The Beast of Babylon Wears Bangs: Amanda Marcotte’s ‘Pure Feminist Evil’

Posted on Comments

“I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication . . .”
— Revelation 13:3-4 (KJV)

Being a tolerant sort of person, I have sometimes entertained the thought that maybe Amanda Marcotte is merely misguided or ignorant, an idea I kicked around when she made a complete fool of herself over the Anthony Weiner scandal. But perhaps it is time to consider whether she is in fact deliberately and consciously evil.

To summarize the case briefly: 58-year-old Thomas Ball committed suicide a week ago by setting himself afire on the steps of a county courthouse in New Hampshire. As his last testament, he sent to the local newspaper a remarkable 10,000-word letter portraying himself as the victim of police, child-protective agencies and the court system. To this, Marcotte responded by describing the dead man as a typical “abuser” whose only desire was to “make [his] ex-wife’s life a living hell . . . in an effort to hurt the woman they’re fixated on.”

As one blogger observed: “It’s pure feminist evil. . . . A man whose life was destroyed by anti-family courts burns himself to death, but Marcotte thinks a woman is the hardest hit.”

Indeed, Marcotte’s attitude is “pure feminist evil”: No matter the facts of the case, in any male-female conflict, the man is always to blame (unless he’s a liberal Democrat like Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton, in which case he must be worshipped without reservation). Marcotte once again demonstrates how feminist rhetoric about “equality” is actually a dishonest demand for hegemonic female supremacy, insofar as feminism is really anything more than a partisan political tactic to trick stupid women into voting for liberal Democrats. Continue reading The Beast of Babylon Wears Bangs: Amanda Marcotte’s ‘Pure Feminist Evil’ →

Legalize Fireworks Now!

Posted on Comments

Maine’s York County Journal Tribune editorializes in support of a pending bill that would legalize consumer fireworks in that state, to which I say not merely yes, but hell, yes!

Consumer (1.4G) fireworks are much safer today than in the 1960s, when most state fireworks bans were passed. Back then, the great danger was M-80s — quarter-sticks of dynamite — which actually originated as military-issue ordinance used to simulate artillery blasts in training excercises. After World War II, many army surplus stores sold M-80s, and they became popular as fireworks, so that every so often some kid would blow off his fingers. Cherry bombs were another popular high-explosive firecracker, and it was the injuries caused by these that caused the panic that led to so many states completely banning fireworks.

M-80s and cherry bombs have long since been prohibited for sale to consumers by federal law, and yet many state anti-fireworks laws remain in effect, outlawing the beautiful aerial effects of rockets, mortars and multi-tube repeaters which — when used according to safety directions — are as no more dangerous than your backyard barbecue grill.

Professor Glenn Reynolds lives in Tennessee, where consumer fireworks have never been prohibited. This time of year, highways in Tennessee are lined with booths and tents selling fireworks by the truckload. Utterly contradicting the fear-mongering of the anti-fireworks fanatics, fireworks-related injuries are no more common in Tennessee than in states where fireworks are banned.

Why is this? Because when fireworks are outlawed, only outlaws will have fireworks. That is to say, prohibiting fireworks only tends to discourage their use by the responsible and law-abiding, while the rowdy scofflaws will find some way to get their hands on the stuff. Worse yet, sometimes bans on fireworks will cause idiots to try to rig up their own homemade fireworks, often with disastrous results.

Being a stone-cold fireworks freak myself, I’ve written extensively about this issue:

You can see some photos of me and the kids assembling the 2008 show here. Alas, my friend’s video of our 2008 show has been deleted, but here’s video of the 2009 show I shot at Camp FUBAR on Lake Weiss in Alabama (which starts getting good about the 3-minute mark):

And here’s the monster two-minute finale of the big 4th of July show I shot, with the assistance of my then 12-year-old twin sons, in 2005:

If the current “Make My Wife Happy” fundraiser is successful enough to pay the overdue bills — and many thanks to all the readers who have contributed so far — perhaps Mrs. Other McCain won’t mind if I take the kids on a little Alabama vacation for the 4th of July.

So hit the tip jar — it’s for the children (and maybe the fireworks, too).

Equality Über Alles, New York

Posted on Comments

Can mere words suffice to describe it?

ALBANY — Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.
The bill was approved on a 33-to-29 vote as 4 Republican state senators joined 29 Democrats in voting for it. . . .
Senate approval was the final hurdle for the legislation, which was strongly supported by Mr. Cuomo. . . . Mr. Cuomo was expected to sign the measure soon, and the law will go into effect 30 days later, meaning that same-sex couples could begin marrying in New York by midsummer. “I am very proud of New York and the statement we made to the nation today,” Mr. Cuomo said. . . .

“New York Republicans,” IYKWIMAITYD.

UPDATE: Merely by looking at the headlines of the reaction, you can see what a blunderheaded disaster this was for the New York GOP, as well as for conservatives everywhere:

Look at that last headline, especially. Leaving aside entirely the current issue, are Gov. Cuomo and “gay rights activists” friends of the conservative movement? They are not. So if four Republicans vote to hand a “win” to liberals, what is the net political impact?

The first and most important impact is the utter demoralization of social conservatives in New York. Many people who don’t study these issues overlook the fact that about one-third of New York voters are Catholic. Many Catholics tend to lean leftward on economic issues, yet when social issues like abortion and homosexuality are front and center of the political debate, they will vote Republican — if Republicans clearly articulate a principled conservative position on those issues.

Pro-life voters were almost certainly the margin of victory, for example, in Ann Marie Buerkle’s hard-fought victory in last year’s NY-25 election. Liberals made the mistake of reminding voters that Buerkle had once been an Operation Rescue activist, which had the exact opposite effect from what liberals had intended: That helped energize social conservatives who, until then, had thought of the election chiefly in terms of economic issues.

Republicans who go squishy on social issues do so under the mistaken belief that this somehow helps the GOP reach independent “swing” voters. But that kind of soft-headed thinking is based on a complete misunderstanding of who independent voters actually are.

Independents are not moderates, but rather are prototypical “low-information” voters, and aren’t really much interested in social issues one way or the other.

You know what independent voters truly loathe? Gutless backstabbing unprincipled two-faced flip-floppers.

Which is why John McCain lost in 2008, and why RINOs like Arlen Specter, Dede Scozzafava, Charlie Crist and Mike Castle were always worse enemies to the Republican Party than any outright liberal Democrat could ever be.

The four GOP state senators in New York who voted for this bill have destroyed all hope that the Republican Party can ever make a real comeback in that state. As I said on Twitter last night: “Will the last conservative leaving the NYGOP please turn out the lights?”

Democrats: The Warmonger Party

Posted on Comments

Today, 149 Democrats voted against defunding Obama’s Illegal War™ in Libya. Our nation now awaits the onset of Code Pink peace protests against such bloodthirsty imperialist warmongers as Nancy Pelosi, Raul Grijalva and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

U.S. forces will continue their effort to kill Moammar Qaddafi.

White House spokesman H.R. Haldeman strenuously denied reports that President Obama was planning to re-institute the military draft, mobilize the National Guard, mine Haiphong harbor and invade Cambodia.

Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist could not be reached for comment.

RE-ELECT OBAMA
Because Bombing Foreigners to Smithereens
Is Only Wrong When Republicans Do It!

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers and, by the way, did I mention my wife looks hot in a bikini? Just sayin’ . . .

Want to Make My Wife Happy?

Posted on Comments

When I went to the mailbox this afternoon, there was an electric bill and a water bill. Meanwhile, my phone keeps ringing with reminders that the car payment is overdue — although the phone may not keep ringing if I don’t do something about the overdue phone bill.

All of which tends toward the conclusion that it’s time for me to ask readers to hit the freaking tip jar.

And you know the situation is serious when I start reminding you how beautiful my wife is. For some reason, readers are more generous when I point out that I married waaaay out of my league — although I wasn’t entirely shabby myself, back in the day when I had that super-cool Patrick Swayze mullet look happening. Still, as everyone acknowledges, I was extraordinarily fortunate to wed the lovely Mrs. Other McCain.

“For richer or poorer” as they say, but the present circumstances aren’t exactly conducive to “happily ever after” and so, in the interests of domestic tranquility, I’m compelled to ask that you hit the tip jar, as I remind you that Mrs. Other McCain was the original inspiration for Rule 5. Continue reading Want to Make My Wife Happy? →

Renee Ellmers vs. Tim Geithner

Posted on Comments

Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina was one of the Tea Party’s favorite candidates from last year’s mid-term campaign:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who has his own issues with paying taxes, explained to Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) why taxes must be raised on small businesses to keep the federal government from shrinking. So what if spending went up by about a trillion bucks a year since President Obama took office.

When Ellmers finally told Geithner that “the point is we need jobs,” he responded that the administration felt it had “no alternative” but to raise taxes on small businesses because otherwise “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs” — including federal education spending.
“We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because we see no alternative to a balanced approach to reduce our fiscal deficits,” said Geithner.

“Balanced approach” has become a talking point for Democrats, obviously having been focus-grouped as a politically acceptable synonym for higher taxes:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi isn’t impressed with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s decision to suddenly bail on the White House deficit talks this morning, citing his disagreement with Democrats’ positions.
“Yes, we do want to remove tax subsidies for big oil, we want to remove tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas, that list goes on,” she told reporters in the Capitol on Thursday. “I don’t know that’s a reason to walk away from the table when we’re trying to find a balanced approach.”

Notice that Pelosi isn’t engaged in a serious policy discussion, but is merely recycling DCCC campaign rhetoric about “tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas.” It didn’t work in 2010, but Democrats are going to keep repeating it — and reporters will keep quoting it — until people start believing it.

Viva, Californication?

Posted on Comments

Three mommies, no daddy:

On a leafy drive in west Los Angeles, at a newly renovated home with cathedral ceilings and a backyard pool, 4-year-old Kate Eisenpresser-Davis’ friends have been known to pose an intriguing question: “Why does Kate have three mommies?”
Lisa Eisenpresser, 44, and her partner, Angela Courtin, 38, share custody of Kate with Eisenpresser’s ex-partner.

Is this “progress”? Donald Douglas is somewhat skeptical.