The Other McCain

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

Louis Farrakhan Will Never …

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 8 Comments

. . . have a column at National Review:

“White folks don’t produce black children — except [if] it‘s a white woman with a black man or a black man with a white woman and that’s the end of your race. So you’re dying a natural death these days. And without an AK47 ’cause the brother ain’t shooting no blanks.”

I’d denounce him, but you know who denounces Farrakhan? Racists!

Category: Racism, Uncategorized

If The Strategy Was Always Propaganda, Why Is A Charging Instrument That Sounds Like The Squawk Of A Sexually Aroused Gas Mask A Surprise?

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 33 Comments

by Smitty

Allahpundit is confused, probably because he’s screwing up and attempting rational analysis of a Lefty ploy again:

I don’t understand Corey’s strategy in charging him with murder two. Maybe she thinks Zimmerman will plead to a lesser charge, but if it’s anything less than manslaughter she’s going to take tremendous heat for having gone too easy on him. That’s a weird predicament for a politically-minded prosecutor to put herself in. She’ll take some heat even if she gets him to cop to manslaughter, in fact, since manslaughter is a crime of simple negligence and people who want him prosecuted believe Zimmerman’s far more morally culpable than that. (This is all assuming he’d be willing to make a deal, which, given the weakness of the charging instrument, he probably isn’t.) In fact, I also don’t get why she insisted on filing an affidavit of probable cause instead of taking the case to a grand jury. If they refused to indict him, she could have blamed them for him getting off and claimed she’d given it her best effort. As it is, if Dershowitz is right, her own affidavit’s about to be tossed by a judge and then she’ll have to answer for why she couldn’t even get to first base on a conviction.

Allah, Allah, Allah. If the Left had facts, they’d pound the facts. If they had law, they’d pound the law. Having neither, they’re setting up to pound the courts.

Law is based upon reason, and a reasonable person sees through the farce at work, as the truly sad death of a little boy is molded, claylike, into something completely different. The judge is going to apply reason, and reject this, and the Left is going to cry foul. And there will be an appeal. And it will fail upward, rolling up to the SCOTUS, if possible.

The Left will blame the courts, and try to use this as a rallying point to whip up the troops about these ‘activist’ judges who are denying ‘justice’ to Trayvon. What a despicable, evil act that will be, if it unfolds that way. I’d like to be wrong, but the patter of the last three years is nothing if not consistent in its diabolical, omnidirectional attack on all we hold dear.

The interesting question, after all this, will be George Zimmerman’s take. He’s being crucified on the false cross of the Left’s quest for power. Does he break, and blame himself, or does he realize what a sick, Satanic scam the Left is running?

Admittedly obscure title reference:

Category: Progressivism, Racism

Warning: Brain-Bleach Shortage!

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 22 Comments

Inadvertantly caused by Ed Morrissey:

NOW President Terry O’Neill ignores the First Rule of Holes (stop digging!) and provides another cycle for Republicans to defend Ann Romney and stay-at-home moms. Instead of leaving bad enough alone, O’Neill appeared on Ed Schultz’ MSNBC show last night and attempted to rewrite Hilary Rosen’s faceplant . . .

“Holes . . . Hilary Rosen faceplant”?

You’re twisted and depraved, Ed. We will not soon forgive you for that mental image. Also, this video of The Other Ed:

If a woman’s choices were (a) Ed Schultz or (b) lesbianism, could anyone really blame her for choosing (b)?

Meanwhile, guess who is accusing the Catholic League of “hate” for “raising the wholly irrelevant issue of Hilary Rosen’s sexuality”?

You know who doesn’t think Hilary Rosen’s sexuality is wholly irrelevant? Hilary Rosen. Maggie’s Notebook chronicles Rosen’s radical “transformative” activism with her ex-partner, Elizabeth Birch. And Donald Douglas writes at American Power:

So let’s be honest here: Rosen’s homosexuality has everything to do with how she sees family, motherhood, and work. . . .
Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean you can’t talk about how their gayness radicalizes their politics.

No one is proposing to infringe on Hilary Rosen’s constitutional right to plant her face wherever she chooses, but . . . Wait a minute: Jay Carney personally knows three people named “Hilary Rosen”?

Read all about the White House “suicide pact” with CNN.

Category: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2012, Family, Gays

Lena Dunham, Sandra Fluke, Joy McCann

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 70 Comments

One of them’s got an HBO series called Girls and has been called “The Voice of Her Generation,” because . . . I dunno, because magazine editors need angles for feature stories. Anyway, 26-year-old Lena Dunham says (perhaps unintentionally) revealing things in interviews:

If you notice my mincey language, it’s just that I’m still shedding the fact that I went to Oberlin College and if you slightly mangled your women’s/gender studies pronouns, you’d be sent to some Guantanamo for liberal arts students. . . .
I know that sex is in itself a political act, and that can’t be denied.

Another young mind permanently warped by feminism, you see. Frank Bruni of the New York Times comments on her opus:

You watch these scenes and other examples of the zeitgeist-y, early-20s heroines of “Girls” engaging in, recoiling from, mulling and mourning sex, and you think: Gloria Steinem went to the barricades for this? Salaries may be better than in decades past and the cabinet and Congress less choked with testosterone. But in the bedroom? What’s happening there remains something of a muddle, if not something of a mess.

What is happening, of course, is the increasing failure of what anthropologists would call “pair-bonding,” which is in turn related to the waning of what economists would call “division of labor.” Complementarity — the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, and that these differences are essential to their cooperative partnership — has been rejected in favor of competition, under a legal/political/cultural regime based on a zero-sum game.

The entire Sandra Fluke controversy was played out in this context: Women go to law school. If women law students don’t have contraceptives, they can’t have sex without risking pregnancy, and motherhood would hinder their education and career advancement. Therefore, the university must be compelled to pay for women law students to get contraception, or else the women are being victimized by the Oppressive Hegmonic Patriarchy.

Veruca Salt, feminist: “I want the whole works and I want it now!”

Woe betide anyone who responds to this imperative demand by suggesting that maybe Georgetown Law students should keep their britches on, or who points out that students attending a school where tuition is $46,865 a year might be able to spare $9 a month for birth-control pills. Read more

Category: Culture, Feminism, Sex

No, Whoopi, Rosen Said Precisely What She Was To Say

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 25 Comments

by Smitty

Thanks, Whoopi. I’ve personally never failed to value my mother’s decades of commitment to the vocation of raising well-adjusted children:

On the other hand, rolling over for Hilary Rosen shows a lack of critical thinking. #OccupyResoluteDesk and his lackeys have reached the point where they are guilty until proven innocent, in my mind. That’s a suck-tacular result; we’re raised to offer the benefit of the doubt. That, too is a piece of American Exceptionalism that bears restoration.

Nice Deb rounded up yesterday’s study in ‘Fogress’, and Rush Limbaugh, unexpectedly, falls short of buying the White House story. Further love from a couple more great ladies, Just a Conservative Girl and The Lonely Conservative.

Update: linked by Da Tech Guy.

Category: Media Bias, Sex

GOOD NEWS!

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 20 Comments

The insanity defense works for smoking in an airport:

Denver Police say they’re not going to investigate a case involving a woman who stripped naked at Denver International Airport on Tuesday. . . .
The woman was reportedly upset and was taken to a local hospital for a mental evaluation.

Judging from available photos, the woman was a Reubensque natural blonde. More background on the case:

A female passenger at Denver International Airport caused a stir Tuesday morning when she stripped naked inside Concourse B, airport officials said.
The incident happened at about 8:45 a.m. when, according to DIA spokeswoman Jenny Schiavone, the woman was caught smoking a cigarette at gate B81, in a non-smoking area.
At some point after airport workers told her to extinguish the cigarette, the woman took off her clothing. It wasn’t immediately clear why. However, Denver Police say it was unrelated to the smoking issue.

So if you’re caught smoking in an airport, just take off all your clothes and plead insanity. We’ve all been under enormous psychological pressure lately. There are unconfirmed rumors that this unindentified passenger is a Republican who found herself unable to cope with the realization that Mitt Romney will be her party’s presidential nominee.

Post-Primary Traumatic Stress Disorder strikes again . . .

Category: Uncategorized

If An Academic Says It, That Makes It OK

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

Check out this picture of the World’s Youngest Blogger a year ago:

Via Breitbart:

Two medical ethicists connected to Oxford University are arguing in Oxford’s Journal of Medical Ethics that babies have no moral status, and can be killed because they are only “potential persons” rather than “actual persons.” They also argue that if a newborn is disabled, it can be killed.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said in their defense, “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.” When asked about the threats made against the article’s authors, he casually categorized them as “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

Here he is today, reacting to this wretchedness:

Lord have mercy.

Udpate: linked by Da Tech Guy. Go, Pete!

Category: Abortion

Maslow And The Conversation On Race

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 13 Comments

by Smitty

I’ve been busier than a fringe candidate trying to figure out how to stay in the Presidential race lately, and blogging has suffered. But that doesn’t mean I haven’t been reading blogs and thinking. There is a crucial point to be made if we cast the recent Derbyshire article, as well as less recent sackings like Jaun Williams into a Maslow context. I’d like to show that, once again, the Progressives are taking a Postmodern wrecking ball to the Enlightenment, and destroying rational debate. And I’ll conclude that racism is what you do, not what you feel.

Maslow
Physiology and safety form the base of the pyramid.

If someone is unwilling to admit even an occasional bit of uneasiness when outside of their comfort zone, irrespective of personal resemblence to a surrounding crowd of strangers, well: OK. It’s your story, tell it any way you like. Williams:

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

A Personal Note
My experience with a xenophobic physiological reaction came at a bar in Albany, Australia. In a bar, I turned to see a woman who was barely five feet tall, dark skinned and had a single, massive supraorbital ridge that hung over eyes befitting a wolf. I nearly jumped out of my skin. But this was just base instincts talking; once the reaction rolled up to Maslow’s esteem level, where respect for others comes in, I understood, and tried to master, my response. Probably some of it showed on my face. I’m sure that, given time (this was the only time I ever saw her) I would have discovered a typical person, with the usual five level Maslowian hierarchy of needs. But am I a
raaaaacist, according to the modern Lefty definition, as a result of this?

A Certain Carpenter Of Old
A couple millenia back, a certain peasant made an observation:

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matt 15:11

And I submit that this is precisely what we’re talking about here. Racism is not a physical reaction to a person whose heritage is at variance with one’s own. If that were the case, racism would be tantamount to temptation, which Jesus himself dealt with in Matthew 4. Look more closely at 8 and 9:

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Is this where our Ruling Class have strayed? Perhaps so. As I was mentioning a couple weeks back, viewing the population as a plane of Maslowian pyramids:

So that plane of pyramids, as the society reproduces, must be trained to halt their growth at the lowest, fleshy level.
The spiritual and intellectual levels must be attacked and leveled, so that humans can be reduced to child-like contentedness.

And when those sheep refuse to be content with their chocolate ration, they must be beaten down with any emotional tool at hand: fear, guilt, shame, envy.

Summary
This race card is indeed powerful, beacuse it bulldozes the intellectual and spiritual layers off of Maslow’s hierarchy. The Left cheerfully bemoans the need for a “conversation about race”, and, when any sort of response to Holder’s Nation of Cowards charge comes up, the speaker is beaten down.
Say what you want, for or against Derbyshire’s article. I haven’t given it more than a skim. However, if there was shred #1 of leadership, of any follow-through whatsoever from #OccupyResoluteDesk using his purported racial healing powers, BHO would’ve say words to the effect that “Well, Derbyshire’s opinion is what it is, and we will now leverage our American Exceptionalism to belie his statements.”
Yet here again, we see Barack doubling down on the side of wrong, tempting his followers to connect the dots between him and Trayvon Martin. This is nothing but an anti-intellectual appeal to emotion, and a shameful tearing at the Rule of Law in the process. Lord have mercy on you, Barack Obama, in such an exalted leadership position, and playing the thug.
And so, resist we much. For my part, I don’t imaging how the Left can continue to flog this dead horse of racism. They’re getting thrown back as badly on the Trayvon propaganda as they were on Sandra Fluke.
The internet is proving too strong for the necessary air brushing. Even though, as Bill Whittle points out, we’ve a couple of generations of dunces that have to burn through what I’ll call “Fogress”, the Commie Fog of Progress, we will get ‘er done, or rather famously die trying, I expect.
Lesson 1: anything these Lefty jackwagons tell you, e.g. “You’re a racist if you get creeped out by an unfamiliar, potentially unsafe situation” is just wrong. Lefties are not merely at variance with truth due to simple human error. Rather, it seems likely they are deliberately twisting facts, possibly because they are bent on reducing you to animal-like slavery.
Sounds a trifle heavy, but there it is.

For the Christian Readers
The Left deploys the race card in ways that are unabashedly Satanic; we’ve witnessed deliberate falsification of almost every aspect of the Trayvon Martin tragedy. But the pattern goes much further back. I am dumbfounded that anyone can claim Christianity and be on the Left. As far as I can tell, the Whore of Babylon mentioned in Revelation meets the criteria for Progressivism. Let her return to Hell, and take the race card with her.

Update: linked by Dyspepsia Generation

Category: Racism
« 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