Tuesday, November 11, 2014

In These Dark Days, Men Need The Church to Man Up

Via Cybro, I came across this blog post hosted at the Archdiocese of Washington's website. In it, a monsignor in the RCC calls for men to step up and be the men the church needs them to be:
If the ladies will pardon me (for women have their own sort of strength), I want to issue a special summons to men, especially fathers, husbands, and priests. The summons is simple: be a man. We need men in these dark days, men who will heroically speak and act, men who will announce the truth and insist upon it wherever they have authority, men who will stop being passive fathers and husbands, priests who will stop “playing it safe” by remaining silent in the moral storm. Yes, be a man.

It has often been observed that men are rather disengaged from the practice of the faith and attendance at the Sacred Liturgy. Frankly, there is a reason—not a politically correct one, but a reason nonetheless. Most of the men I talk to find the Church rather feminized. There is much talk in the Church about forgiveness and love, about receptivity and about being “nicer.” These are fine virtues, all of them necessary. But men also want to be engaged, to be sent into battle, to go forth and make a difference.

After years of radical feminism, men are shamed for seeking to take up leadership and authority in their families and in the Church. It starts early. Any normal boy is full of spit and vinegar, is aggressive, competitive, and anxious to test his wings. But many boys are scolded, punished, and even medicated for these normal tendencies. They are told to behave more like girls and to learn to be nicer and to get along, etc. It will be granted that limits are necessary, but the tendency for boys to roughhouse is normal. The scolding and “socializing” to more feminine traits continues apace into early adulthood. And then there are other cultural phenomena such as the slew of “Men are stupid” commercials, etc.

Though many in past decades have sought to describe the Church as “male-dominated,” nothing could be further from the truth. Most parish leadership structures are dominated by women. And women do fine work. But the Church has done a very poor job of engaging men as men and equipping them to be strong husbands, fathers, and priests. Virtues related to bold leadership and the effective use of authority are in short supply whereas other virtues such as collaboration, listening, empathy, and understanding are overemphasized.

This lack of balance, wherein traditionally manly virtues are downplayed—even shamed—has led many men to become disengaged from the Church.  The disengagement of men from the Church has come to mean that many Christian men are passive fathers and husbands.
While I'm uncertain as to why an elder in the church needs to secure a pardon from female parishioners to directly address men in the body, on the whole I find very little here with which to disagree.  And I appreciate that Monsignor Pope calls men to metaphorical arms for the sake of their own and their families' salvation. Men do need to become the leaders they were meant to be, as husbands, fathers, or single men, and being unmarried, childless, or even MGTOW is no excuse to not take up the moral and social station that men are called to occupy.

All this is true, but misses the elephant in the Church that Monsignor Pope writes about, the unspoken force that pushes men out of the Church.  It is not enough for men to man up to manhood, but the church herself needs to man up and make room for these men being men. An unbalanced message that concentrates on forgiveness, love, receptivity, and niceness to the exclusion of other virtues and spiritual truths, does not make this room.  Being shamed for their position of leadership in the home, in the culture, and in the Church, does not provide this space.  Failing to equip men to assume their God-given role as husbands, fathers, pastors, priests, leaders, followers--ultimate responsibility for correcting this failure falls upon Church leadership, not on lay men.

Simply hectoring lay men to step up isn't enough. In fact, it's the opposite of enough, and it pushes men away when they see actions at cross purposes with words.  Instead, when one looks at the faith traditions that are growing today--liberalism, Islam, evangelical Christianity, Orthodox Christianity--one notes a common thread connecting them all: An unapologetic assertion of truth and, for the latter three, clearly demarcated roles for the masculine and feminine.

If the desired end state is less passive men, then the necessary corrective is to encourage more assertiveness in men.  Starting with, as Cybro correctly notes in his own critique of the original post, holding the Church's to its own teachings, particularly wrt marriage and re-marriage. Yes, many will leave if they are to be limited to being the husband and wife of only one in their lifetime.  But if they do depart, were they really adherents to the faith anyway, or is the church better off without serial polygamists in its midst?

Monday, November 10, 2014

"What Misandry Means to Me"

Reblogged from AVfM, the full text of internet journo Samantha Allen's now-infamous post on Tumblr:
what misandry means to me

i’m a misandrist. that means i hate men. i’m not a cute misandrist. i don’t have a fridge magnet that says, “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.” my loathing cannot be contained by a fridge magnet.

i am not an equality feminist. i don’t believe that an asymmetrical world will be cured by polite obsequence to male-dominated systems. i am not a liberal humanist. i don’t believe that i need to stand up for men when they’ve been standing on top of everyone else.

misandry is not a political program; it’s a stance. i don’t care whether hating men is a good or bad feminist strategy (and i care even less what men think about misandry). i don’t think i have a responsibility to change the world. i think i have a responsibility to survive.

imagine being born into a world where your experiences are not represented, where your work is undervalued, where your body is always open for comment, where your friends are routinely harassed and abused, and where this situation will literally be your reality for your entire life. if you’re a woman, you don’t have to imagine that world because you already live in it.

if you’re a man, you never have and never will live in that world. but try to imagine what it feels like. i’ll tell you: when i think about the kind of world we live in, i feel simultaneously hopeless and infuriated and i oscillate so quickly between those two emotional extremes that i literally start to get dizzy.

being a woman in this world feels like getting buried alive. think about that. think about feeling that every day.

why do i have to answer the question “why do i hate men?” when men don’t even stop to ask why they have always hated women. i have to answer the question because men can’t tolerate for one second the sort of contempt they’ve had for women for thousands of years.

why do i hate men? because life is short. my life is getting shorter by the day and i want to fill it with women. in this sinking ship of a world, i just want to enjoy a tiny little space, a room, if you will, of my own. i want that room to be full of women and free from ego, hierarchy, sexual advances, and violence. i hate men because i can’t even have that fucking room without them knocking on the walls. you have the entire fucking house. go play in it. find something else to do.

i hate men because it’s not my job to fix masculinity; it’s my job to heal from it and to be together with my sisters as we try to make it through a hostile world. and yet i am expected to patiently educate men on how not to be an asshole. here’s my only tip: stop spending so much time around men. they’re assholes.

i hate men because men hate me and the burden to take the high road should not fall on my shoulders.

i am friends with some men, yes. usually these are men who have some experience of marginalization (whether via their race, class, gender identity, sexual identity, what have you) or who have gone through the self-interrogation and relational deprogramming necessary to build meaningful community with women. you don’t just get to read a book and you’re golden. you have to get fucking baptized in menstrual blood as far as i’m concerned.

i hate men doesn’t mean i hate you. it means i hate your position in this world. it means i’m not obligated to like you. it means i don’t have to talk to you if i don’t want to. it means i get to have my space and i don’t have to dance for you, smile at you, or soothe you. and you can put up with me being wary of you, can’t you, because the world has a fucking red carpet waiting for you wherever you go.

3 months ago
As one of the commenters to this article over at AVfM quipped, "this is what a feminist looks like". That and using a shift key must be tantamount to submitting to the patriarchy. Or something.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

The Original Birth Control

It's free, which should make Sandra Fluke and her fornicating ilk happy.  Although, I must admit that, while extremely effective, abstinence's track record isn't quite perfect:


Friday, November 7, 2014

Why Assorative Mating Theory Isn't All That Flawed

A response to Heartiste.

Via Mangan, I came across a Cheateau Heartiste post entitled "The Flaw In Assortative Mating Theory".  In it, Heartiste argues, roughly,

1. Assortative mating is
...the theory that people pair up according to social class, which in modern America is nearly synonymous with educational class. Proponents of assortative mating theory speculate that a cognitive elite — and perhaps soon a racial elite — is evolving from the observed mate choices of the upper classes to marry solely among themselves. Sort of like an “educated class inbreeding”. The mechanism by which educated class inbreeding happens is through meeting one’s mate on college campus, or later at the office or within social circles, both of which tend to be segregated by smarts and its proxy, college degree.
Heartiste asserts that this theory rests upon the premise that credentialing is a proxy for IQ and class.

2. Many more women attend college than a few decades ago.  This increase is not likely to be attributable to an increase in average female intelligence.

3. As a result, more relatively dim (compared to their predecessors) women are attending college.

4. Women obtain credentials in low-cognitive horsepower academic fields

5. Men obtain credentials in high-cognitive horsepower academic fields.

6. Therefore, high-quality men, instead of marrying their high-school educated secretaries, are instead marrying their college-educated executive assistants.  Surgeons marry nurses or general practicioners. Partners marry paralegals or former attorneys.

La Griffe du Lion
7. Not all of these women breed exclusively with these college men; a substantive fraction breed with men outside this ecosystem. This phenomenon is not sufficiently accounted for by assortative mating hypothesis proponents.

These facts undermine the assortative mating hypothesis, in Heartiste's view.

My response:

Heartiste's postulates are correct.  To his point about higher college attendance, many more women attend college than a few decades ago. Due to the democratization of college, entry to college no longer screens out those Americans of middling IQ; the bar for entry has been moved toward the left-hand tail of the bell curve. Given the distinct shapes of the "g" curves for men and women, this leftward shift means that relatively more women "qualify" for college than men, as a fraction of the population.

Furthermore, women's credentials tend to be in less cognitively demanding academic fields, as seen in the above graphic.  As the requirement for capable mental chops goes up, the fraction of womenfolk decreases linearly.

All this is correct.  So too is Heartiste's, Mangan's, and Audacious Epigone's observation that the biggest (negative) predictor of a woman's fertility worldwide is her intelligence.  However, IQ remains a predictor of both status, success, and fertility in men.

Yet I still disagree with Heartiste, and maintain that the assortative mating theory retains its value in spite of these defects.  Here's why: While I agree that college qua college isn't likely to produce some sort of genetic class of ├╝berwenches, attending and graduating from college does serve as a filter of some sort.

First, college does screen out the dumb, just less than it used to.  Which one reason why employers insist on bachelor's degrees for entry-level is still a proxy, albeit a weak one, for intelligence and conscientiousness. Second, intelligence is heritable--about 50%, if memory serves--thus smart parents have smarter children on the whole. Yes, the IQ of smart peoples' children will regress toward the mean, but the mean itself will rise over time. Third, intelligent people are more likely to make choices to get married and stay married, which itself confers many benefits to children born of the union, to include greater wealth, success, lower criminality (itself an indicator of higher intelligence) and a greater propensity to get and stay married.

Thus, I submit that the assortative mating theory does have validity, and that it does spawn a cognitive and social elite.  As I wrote a few years ago:
We increasingly grow up in silos where we meet, associate with, work with, date, and marry those who are more and more like us (and correspondingly less diverse from us). The intelligentsia tends to interbreed with itself; these talented individuals produce talented offspring to take their places at the controls of society. Conversely, the ordinary person spawns new ordinaries with other ordinaries. There is less intermixing, less mobility. Thus we are slouching toward Jefferson's "natural aristocracy" of the talented who rule the ordinary--although I doubt this kind of meritocracy was quite what Jefferson had in mind.

But what about the second half of Jefferson's meritocratic aristocracy, the aristocracy of virtue? This, too, is becoming more and more inbred. Morality is increasingly becoming more and more hereditary, passed down from parent to child--the empirical evidence repeatedly shows that children receive the morality transmitted by their parents, and morality is also linked to social station. Is there any doubt that behaviors such as divorce, unwed childbearing, extramarital sexuality are more prevalent among the lower classes, whereas among the upper classes, the opposite is true? Sociologists call this the marriage divide, where married couples and their children are wealthier, achieve more academically, healthier, and live longer than singles or divorcees.
At present, the aristocracy of talent and the aristocracy of virtue are coalescing on the same set of people.

So: No ├╝berwench class. But definitely a stratification of society along lines of IQ and class, not because of college, but because of what educated, intelligent people do with their lives.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

GamerGate Is Awakening Those Outside The Manosphere to Misandry

First, a bit of background about GamerGate, courtesy of Roosh over at RoK, for those who may be like me in not having paid much attention to this apparently humongous controversy:
GamerGate is an internet movement that is attempting to clean up corruption and favoritism in gaming journalism on sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Rock Paper Shotgun, Gamasutra, and numerous others that have been pushing an extremist SJW agenda instead of reviewing games fairly. These sites have elevated women like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian to professional victims who tear down gamers and label everything as misogynist instead of fostering real game development.
With that in mind, I recently spied this encouraging article by Cathy Young about the misandry inherent in GamerGate. Encouraging in that a nominally feminist, non-MHRA such as Ms. Young can not only see the excesses of feminism in the culture and actually somewhat supports the pushback of the community of men and like-minded women against these excesses...and considers it safe enough to highlight and critique the femstapo Brownshirts:
A part of GamerGate's image problem is its own identity problem. While the movement's concerns about cronyism in "elite" gaming journalism (represented by sites such as Kotaku, Polygon, and ArsTechnica) and its rather incestuous relationship with the "progressive" indie development scene are definitely not without foundation, the "ethics in journalism" arguments are often somewhat vague. It is also hard to sustain the argument that GamerGate is not a backlash against feminism when it finds itself conspicuously at war with feminists on and around the gaming scene; indeed, the gamers' complaints about gaming media collusion are often directed at the promotion of a feminist agenda.

But this backlash is not directed at women, who are already a strong presence in the gaming world. (Today, more than half of role-playing videogame players are female, as a third of those playing in massive multiplayer online games.) Nor it is directed at female-oriented content in videogames, where female protagonists—or ones whose gender can be customized by the player—are hardly a rarity. Its target is a narrow brand of feminism that not all women and not all feminists espouse—one that does not simply champion equality and inclusion, but sees modern Western culture as permeated by patriarchy and views male "sexualization" of women as inherently oppressive.

GamerGate has been attacked over anti-feminist comments made by some of the movement's sympathizers, such as provocative British tech blogger and writer Milo Yiannopoulos. But far less attention has been given to extreme views on the anti-GamerGate side. Take writer Samantha Allen, whose decision to stop writing about videogames, apparently because of GamerGate, has been lamented by Brianna Wu as the tragic loss of a valuable voice. (Update: Allen contacted me to say she gave up videogame writing because of a Twitter harassment campaign in June/July, several weeks before the existence of GamerGate as such, even though Wu's Washington Post column names her as one of the women "lost" to GamerGate.) A few months ago, Allen posted (and later deleted) a diatribe on her Tumblr blog that opened with this declaration:
i'm a misandrist. that means i hate men. i'm not a cute misandrist. i don't have a fridge magnet that says, "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them." my loathing cannot be contained by a fridge magnet.
(It's all downhill from there.)

Obviously, Allen does not express such attitudes in her published work; but it is surely not a stretch to think that they inform her journalism.

In his GamerGate commentary, journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan notes that the movement was partly a revolt again "the creeping misandry in a lot of current debates … and the easy prejudices that define white and male and young as suspect identities." I disagree with some of Sullivan's writings on gender, which come too close to a "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus" view of intractable sex differences for my taste; but in this case, his insight is on target. This misandry expresses itself not only in many feminist critiques of videogames (which I discussed in some detail in my second piece on GamerGate), but in a climate that treats male sexual expression—and even harmless humor that could be interpreted in a sexual way—with suspicion and disapproval.

The feminism of male demonization and female victimhood has become an insidious force that, despite its faux-progressive trappings, stands in the way of genuine equality. Whatever its flaws, GamerGate is a politically diverse movement of cultural resistance to this brand of toxic feminism. For that, it deserves at least two cheers.
Frankly, anytime the word "misandry" is used is a victory.  Moreso if it is used positively, and especially given the liberalist bias of the gaming industry media or mainstream media as a whole,

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

A Peek Into How MSM Shapes News to the Left and Protects 44's Administration

Haven't yet read former CBS investigative report Shary Attkisson's book, but if the allegations in it are true, it should destroy whatever thread of credibility remains for CBS and for the MSM in general.

First up is how the news is shaped to fit the ideological bent of liberalist New York editors:
Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.  Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.
Second, how the news is shaped to fit the ideological bent of the reporters themselves:
“Many in the media,” she writes, “are wrestling with their own souls: They know that ObamaCare is in serious trouble, but they’re conflicted about reporting that. Some worry that the news coverage will hurt a cause that they personally believe in. They’re all too eager to dismiss damaging documentary evidence while embracing, sometimes unquestioningly, the Obama administration’s ever-evolving and unproven explanations.”
Next, how those on the so-called "right" are Othered through labelling:
One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”
And how the MSM carries water for the present Administration, for which they got a collective thrill up their leg and in a President whom they deem as their Messiah:
She was turning up leads tying the Fast and Furious scandal (which involved so many guns that ATF officials initially worried that a firearm used in the Tucson shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords might have been one of them) to an ever-expanding network of cases when she got an e-mail from Katie Couric asking if it was OK for Couric to interview Eric Holder, whom Couric knew socially, about the scandal. Sure, replied Attkisson. No interview with Holder aired but “after that weekend e-mail exchange, nothing is the same at work,” Attkisson writes. “The Evening News” began killing her stories on Fast and Furious, with one producer telling Attkisson, “You’ve reported everything. There’s really nothing left to say.” Readers are left to wonder whether Holder told Couric to stand down on the story.

When Attkisson had an exclusive, on-camera interview lined up with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the YouTube filmmaker Hillary Clinton blamed for the Benghazi attacks, CBS News president Rhodes nixed the idea: “That’s kind of old news, isn’t it?” he said.

Sensing the political waters had become too treacherous, Attkisson did what she thought was an easy sell on a school-lunch fraud story that “CBS This Morning enthusiastically accepted,” she says, and was racing to get on air, when suddenly “the light switch went off . . . we couldn’t figure out what they saw as a political angle to this story.” The story had nothing to do with Michelle Obama, but Attkisson figures that the first lady’s association with school lunches, and/or her friendship with “CBS This Morning” host Gayle King, might have had something to do with execs now telling her the story “wasn’t interesting to their audience, after all.”

A story on waste at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, planned for the CBS Weekend News, was watered down and turned into a “bland non-story” before airing: An exec she doesn’t identify who was Shevlin’s “number two,” she says, “reacted as if the story had disparaged his best friend. As if his best friend were Mr. Federal Government. ‘Well, this is all the states’ fault!’ . . . he sputtered.”

Meanwhile, she says, though no one confronted her directly, a “whisper campaign” began; “If I offered a story on pretty much any legitimate controversy involving government, instead of being considered a good journalistic watchdog, I was anti-Obama.”
That the media skews heavily left should come as no surprise to readers of this blog. It's been a documented phenomenon since the 60s.  Even the New York Times back in 1992 repoted that reporters themselves voted liberalist, and did so in increasing quantities each successive election. And while it is certainly possible that while reporters may themselves be Left yet report neutrally, a pair of studies in the mid-2000s blew that contention out of the water: Liberalist reporters can't help but shape the news in a distinctly leftward direction.

This bias isn't limited to US-based media, either.  Spanish-language media popular in the US also has a distinct leftward bent.  Even the video game media skews left, as evinced by their reaction to the "GamerGate" scandal.

That such a liberalist bias, from the line reporter on the street all the way to the top of the corporate hierarchy, could express itself in ways that Ms. Attkisson describes above, is to me nearly axiomatic. When what is "newsworthy" goes through a lefty filter, when the investigation and research is completed through a lefty filter, and when the tone and diction are selected based on lefty semantics and lefty vocabulary, it's no surprise that the media should not only lean left but actively work to defend liberalist values and liberalist public figures.

It should be obvious to anyone who isn't willfully blind that the leftist media is in the tank for Democrats in general, with whom they are ideologically aligned, and with the Obama administration in general.  The only people who think it is "unbiased" and "centrist" are those who are so far Left that true centrists look like right-wingers.  Little wonder then that those to the right of the average denizen of the Fourth Estate are "scary", "evil", and "radical".

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Vote Republican - Because Democrat Redcoats

This actually does a pretty good job of describing the present issue with Republican get-out-the-vote efforts:

Found here at

Yes, the Republican party is on track to make gains in Congress this election, but it doesn't take away from the fact that even if elected, they're not likely to do anything about Obamacare, about our porous Southern border or the importation of a new electorate, or the decreasing distance between the administrative state and the Democrat party.

Monday, November 3, 2014

Back-Door Suspension of Habeas Corpus for IRS

Ordinary individuals, proven guilty of no crime, are apparently being caught up in a web meant to ensnare drug traffickers.  No actual crime needed, just a suspicious pattern of behavior similar to what is called "structuring", and *poof*--your businesses' bank accounts are seized. It'll be up to you to prove innocence to get them back. And oh, by the way, you won't have any money to do it:
For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.

[T]he Institute for Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm that is seeking to reform civil forfeiture practices, analyzed structuring data from the I.R.S., which made 639 seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005. Only one in five was prosecuted as a criminal structuring case. The practice has swept up dairy farmers in Maryland, an Army sergeant in Virginia saving for his children’s college education and Ms. Hinders, 67, who has borrowed money, strained her credit cards and taken out a second mortgage to keep her restaurant going. Their money was seized under an increasingly controversial area of law known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement agents to take property they suspect of being tied to crime even if no criminal charges are filed. Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited.

Critics say this incentive has led to the creation of a law enforcement dragnet, with more than 100 multiagency task forces combing through bank reports, looking for accounts to seize. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks and other financial institutions must report cash deposits greater than $10,000. But since many criminals are aware of that requirement, banks also are supposed to report any suspicious transactions, including deposit patterns below $10,000. Last year, banks filed more than 700,000 suspicious activity reports. Owners who are caught up in structuring cases often cannot afford to fight. The median amount seized by the I.R.S. was $34,000, according to the Institute for Justice analysis, while legal costs can easily mount to $20,000 or more.

On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”
If the reader is not shocked enough yet, consider that this article appears in the New York Times. No Washington Free Beacon, that.

As for curtailing the practice except for "exceptional circumstances", I wonder just how the IRS defines "exceptional". Given their aggressive treatment of ordinary businesses, surely yielding settlement windfalls for the US Treasury, I'm skeptical that the Service can be trusted to apply their discretion appropriately.

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Cloward-Piven Children's Crusade May Have Killed 9 Children In USA

One problem with purposefully allowing waves of barely controlled Central American migration to stuff the American populace (and eventually ballot boxes) with future Democrat voters is that they're Central American.  They bring disease, including civic / governance disease (i.e., weaned on Central American banana-republic-style authoritarian governance), as well as the viral/bacteriological kind:
The deadly EV-D68 enterovirus epidemic, which struck thousands of kids this fall, was likely propelled through America by President Barack Obama’s decision to allow tens of thousands of Central Americans across the Texas border, according to a growing body of genetic and statistical evidence. The evidence includes admissions from top health officials that the epidemic included multiple strains of the virus, and that it appeared simultaneously in multiple independent locations. Officials ”have to do the genetic analysis” to disprove or prove the link, Nora Chapman, an enterovirus scientist at the University of Nebraska, told The Daily Caller.

But there’s already more than enough statistical evidence for American citizens to demand that scientists test the viruses to see if Obama’s progressive border priorities spread the dangerous contagion throughout the country during 2014. So far, that virus has been found in nine American kids who died from illness, has apparently inflicted unprecedented polio-like paralysis in roughly 50 kids, and has put hundreds of young American kids into hospital emergency wards and intensive care units throughout more than 40 states.
Slate, a publication not known for listing to starboard, has already noted that the HHS program to settle unaccompanied illegal alien minors in the US has brought with it new threats of dengue fever and tuberculosis to American soil. Enterovirus is not outside the pale. Couple this with the administration's complacent attitude toward ebola--even going as far as to delete CDC warnings about how ebola is transmissible by droplets, lest the public be justifiably alarmed--this lack of regard for the safety of Americans is consistent. The WHO, again not exactly a organization rife with bitter clingers, has urged extra protection for health care workers to guard against droplet contact with mouths, noses, and eyes.

But hey, if you want to fundamentally transform America by importing Central Americans who vote overwhelmingly Democrat and couldn't give one whit about Anglo-Saxon republican governance, you gotta break a few eggs.

Friday, October 31, 2014

Abortion vs Infanticide, Part II

I asked the following last May regarding the reaction to a Chinese woman who attempted to abort her baby by flushing it down the toilet:
...what difference does the rationale behind the abortion make? Or, for that matter, what difference does the locale of the infant, of which the example above is merely a one that is post-natal as opposed to pre-natal, make? Once one accepts that awarding the status of 'human' is to be contingent upon ridiculous criteria such as a point in space-time (i.e., inside the uterus/birth canal vs in a sewage pipe), or even more variable criteria such as the pregnant woman's feelings mental health, then truly events such as these shouldn't even bother anyone at all. Or perhaps the only issue in this instance is that the human conscience is forced to contend with the unmistakable physical evidence that abortion involves killing, either by chemicals, dismemberment in a prayerful abattoir, or drowning/suffocation in a sewer pipe in Eastern China.
At the time, a great many, perhaps even a significant majority of those who would otherwise support fetuscide saw the fecal suffocation of a born-alive human infant as a step too far. Yet today, a mere year later, there are indicators that this population of pro-aborts who still possess a still, small sliver of a conscience about killing a born alive human infant is tapering toward zero. And in the process, the age at which a human may be killed for the crime of being inconvenient is rising. For some, even children old enough to be kindergarteners qualify to be unceremoniously rubbed out:
Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.” “We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit,” said Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal. “While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”

Campuses where the high school, college students, local activists and staff members of Created Equal have encountered this opinion include Purdue, University of Minnesota, and University of Central Florida. And at Ohio State earlier this year, the group captured a debate on video between one of its members and an older woman on campus who defended infanticide. “This is the whole problem with devaluing human life at any stage—it will naturally grow to include other groups of humans; in this case, born humans as well as preborn humans,” Harrington said. “[I] talked with one young man at the University of Minnesota who thought it was alright to kill children if they were under the age of 5 years old, as he did not consider them persons until that age.” Kristina Garza, spokeswoman for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, a prolife organization that often sets up anti-abortion displays on campuses along the West Coast, said her group also frequently encounters college students who accept infanticide. “For those who are firmly for abortion, because they understand it kills a human being, it’s very easy for them to accept killing a human being after birth,” Garza said. “There is this notion that is common on campus, that it’s OK to kill babies because somehow we don’t become human until we are self aware. A common number that is going around is 4 years old".

As for the trend, Garza said there’s an explanation for it. For one, the arguments put forth by Peter Singer and other philosophers who support infanticide are given as reading assignments to college students. Singer wrote in 1979 that “human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons … [therefore] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
If the value of human life is based upon anything else than its own intrinsic God-given worth, then there really is no reliable, objective rubric to decide at what age it becomes impermissible to kill a child. The goalposts can always be moved, based upon the rationale of the rationalizer, in the Overton Window of the present zeitgeist.  And, as we've observed, when it comes to offing the inconvenient, this window is steadily enlarging.

The horrors produced by 20th Century authoritarian regimes featuring weaponized unbelief apparently weren't enough to instruct the West that the religion of secular liberalism was a one-way ticket to nihilism.  I'm doubting that this will either...after all, if 57M in the US, 336M in China, and 1.73B worldwide isn't enough, then I'm really not sure what message will penetrate.

One wonders what other wonderful developments will occur, as the population slowly de-Christianizes and enters an age of new paganism.

Oh, and happy Halloween everybody.  At least when you and / or your child dresses up as ghouls, it's only make-believe.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Self-Defense-From-Rape Claim Doesn't Save Woman from Gallows

Iran hangs a young woman for murder, after she claims self-defense to justify the killing of a man she accused of rape:
Reyhaneh Jabbari had spent five years on death row for stabbing a 47-year-old surgeon who had previously worked for the intelligence ministry, the official IRNA news agency reported. Efforts for clemency had intensified in recent weeks. Jabbari's mother was allowed to visit her for one hour on Friday, Amnesty said - a custom that tends to precede executions in Iran.

However, Sarbandi's family insisted the murder was premeditated and that Jabbari had confessed to buying a knife two days before the killing. According to Jalal Sarbandi, the victim's eldest son, Jabbari testified that a man was present in the apartment where his father was killed but she had refused to reveal his identity. He said in April that his family "would not even contemplate mercy until truth is unearthed. Only when her true intentions are exposed and she tells the truth about her accomplice and what really went down will we be prepared to grant mercy," he said at the time.

Jabbari's plea of self-defence failed to persuade judges at various stages of the appeal process up to Iran's Supreme Court and she remained in prison throughout.
A man was dead. Iranian justice required a life to forfeit in exchange. Knowing this, Miss Jabbari still claimed self-defense, and refused to dime out the other male she claimed was in the room at the time of Mr. Sarbandi's death, who would have certainly faced the death penalty had she named him...that is, if he existed at all. Not that it was in any way certain that giving up this other phantasmic man would have saved her neck; given the obvious questions about what Miss Jabari was doing in a room alone with two unrelated men, she (and he) could have still faced harsh if not capital punishment for possible zina.

Interestingly, the twin claims of "self defense" and "rape" were ineffective at saving her life. In the West, both claims, especially if uttered by a woman, an particularly if linked together, as in this case, would have had far more currency and may have saved her life. Not so in Iran, and in other shariah-law countries, which demands more evidence than a mere accusation to exculpate someone from a heinous crime.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Quote for Today

Harvard's [anti-sexual-assualt] policy was written by people who think sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense
Professor Alan Dershowitz, in an article in the November 3d edition of Time magazine.

ht: Community of the Wrongly Accused

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Republicans See White Vote As Key To Taking Senate

A (slight) parody.

An explicitly race-based strategy emerges to exploit racial solidarity and tribal identity for political power:
The confidential memo from a pollster for former presidential candidate Mitt Romney contained a blunt but uncontroversial advice for Republicans. Written this month with an eye toward election day, it predicted “crushing Democratic losses across the country” if the party would do more to get white voters to the polls.

“White voters failed to come out in force in 2008 and 2012, and are not well positioned to do so again in 2014,” the pollster wrote in the memo, dated Oct. 1. “In fact, over half aren’t even sure when the midterm elections are taking place.”

This assessment points to an urgent imperative for Republicans: To keep Democrats from retaining control of the Senate, they need white voter to turn out in droves in at least four key states. The one politician guaranteed to generate enthusiasm among white voters, according to the memo, is the same man many Democratic candidates want to avoid: Mr. Obama.

Now, Republicans are deploying other prominent white elected officials and other surrogates, buttressed by sophisticated voter targeting efforts, to stoke white turnout. At country clubs and military bases across the country, the president of the Republican National Committee is waging an under-the-radar campaign, recording video advertisements, radio interviews and telephone calls specifically targeting his loyal European-American base.

“Anybody who looks at the data realizes that if the white vote, and the off-white vote, doesn’t turn out, we can’t win. It’s just that simple,” said Representative Martie L. Faust of Ohio, the chairwoman of the Congressional White Caucus, referring to whites from Northern and Southern Europe. “If we don’t turn out, we cannot take the Senate.”
The source article, which detailed a no-kidding race-based get-out-the-vote strategy, appeared in the Gray Lady last week.

Question for the group: Is is more racist to vote for someone because of their skin color, or against because of their skin color? Similarly, is it more racist to vote as a racial bloc, or less?  If so, why?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

$.06 Per Pound ROI

Not much to argue with here:
The next time you hear a four-star whine to Congress about how military pay and benefits are wreaking havoc on the defense budget and must be rolled back, think about this item buried deep in the news mix last week:

According to the Washington Post, a few years ago the Defense Department spent nearly half a billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to buy 20 Italian cargo planes for the Afghan Air Force.

The planes turned out to be highly defective, with problems in performance, maintenance and spare parts. Sixteen were sold for scrap — at a return of 6 cents a pound. The others are parked at a U.S. air base in Germany and likely will never see service.

DoD spent $486 million on the planes, junked most of them, and recouped just a paltry $32,000. But it’s you, Airman 1st Class Jones, and your costly benefits, that are destroying the defense budget.

In truth, the military-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned the nation decades ago is in full flower. DoD wastes this kind of money on hardware all the time; it’s now a collective $400 billion over initial cost estimates on its current weapons acquisition portfolio.
While part of the issue for such a low price for problem-plagued yet technically flyable aircaft is that they are parked at the end of the runway at Kabul International Airport, and that the military is slowly becoming the GM of the Federal Government (you know, a health care company that also makes cars), the overall point of the editorial holds: Lots and lots of money down the memory hole in DoD, with not much accountability for it.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Neologism: Sexzoned

Sexzoned: The act of determining one is unworthy of commitment, but yet still useful for satisfying sexual needs.
One way in which Red Pill thought has re-jiggered relations between the sexes is to remind men that, while women are the gatekeepers of consensual sex, men are the gatekeepers of consensual commitment.  This commitment has substantial value, and men should not disregard it so.

Suitors offering friendship, yet found unworthy of access to a woman's sexuality have been friendzoned by the cowardly/unscrupulous/both since time immemorial.  Today, however, subsequent to women's (and also men's) liberation, women offering sexual access yet found unworthy of a man's permanent commitment may find themselves, to use Emma the Emo's newly coined term, sexzoned by the equally cowardly/unscrupulous/both. Milk without the cow, &c. To use Emma's words:
If a guy says something angry upon being friendzoned, he is usually judged harshly, and it’s suggested he felt entitled to sex to have this attitude. And sometimes they say he thought that a woman’s friendship was a consolation prize (which is an insult to her friendship).

A woman is not a machine where you insert friendship coins, until sex falls out!..

Indeed it’s true. But isn’t the same true for men?

A man is not a machine where you insert [sex] coins, until friendship falls out.

Offering friendship does not necessarily result in friendship. Sometimes people aren’t interested, or want more. Does that mean women who become angry when friendship is refused, felt entitled to a man’s friendship? Ian Ironwood [at the blog The Red Pill Room] suggests so.
The remainder of Emma's original post discusses legitimacy of the anger that some men feel upon being friendzoned, likens it to the resentment that some women feel upon being sexzoned, and discusses the relative merits of whether that reaction is due to entitlement or some other motivation.

A couple of thoughts here on sexzoning.  First, men re-realizing that they are the gatekeepers of consensual commitment does much to re-balance the scales between the sexes in the sexual marketplace (SMP). This commodity (consensual commitment) is in great demand, and that demand grants significant power. A man should be as profligate in granting relationship as a woman is in granting sex. In being choosy in relationship, in being unpromiscuous in his commitments, a man increases his attractiveness both in the SMP and marriage marketplace (MMP), much in the same way as a choosy woman increases her attractiveness through differentiation and exclusivity.  But that's not the only benefit: This choosiness insulates men and women from being friend- and sexzoned, respectively.

Moreover, adapting Scripture for a moment, we should recall that 'to whom much is granted, much is expected'. Thus those fellows who don't appreciate the thought of being friendzoned should remember that when tempted to sexzone a woman.  The opposite applies to women considering friendzoning a man--it's disrespectful and using.  

Second--readers will forgive a bit of proselytizing here, but I gotta--one's risk of being friendzoned/sexzoned decreases significantly upon rejecting the sexual marketplace for the marriage marketplace. But not just the MMP, but a specific domain within it: Courting.  In courting, a man is in the driver's seat.  He initiates this deliberate process with an end goal in sight--marriage.  This sets the mental framework for the events to follow, and "breaks his beta", almost by default.  This is not to say that women have less power or influence in this process, far from it.  Rather, that both potentials are evaluating the other for suitability as a husband or wife. If either rejects the other, there was no "milk without the cow" sex and/or commitment being obtained, thus low/no risk of friendzoning or sexzoning.