ACORN Returns as ‘Occupy’

Posted on Comments

When the radical group ACORN was shut down, Jeff Quinton at Quinton Reports reminds us, the state and local chapters of ACORN reconstituted themselves as new non-profits. And guess what they’ve been up to lately?

In more than two dozen cities across the nation Tuesday, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement took on the housing crisis by re-occupying foreclosed homes, disrupting bank auctions and blocking evictions.
Occupy Our Homes said it’s embarking on a “national day of action” to protest the mistreatment of homeowners by big banks, who they say made billions of dollars off of the housing bubble by offering predatory loans and indulging in practices that took advantage of consumers.

One of the groups identified in that story — “Neighborhoods Organizing for Change” — is a spin-off of ACORN, and investigative reporter Matthew Vadum notes that the Working Families Party, an ACORN political front group, was involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement “from Day One.”

The tactic of “occupying” foreclosed homes was a high-profile tactic of ACORN in 2009, Quinton notes.

UPDATE: And in other “Occupy” news:

Anti-Wall Street activists
look to block West Coast ports
Anti-Wall Street protesters, hoping to briefly cripple a key supply chain of American commerce and re-energize their movement, plan to attempt to block major West Coast ports on Monday.

Question: What, exactly, is this intended to prove? Whom is supposed to be benefitted by this? Is this some kind of “mainstream” movement on behalf of the middle class — as our friends in the liberal media would have us believe — or is it a tiny fringe of Marxist radicals?

UPDATE II: Welcome, Instapundit readers!


Sex-Change Hormones at Age 11? ‘There Are No Ill Consequences,’ Says Spack

Posted on Comments

That’s Dr. Norman Spack, M.D.:

The Children’s Hospital Gender Management Services Clinic can, using hormone therapies, halt puberty in transgender children, blocking the development of secondary sexual characteristics — a beard, say, or breasts — that can make the eventual transition to the other gender more difficult, painful, and costly.
Founded in 2007 by endocrinologist Norman Spack and urologist David Diamond, the clinic — known as GeMS and modeled on a Dutch program — is the first pediatric academic program in the Western Hemisphere that evaluates and treats pubescent transgenders. A handful of other pediatric centers in the United States are developing similar programs, some started by former staffers at GeMS.
It was in that clinic, under Spack’s care, that Nicole and her family finally began to have hope for her future. . . .

(“Nicole,” neé Wyatt, who has a twin brother.)

“I have always known I was a girl,’’ says Nicole, now 14. “I think what I’m aiming for is to undergo surgery to get a physical female body that matches up to my image of myself.’’ . . .
When the twins were in the first grade, their parents found a therapist for Wyatt, who was starting to act out. In the third grade, before the GeMS Clinic was even open, Kelly heard about Dr. Spack and made an appointment with him. . . .
Nicole and her parents filed a complaint with the Maine Humans Right Commission over her right to use the girls bathroom. The commission found that she had been discriminated against and, along with the Maines family, filed a lawsuit against the Orono School District. The suit is pending in Penobscot County Superior Court, and the Maines family is represented by lawyers from the Gay & Lesbian Advocates. . . .

(Bathroom rights for transgender sixth-graders? Oh, joy! More business for the trial lawyers!)

[Dr. Spack] believes it is crucial to intervene with such children before adolescent changes begin in earnest. . . .
He adds: “We can do wonders if we can get them early.’’ . . .
“The drugs have a great track record; we already know that these kids do fine,’’ says Spack. “There are no ill consequences.”

(Hat-tip: Da Tech Guy.) Excuse my skepticism here. Maybe I’ve read too much dystopian fiction — Frankenstein, Flowers for Algernon, etc. — about the unintended and tragic consequences of Science Gone Wrong.

It was once considered sophisticated to have a wary attitude toward the claims made on behalf of Scientific Progress, but that sort of skepticism seems to have gone out of style. Once the fashionable experts in any field reach a “consensus” nowadays, everyone starts screaming that The Science Is Settled and anyone who continues to express doubt is labelled “anti-science” and ostracized from polite society.

Suppression of dissent wasn’t part of the scientific method as I was taught it, back in the Dark Ages, but I guess these enlightened experts like Dr. Norman Spack and his colleagues know everything about the diagnosis and treatment of “pubescent transgenders,” and everyone may safely ignore the old-fashioned skeptics.

Your skepticism, of course, will be diagnosed as a “phobia” — perhaps pedotransphobia or transpedophobia — and there will be political lobbying groups organized to clamor for legislation to safeguard the “rights” of these experimental specimens against “discrimination” by hateful bigoted transpedophobes like you.

Clever cable network executives are probably already working on a reality TV series, and “Nicole” will likely defray the costs of surgery by landing a book deal for her memoirs: I Was a Pre-Teen Shemale.

Rule 5 Sunday: Obsolete

Posted on Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


We begin this wee’s Rule 5 roundup with a PSA from Doug at the Pegu Blog, who warns us of the dangers of mixing booze and Facebook without this reputation-saving product. Don’t go partying without it!

More conventionally, the POH Diaries brings us Kristen Stewart, and the Rio Norte Line gets back to Bond Girls with Denise Richards. Also, Roselyn Sanchez! Randy’s Roundtable demonstrates that there’s no such thing as too much Kate Upton, and follows up with Nicole Williams. Eye of Polyphemus is all about Olivia Munn, while Fishersville Mike demands more Christmas spirit.


El Opinador Compulsivo takes a closer look at our sidebar ad girls, Salma Hayek and proof of God’s existence (a tad redundant, no?), Sparks, more Theo(Spark)logy, and the cute (though occasionally creepy) Daveigh Chase. For the ladies, Steve McQueen, Viggo Mortensen, Anthony Bourdain on sex and omelets, and some soccer player yclept “Chino” Saja.


Bring The Heat, Bring The Stupid returns after a long absence with Minnie Driver. All is forgiven, Art! Reaganite Resistance demonstrates that not everything is a mess in Japan. Jake Finnegan’s Burkalesque Babe is a group this week: the Jacksonville Jaguars’ cheerleaders. Teresamerica chips in with Marion Cotillard, while Maggie’s Notebook directs our attention to ESPN’s Bonnie Jill Laflin.
Dustbury has Maria Sharapova and Felicity Jones, while at the Camp of the Saints, it’s Tanit Phoenix, the Rule 5 News, and Emma Frain. Pirate’s Cove has the Sunday Pinup and more Lohan.


A View From The Beach answers the question, “What happened to Lucy Liu?” Also, Brigitte Bardot protesting, Kirsten Dunst looking for a baby daddy, and a PSA on how to revive your drowned smartphone.


Soylent Green’s Monday Motivationer this week was Veronica Saint, followed by Humpday’s Ingeborg Sorensen, a shampoo reminder, Feral Fur Friday, some Vargas for your Saturday, and finally, Lilo doing her Marilyn impression for Playboy.


American Power likewise links to Lindsay, adds one of Maxim’s 2011 Hometown Hotties, Barbara Palvin, Kelly Brook’s official calendar, and finishes up with some Victoria’s Secret.


Proof Positive checks in with Danielle Bux, Catherine Oxenburg, the ubiquitous 49er cheerleader, Sex In Advertising, and Behind Rule Five.


The DaleyGator’s DaleyBabes this week are Ali Landry, random hotties, Asian Babe Friday, Tamala Jones, Cali Logan, January Jones, Brandi Alexis, and of course, Lindsay Lohan.


Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! To be included in next week’s Rule 5 Sunday, have your links in to Rule 5 Wombat by Saturday, December 17.

What Does ‘Best Days Are Behind’ Mean?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

It’s easy to get hacked off about irrelevant things. The power cord somehow got caught in my sandal, my temper flared, and I managed to pull the whole power strip out of the wall. But that was a tangible thing. Abstractions are a bit harder to get at (emphasis mine):

Most worrisome is the fact that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, told pollster Scott Rasmussen this week that they believe the country’s best days are behind it, the first time a majority has so responded.

What is ‘the country’ if not the people therein, today? ‘The country’s best days are behind it’, you say? Is this one of those obsequious glances at The Greatest Generation? As if, by bestowing the superlative, we know that our culture reached a point of inflection, peaked, and now it’s OK to dive for the gutter? Are we staging our excuses for why we can’t deal with the deficit, entitlements, and the national debt? “If only we were The Greatest Generation, we could have so kicked butt on those problems, but we’re not, so failure is more acceptable.”

Up that noise.

Peoples are slow-changing. The standard deviation amongst generations isn’t that great. That is, if Generation X (my media-packaged cohort) were dumped back in time and given WWII, I contend that we would do as fine there as has been done in the GWOT. Even the #Occupy weenies would likely toughen up and do well, albeit with initially higher attrition.

Too, there is no denying that Postmodernism has been to our societal mettle what osteoporosis is to your bones. Therein lies the rub: the bones belong to the individuals, not the society. The damage is only as permanent as we permit. The spell of malaise is more an intellectual illusion than an objective fact. Our country is no more doomed by some Best Days Past Myth than it is by the Overpopulation Myth or the Anthropogenic Global Warming Myth.

Let us chuckle at these Myths and ignore those peddling them.

via Instapudit

Santorum: Election ‘About Obama’

Posted on Comments

“I think we need — and I think the Tea Party people are going to realize we need a clean, clear contrast. We need this race to be about Barack Obama and his record, not with Republicans agreeing with that record. I mean, that would be the last thing we should be nominating is someone who has a bad record on some of the most important issues that we’re going to be dealing with, like bailing out Wall Street, like climate change, like the Obamacare. . . . Three years into [Newt Gingrich’s] speakership there was a conservative revolution to try to get rid of him as speaker. . . . I think that should tell you something.”
— Rick Santorum, on CNN’s “State of the Union“

If you watch the whole video — The Lonely Conservative has posted the full transcript — notice how Candy Crowley begins by dissing her guest:

“Let me talk to you about the topic of the day and get your take on why you think at this point Newt Gingrich is doing so well.”

Translation: “We couldn’t get Newt himself on the show, but we want to talk about Newt anyway, because we all know he’s going to win, right?”

Why “the topic of the day”? Why not come up with your own topics? Why allow yourself to be hemmed in by other people’s conceptions of what’s important and/or interesting? This media herd instinct is annoying.

Via Memeorandum.

 

‘Resist We Much!’ MSNBC’s Bogus Populist Al Sharpton Living Large

Posted on Comments

Liberal scam artist is a member of the 1 percent:

The Rev. Al Sharpton’s nonprofit paid him nearly $242,000 — even as it carried $1.6 million in debt, according to documents obtained by The Post.
In all, the controversial activist and his empire, including the National Action Network and two for-profit companies, were $5.3 million in the red, public records show.
Most of NAN’s money woes stemmed from more than $880,000 in unpaid federal payroll taxes, interest and penalties. It also paid more than $100,000 to settle two lawsuits, byproducts of the unpaid bills.
And it still owed $206,252 in loans to Sharpton’s for-profit Bo-Spanky Consulting Inc. and Sharpton Media LLC, the records show.

“Bo-Spanky Consulting”? Hustling the “civil rights” racket can be a very lucrative gig. Always remember: Just because it’s “non-profit” doesn’t mean that people aren’t getting paid.

(Via Memeorandum, which has blog commentary by Weasel Zippers, Jammie Wearing Fools and Gateway Pundit.)

RECENTLY:

Hey, Mitt Romney: Bet Me $10,000 I Won’t Post This Vintage Pinup Girl

Posted on Comments

Ha, ha! You lose!

Lots of fallout today over last night’s debate, in which Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry a $10,000 bet that Mitt’s book did not include a call for nationalizing RomneyCare. The video:

Lisa Graas reminds us that Mitt reportedly spent $45 million of his own money on his failed 2008 bid for the Republican nomination, and Lisa also provides this quote from Everybody’s Favorite Candidate:

“Well that is a lot of money for me . . . I don’t go around throwing around $10,000 bets.”
— Rick Santorum

Kathie Obradovich of the Des Moines Register:

Romney was casually offering the equivalent of about one-fifth of the average median income for an Iowa family. Romney’s privileged background was driven home later when the candidates were asked whether they’d ever had to cut costs in their own family budget.
“I didn’t grow up poor,” Romney said, and noted that if voters are looking for someone who did, they’ll have to vote for somebody else.

This is really unfortunate: Class warfare as an issue in a Republican primary? I don’t like it. However, it does effectively highlight one of Mitt’s tactical weaknesses — a weakness that the Democrats and media (but I repeat myself) would love to exploit in the general election campaign. It’s not necessarily about Mitt’s wealth, but about his tone-deafness to such sensitivities in a year when economic hardship and populist sentiment will be major political forces.

You know what would be nice? It would be nice if the Romney campaign would drop a few bills on some conservative bloggers.

Maybe not on me — the Future Ambassador to Vanuatu isn’t offering to sell out — but I’d bet $10,000 my buddy Jimmie Bise Jr. of Sundries Shack fame could be persuaded to provide some of that “New Media strategy” advice for Team Romney. Because in case you didn’t realize it, I’m once again stealing Jimmie’s “Clearing the Browser Tabs” idea to do a round-up of random links:

Oh, and that vintage pinup girl? Not entirely gratuitous, because I’m also trying to hitch a ride.

Remember that I am planning to depart for Iowa the day after Christmas, Dec. 26. I’ve already bought my ticket to Cedar Rapids ($275) and then a ticket from Des Moines to Boston ($205) on Jan. 5, but there are still other expenses to be covered on my 36-day campaign-trail trip all the way to Florida on Jan. 31. Your contributions to the Shoe Leather Fund are earnestly solicited.

New Robert Spencer Book Promises To Be An Interesting Read On Islam

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

That’s a provocative title:

“Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober and unflinching look at the origins of one of the world’s major religions. While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has, astonishingly, never received the same treatment on any significant scale.”

I doubt this work will trigger any real criticism. My theory is that the Postmodern Left views Islam as a wrecking ball for their anti-Enlightenment effort. Radical Islam, anyway, view the Postmodern Left as enablers. Each thinks the other a tool, and both are correct.

Update: to Bill Quick’s question, I meant ‘real criticism’ of Islam. You could also, if you say that ‘real criticism’ refers to genuine dialogue with an idea to improving understanding, say that Spencer won’t receive real criticism, either. That Spencer will receive his umpteenth napalm shower of jingoistic blowback, one can be certain.