The Other McCain

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

The Roe v. Wade Inversion

Posted on | January 25, 2013 | 13 Comments

by Smitty

The idea of ‘reproductive rights’ is as bad an inversion as ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’. What, exactly, is ‘reproductive’ about murder? This is probably the most un-intentionally diabolical 1:40 worth of video ever cut:

The body language here is that the sexual means is its own end. All that matters is the sensual pleasure, we are told.

And yet, this is supposed to be about ‘reproductive rights’. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever going on here, past a passionate night. So it belies the notion of being about ‘reproductive rights’ straight away. Reproductive rights should include some notion of responsibilities beyond a protein donation.

Lord, have mercy on the fellow in this video, and lay a healthy load of wisdom on his head, so that he can grasp the total foulness of this video, repent of his folly, and set about repairing the societal damage to which he’s contributed.

Update: whoops! This was via ktcat, with more at Beers with Demo.

Update II: Great follow-up with Jackie Wellfonder.

Category: Abortion

This Blog Votes We Accept @DarleenClick’s Apology

Posted on | January 24, 2013 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Darleen blogs at Protein Wisdom, by the way.

Category: Uncategorized

New Federal Charges Filed Against Anonymous Spokesman Barrett Brown

Posted on | January 24, 2013 | 11 Comments

September 2012: Barrett Brown threatens an FBI agent in video

For the third time in four months, a federal grand jury in Texas has returned indictments against Barrett Brown, the former spokesman for the hacking group Anonymous. Brown was arrested in September after a video rant in which he threatened to “destroy” an FBI agent.

Brown was indicted in October on charges stemming from those threats and indicted again in December on multiple charges related to the “LulzSec” hacking of Stratfor. Now, the grand jury has returned an indictment on two obstruction of justice charges, accusing Brown of concealing evidence in a March 6 raid (at the same time that the feds arrested several members of the “LulzSec” hacking group).

In an interview with Wired magazine, Brown’s former attorney Jay Leiderman portrayed the latest indictments in a conspiratorial light:

“Clearly they’re more worried about what they perceive as his egging people on to go after defense contractors and secret spy organizations. . . . Barrett believes in privacy for individuals and transparency for corporations and government. The government doesn’t like his belief system. And Barrett was effective in expressing that belief system.”

Leiderman compared Brown to Aaron Swarz, the Reddit co-founder who committed suicide after being prosecuted for hacking an MIT database:

“I would have thought in the wake of Aaron Swartz that the government might have learned something and might have thought twice about bringing the weight of the entire [United States] down upon someone when it wasn’t warranted,” says Leiderman.

The Dallas Observer reports:

Brown is due in court again next Wednesday, in the case related to his alleged FBI agent-threatening. At that time, U.S. District Judge Sam Linday will rule on a prison psychologist’s recommendation that Brown be founded mentally competent to stand trial.

The video rant that led to Barrett Brown’s September arrest:

PREVIOUSLY:

 

Category: Barrett Brown

Gregory Kane Opines That Colin Powell Could Be A Latent Democrat

Posted on | January 24, 2013 | 19 Comments

by Smitty

I still recall with fondness then-JCS Chairman General Powell around 20 years ago speaking to us in a college setting. At the time, his sheer command presence had me thinking that he could well be our first black POTUS. And now he’s reduce to taking pot shots at women who are not (at the moment) even in any political spotlight:

There are two Republican Latino governors, and Republican governors in Louisiana and South Carolina whose parents came from India. This is the party that Powell claims “still looks down on the minority.”
To “prove” his assertion that Republicans are a bunch of intolerant rednecks, Powell dredged up exactly two examples.
When President Obama was trying to hoodwink the American public into believing that the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was something other than what it was, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said, “President Obama’s shuck and jive shtick with these Benghazi lies must end.”
Powell objected to Palin’s use of the term “shuck and jive.” “That’s a racial-era slave term,” he said. Now if I really wanted to be testy about this, I could ask Powell, “And your point would be what, exactly?” But I’ll just use this rejoinder instead: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who was New York state attorney general in 2008, used precisely the same term, about the same guy.
Referring to then-presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, Cuomo said, “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference.”
So you see, Gen. Powell, there is bipartisan recognition of Obama’s “shucking and jiving.”

Read the whole thing. Great punch line.

Powell himself is kind of old news, but Gregory Kane is a great columnist, and well worth your attention.

Category: Uncategorized

Living Inside Your Head, Rent-Free

Posted on | January 24, 2013 | 16 Comments

Patterico has been cyberstalked since June 2011 by Neal Rauhauser, and Rauhauser’s use of psy-ops tactics (including “accuse the accusers” and “conflict cupid”) has the effect of casting a shadow of suspicion around his targets, creating confusion that prevents law enforcement from identifying Rauhauser as the source of malicious actions.

Go read Mike Stack’s account of Rauhauser’s interactions with New Jersey police. Stack, the first target of SWATting in the WeinerGate saga (with which Neal became obsessed), filed a harassment complaint against Rauhauser. Stack says Neal then contacted New Jersey police, seeking to convince them that somehow Stack was at fault. By sowing hostility between the cops and Stack (“conflict cupid”), Rauhauser avoided serious criminal sanctions for his harassing behavior.

Patterico sees Rauhauser as part of Brett Kimberlin’s operation:

What if you could recruit a whole team of cyberstalkers — all to aid you in a purely personal dispute?

It’s worth reading. The overlap between Kimberlin and Rauhauser remains a subject of much mystery. If Neal and others are actually being paid to cyberstalk Brett’s enemies, this would explain a lot. The other (and more likely) explanation is that they’re all just bat-shit crazy.

Politically motivated stalking is never actually politically motivated. It’s about the personality defects of the stalkers. It’s perhaps most useful to compare Neal Rauhauser to John Tiessen — these are psychologically damaged people whose interest in politics is about the Moment of Glory fantasy: By destroying the hated political enemy, they will vindicate themselves as Winners and (they imagine) be celebrated by their allies.

Is Neal Rauhauser part of Brett Kimberlin’s army of hired stalkers? Or is Neal just an obsessed loser chasing the Moment of Glory fantasy? Obviously, this is not an entirely moot question for Patterico or others they have tried to destroy, but we must be pretty doggone important — Winners! — if we’re living rent-free inside their heads.

P.S.: I’d like to tell you this is all a Koch-funded conspiracy, but unfortunately the check hasn’t shown up yet, so please hit the freaking tip jar!

 


Category: Uncategorized

Death by Criticism

Posted on | January 24, 2013 | 9 Comments

Bernard Loiseau was one of the world’s most famous French chefs:

Ten years ago, Loiseau was France’s most feted chef. The charismatic cook’s beaming face smiled from billboards, TV shows and recipe books. His restaurant, Le Relais Bernard Loiseau in Saulieu, Burgundy was a favourite with the late president François Mitterrand.
Robert de Niro would drop in by helicopter for his signature dish of frog’s legs with garlic purée and parsley sauce.
But on February 24, 2003, the chef finished his lunchtime service, rolled up his apron and drove home. Telling his ten-year old son — one of three children — to go and play outside, he went upstairs, locked the bedroom door and shot himself in the head with a hunting rifle, a present from his wife.

What happened? Loiseau had been privately warned by the editor of the Michelin travel guides that his restaurant was in danger of being demoted from the coveted three-star ranking. Michelin denied it at the time of Loiseau’s suicide, and tried to fix the blame on other critics, but a just-discovered note confirmed the truth.

The night manager at Waffle House doesn’t have any self-esteem issues, but the great French chef couldn’t stand to be a mere two-star chef.

(Hat tip: T.R. Sterling.)

Category: France

Complete Decadence

Posted on | January 24, 2013 | 58 Comments

“You can kill half of your young men and repopulate your country in relatively short order. . . . But when you kill your young women . . . your country has no future.”
— Roxeanne de Luca, “Really, Leon Panetta? You want Sandra Fluke in combat?”

Have Americans become so decadent that they have lost all instinct for their preservation as a people? Well, 55 million abortions in the past 40 years would certainly seem to indicate this. And remember that a key issue in 2012 was Sandra Fluke’s “right” to free contraception, because it’s such a horrible thing when sex results in pregnancy. So this shouldn’t really surprise anyone:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military’s official ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said Wednesday.

Oh, did you hear about the 11-year-old transgender who “transitioned” in kindergarten? This is the future America voted for: No future at all.

 

Category: Culture, Military

Jimmy Buffett: Feminist Hero?

Posted on | January 24, 2013 | 7 Comments

I really do appreciate the fact you’re sitting here.
Your voice sounds so wonderful,
But you face don’t look too clear.
So bar maid bring a pitcher, another round of brew.
Honey, why don’t we get drunk and screw?

Is this what they’re teaching in Women’s Studies classes nowadays? Evidently so, according to one young British feminist:

The idea that my generation are unhappy and sexually unfulfilled because, thanks to the dwindling of traditional gender roles, we’ve been able to have sex on our own terms, makes absolutely no sense to me. Especially as in Britain, we never really had a dating culture to begin with. Americans are complaining because “dinner and a movie” has been replaced with “hanging out”, when on this side of the Atlantic people have been flinging themselves at one another outside the pub following last orders since time immemorial, and it’s worked fine. Likewise, while the Americans see the classic “are u out?” fishing text as evidence of shallow promiscuity, we see it as a convenient way of minimising social embarrassment by ensuring both parties are too drunk to attempt a conversation capable of, let’s face it, shattering the illusion whose maintenance is so essential for successful coitus.

OK, so if getting “too drunk to attempt a conversation . . . is so essential for successful coitus,” how is this a triumph for women? Is this what being “able to have sex on our own terms” means?

Or does it mean, you’re getting played?

Making the bar/club/party scene your native habitat makes you a potential prey for the practicioners of “game.” And if he’s good at it, you won’t realize you’ve been played until it’s too late. Ladies, if want to know what the players really think of you, you should read their blogs:

What is a bar? It’s a social venue where women can receive attention from men at predictably constant rates. Every approach performed will increase her worth. Every hot stud who lays pipe inside her via a one-night stand will reinforce in her mind that she deserves Mr. Perfect. These men feed her ego like an IV bag nourishes a surgery patient.
The effect of all this is cumulative so that a 30 year old woman who is well past her prime will put out attitude multiple times higher than a hot 18 year old who just started going to clubs. Since the older woman simply can’t forget all those men who have approached her and wanted to take her home, she won’t receive your approach unless you’re nearly the best of what has attempted to f–k her in the past, even though the number of guys willing to wife her up has decreased exponentially. Nightlife venues give average women near unlimited choice and attention, causing a sharp degradation in her attitude, warmth, and even her appearance. . . .

Sure, go read the whole thing. It’s foul, cynical and offensive, but it’s a real first-person expression of the worldview of the player, provided by a guy who quite literally wrote the book on “game.”

The idea that “hook-up” culture results in women being “able to have sex on our own terms,” as Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett claims, is an assertion unsupported by evidence — which is true of nearly everything feminists believe, but especially true in this case.

Tyler O’Neil at Counter-Cultured has some polite advice on this topic. But if you ladies don’t want to listen, here’s your theme song:

 

Category: Feminism, Sex
« 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