The Other McCain

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

Rule 5 Sunday: Patriots Cheerleaders

Posted on | January 21, 2018 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Apparently the Eagles took out the Vikings today as well, which means it’s going to be the Pats & Iggles in the Super Bowl. Woo. In more important sports news, it’s 23 days until pitchers & catchers report to spring training! In the meantime, though, let’s enjoy some Patriots cheerleaders.

The Pats’ cheerleaders from December 2016. Quite festive!

Ninety Miles From Tyranny opens the dance with Hot Pick Of The Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #139, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns; Animal Magnetism follows with Rule Five Dynasties Ending Friday and a Saturday Brunettenarok!

EBL brings us the late Dolores O’Riordan, Gene Tierney, Mila Kunis, Freaky Fashion, Riley Keough, Maple Syrup Women, and National Cheese Lovers Day.

A View From The Beach has Rule 5 Saturday – Marzaan Kalis, Snowmobiling Into Frosty Friday, Emergency Morning Post, Morning Music – “Solid Potato Salad”, But To Be Fair, Writing Is Hard, Dolores O’Riordan, Cranberry Singer Dies At 46, #HerToo: Eliza Dushku’s Hollywood Horror Story, SJWs Rag On Emrat Over Hair Care Comment and Hawkish Fire Starters?

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Darby Stanchfield, his Vintage Babe is Joan Vohs, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Victoria’s Secret. At Dustbury, it’s Florrie and Karishma Kotak.

Thanks to everyone for the luscious linkagery!

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Amazon Fashion – Jewelry For Women
Amazon Personal Bra Boutique

Category: Rule 5

A Jihad in Minnesota

Posted on | January 21, 2018 | Comments Off on A Jihad in Minnesota

Tnuza Jamal Hassan is charged with first-degree arson.

An Islamic terrorist has attacked a university in St. Paul:

A former St. Catherine University student charged with setting fires on the college’s St. Paul campus told police she did it because she’d “been reading about the U.S. military destroying schools in Iraq or Afghanistan and she felt that she should do exactly the same thing,” according to a criminal complaint filed Friday.
“You guys are lucky that l don’t know how to build a bomb because l would have done that,” Tnuza Jamal Hassan, 19, of Minneapolis allegedly told investigators after being arrested Wednesday afternoon in a campus dorm lounge.
Hassan was charged in Ramsey County District Court with a single count of first-degree arson. No injuries or major damage were reported in the fires, all of which occurred in the middle of the day Wednesday.
Ramsey County prosecutor Margaret Galvin said in court Friday that Hassan had “substantial ties” to the local community and added that authorities were investigating whether she had any international ties as well.
A spokesman for the FBI’s Minneapolis office said he could not comment on whether federal authorities also were investigating the incident. A call to the United States District Attorney’s Minnesota Office to inquire about whether Hassan might face federal charges was not returned. . . .
Hassan, appearing in court in a black and white hijab, gave only brief, one-word answers to questions from the judge.
According to the complaint, she told investigators she set six fires on the private Catholic university’s campus, though university and fire officials said there were eight.
The most serious fire started in Saint Mary Hall, a residential dormitory that also houses a day care. Police said there were 33 children and eight adults in the building when a chair was set ablaze — triggering the building’s sprinkler system, which prevented it from spreading. . . .
Hassan told investigators she was a student at St. Catherine but dropped out last fall because she and her family were planning a vacation to Ethiopia.
She told them, according to the complaint, that “her fire-starting was not as successful as she had wanted,” and “she wanted the school to burn to the ground and that her intent was to hurt people.
“Hassan said this was the same thing that happened in ‘Muslim land’ and nobody cares if they get hurt, so why not do this?” the complaint added.
Hassan told investigators she wrote a letter to her roommates about “bringing back the Caliphate,” an Islamic state. The letter scared Hassan’s roommates, who turned it over to campus security, the complaint stated.

This is radical Islamic terrorism. We ought to ask why St. Catherine University, an allegedly Catholic school, has failed at its institutional mission. Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch asks other questions:

Where did Tnuza Hassan learn Islam? Where does she attend mosque? What does that mosque teach about violence against unbelievers? Is that mosque being investigated? Why not? Is it being assumed that Tnuza J. Hassan was “radicalized on the Internet”? If so, why was the supposedly twisted, hijacked, violent version of Islam she supposedly learned on the Internet so easily able to overcome the supposedly peaceful, benign, tolerant version that everyone assumes that she learned at home and at her local mosque?

(Via Memeorandum, with more at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Powerline and Gateway Pundit.)



 

Category: Education, Islam, Minnesota, Terrorism

FMJRA 2.0: Walk Away

Posted on | January 21, 2018 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

No, not the James Gang song, though that’s pretty awesome too.

Late Night With Rule 5 Sunday: Stacey Dash
Animal Magnetism
EBL
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
Ninety Miles From Tyranny

Anarchy in the @UKLabour: Party Will Put Trannies on ‘All Women Shortlist’
The Political Hat

FMJRA 2.0: Let The Good Times Roll
The Pirate’s Cove
EBL
A View From The Beach

Feminists Hate All Men, So Why Expect Them to Love ‘Male Feminists’?
Welcome To My Playpen

Illegal Alien Causes Mayhem by Threatening to Shoot Bus Passengers
A View From The Beach

Violence Against Women: Video Shows Confession in MS-13 Gang Murder
A View From The Beach

In The Mailbox: 01.15.18
EBL
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 01.16.18
EBL
Proof Positive

The Tyranny of Bright Normal
Rotten Chestnuts
EBL

In The Mailbox: 01.17.18
EBL
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 01.18.18
EBL
Proof Positive

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
EBL

In The Mailbox: 01.19.18
EBL
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive

Top linkers this week:

  1. EBL (9)
  2. Proof Positive (6)
  3. A View From The Beach (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!


Amazon Warehouse Deals
Try Twitch Prime

Category: FMJRA Award

Replying To ESR’s Response

Posted on | January 20, 2018 | 1 Comment

by Smitty

First, thank you for a thoughtful and challenging reply to my objections. In re-reading your post, my reaction and “Three kinds of teleology“, it seems that I may have misinterpreted your “Sorry, Ansari” post somewhat. Specifically, on the point of whether you were
a) attempting to characterize the societal state, “as-is” or
b) attempting to offer a personal opinion on a “should-be” societal state.
I assumed b), and set about what may have been straw-manning you for what I thought were violations of a libertarian viewpoint. I am sorry, and thankful that you either didn’t notice or didn’t engage on that.

You responded to my point 1, Does “Grace” have free will, or is it the case that “she doesn’t have a realistic option”? by claiming that this is a false dichotomy. I think your school of fish analogy has some impact here, but I remain skeptical. While you offer a purely natural, aquatic example, it seems that your point may be more or less the same thing as GroupThink.  That is, you seem to say that if “everyone else is doing it”, then my liberty to dissent is diminished. Unless I missed something. I, of course, never fall prey to GroupThink. More than a couple hundred times a day.

On point 2, I then asked if the individual the unit of analysis, or is “Grace” a component of “women who do that”? and you (quite rightly) pointed out that “Grace” remains an individual (affirming my point) but that “she wants the reader to do this [judging whether she is bound by women who do that]”–I guess I was too busy being unpersuaded by the immaturity of the behavior in question on both sides to pick up the shift in emphasis.

Things got interesting at point 3:

“The lightning” would be sex having deep emotional/romantic consequences for both parties. This does happen of course, and you are greatly to be pitied if you have never experienced it yourself.
Your concept of “soul” isn’t even wrong, it’s meaningless – and will remain so until you give it meaning by providing an observable consequence of having a soul.
Your next paragraph suggests that you want “having a soul” to imply having a long ethical time horizon – not doing things for short-term gratification that are self- and other-destructive in the longer term. This is an important quality, of course, but there is no need to use a word as freighted with mystical spookery as “soul” to label it. I think you just confuse yourself when you do that.

If I’m understanding this correctly, I’m to be pro “romantic consequences”, and “pitied if [I] have never experienced it” (happily married father of two, thanks), but there is no need to “use a word as freighted with mystical spookery as “soul””.

A possible strawman argument would be: I may as well offload all that oogedy-boogedy “soul stuff” and go Full Charlie Sheen. Just maximize my hormonal utilization of whatever objects cause “lightning strikes”, irrespective of gender, age, species, status as “living” (how about them sex bots?). It’s all about the hormones, no? No larger “mystical” context to fret, unless I’m one of “them religious weirdos”.

Which brings us to your “Three kinds of teleology” link. As an intellectual matter, I am simply not bothered with there being any global telological point to reality. Within the scope of the body/mind dimensions of the “Grace”/Ansari exchange (or our communication on the behavior) the chief interest is the individual. Is the personal telelogical aim served by the behavior? From the praxeological perspective, the commentariat has had its pound of flesh, no?

It’s tempting for one to think that one has grokked the teleolgical point of life. Perhaps you did, in your Three Kinds essay. I don’t “know” in any final sense that I can explain in the body/mind plane of the three dimensional existential model I offered. You might object that I’m being coy, but I’m just not wasting time offering you goods in which you seem disinterested.

If anything, I’m unsure a mortal answer is possible. That is: were a closed-form, unambiguous, mathematical-style existential “proof” attainable by human striving.  Such an answer would need to be so objectively clear as to halt the vast spectrum of hand-wringing that has been going on these thousands of years across continents and peoples and languages. Don’t you think it should have already occurred?

Instead, we have the continuous parallel scientific and philosophical efforts to reverse-engineer reality. And we’ll continue. And it’s a Good Thing. But I lack what I perceive as your implicit faith that these strivings will do more than come up with more awesome models of reality, at micro- and macro levels. Because, for all the greatness of the human mind, it’s still a finite instrument. But I could be wrong.

Given that gloomy (within the body/mind bounds) view of reality, maybe “Grace” has the right of it. Satisfy the flesh. “Grace”, though, could invest in her soul, if she ever wishes to have an useful answers to those “why?” questions of life. “Because all the other bimbos you’re emulating are akin to a school of fish. Nice gills, Grace” seems as inadequate an answer as it is a wretched caricature of your example.

At any rate, thanks for the stimulating discussion.

Category: Uncategorized

In The Mailbox: 01.19.18

Posted on | January 20, 2018 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 01.19.18

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Will Democrats Shut Down The Government?
Twitchy: MAMA BEAR – Jenna Jameson Posts #MarchForLife Pic, Takes On Hordes Of Frothing, Nasty Pro-Aborts
Louder With Crowder: CA Dems – Trump Cut Business Taxes? We’ll Raise Them!
According To Hoyt: Shiny! Let’s Be Bad!
Monster Hunter Nation: Gritty Cop Show Test Game Recap #1
Vox Popoli: Disabled Veteran Fired By SJWs
City Journal: California, Poverty Capital (h/t NeoWayland)


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Three New Sites On The Old Blogroll
American Power: LA Times Publisher Levinsohn Accused Of Sexual Improprieties
American Thinker: Facebook’s Expanding Insanity
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Dynasties Ending Friday
BattleSwarm: LinkSwarm For January 19
Bring The HEAT: Primitive Technology Guy Builds A Hut
CDR Salamander: Fullbore Friday
Da Tech Guy: The News And The Dregs, also, A GOP Strategy To Win The Shutdown So Simple Only A “Stupid Party” Could Blow It
Don Surber: Trump’s Got Them By The Tweets
Dustbury: The Right To Be An Asshat
The Geller Report: State Department Withholds Another $45 Million From UNRWA, also, Dresden Burka Workshop Goes Forward With Support From City Authorities
Hogewash: Blogsmoke, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
Joe For America: Democrats On Intel Committee Vote Against Transparency For Fusion GPS Documents
JustOneMinute: Showdown Drama!
Legal Insurrection: Republicans Demand Declassification Of Report On Obama/Russian/Deep State Collusion, also, #SchumerShutdown/#DACAShutdown
Power Line: A Primer On The “Government Shutdown”, also, Schumer Flees From Tom Cotton
Shark Tank: Trump Asks Americans To Crown The “King Of Fake News” For 2017
Shot In The Dark: This Is Your New Senator
STUMP: Friday Foolery – Centsless In Seattle & Cook County Regrets
The Jawa Report: Deso Dogg Finally Really Dead Jim!
The Political Hat: An Absolute Nonsense
This Ain’t Hell: Deso Dogg Dead, also, SSG Joshua Stokes Alters Active Duty Records
Weasel Zippers: Senate Cloture Vote Fails, #SchumerShutdown Likely, also, Facebook To Have Users Grade News Sources To Decide Which Are “Broadly Trusted”
Megan McArdle: Why Hospitals Aren’t In The Drug Business
Mark Steyn: God’s Apology, also, Weaponizing The Shutdown


Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Amazon Outlet Deals

Category: Linkagery

Hogwash, ESR

Posted on | January 20, 2018 | 1 Comment

by Smitty

Eric S. Raymond’s feedback on the Aziz Ansari comedy of manners-in-the-buff has one of my favorite hobby horses requiring a ride. ESR is far smarter than I, and an avowed libertarian. Hence my amusement at this:

“Grace” behaved as she did because she doesn’t have a realistic option to hold out for romance before sex; women who do that put themselves at high risk of not getting second dates, there are too many others willing to play by the new rules. So she has to do sex instead and hope lightning strikes.

Questions for ESR and “the world” in general:

  • Does “Grace” have free will, or is it the case that “she doesn’t have a realistic option”?
  • Is the individual the unit of analysis, or is Grace just a component of “women who do that”, who war endlessly with “too many others”?
  • What does “do sex instead and hope lightning strikes” even mean beyond the scope of a certain hormonal instant?

Let me offer an explanatory model. Think of people in three dimensions: body, mind, and soul. Nobody argues against the body, few against the mind, and only fools against the soul. These are orthogonal, and in tension. The discussion at hand is body verses mind.

“Grace” let the body drive. Pure materialism. Maybe she wanted the release of the moment, and maybe she hoped to leverage that moment in a “lightning strike” to form a relationship with Ansari. The body always lives in the moment. Quite often, if not usually, to its detriment.

The mind (for the mature) tends to have a longer planning horizon than the body. Mature people can recognize the temptations of the body, but live past the moment and gauge whether it makes sense to get naked with someone you’ve just met. Or, figuring that most people are roughly the trash one knows oneself to be at heart, maybe one holds back.

The soul, if one subscribes to the notion, grasps that there is this Destiny thing in play. If the body and mind are subordinated to the soul, then concerns about “[people] who do that” are just the body using fear to trick the mind into rationalize giving the body free reign.

Be liberated from that fear of “[people] who do that”; from the lusts of the body; from the “Sorry (Not) Ansari” cycle of flesh devouring flesh. People who play that game are the ones writing open letters, kicking up social controversies, gripped by fear of being buried alive in a box, seeing therapists, and dying in opioid epidemics.

Which gets us back to my amusement with the intellectual libertarian set. If we’re free, why make collectivist arguments like

The old ways had features we now find ugly and unacceptable, but maybe that was the best adaptation they could manage to a hard problem! It is unlikely we can go back…”How ya gonna keep ’em down on the farm”, and all that. But what do we do to go forward?

There is no “hard problem” to manage in any collective way. There are only individuals working out their respective Destinies.

Aside for Ansari: be a man, and quit treating your manhood like the joystick of some video game. The boyish act of indulging in bimbos prepared for acts of hooverism at first blush is Russian roulette: you’ll end up with something incurable. Never go Full Charlie Sheen.

Category: Uncategorized

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | January 19, 2018 | Comments Off on Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

by Smitty

The girl (later known as Mindy) blowing by, is the penultimate humiliation. Not the first. That’d been the blind runner, seeming to putz along with his guide, casually passing my struggling flesh. No, the final thing was the arch cramp, reducing me to a limping skip for the final miles. But by the power of God, Gu, and ibuprofin, I complete the act of self-torture.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
She’s the job interviewer a week later. The marathon hasn’t come up. Thank heaven. I still ache, everywhere, as the yoga pants turn to leave the room.
Over her shoulder, smiling: “What was your time?”

—
Thanks, Darleen!

Category: Friday Fiction

You Should Be Reading Dalrock

Posted on | January 19, 2018 | 1 Comment

The blogger called Dalrock describes himself thus:

I’m a happily married man living with my sexy wife and our two wonderful kids in the Dallas/Forth Worth area. I’m very interested in how the post feminist world impacts myself and my family, and am using this blog to explore these kinds of issues.

I’ve occasionally linked and quoted Dalrock here, and some of his regular readers are also my regular readers. He is unafraid to make tough arguments: “Child support is designed to replace marriage, and it is wickedly effective at this. . . . Child support doesn’t just encourage women to have children out of wedlock, it also encourages women to kick married fathers out of the home.” Remember all those Maury Povich show episodes where unwed mothers learned the results of DNA tests to determine who their Baby Daddy was? That kind of irresponsibility is actually encouraged by the existence of a legal system that uses punitive measures to enforce child-support payments. It protects women’s “right” to screw around by forcing men to pay for the predictable result of such promiscuity. But as Dalrock points out, many conservatives are OK with this destructive policy. “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan” is the title of one of Dalrock’s classic rants, in which he makes the point that “slut shaming” works.

Too many conservatives are unwilling to confront feminist ideology directly and answer it with an emphatic “no.” It is folly to grant the first premise of an opponent’s argument and then try to argue for a different conclusion to the syllogism. Because many conservatives do not wish to seem prejudiced or unenlightened, they have a habit of giving away the game by accepting the idea of “gender equality” as a desirable goal. This is a strategic error, accepting battle on a field of their opponent’s choosing. A better strategy is the truth — no such thing as “gender equality” has ever existed in human history, and there is no policy which will bring about “gender equality” in the future. Even if it were possible to create “gender equality” by governmental fiat, this would not result in an increase in happiness. In fact, because “gender equality” is self-evidently contrary to human nature, such a regime would require a totalitarian system of enforcement which would negate personal liberty. The increasing insanity on our university campuses — where Title IX has long been a totalitarian mechanism for the enforcement of “gender equality” — is an omen of what feminist policy would produce in society at large.

Do I agree with every argument Dalrock makes? No, but I never agree 100% with anyone. Some of his arguments are offensive, but the point is that he is willing to question the basis premise of feminism, and unafraid to offend us in doing so. Dalrock points out, for example, that Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network recently featured a dialogue between two women who have “mastered the art of not finding a husband.” CBN host Wendy Griffith is 53 and unmarried, while her guest Mandy Hale is 38 and unmarried. Are they really the best qualified experts to offer “family values” advice to young women?

It seems rather rude to raise such questions, but when we are fighting (and losing) a battle to preserve Western civilization, being overly concerned with courtesy is a hindrance to effective warfare. Dalrock’s insulting attitude toward Miss Griffith offends my sense of chivalry, but in doing so, he raises the question of whether Christian parents are giving their daughters advice that is as unbiblical as it is impractical:

[M]odern Christian culture has identified the feminist life script as coming from God. The very unbiblical feminist obsession with women’s self esteem has become a core tenet of modern Christianity.

Ouch! Dalrock summarizes the argument of Lori Gottlieb that “women who delay marriage too long will find themselves with a rapidly declining pool of marriage prospects,” and this is very important for several reasons. Christians who proclaim their devotion to “family values” have a sacred obligation to resist the decadence of secular society: “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). The Apostle Paul warned Timothy against those “seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” that counsel “forbidding to marry.” That scripture can be read as a prophetic warning against those heretical cults which became known as Gnosticism, but in our day we find a sort of neo-Gnosticism creeping stealthily into many churches in the form of “Christian feminism,” an oxymoron.

“The Temptation of Eve,” John Roddam Spencer Stanhope,

Years ago, I warned that conservatives were losing the battle against same-sex “marriage” because they were unwilling to confront the secular gospel of “equality.” See “Gay Rights, Gay Rage” (Nov. 17, 2008) which I amplified in “Whither Marriage?” (Jan. 3, 2009), making the point that men and women are different in ways that are socially significant:

Are men and women equal in the fullest sense of the word? If so, then equality implies fungibility — the two things are interchangeable and one may be substituted for the other in any circumstance whatsoever. (La mort à la différence!) Therefore, it is of no consequence whether I marry a woman or a man.

The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be tomorrow the accomplished fact.

This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that “man” and “woman” define intrinsic traits, functions, roles.

Attempts to advance “gender equality” require us to ignore or suppress the biological reality and social significance of sexual difference.

A successful marriage requires voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit, and this becomes impossible if a husband and wife see themselves as antagonists in a competition for “equality.” It is entirely possible to have a happy and enduring marriage that does not conform to a 1950s sitcom script of what a “traditional” family should look like. Yet a marriage is unlikely to be happy, and is not likely to endure, if an obsession with “equality” causes the spouses to resent each other for their different (and hence, unequal) contributions to their household.

Malaysia: Imam says girls
should marry before 15,
otherwise their value drops
Malaysian Imam Azhar Idrus stated that “girls are getting married at a later age due to education, adding that they are about 28 years old by the time they are finished with university” and that by “28 years old, no one would want to marry them.” . . .
Azhar added it is haram (prohibited) for teenagers of a marriageable age to befriend men unless the intention is to marry the man.
“Even after finishing school, it is haram to befriend men in any way at all,” he said.

Far be it from me to endorse the views of a radical Islamic imam, but Christian conservatives ought to ask themselves what the consequences will be if Muslims follow the imam’s teachings (which are certainly justified by the Koran) while the Western world embraces feminist dogma. The total fertility rate (average lifetime births per woman) in Malaysia is 2.5, which is 34% higher than the U.S. rate of 1.87.

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and if we wish to prevent that destruction, we must be willing to think seriously, and ask uncomfortable questions, about the causes of social decadence. That’s why I say: You should be reading Dalrock.



 

Category: Sex Trouble
« 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