Author: VD

Why are we supposed to be shocked or upset by this? Why are we even supposed to be surprised by this? The American and European rape epidemics are the direct and predictable result of the West’s open door policy towards Third World migration; migration always changes the culture of the territory more dramatically than it changes the character of the migrants. The theoretical arguments of the equality crowd are being blown away in real-time by the rapidly accumulating empirical evidence.

It is an indignant, heartbroken, outraged father who speaks with us. “My daughter was raped at the Midi Station. In Brussels. Capital of Europe. In complete impunity.”

It was June 12th. “My daughter came back from Waterloo station. It was 9 PM. Upon exiting the train, she walked to the Bancontact.” A transit place. And it was there, of all places, that the drama unfolded.

“In the midst of a train station. How is this possible?” continues the father of Lola, 21 years old. “Two man reproached her for not wearing the veil. My girl is pretty. She’s blonde and has blue eyes.”

Everything then happened very fast. “One of the aggressors took out a knife. My daughter was forcibly put against a wall in Bancontact. Knife under the throat, one of the guys raped her. The other one watched.”

It was 9 PM. It was still light out and the station was far from being empty.

This is but a harbinger of the crime-ridden society that the liberals, left-wingers, and multiculturalists of the West have chosen. They shouldn’t complain about the unintended consequences, but rather, take the famous advice of Bobby Knight, relax, and enjoy it. Those who rejected the civilized traditional culture of Western Christendom in favor of a mythical “equality” of one sort or another – socialism, feminism, and multiculturalism all stem from that basic premise – merit the full fruits of that rejection. It’s a mark of the spineless secular suicide of the modern West that the proposed response to a violent attack on a strong, independent woman is… more cameras at the train station.

BH sees more silver lining than cloud in the Heller decision. Or, at the very least, the potential for it:

I read with interest your assessment of the recent Heller decision, and the careful language of Scalia in the majority opinion. I was concerned with the dicta you cited, as well as Scalia’s assertion that there existed “sensitive places” where the lawful carrying of arms could be prohibited.

The reality is, dicta notwithstanding (because while dicta informs, it does not set precedent), that the Court was only considering a very narrow issue, that of the possession of functional, readily available arms within the home. The dicta touched upon keeping and bearing consolidating into a single right, but the holding did not address the lawful carrying of arms outside the home. As you know, SCOTUS does this all the time, allowing the gov’t to cling to unaddressed ultra vires behavior as long as possible. There is a hole in this holding, however, into which a wedge can be driven in our favor, regarding the People’s progenetive right to alter or abolish tyrannical gov’t enumerated in the DoI. Scalia addressed the Miller holding, only partially stating what it really meant. While his language regarding Miller eviscerates the “collective right” absurdity advanced by statists, it seeks to eliminate military pattern small arms from the designation “in common use” intimating that sporting and hunting arms (there were no such distinctions at the writing of the BoR, as you rightly noted) are those to which Miller referred. I submit (as should any competent lawyer) that military pattern semi-automatic firearms, both pistols and rifles, are contemporarily “in common use”, and could be brought into service if needed in any militia activity, because their ownership and lawful use is widespread (i.e. “common”), and the only reason they aren’t more common is inane federal, state and local restrictions preventing them from being so.

So, while I understand and agree with your skepticism, I see light at the end of the tunnel. As you are well aware, these issues must be pursued one a time, carefully and skillfully – such is the state of our jurisprudence. However, Scalia, in seeking to limit the type of arms the keeping and bearing of which are protected, by placing heavy emphasis on the “common use” language in Miller, has actually opened the door. Now, all we have to do is to stick our foot in it to keep it from closing.

I certainly hope he’s right. World events don’t always go as poorly as one expects; the recent nationalistic intransigence in Ireland, Poland, and even Germany demonstrate that. But, I’m not as convinced as most conservatives that Scalia is as ferocious a defender of gun rights as he’s been painted, and considering the narrow majority that even subscribe to the individual rights “interpretation”, I don’t see how the worms will fail to come out of the opened can that is Heller or that a mere foot in the door will be enough.

Derb quotes a reader:

Herding a bunch of kids together against their will to try to teach them the same thing at the same time is one of the dumbest ideas the human race has ever come up with. I say it’s collectivism, and I say to hell with it.

A succinct and accurate summary.

Poland refuses to sign onto the sham:

As France assumed the rotating presidency of the European Union on Tuesday, the bloc’s wounded plans for reform took another hit , this time from Poland whose president said he would not sign the Lisbon Treaty that was intended to revitalize the EU’s institutions.

Apparently “revitalize” is New York Timespeak for “sign over national sovereignty to”. But it’s good news about the tide turning; it shouldn’t be too long before countries are demanding their way out of the joint national suicide pact. And to no one’s surprise, the Eurofascists demonstrate just why Europeans are foolish to put any faith in them or their revival of the Bonaparte-Hitler scheme.

“The officials made it clear that they would seek to reverse the recent no vote by Ireland in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and to overcome reluctance in the Czech Republic to approve the pact.”

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As usual, logic-challenged liberals think that banning guns will reduce the rate of suicide, but even a cursory look at countries with higher rates of suicide demonstrate the fallaciousness of this thinking. It would be a particularly bad idea in auto-heavy America, since you can be sure that if people weren’t killing themselves with guns, they’d be doing it on the road in their cars.

In fact, the suicide rate in the USA is almost surely higher than reported; a significant percentage of single-car accidents are actually suicides. The empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis is the increase in the number of single-car accidents in the days immmediately following newspaper reports of non-auto related suicides.

The Daily Telegraph has an article about Darwin which points out that his atheism, as with most atheists, derived from very irrational emotion rather than reason. Unlike Job, Darwin could not bear the pain of the tragedy in his life and turned from God; the Book of Job makes it clear that Job is an unusual exemplary in this regard, it is Darwin’s behavior that is the norm. But what I found interesting was the reference to EpictetusEpicurus in the comments, a quote which was occasionally brought up by the more intelligent atheists and which I have seen being aped more and more often by the thoughtless talking points crowd.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

This is correct, however, the underlying assumption that God defines evil in the same sense that we do is baseless and probably incorrect. And sans a definition of evil, the whole argument is irrelevant sans anyhow. Sam Harris, for example, considers inanimate objects to be evil, apparently based on size.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Incorrect four times over. This assumes God’s definition of evil is identical to our own and that evil cannot be turned to a subsequent or ultimate purpose of good. It also assumes a level of interest on God’s part without any basis for doing so. And finally, it assumes that God would value enforcing good behavior over permitting free will that allows the possibility of evil action.

Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

This assumes an absence of free will. Evil comes from the human heart; the Christian definition of evil is not “things that counter our desires”, but rather, our choice to exalt our will over God’s Will.

Is he neither willing, nor able? Then why call him God?

Because He is the Creator. Call him the Dungeon Master or the Game Designer if you prefer. Either way, He is the Rulemaker and Lawgiver.

Now, despite my having provided these critiques for some time now, a few people still insist on claiming that my logical abilities are not as good as advertised. I should very much like to see these critics defend the reasoning of either EpictetusEpicurus or of Socrates in Euthyphro; surely if my logic is weak, it should be no problem to defeat it in with the help of two of the great historical philosophers.

If you’re watching, feel free to discuss here. Nice, hard-working goal by Torres in the 33rd minute; abysmal defending by Lahm. We lost our signal for the first 20 minutes, what is Ballack doing on the field? I thought he was out. If Iniesta would simply use his doggone left foot, this game might be over already; twice he’s broken through, had an open shot and refused to take it because the ball was on his left. I don’t accept that from six year olds, so I imagine that’s probably one of the things the Spanish manager is discussing that at halftime.

UPDATE – It’s Spain for Euro 2008.

Can you even imagine a more annoying group of youth? I’d rather hang out with the Young Pioneers or the Red Guards and listen to them recite Marx than spend five minutes with these smug, would-be rebels. You just know that they’re absolutely insufferable when discussing their musical preferences, much less politics.

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

Ooh, shocking her father with Facebook… radical! I just wish they’d put “Hussein” on their airline tickets as well. Still, I think there is the possibility for a lot of entertainment value in an prospective Obama administration. When you look at the history of democratically elected black leaders, from Atlanta and Detroit to South Africa and Zimbabwe, you have to conclude that there’s a pretty good chance that if HopeChange Hussein takes office, he’s going to drag America to places it never even knew existed.

The quiz covering the events of Book FiveSix, which took place during the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the war can be taken here. Sorry about the delay… now discuss away!

The History of the Peloponnesian War 1.1 to 1.115.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 1.116 to 2.46.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 2.47 to 2.103.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 3.1 to 3.116.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 4.1 to 4.135.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 5.1 to 5.116.

UPDATE – A few of the Thucydidean die-hards have expressed some concerns about the project. DocBrown, who has been solid throughout, wondered aloud: “Does anyone else get the feeling Vox is losing interest; late quizzes, very few comments on his part, no follow up posts with analysis like at the beginning?”

It’s not a matter of losing interest, only a matter of being busy with a few other things this summer. Unfortunately, it’s nothing I can discuss yet, but I’ve had some interesting opportunities present themselves of late, two of which I’ve chosen to pursue. The one that I can mention is a group blog to which I’ll be contributing once a week; it kicks off in another two weeks and I’m quite looking forward to it as I’m a big fan of the associated publication. It’s nothing political, but it will provide a nice venue for a topic that has seldom proven to be of much interest here.

Regarding Book Six, I was struck once more with what an effective general Demosthenes is. It would have been interesting to know what he thought of the expedition; Nicias’s doubts are well-founded, but his good reputation and military competence notwithstanding, he lacks the strength of character to decline the command. One thing that is oft forgotten when it comes to the Athenians is their military prowess on land as well as sea, they tend to remind me somewhat of the WWII German infantry in their audacity and aggressiveness. In battle after battle, they prove superior in terms of leadership and performance, they’re simply not the effete mercantile philosophers that they’re often assumed to be.

Before I forget, Book Seven will be next Saturday.