The Other McCain

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

To Expand on What Smitty Said

Posted on | January 18, 2012 | 50 Comments

Finding political symbolism in the latest headlines can be a silly game. It may be that the Costa Concordia should teach no lesson other than to remind us why the phrase “Italian navy” never struck terror in anyone’s heart.

Nevertheless, Vox Day ventured the opinion that feminism was somehow implicated in the disaster, an opinion which was linked by Instapundit, which inspired an eruption from Cassandra at Villainous Company. And then Smitty, a man who knows something about matters nautical, weighed in on the fray.

On the one hand, it’s difficult to say that Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, et al., are directly implicated in the cowardice of Capt. Francesco Schettino and his crew. There were cowards before there were feminists, obviously, so to cite such spectacular cowardice as the fruit of a particular ideology may be going too far.

Nevertheless, we can say that an emphasis on rights tends to encourage the neglect of duty, and we live in an age when considerations of duty seldom enter the public discourse. Without duty — where the is no sense of obligation, responsibility, honor, respect — selfishness natural prevails, and one manifestation of that selifshness is the feminist sensibility.

The famous feminist slogan, “the personal is political,” summarizes everything that is wrong with feminism as an ideology and a movement. What the slogan suggests is that the ordinary discontents of women — their unhappiness with romantic relationships or disappointments in their careers — should be elevated to the status of political causes, because . . .

Well, why?

Good luck getting a credible explanation for that, short of the advocacy of an all-powerful government that monitors every private transaction and treats every disagreement or injury as a potential tort. If every rude word in the workplace is a civil-rights violation, and every broken heart is grounds for a lawsuit, well, yes, in such a society ‘the personal is the political,” but it is difficult to say that such a regime actually contributes to women’s well-being or happiness. Yet this is the regime that prevails in a hyper-litigious culture when any recognition of the differences between men and women is prohibited as “discrimination.”

This is what we mean by the word “feminism,” a species of egalitarianism that is as mistaken and as damaging as any other egalitarian philosophy. This make-believe androgyny is armed with the force of law and protected by the intellectual prestige of academia, and seldom does anyone dare to question its philosophical foundations or its implicit premises.

A deference to feminism has taken hold that is almost never noticed: Anyone who writes about feminism except to praise it is presumed to be ill-motivated, and even most critics of feminism feel obligated to soften their crtiticisms by including disavowals of any intent to condone “discrimination.” But if we cannot discriminate between men and women — if we cannot say that male and female are distinct qualities involving differences significant enough to deserve recognition and accommodation — we are forced into maintaining the pretense of a phony “equality” that exists only in the minds of ideological fanatics.

And what no one can ever say is that feminism is an ideology of selfishness, which tells women that their ambitions, their desires and their grievances are more important than those of men. By embracing feminism, a woman becomes entitled (at least in  her own mind) to deferential favoritism, with an entire political/legal movement standing ready to unleash hell on any poor bastard who dares dispute her “right” to anything she covets.

Feminism = “What’s in it for me?”

This equation often manifests itself in outrageous claims of victimhood and absurd public festivals of indignation like “Slutwalk,” which began when a Toronto police official — noting that a serial rapist who was still at large seemed partial to women dressed a certain way —  suggested as a public safety measure that maybe women should avoid dressing that way. The fact that the officer was merely trying to help women protect themselves against a dangerous criminal was lost in the subsequent rage-fest, which inspired international emulation. A simple fact about crime (i.e., that people can take precautions to reduce their likelihood of becoming victims) had so offended feminist sensibilities that the protests were necessary to silence anyone who might ever again be tempted to state such a fact.

The appropriate answer to this ridiculous ideology is not a counter-ideology; we do not need a “man’s movement.” Rather the appropriate answer is to expose feminism as the dangerous folly it is, and to show courage in doing so. Too many men are afraid to denounce feminism directly and comprehensively, and the scent of fear only incites the feminists to more furious attacks. But let us acquit ourselves as men, and not abandon ship like Capt. Francesco Schettino.

Category: Feminism

Part Of Recovering Western Civilization Is Just Saying “No” To Feminist Tripe

Posted on | January 18, 2012 | 29 Comments

by Smitty

The Last Tradition links to Lowry in the NY Post contrasting the Titanic with Costa Concordia, but I think this analysis overplays the hand by a long shot:

I’m not trying to single out Italian men because the same crisis exists in the United States. We have almost two generation of males in this country that hasn’t be taught what a real man is or suppose to act like. Because of Feminist propaganda, traditional gender roles have been blurred to the point where it’s politically incorrect to acknowledge specific differences between men and woman. Put simply, manhood has to be taught to boys in order for them to become real men. And that’s not happening anymore.

I’m far more in agreement with Cassandra over at Villainous Company, emphasis original:

Wow. Just wow. Six dead and 29 missing in a tragic accident that (so far as I can see) is attributable to the cowardice, negligence, and poor example of the captain and crew – note carefully: to *some* men, not *all* men – and the reaction is, “Up yours, feminists/women – you got what you deserved”?
If a little boy is elbowed aside by an able bodied man and drowns as a result, has he “reaped what he sowed”? Alternate form of the implied argument is, “It’s not the man’s fault – those horrid feminists and their mind control rays made him do it!” Allow me to riff on the ubiquitous Heinlein quote:
Any society that allows morality to be defined down to the lowest common denominator will not long survive.

The morality of the crew members is between them and the Almighty. What is going to matter is that they have behaved unethically in abandoning their duties. The Admiralty Court, affectionately known as “the long green table” is one of the closer brushes you can have with the judgement seat of God while continuing to draw breath. They’ll build a timeline and rake those Italians over coals in slow motion, pointing out every single error of training, maintenance, and judgement. Or not; maybe the Italian court is as capsized as the Costa Concordia herself, but I doubt it. The amount of money involved in crewing, maintaining, and operating ships is such that they are Just. Not. Fannying. About.

In contrast to the radical feminists.

We enjoy tossing the entire Postmodern exercise in idiocy that is radical feminism under the bus around this blog, and then backing up over it several times, just to test the steering. Radical feminism is so risible that it really serves no use other than mockery. Trying to hang any sort of excuse on these bimbos is an act of auto-beclownment.

The traditional, mutually supportive roles of women and men are as simple as 2+2=4. Just because Andrea Dworkin and company came along and contended that arithmetic was an oppressive patriarchal regime, and that 2+2=5 is every bit as emotionally satisfying as the correct answer, does not an excuse make.

Man up: reject radical feminism, and every other attendant Postmodern falsehood, for such all have “Made in Hell” stamped on them. Aside: For an interesting character study on this topic, check out Lord Jim. I hated that the first time I read it, because I didn’t believe such a jackwagon could exist. Then I met one. A couple decades later, Barack Obama was elected.

Category: Feminism, Italy

LIVE AT FIVE – 01.17.12

Posted on | January 18, 2012 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Hope Dims As Search Continues Around Wrecked Cruise Ship

An underwater shot of the wrecked Costa Concordia

At least eleven dead, twenty-nine still missing as the search continues

Wikipedia Contributors Unhappy Over Site Blackout
Online encyclopedia goes black for 24 hours in protest of SOPA

Occupods Suspected In Smoke Bombing Of White House
Four arrested in anticlimactic “Occupy Congress” protest



POLITICS
Romney Catches Flak Over Tax Return

Governor Romney on the hustings

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

Obama’s Jobs Council Calls For Tax Reform, Domestic Drilling

Opponents Of Wisconsin Governor File One Million Signatures

Alaska Expands Aerial Shooting Of Bears

GOP Candidates Vie For Backing From S.C. Veterans

NY Legislature Gets Budget As Cuomo Turns On Public Sector Unions

Sarah Palin Urges S.C. To Vote For Gingrich



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Founder Jerry Yang Severs Ties With Yahoo
World Bank Slashes Global GDP Forecast, Outlook Grim
European Stocks Fall From Five-Month High
Fannie, Freddie Face Pay Cuts
Brent Crude Rises Above $112 On Weak Dollar
Japan Stocks Rise As Brokerages, Oil Companies Rise On Economy
Buffett Tax On Wealthy Backed By Millionaires – If They’re Exempt
Apple Said To Plan Textbook Push To Bolster iPad Use In Schools
RIMM Bulls Foiled Again; Samsung Says “Not Interested”
Microsoft Lays Out Windows 8 Tablet Requirements
Google Workers Caught Vandalizing Open Source Maps



SPORTS
Coach Caldwell Fired By Colts

Former Colts coach Jim Caldwell

Loss of Peyton Manning too much to overcome

Roseless Bulls Crush Suns

Heat Charges Past Spurs, 120-98

Oilers’ Hall Hurt During Warmups

Arkansas Falls To #2 Kentucky 86-63

Lincecum Offered Record $17 Million, Wants $21.5

Tigers Star Victor Martinez Injures Knee, Could Miss All Of 2012

Broad’s Double Strikes Dents Pakistan’s Progress; Holds Hosts To 138 For 2

Nationals Lannan And Morse Head For Arbitration



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Lohan, Fox Contending For Elizabeth Taylor Role

Megan Fox

Lohan’s probation status “a complication”, producer says

Some Like Her Hot

Anthony Bourdain Rips Paula Deen As Scam Artist

Beyonce Rep Says Star Interview “Completely Made Up”, Magazine Stands By Story

Taylor Armstrong’s Friends Want Her To Go To Rehab

Taylor Swift: The Single Life

George Lucas Is Ready To Roll The Credits

Betty White Celebrates 90th Birthday With Mary Tyler Moore, Other Pals



FOREIGNERS
Syrian Protesters Welcome Arab League Monitors
Israeli Defense Minister: We’re Nowhere Near Deciding To Attack Iran’s Nuke Program
Hungary PM Says Ready To Negotiate With EU
Russia: U.S. Deserves No Explanation On Syrian Arms
Pakistan Rejects U.S. Special Envoy’s Visit
Rick Perry Draws Rebuke From Turkish Government Over Debate Remarks
Researchers Praise Scott Expedition’s Scientific Legacy On Centenary Of Doomed Explorer’s Arrival At South Pole



BLOGS & STUFF
Susannah Breslin: How To Get Married
NRO Corner: Chris Matthews Accuses Newt Of Using Racial Dog Whistles
Althouse: On The Day 1 Million Recall Signatures Are Filed, Walker Does Interview With Rush Limbaugh
WSJ: #OWS Sapped Of Cash
Lonely Conservative: Taxpayers Foot The Bill For Occupods’ Port-A-Potties
Pat Dollard: #OccupyCongress Protester Arrested For Assaulting Cop
Legal Insurrection: McCain Oppo Research Book On Romney Found Online
Weasel Zippers: It Was GOP That Caused Demand For Food Stamps!
Big Government: Newt To Juan Williams – Capitalism Is Not Racist
Rich Lowry: “Dude, Where’s My Lifeboat?”
AmSpecBlog: The Last Word On Governor Asterisk


SOTD: The Marshall Plan

Category: Live at Five

Who the Hell Does Newt Think He Is?

Posted on | January 17, 2012 | 70 Comments

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C.
Monday night in the spin room after the Fox News debate in Myrtle Beach, I had the opportunity to score a brief interview with Rick Santorum’s campaign manager Mike Biundo, which included this exchange:

RSM: A lot of people in the media are trying to play this up as Mitt versus Newt. They’re kind of low-rating your chances here.
BIUNDO: Well, they’ve been doing that all along, haven’t they? And we’re 2-and-0 versus Newt Gingrich right now. You know, you see what happened in Texas this weekend, and conservatives are starting to rally behind Rick’s campaign.

The fact that Santorum beat Gingrich in New Hampshire has been woefully underreported. As the Boston Globe pointed out, it appeared late on primary night and into the next morning that Gingrich had won fourth place. But when the final votes were tallied, Santorum took fourth by a margin of 138 votes, with 23,312 votes to Gingrich’s 23,174.

Meanwhile, as Byron York reported Monday, it is still quite possible that the final official count in Iowa will show that Santorum defeated Mitt Romney there, and Santorum is planning for a long campaign:

“This nomination is not going to be decided in two or three states, it’s going to be decided over a long primary process,” he said. “We’re optimistic that we can pull out a win here and stop this narrative that [Romney’s nomination] is inevitable.”

With that background, then, it is shocking to see what Newt said today during a campaign stop in Florence, S.C. :

A reporter asked the former House speaker if the former Pennsylvania senator should drop out of the race. “Well I would be delighted if he decided to endorse me,” Gingrich said, but added it was Santorum and Perry’s decision to make.
“So I am respectful that Rick has every right to run as long as he feels that’s what he should do, but from the stand point of the conservative movement, consolidating into a Gingrich candidacy would in fact virtually guarantee a victory on Saturday,” Gingrich said in Florence Tuesday. “And I’d be delighted if either Perry or Santorum wanted to do that.”

What the hell kind of talk is that, coming from a guy who placed fourth in Iowa (13%) and fifth in New Hampshire (9%), especially in regard to Santorum, who fought Romney to a standstill in Iowa?

Yesterday, Santorum was endorsed by Penny Nance of Conservative Women for America. Today, Santorum was endorsed by Richard Viguerie, a legendary figure in the conservative movement, and also endorsed by the chairman of the Berkeley County (S.C.) Republican Party.

Newt’s suggestion that Santorum should be “consolidating into a Gingrich candidacy” is preposterous and insulting, and enough to make me want to post this attack ad from Romney’s “super PAC,” just for spite:

Category: Election 2012, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, South Carolina

Greetings from Charleston!

Posted on | January 17, 2012 | 9 Comments

CHARLESTON, S.C.
Thirteen-year-old Jefferson and I were rolling leisurely south from Myrtle Beach on U.S. 17 — past pines and palmettos and live oaks draped in Spanish moss — when a black SUV passed us and I did a double take. I’d gotten just a quick glimpse at the driver as he passed, but my peripheral vision is excellent, and so I sped up until I was even with the SUV and confirmed that it was . . .

Tony Katz of All-Patriot Media, who actually Tweeted this coincidental sighting along the campaign trail. And as we approached the Charleston suburb of Mt. Pleasant, I signaled to Tony to roll down his window and shouted — as we were running parallel at about 60 mph — that this was where the Santorum campaign had its South Carolina state campaign headquarters, which was my initial destination for the day. Tony nodded and rolled on.

A few miles down the road, just before we reached the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge into Charleston, we found Santorum HQ in a shopping center. As we pulled into the parking lot, we were greeted by two familiar faces: Rick Santorum’s two oldest sons, John and Daniel, carrying boxes out of the office. They explained that they were going to the post office to send out a mailing. So you see that the senator is not kidding when he talks about how his family helps with the campaign.

Jefferson and I walked inside the campaign office and saw press secretary Matt Benyon working in a corner, while other staffer were toiling away at their laptops — so much of campaign work nowadays is done by computer — and volunteers worked the phones. Jefferson helped himself to a Pepsi (the kid is drinking way too much soda on this trip), and I got a cup of coffee, and then I shot this brief video tour of the office:

We left the Santorum HQ and drove into Charleston, reached the Visitor Center, and I asked for directions to the nearest McDonald’s. We got back in the car and I missed the turn Spring Street, finally turning left at Huger Street, which took us over to Hagood Street — the rear entrance to the Citadel — and then we turned left and came down here for me to do a little blogging.

There will be another Republican presidential debate here Thursday (8 p.m., CNN) and meanwhile we’re going to be hanging out with Ali Akbar, who’s in town to help out with the Gingrich campaign. Of course, the Gingrichites are feeling pretty cocky these days, but I’d advise them to beware of outbursts like this:

Gingrich: ‘I Would Be Delighted’
With a Santorum Endorsement

This tendency toward hubris has struck Gingrich whenever he gets feeling confident. A couple of months ago, Jonah Goldberg dubbed this the “World Historical Newt” problem. Newt is 0-for-2 against Santorum so far and, while the latest Rasmussen poll shows Gingrich leading Santorum by five points in South Carolina, that’s not the kind of margin that entitles Newt to act as if he were already the pre-emptive victor. Some more headlines, via Memeorandum:

Mitt Romney to release tax returns,
estimates rate at about 15 percent
— Washington Post

TRANSCRIPT: Fox News Channel & Wall Street
Journal Debate in South Carolina
— Fox News

Rick Perry Camp Explains Suggestion
That Turkey Is Led By ‘Islamic Terrorists’
— ABC News

Perry: Santorum a ‘good Catholic’
— Politico

So now we’re in Charleston. More news later. Please hit the tip jar.

PREVIOUSLY:

Category: Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Shoe Leather Fund, South Carolina

Amanda Marcotte Has a Conniption Over the Rights of … Shemale Scouts?

Posted on | January 17, 2012 | 23 Comments

You can’t make up stuff as weird as this. In Colorado, a 7-year-old boy named Bobby who thinks he’s a girl wanted to joined the Girl Scouts and was initially rejected. But then the Girl Scout council changed its mind and declared, “If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.”

As might be expected, some people were upset by this decision. What parent wants to try to explain something this bizarre to their 7-year-old daughter? But the ordinary concerns of ordinary parents mean nothing to a fanatical ideologue like Amanda Marcotte, who uses the phrase “Christian right” three times in the course of a 571-word article depicting little Bobby the Trans-Girl Scout as the victim of a a dangerously radical religious/political menace.

The genuinely troubling thing about this is not merely that, to the liberal intelligentsia, transgendered 7-year-olds are entirely acceptable and praiseworth, a phenomenon about which no one dare raise a skeptical eyebrow, lest they be accused of “hate.” No, what is truly disturbing is the intelligentsia’s belief that there is something wrong with parents who think that Girl Scouts should be for, y’know, girls.

Attitudes that are altogether common and understandable — such as parents’ desire to provide their children a normal, wholesome childhood environment — are re-imagined by the liberal intelligentsia as hateful bigotry, which must be explained by reference to some sort of reactionary political impulse. And thus the majority of Americans are cast as hopelessly prejudiced, prone to manipulation by shadowy right-wingers, and therefore in need of enlightenment by their moral and intellectual superiors because … Progress!

Let any literate person endeavor to point out the nonsensical nature of stuff like this, of course, and you’re instantly classified as one of those shadowy right-wingers. The intelligentsia cannot stand to see anyone give articulation to the ordinary sentiments of those decent non-intellectual Americans who oppose such strange notions of Progress.

PREVIOUSLY:

Category: Feminism, Gays, Intellectuals

Are You Ready for Ameritopia?

Posted on | January 17, 2012 | 13 Comments

Mark Levin, author of Liberty and Tyranny, is back with a new book, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America, and it’s sure to be one another bestseller.

What Levin offers is a philosophical contrast between starkly different visions of government: The utopian view of “heaven on earth” schemes and the vision of ordered liberty that inspired the American Revolution. Levin provides what is in essence a graduate school seminar on political philosophy, examining four influential utopian works — Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto — and three authors who extoll the vision of limited government: John Locke, Charles Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville.

Levin shows how the utopian vision threatens the American tradition of law and liberty, a threat that leads toward what he calls “Post-Constitutional America.” Levin writes:

Utopianism is irrational in theory and practice, for it ignores or attempts to control the planned and unplanned complexity of the individual, his nature, and mankind generally. It ignores, rejects, or perverts the teachings  and knowledge that have come before  — that is, man’s historical, cultural, and social experience and development. . . .
Utopianism substitutes glorious predictions and unachievable promises for knowledge, science, and reason, while laying claim to them all. Yet there is nothing new in deception disguised as hope and nothing original in abstraction framed as progress.

My American Spectator colleague Jeffrey Lord has a lengthy review today of Ameritopia, and writes:

If you want to understand what’s really at work with the mentality that has produced everything from Obamacare to the EPA, campaign finance reform, Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, the controversy over Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital, the New Deal, the Great Society and Fannie Mae — to name a small handful of historical political programs and controversies — Ameritopia is the “must read” of 2012. And beyond.

Indeed, Levin’s book is both timely and timeless, a work of enduring value that is also directly relevant to the current crisis caused by Obama’s utopian worldview. I strongly recommend Ameritopia not only as a thoughtful treatise for adults interested in the philosophical basis of our political struggles, but also as an excellent primer for young people who wish to understand the dangerous ideas that define what we nowadays call the “liberal” or “progressive” movement.

Levin is a lawyer and former Reagan administration Justice Department official who founded the Landmark Legal Foundation. Those who know Levin chiefly as a caustic talk-radio host — “Shut up, you dummie!” — may be surprised at the depth and subtlety of his writing. Liberals cherish the flattering conceit that they have a monopoly on all things intellectual, but it would be amusing to see some of these allegedly clever young “Occupy” protesters attempt to read Ameritopia. It might teach them much, if only they could understand all those big words.

— Robert Stacy McCain

Category: Books, Mark Levin

Is Fox News the Problem?

Posted on | January 17, 2012 | 25 Comments

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.
After the debate last night, I talked to several people about the situation that we find ourselves in: Four days away from the crucial South Carolina primary and still we have three “not Romney” candidates — Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry — dividing up the conservative vote. Another 10 to 15 percent of the GOP primary vote here will probably go to Ron Paul, and thus it is altogether possible that Mitt Romney could win with less than 30 percent of the vote.

And so I ask: Is Fox News the problem?

This thought came to me this morning as I watched “Fox & Friends” and saw how, in the apparent interest of being “fair and balanced,” they distributed their attention between the various candidates. Knowing what an enormous influence the network has among conservative voters, is it possible that coverage by Fox News has played a major role in the way this campaign has developed?

Consider, for example, the case of Rick Perry. Traditionally, it has been said that there are “three tickets out of Iowa” — i.e., the top three finishers in the Iowa caucuses go on to contend for the nomination — and yet Perry, who placed a weak fifth in Iowa and didn’t even campaign in New Hampshire, is still running here in South Carolina despite the fact that polls show him likely to get less than 10 percent of the vote.

Would such a doomed and hopeless candidacy — the zombie shuffle of the undead Republican — be possible if it weren’t for the fact that the Perry campaign can count on Fox News covering them as if they were still a legitimate contender? And isn’t the availability of Fox News airtime a valuable resource that has been exploited by the GOP candidates, enabling them to keep campaigning even when the money starts drying up? And how has Fox News coverage more generally shaped public perception of the campaign? Have the prejudices of Fox News producers, reporters, analysts and anchors exercised a perceptible influence, a thumb on the scale as it were?

These are large and complex questions that I don’t have time to explore adequately this morning, because I’m supposed to be checking out of this motel and driving to Charleston today. But I wanted to throw it out there — discuss among yourselves — preparatory to linking my latest column for The American Spectator:

Mitt Romney came under the most intense fire he’s faced in a televised debate Monday night, hammered from the outset by his four remaining rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. And, according to one of his top advisers, Romney won.
“Governor Romney demonstrated tonight why he’s leading in South Carolina [and] why he’s leading nationally,” Eric Fehrnstrom said in the “spin room” where reporters gathered to get the post-debate perspective of candidates and their surrogates. “You heard him give strong answers about his business record, about Afghanistan and foreign policy, about his entitlement plan. And I think what these debates have turned into is a ‘get Mitt’ show, and anytime something like that happens and Mitt Romney comes out of it unscathed, then I think you can fairly conclude that he’s the winner.”
Whether Romney was “unscathed” in the debate here was, of course, disputed by the other campaigns. Rick Santorum’s campaign manager, Mike Biundo said his candidate “did really well.… He had a very pointed exchange with Governor Romney, showed that he certainly has debate skills and understands and has a command of the issues, and I think you’re going to need that in the fall.” . . .

Please read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Via Memeorandum, the headlines:

Attacks fly in Republican debate
— The Hill

Forceful Attack Against
Romney in G.O.P. Debate
— New York Times

Santorum Rattles Mitt Romney
— Buzz Feed

Category: Debates, Election 2012, Fox News, South Carolina
« 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