their concern about it. . . . A couple of women we had known for years in professional contexts, who had never given us any reason to suspect that they were anything other than heterosexual . . . wrote angrily in response to our letter, “How dare you assume I’m heterosexual?” and “Don’t you think you are making one hell of an assumption?”

If “heterosexual feminist” was already a rare identification in academia in the early 1990s, what does this tell us about the field of Women’s Studies today? If it’s practically an insult to assume a feminist is heterosexual — “How dare you?” — is it wrong to suspect that Women’s Studies is not so much a scholarly discipline as it is a means of maximizing academic employment opportunities for lesbians?

No one is surprised to learn that the woman who organized SlutWalk Chicago is a Gender Studies graduate of the University of Illinois-Chicago. Parading around in your panties to protest against “rape culture” may seem crazy to normal people, but normal people don’t major in Gender Studies. Normal people don’t want to “Smash Patriarchy” or “F–k the System,” either.

Straight, Pretty, and Abnormal

Perhaps no feminist is more famous than Gloria Steinem, the longtime editor of Ms. magazine. From the time she emerged as the telegenic face of the Women’s Liberation movement in the early 1970s, Steinem’s good looks made her the living refutation of the oft-heard claim that all feminists were fat, ugly, resentful man-haters.  Steinem was not only ostentatiously attractive, she was also heterosexual, which served to refute accusations that the feminist movement was dominated by lesbians. (Although, of course, it actually was.) Nevertheless, just because she was pretty and straight, it is a mistake to assume that Gloria Steinem was in any way a typical woman.

This point was made recently in a video rant by a British commentator whose online pseudonym is “Sargon of Akkad.” In the video, Sargon intersperses his own (frequently NSFW) comments with a television interview with Steinem. Sargon begins his YouTube rant by reading from the Wikipedia biography of Steinem:

Steinem was born in Toledo, Ohio, on March 25, 1934. Her mother, Ruth . . . was a Presbyterian of Scottish and German descent, and her father, Leo Steinem, was the son of Jewish immigrants from Germany and Poland. The Steinems lived and traveled about in the trailer from which Leo carried out his trade as a traveling antiques dealer.
When Steinem was three years old, her mother Ruth, then aged 34, had a “nervous breakdown” that left her an invalid, trapped in delusional fantasies that occasionally turned violent. She changed “from an energetic, fun-loving, book-loving” woman into “someone who was afraid to be alone, who could not hang on to reality long enough to hold a job, and who could rarely concentrate enough to read a book.” Ruth spent long periods in and out of sanatoriums for the mentally disabled. Steinem was ten years old when her parents finally separated in 1944. Her father went to California to find work, while she and her mother continued to live together in Toledo.
While her parents divorced as a result of her mother’s illness, it was not a result of chauvinism on the father’s part, and Steinem claims to have “understood and never blamed him for the breakup.” Nevertheless, the impact of these events had a formative effect on her personality: while her father, a traveling salesman, had never provided much financial stability to the family, his exit aggravated their situation. Steinem interpreted her mother’s inability to hold on to a job as evidence of general hostility towards working women. She also interpreted the general apathy of doctors towards her mother as emerging from a similar anti-woman animus. Years later, Steinem described her mother’s experiences as having been pivotal to her understanding of social injustices. These perspectives convinced Steinem that women lacked social and political equality.

This was hardly what anyone would call a “normal” childhood, then or now, nor was Steinem typical in any other way. Steinem graduated from elite Smith College (where undergraduate tuition for the 2014-15 school year is $44,450), never had children and didn’t marry until she was 66 years old. Sargon comments:

“This is where the confusion has come in, because Gloria is not your average woman. She was raised by an insane single mother. How could she possibly ever know what the average woman is thinking? She is clearly against the idea of the nuclear family. . . . This is exactly the problem with feminism: It goes against what women seem to actually want, and this is led by complete f–king head cases, who presume to speak for all women. She uses the term ‘women this,’ ‘women that,’ ‘women the other,’ as if she has spoken to all women and they had a vote — a unanimous vote for Gloria Steinem to speak for them.”

Here’s the video, which is good for lots of laughs:

 Progressive Parents, Lesbian Daughters

Growing up in seriously dysfunctional families seems to be a common denominator with radical feminists. It seems that if they don’t have “daddy issues,” they’ve got “mommy issues,” and the predictable attempt to blame all their “issues” on male oppression is often at odds with the available evidence. In the case of Professor Celia Kitzinger, for example, one can hardly claim that her radicalism is a reaction against her upbringing — her parents are both prominent (and predictably leftist) British intellectuals. Her father, Uwe Kitzinger, came to England as a child, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, and became an economics professor, eventually head of one of the colleges at Oxford University. Her mother, Sheila Kitzinger, whose own mother was a suffragette, has been called “the high-priestess of natural childbirth,” authoring a number of books on the subject, including the bestseller The Complete Book of Pregnancy and Childbirth. Two more progressive parents no child could ever have wished for and, in the book Heterosexuality she co-edited with her lesbian partner Wilkinson, Celia Kitzinger actually includes a chapter by her mother. Sheila Kitzinger writes:

I never planned to be heterosexual, of course. If I had known my three radical lesbian feminist daughters back then, I would probably never have made that decision. I was just. A child of patriarchy, I was shaped by it. I expected to love a man, and did. I married, made a home, had a family, established deep loyalties.
My husband Uwe and I have always shared fundamental values — values which may, just possibly, have had something to do with the fact that three of our five daughters are lesbian feminists, and that we both admire their strength and idealism. . . . [Sheila met her husband] at a meeting exploring the problems and challenges of building a better society. We were anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-discrimination of any kind. . . . We called for world government, full employment, international understanding, world peace.

Uwe and Sheila Kitzinger sound like a perfect parody of the type of progressives who are so open-minded they believe in everything simultaneously. That three of their daughters turned out to be radical lesbian feminists doesn’t seem particularly surprising. As a teenager in the 1970s, their daughter Celia was expelled from a prestigious girls’ school where one of her teachers became her lesbian lover. Celia told her own story in another book, Changing Our Minds: Lesbian Feminism and Psychology:

I grew up in a house full of political argument and discussion: questions of right and wrong, both in personal morality and in international politics, were fervently discussed. As children we were all encouraged to be independent and critical thinkers, to challenge taken-for-granted understandings, to question and to take stands where we believed we were in the right, “to speak truth to power.” Although our sex education began at an early age and included all the details about menstruation, intercourse, conception, pregnancy, and birth, I knew nothing about lesbianism. “It just didn’t occur to me that any of you would be lesbian,” Sheila told me years later.
So when, at the age of seventeen, I began my first sexual relationship with a woman, I was, despite my liberal upbringing, desperately confused and unhappy. . . .

This was circa 1974. Celia was plagued by “feelings of extreme isolation [that] led to a suicide attempt and subsequent hospitalization”:

Three months in a mental hospital, where I was diagnosed as ‘immature’ and ‘jealous of adult sexuality,’ contributed to my developing sense of psychology and psychiatry as dangerous and oppressive to lesbians.

So, naturally, she became a professor of psychology. Celia Kitzinger considers therapy harmful for women because women’s problems are not personal, in her view, but rather political.

Everything must ultimately be blamed on the patriarchy, of course. It is impossible for any feminist to to say otherwise. They have spent so many decades blaming every misfortune on the all-purpose scapegoat of male supremacy that one imagines the radical feminist who stubs her toe screaming in pain: “Damn the patriarchy!”

Feminism is not a political philosophy; it’s an ideé fixe, the obsession of deranged minds. Male supremacy is to feminists what windmills were to Don Quixote or what Jews were to Hitler. This has been true since the Women’s Liberation movement began, even before anyone realized that Shulamith Firestone was clinically insane. In her 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex, Firestone wrote this:

So that just as to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) seizure of control of human fertility — the new population biology as well as all the social institutions of child-bearing and child-rearing. And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality — Freud’s ‘polymorphous perversity’ — would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would born to both sexes equally, or independently of. either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally. The division of labour would be ended by the elimination of labour altogether (through cybernetics). The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.

 What would you call that 275-word paragraph? I call it lunatic gibberish. If you call it “political analysis,” you’re either a radical feminist or mentally ill — two ways of describing the same thing.




 

 

THE ‘SEX TROUBLE’ SERIES:

 

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

LIVE AT FIVE: 08.25.14

Posted on | August 25, 2014 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Hamas Director Of Finance Killed By Israeli Airstrike

Israel warmed Gaza residents to evacuate buildings used for Hamas operations

Muhammad al-Ghoul dies of poor social choices and air-to-ground missile strike (mostly the latter)
Vehicle explosion reveals bags of American money
Hamas promises to aim only at military targets if they get more precise weapons


Northern California Rocked By 6.0 Earthquake
172 injured; widespread damage, especially to wineries

Journalist Theo Curtis Released By Al-Nusra Jihadis
Held for two years by Syrian rebels



POLITICS
Senator McCain Gets More Support For Warhawk Stance On ISIS, But Will Obama Follow?

Stacy’s Crazy Cousin John and his sidekick Lindsey Graham

Criticizes administration for lack of strategy


Rand Paul Says Voters Will Reject “War Hawk” Hillary


Obama Orders Review Of Federal Role In Arming State, Local Police


Healthcare Fears Loom Large In Gay Marriage Cases

Unsealed Documents Show WI Prosecutors’ Broad Search Tactics Against Conservatives

Obama’s Vacation Ends, But Not The Criticism

Administration Sends WH Aides To Ferguson Funeral

MI Lt. Gov. Calley Beats Back Tea Party Challenge At State Convention

Harry Reid Apologizes For Remarks At Asian Business Group Event, Loses Endorsement Anyway



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crude Continues To Slide Amid Global Oversupply: WTI $93.65, Brent $102.13
Burger King In Talks To Buy Tim Hortons
Dollar Gains While Euro Stocks, Bonds Gain On Stimulus
Fee-Happy Hotels Charging Extra For Services
Invasive Insect Threatens Iconic Florida Citrus
Goldman Sachs Agrees To $1.2 Billion Settlement Of Mortgage Bond Claims
Sony’s PlayStation Network Back Online After Weekend Hack Attack
NSA, GCHQ Agents “Leak” Tor Bugs
Chicoms’ Own OS To Replace Windows, Android Expected To Hit Desktops In October
Facebook Has The Most Used App, But Google Dominates The Rest Of Top Ten List
If Destiny Is The Future Of Gaming, Is That Good Or Bad?



SPORTS
Puig’s Basepath Blunder Hands Mets First Triple Play Since 2010

David Wright gives Lucas Duda a fist bump after Duda’s second homer

Failure to learn from mistakes aborts badly needed rally as Dodgers get clobbered 11-3

Angels Salvage Final Game Of Series Against A’s

Phoenix Mercury Sweep LA Sparks Out Of Playoffs

Broncos Kicker Draws Four-Game Suspension For Beer

Reds Hang On To Beat Braves 5-3

Phillies Take Finale Against Cardinals, 7-1

Fish Flop Against Rockies In Rubber Game, 7-4

Wada Flirts With No-No As Cubs Edge O’s 2-1

Tribe Tops Astros 3-1

Nationals Rally Against Giants’ Bullpen, Deliver 14-6 Beatdown



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Actor & Director Richard Attenborough Dies, 90

Steven Spielberg and Lord Attenborough at the premiere of “Jurassic Park”

Appeared in “Brighton Rock”, “Jurassic Park”, and “The Great Escape”, among others; directed “Young Winston”, “Gandhi”, and “A Chorus Line”. Cause of death not yet announced


Rap Boss Suge Knight Shot Multiple Times As VMA Party Turns Violent

Matt Bomer To Guest On “American Horror Story: Freak Show”

Josh Charles Expecting First Child With Sophie Flack

Zooey Displaying Plenty Of PDA During Lunch Date With Producer

Backup Dancer For Nicki Minaj Bitten By Snake During VMA Rehearsal

Ian Somerhalder, Nikki Reed Move In Together After Three Months Of Dating



FOREIGNERS
Hundreds Dead As ISIS Takes Syrian Air Base
Could Foley’s Executioner Be British “Hiphop Jihadi”?
Hollande Asks PM To Form New Government
Egypt Denies Libya Intervention
Four Inmates Killed – Two Beheaded – In Brazil Prison Riot
Thai King Endorses Junta Leader Prayuth As PM
Stampede At Pre-Dawn Hindu Holy Procession Kills Ten
Macau Police Arrest Five Over Informal Democracy Poll
PM Abe Visits Hiroshima Slide Site



BLOGS & STUFF
American Power: Nikki Finke Goes Silent In Reported Legal Dispute With Penske Media
American Thinker: Airborne Transmission Of Ebola
BLACKFIVE: America’s Junior Varsity Leadership
Conservatives4Palin: Gov. Palin’s Innocuous, Non-Political Ice-Bucket Video Brings Out The Haters
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, August 22
Jammie Wearing Fools: Democrat Congressman Promises “Problem In The Streets” If He Doesn’t Get So-Called “Justice” In Ferguson
Joe For America: Milwaukee’s Sheriff Clarke Says Eric Holder Needs To Apologize To Cops
JustOneMinute: And Not Just The Usual Critics, Either
Protein Wisdom: Don’t You Dare “Parentify” Your Children, You Monster!
Shot In The Dark: The MNGOP’s Judicial Goat Rodeo
STUMP: Public Pensions Watch – California Goodies Reactions
The Gateway Pundit: Westboro Baptist Church Accepts Offer To Fly To Baghdad For Protest
The Jawa Report: Hamas Splodey Dopes Courtesy Of The Juice
The Lonely Conservative: Rick Perry Sure Is Making The Most Out Of That Mugshot
This Ain’t Hell: Limited War Woes
Weasel Zippers: Obama Delayed Foley Rescue Attempt For Over A Month
Megan McArdle: Don’t Let That Fancy New House Fool You


Category: Live at Five

Rule 5 Sunday: Peaches En Regalia

Posted on | August 24, 2014 | 11 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Welcome once again to Rule 5 Sunday, which is all about the appreciation of the female form as a break from the wretchedness of popular culture and the annoyances of politics. Bear in mind that some of the links below are to pics decidedly NSFW, and readers should exercise care as to where & when they click.

Randy’s Roundtable leads off this week with Kaley Cuoco Sweeting, followed by Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls with Guns. Animal Magnetism contributes Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, and First Street Journal takes things in a slightly different direction with American female soldiers Living The #Glamour Life. Also, Blackmailers Don’t Shoot chips in with a Rule 5 Linkfest featuring Jessica Alba!

EBL’s herd of heifers this week includes robots, Emma Watson, Queen Hillary, Sarah Jessica Parker,  Jessica Alba and Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Flashdance, French, Marie Larf, Lauren Hanley, and Padma Lakshmi.

Postaldog offers Shannon Elizabeth, Alyssa Arce, Lily Allen, Cora Deitz, Adrienne Palicki & Lucy Lawless, Selena Gomez, and Hilary Duff.

A View from the Beach returns from vacation with Adriana Karembeu, The Changing Room, Student Arrested Over Dinosaur Killing Fantasy (cavegirls!), Dutch Treat, Eat Mo Fish!, Just Don’t Scare the Birds!, Even More Excuses to Go Fishing, Stop Fracking for Russia’s Sake, and Snakes Do It, Why Not Katy Perry?.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Nicole Murphy, his Vintage Babe is Lili St. Cyr, Sex in Advertising is covered by Guess, and since we’re in the preseason, we have the obligatory 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury, it’s Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway and  Hayley Hasselhoff.

Thanks to everyone for their links! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat for next weekend’s Rule 5 Roundup is midnight on Saturday, August 30.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: What’cha Gonna Do?

Posted on | August 24, 2014 | 16 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

My Official #Ferguson Commentary

It’s Almost As Though They Have A Script Sitting In Wait, Or Something

Rule 5 Sunday: Dirty Denim

The Bloody Cost of Failure

LIVE AT FIVE: 08.22.14

Reality TV Mom Gets 10 Years in Prison

FMJRA 2.0: Call Me

Feminism as Rationalization

Kimberlin Trial: The ‘Yuck’ Factor

“Mokita”

When All Else Fails, Paul Ryan, Try Liberty

LIVE AT FIVE: 08.18.14

Arkansas Teacher, 57, Gets Probation After Lesbian Molestation of Girl, 16

American Journalist James Foley Beheaded by Islamic Terrorists

A Statement To Ponder

Celebrity Feminist Emma Watson Says Something Really Stupid on Twitter

LIVE AT FIVE: 08.19.14

A Lesbian Feminist Horror Movie

You Lost Me at Marx, Gail Dines

Go For The Fundraiser, Perry

LIVE AT FIVE: 08.20.14

Feminism Repeats Itself, the First Time as Tragedy, the Second Time as Farce

Ferguson Question For The Gungrabbers

LIVE AT FIVE: 08.21.14

Perverts and Predators and the Celebrities Who Advocate for Their Rights

The Madness of ‘Gender Theory’

Enlisting Alice Cooper To Respond To The Prospect Of Another Romney Candidacy

Shoot It. Shoot It In The Head.

Top linkers this week:

  1. Batshit Crazy News (25)
  2. That Mr. G Guy (20)
  3. Regular Right Guy (11)

Thanks to everyone for their linakgery! Submission deadline for the Labor Day Weekend FMJRA is noon on Saturday, August 30.


Shop Amazon – Soak Up Summer

Category: FMJRA Award

Don’t Even Bore Me, Webb

Posted on | August 24, 2014 | 11 Comments

by Smitty

Via Breitbart:

Democrat Jim Webb, the former Virginia Senator who has been coy about a potential 2016 presidential run…

Given the debacle that the VA GOP has become with the McDonnell trial, I’m about a third of the way toward forgiving Webb for switching parties in ’06, and the whole macaca-quiddick debacle.

However, the ObamaCare vote is an unpardonable collaboration with the enemy, of a magnitude comparable to Macho Grande. Fall off the planet, Webb.

Category: Democrats

Reading Feminist Theory …

Posted on | August 23, 2014 | 124 Comments

. . . so you don’t have to!

Shulamith Firestone, circa 1970

“Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor. We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men’s lives. . . . Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat of physical violence. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . .
“We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” July 7, 1969

There was a nice boost of tip-jar hitters last week, mostly in response to the complete triumph over Brett Kimberlin in the Maryland state lawsuit. Somewhere, there is online audio of the trial testimony, including me reading from “How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog.” Readers have also been both patient and generously encouraging with my “Sex Trouble” series about radical feminism. Putting together these long articles (some of them over 2,000 words in length) is time-consuming, because of the amount of research involved. Ultimately, I plan to compile and edit this series into an ebook, but for now, I’m getting so deep into the research that I’m sure I’ve already read more of this stuff than the average Women’s Studies major.

Today, I ordered $108 worth of feminist books from Amazon, including two early classics, Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics and Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex. I’d previously read extensive excerpts of these, but I want to have them both in their dead-tree entirety, simply because that’s how I work best. I’ve also ordered books by lesbian feminists Jill Johnston, Marilyn Frye, Sue Wilkinson and Dana Heller, as well as Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives by radical feminist psychologist Dee Graham.

That last title is important, in terms of the theme of my series, because Graham’s ideas about male “Sexual Terror” provided much of theory behind Radical Wind’s anti-heterosexual rant, “PIV is always rape, OK?” She expanded on Graham’s theory in August 2013:

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion — one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. All women’s “attraction” to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm syndrome. There is no other form of attraction to men possible than that. None.

This is a categorical claim; one must either agree or disagree. Radical Wind cites Dee Graham by name four times in this single post, elaborating on the esoteric meaning of Graham’s theory:

All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. We are forced to depend on men and male infrastructures for our survival.

Radical Wind says women “are programmed and groomed to react in this way to male threat since birth,” part of what she calls her “female child-grooming theory,” which leads (by the inherent logic of the crazy premises she establishes along the way) to the conclusion that women’s feeling of attraction and emotional bonds to men are actually symptomatic of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Now, there are two things immediately obvious from her claims:

  1. She is comparing the development of heterosexual orientation in women to the way in which pedophiles “groom” their child-victims. Does anyone believe this insulting comparison is accidental? No, of course not. She clearly means to suggest that male sexual interest in women is morally analogous to a pedophile’s interest in children, and that women are victimized by men in the same way that children are victimized by sex offenders.
  2. Any woman who does not reject heterosexuality, who thinks of her own sexual and romantic interest in males as natural and healthy, is suffering from a sort of psychiatric delusion. If a woman believes she genuinely enjoys sex with men, if she is “in love” with her male partner, this simply shows that she is a victim of PTSD — “trauma bonding” — and childhood “grooming.”

Radical Wind makes these arguments with such fanatical certainty that, as I say, we must either agree or disagree. Compromise is impossible.

There is an undeniably totalitarian quality to her ideological rigidity; she declares her doctrines in the manner of a dictator issuing an ultimatum. And if you disagree — as I think every sane person must —  you might say to yourself, “Well, that’s just one kook on the Internet.”

Except you’re wrong. She’s not alone in believing this. In 2011, a radical feminist known as CherryBlossomLife cited Dee Graham in asking, “Can Women Escape From Men?” The answer was no, and you can go check the comments to see whether any of her feminist readers disagreed with her radical analysis. She was enthusiastically praised:

“First of all,that’s an excelent post Cherry!. . “

“Thanks, Cherry, for summarizing this. . . .”

“Courageous post. Keep telling the truth! I really wish womyn understood that it’s in their best interest to leave men. . . .”

“Fantastic, measured, informative post – as always, Cherry. Thanks so much for taking the time to write this. . . .”

Are there feminists who disagree with this extreme anti-male doctrine? Where are they? Where are the harsh denunciations of radical feminism from “moderate” feminists? And if they don’t denounce such extremism, aren’t they tacitly endorsing it?

Moderate feminism is a myth. One might as well believe in unicorns or leprechauns as to believe in moderate feminism. What feminists believe today, what they will believe tomorrow and forever, is the same thing that Shulamith Firestone’s group Redstockings declared in 1969: “Women are an oppressed class. . . . We identify the agents of our oppression as men.” The minute a woman says that she does not believe this — if she rejects the claim that men (collectively) oppress women (collectively) under the system of male domination known as patriarchy — then she is not actually a feminist, no matter what she may call herself.

If there are, however, women who call themselves “feminist” who wish to argue against the anti-male/anti-heterosexual doctrines of radical feminism, how would they go about making such arguments? With facts? With logic? With empirical data? Impossible!

“We regard our personal experience, and our
feelings about that experience, as the basis
for an analysis of our common situation.”

If each woman’s own “personal experiences” and her “feelings about that experience” are the only possible basis for analysis, there can be no objectivity, no neutral facts, no empirical method.

If it is her experience that 2 + 2 = 5, if a woman feels that 2 + 2 = 5, then anyone who says 2 + 2 = 4 is obviously trying to enslave her to the oppressive mathematics of male supremacy.

Feminism tells women that if they feel oppressed, they are oppressed. If a woman doesn’t feel oppressed, feminism tells her she’s wrong.

Flip a coin: Heads, feminists win. Tails, you’re a victim of the patriarchy.

+ – + – + – + – +

At any rate, the folks at Amazon — greedy capitalist exploiters! — demanded that I pay actual money for those feminist books, refusing to accept my Patriarchal Express Platinum Card. Therefore, in order to continue my campaign of male supremacist oppression, I must remind you of the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!




 

 

THE ‘SEX TROUBLE’ SERIES:

 

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

The Silent Terror: Media Ignoring Islamic Radical’s Murder of Seattle Gay Men?

Posted on | August 23, 2014 | 66 Comments

Ali Muhammad Brown is a suspected Islamic terrorist accused of murdering three men in Seattle and a New Jersey teenager:

The man accused of killing a New Jersey teenager and three other men as retribution for U.S. military action in the Middle East could eventually be charged with terrorism offenses, according to a national security expert.
William C. Banks, Director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University, said that if the details of a confession by Ali Muhammad Brown described in court papers filed in Washington state Wednesday are accurate, he could face additional charges at either the state or federal level.
“If he’s got the motivation that he announced he has, which is to exact revenge for the U.S. killing of Muslims in that part of the world, he’s a terrorist,” Banks said. “It’s a matter of motivation.”
Brown, 29, has been in custody at the Essex County Jail in Newark since July 18 on charges related to the murder of Brendan Tevlin, a 19-year-old college student from Livingston who was shot eight times as he drove through West Orange on his way home June 25.
Authorities in Washington have also charged him with a trio of slayings, including the shooting deaths of two gay men in Seattle on June 1, and the death of another man whose body was found on a highway in an unincorporated area outside the city April 27.
Court documents detailing the charges in the April killing, made public on Wednesday, include statements from Brown indicating that he carried out the killings as “vengeance” for the loss of innocent lives killed as a result of American military operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other parts of the Islamic world.
“All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life,” he said, according to the documents.

Brown was investigated for terrorism a decade ago:

Brown was part of a ring of men in South Seattle that were arrested by FBI terrorism agents in 2004 and under suspicion of funding terror groups. The feds convicted Brown and some of the other men on bank fraud charges.
“The FBI was unable to actually make a terrorism conviction,” said David Gomez — the former head of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Seattle.
Agents couldn’t prove the money was being used to finance terrorist operations.
The group was led by Ruben Shumpert, who owned Crescent Cuts Barbershop, which the FBI raided in 2004.
He was the first in the ring to turn talk about fighting America into action.
Shumpert skipped out on this federal sentencing in 2006 and was later believe to have been killed fighting for the terrorist organization al-Shabab in Somalia. He was reportedly killed fighting US backed forces in Somalia.
Now, Brown is suspected of killing in the name of Jihad.

Authorities say two of Brown’s Seattle victims were homosexuals he met using a popular meet-up application for smartphones:

The bodies of two gay men, 27-year-old Ahmed Said and 23-year-old Dwone Anderson-Young were found in the early morning hours of [June 1] not far from Seattle’s Capitol Hill gayborhood. According to police, they were both executed by Brown no more than 17 minutes after they had picked him up via a social networking app near a popular gay bar in town.
Both victims were shot in the head and police say there was no evidence of a struggle, robbery, exchange of drugs or any other type of crime. Neither of the victims had a criminal history, leading police to believe the crime was motivated exclusively by hate. . . .
Though court documents don’t directly implicate Grindr as the app used by the victims in this case, a friend of Said’s is quoted telling police officers that Said was texting frequently on “an app like Grindr or Jack’d” before his murder.

When the Seattle murders were first reported, nobody seems to have realized that Brown had previously been investigated in connection with an Islamic terrorism conspiracy. If Brown’s crimes were “motivated exclusively by hate,” what kind of hate?

Noah Rothman at Hot Air suggests the national media is ignoring Brown’s murder spree precisely because it is Islamic terrorism. Certainly, if these killings had been committed by anyone who could be portrayed as “right-wing,” there would be wall-to-wall coverage on CNN and MSNBC, liberal blogs would be going crazy and President Obama would be welcoming the families of the victims at the White House. But that’s not happening, is it?

The Matthew Sheppard killing had something to teach us. There were many, many reports about that. It was the most infamous single American murder of that decade.
In this case, three gay men were murdered. Three.
Not even a blip on the national news radar screens.

You know what this reminds me of? The “Asian rape gang” phenomenon.

Schoolgirls in England, some as young as 12, were basically being “groomed,” seduced and pimped out by gangs of Islamic men. (In Britain, “Asian” is a term used to describe immigrants or the children of immigrants from Pakistan or wherever, most of whom are Muslim.) These stories made tabloid headlines, but the respectable “mainstream” media was hopelessly gagged by political correctness and the fear of being perceived as racist or “Islamophobic.” However, despite this self-imposed blackout by the respectable press, everyone in England knows what is really happening. The subhuman status assigned to women in Islamic cultures is certainly no secret, yet British feminists were suspiciously mute about the rape gangs.

There is a conspiracy of silence, you see, which includes both gay activists in America and feminists in England, to suppress the brutal truth about Islamic jihad and what it really means. Why is this? Because the gay-rights movement and the feminist movement are both part of the progressive Left, which aims to destroy Western civilization — and Islam is their ally in that regard.

 

Category: Crime, Islam, Media Bias, New Jersey, Terrorism, Washington State
« 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