Author: VD

The Fraters Libertas can’t resist, even when the bear in question is busily soiling itself again:

…never underestimate the power of an MSM internal watchdog to pardon the unpardonable. And in Platt’s column I recognized the familiar style of the Star Tribune’s so called “Reader Representative” Kate Parry. That style, outlined and excerpted for your pleasure:

1) Cop to a lesser charge:

It’s not a monumental goof… We dropped a plate here; we didn’t smash the china cabinet. Though the editor’s personal sensibilities are to be admired, this time they did not serve the readers, or the newspaper, or journalism

2) Question and belittle the motives of the readers pointing out the error:

but it’s [an error] that fuels suspicions some readers have about the news media in general and this newspaper in particular. Also, his couching of the mayor’s statements made the newspaper a target for familiar broadsides of bias. In trying to address potential sensitivities of some readers by excising the controversial remark, it could be taken by other readers — and believe me, it was — that the newspaper was trying to cover or protect this particular public official from his own articulations.

3) Mention how hard it is to work at a newspaper and characterize those who made the error as the real heroes of the story.

One more thing about copy editors: They are the mostly unsung heroes and heroines of daily journalism. They spin a lot of important plates in a very short amount of time, and on deadline to boot. Theirs is a difficult job and their efforts go mostly unnoticed when they do the job right, and keep all those plates spinning — which is most of the time.

Always remember, these are the same people who insist that blogs and the Internet media can’t be taken seriously because they lack editors – you know, the same gatekeepers who are too busy making the words of black politicians look more palatable and protecting the editorial pages from dangerous thinking to actually verify the accuracy of the news that the newspaper is reporting.

Their self-aggrandizing apologies are disingenuous, too. For example, the 611 errors reported by the Star & Sickle’s omsbudswoman won’t include the many ludicrous predictions which are always carefully shielded by the word “could”. Sure, a carry law COULD cause the streets of Minneapolis to run red with blood, just as it COULD cause them to run green with blood as the armed citizenry defends itself against saber-toothed aliens from the planet Wumpus. Of course, the fact that the chances of the former actually happening aren’t much higher than the latter – or that it didn’t come to pass – never seems to find its way into print.

Americans’ personal savings rate dipped into negative territory in something that hasn’t happened since the Great Depression. Consumers depleted their savings to finance the purchases of cars and other big-ticket items. The Commerce Department reported Monday that the savings rate fell into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent, meaning that Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income last year but had to dip into previous savings or increase borrowing.

The savings rate has been negative for an entire year only twice before _ in 1932 and 1933 _ two years when the country was struggling to cope with the Great Depression, a time of massive business failures and job layoffs.

With employment growth strong now, analysts said that different factors are at play. Americans feel they can spend more, given that the value of their homes, the biggest asset for most families, has been rising sharply in recent years.

Morons… that’s my first thought. And then I stop and think, you know, if we have to invade Iran because the worthless nature of our money is on the verge of becoming apparent to the world, why bother saving it?

After all, you’re going to watch the empire begin to crumble, you might as well do it on a 50-inch flatscreen plasma.

I can’t help but wonder how the I=S crowd explains this. Was there also no investment in 2005?

CA is troubled by my heresy:

I am really disappointed [by today’s column]. I find it hard to believe you are actually a Christian.

I know, it is hard to believe, especially given Jesus Christ’s example in storming that hill at San Juan, followed only by his 12 Roughriders… or maybe was that Teddy Roosevelt. It’s so hard to tell them apart.

I’m just curious. In precisely what branch of Christian theology does insufficient enthusiasm for unprovoked foreign aggression equate to eternal damnation?

DL sees a different comparison:

The administration pronounced Slobodan Milosovic a latter-day Adolf Hitler and decreed that his effort to retain sovereignty over Kosovo went beyond ethnic cleansing to genocide–a new Holocaust.

My examination revealed much greater similarity in motive and action between Milosovic and Abraham Lincoln than between him and Hitler. A substantial segment of the nation was attempting to secede, and he sent his forces to prevent that from happening. As the Serbian troops gained ascendancy they marched through Kosovo as Sherman through Georgia–killing, raping, pillaging, burning–to destroy the Kosovar’s will and capacity to continue the insurrection.

Of course there were major differences in kind and quality, but the equation of Lincoln and Milosovic holds up about as well as most historical analogies one might attempt. It was close enough to get me shouted down in what we call “polite society”–including by my own family–every time I broached the thought. One might think I had said something naughty about affirmative action in college admissions or corporate hiring and promotions.

Well, we can’t have people thinking that Lincoln was Hitler, can we? After all, everyone knows that he’s Hussein… I mean, Ahmadinejad. Or something. Sometimes I cannot believe what passes for rational discourse in this country. It almost makes one feel as if the dumbing-down of the school system is redundant.

The sheep do hate it when you disturb their mindless grazing.

Andrea blogs about her dream:

I learn there’s a kidnapping plot against me, so I email Vox to enlist his help and let him know that I’m going to try to make it out to his place, which is a sprawling compound (natch). This place is in the middle of nowhere. I’m driving down a dirt road in my beat-up old car. Soon the road becomes too rough to drive on, so I have to abandon the car and finish on foot. I make it through woods, brush, and shallow gulches, and then I finally reach the edge of the compound. There are several nondescript buildings and many security stations. Next thing I know, I’m in his personal residence. (I don’t exactly know how I got in, but it was kind of implied that the guards knew me and let me in without hassle.) His house was light and airy, kind of like a seaside condo, but stark and stylish. What little furniture he had in there was ultra-modern, Italian leather stuff. The floor was slate or tile. I checked his computer and saw that he had left a message for me – it said that he knew about the plot and was on his way to pick me up. Suddenly he comes roaring up outside in a shiny black car, flings open the door and jumps out looking like Neo without the trenchcoat. The thumping beats of European techno come pouring out of the car. I dive into the backseat. There are tons of buttons and gadgets inside (I also gather that the car is armored and bulletproof). He jumps back in, glances back quickly and asks if I’m ok, then stands on the gas. And we take off, screeching around corners, busting stuff up…off into the sunset, I guess. I don’t know, the dream ended there. It was all very James Bond.

Actually, it’s marble… and haven’t you been paying attention? NOBODY TOUCHES THE COMPUTER! If I’m going to leave you a message, there’s a perfectly good pad of Post-Its right here.

Looks like I’m going to have to get that electroshock keyboard after all.

Ken dislikes the paradigm:

It seemed to me, however, that you were arguing something more significant than a transitory deference. Moreover, if you are arguing for a transitory phenomenon, I still think it’s more complicated than you would have it (and this is where animal psychology provides an incomplete picture)… you said, e.g., that there aren’t many of these alpha males. But most men have had the experience in their lives of commanding the attention of a whole room or particular conversation.

It seems to me that it depends on the social and intellectual makeup of the environment. In short, I just don’t think your alpha male paradigm works very well except to describe fluid situational dynamics of social interactions. You are incorrectly applying the attested social phenomenon and you’ve incorrectly linked it to a particular stereotypical carciature… and, incidentally, Spacebunny this applies to your response to me too.

Finally, if character isn’t an issue as you claim, why is your description of alphas, betas, and gammas so clearly value-laden? If character isn’t an issue, you would not try to label me as a gamma as a means to argue your point. This tactic is especially amusing in light of the fact that you just said alphas, such as yourself, “would have been to state that the argument is clearly bogus because of X, Y and Z, and he’s got a PhD from Stanford in Animal Psychology saying so, Column Boy.”

Of course it is transitory, being situational. The whole phenomenon is clearly relative, being social, as one should have been able to discern from the example provided of Donald Trump and Henry Kissinger. No male is an Alpha in diapers at two, or rambling incoherently with Alzheimers at 92.

How it seems to Ken is totally irrelevant. It is a model that works quite well and is far superior to that used by most men, especially Gammas, to understand the social situations in which they find themselves. It also helps many of those men who are bewildered as to why they constantly find themselves out of the game when it comes to office politics and women.

I could not care less if the quietly competent engineer whose name no one knows, but upon whom the entire operation depends wants to call himself a “stealth Alpha”, “Spock” or “Tinkerbell”. It makes no difference to me, although I note the engineer’s typical paradigm of the importance of excellence in performance doesn’t get him anywhere with regards to social interaction. If this archtypical Gamma is not interested in that, fine, he should happily ignore this entire topic. But the fact that numerous women have indicated an appreciation for the model would tend to indicate that it is not, in fact, entirely useless.

Character isn’t a relevant issue, because character isn’t synonymous with value. Ken simply can’t keep his concepts straight. But I do assign value because I despise the passive-aggressive behavior of the Gamma males. Even the interminable conflict-resolution dialogue of the Betas is preferable. I saw Ken as a likely Gamma because a) he appeared to take the paradigm personally, and b) his first two responses were typical Gamma attacks, indirect and designed to undermine rather than confront. I have never met Ken, so obviously this snap judgment could easily be incorrect, but the fluidity of his subsequent responses tend to support it.

Also, I am not a true Alpha, not being much of a pack animal in the first place, though I happen to possess enough dominant qualities that when drawn into social situations – usually by necessity and often against my inclination – I find myself in that role. And of course, I did find those qualities to be useful in the days BSB. But I was not thinking much about my own experiences when writing on this topic, I was actually thinking about the two men I have known who most powerfully project their dominance. What I find interesting about the phenomenon is that with the exception of above-average intelligence, these two Alphas have nothing in common – they are extremely different in terms of size, wealth, character, looks and accomplishment – and yet I tend to think of them as being fundamentally similar.

I think the most serious sign that war of some kind with Iran is imminent is the recent decision of UBS to close its Iranian accounts. I don’t pay much attention to Fox News taking polls showing that 65 percent of Americans believe that invading Lithuania is justified – seriously, I really want to see a poll taken in conjunction with one of these attack justification polls just to see if there’s any difference depending on whether the target is Iran, Israel, France or Brazil – but the gnomes of Zurich are very, very serious about their money.

If they’re sending all that oil money back to Iran, they know something is up. And the fact that this happened the week before that all the world leaders were in Davos for the World Economic Forum may be a coincidence, but I rather doubt it.

Drums, drums, in the deep.

So, what is it? What makes other guys roll over and pee themselves when an Alpha male rolls up? – Nesselrode5

Please clarify the definition of Alpha Male. And, further, please give the five steps to becoming one. I know, I know, you’ll say it’s inborn and can’t be learned, that it’s a magical quality that you either have or you don’t. Well, let’s just pretend that it could be learned: What do I need to do? How do I need to act? – Grendelizer

The essence of Alpha is a projected aura of dominance. This dominance can be material, physical, intellectual, spiritual or even emotional, and yet mere wealth, size, intelligence, saintliness or rage are not alone sufficient to provide it, regardless of the amount possessed by the individual. This dominance is usually strong enough to be sensed by others, even when it is not being openly displayed.

Others defer to the Alpha because of this dominance whether he seeks it or not. Even when they don’t really want the Alpha’s opinion, they will seek his approval and it will bother them when they don’t receive it. (Note, seeking approval under the guise of asking for advice can be extremely annoying. Don’t do it.)

The factors that others have mentioned, confidence and so forth, are actually ramifications of this dominance rather than definitive factors in themselves. But in cases where group politics or situational complexities make it difficult for the dominance to be readily apparent, two ramifications that can serve as useful identifying factors are decisiveness and the willingness to accept responsibility for those decisions.

This is how one can easily see when a person in a position of authority is not, despite the power that is at their disposal, an Alpha. They shun decision-making, attempt to lay the burden off on others or postpone it until events dictate actions, all the while hoping to evade the potential consequences. The Alpha, on the other hand, being used to others always looking to him, accepts his responsibility and expects to make decisions as a matter of course.

I think the military does an excellent job of creating faux Alphas. One often does not realize that they are not true Alphas until they are put in positions of responsibility outside the military and their natural personalities come to the fore. Therefore, those attempting to mimic Alpha behavior in the interest of improving their job or personal status would do well to look at how the military goes about creating its leaders. I know the Marine OCS attempts to instill bravery, self-respect, self-discipline, self-confidence and decisiveness in its officers, so I suspect that those would be the ideal attributes to foster.

As for five steps towards developing quasi-Alpha status, here are my suggestions:

1. Betray no signs of doubt or fear. This does not mean clinging to untenable positions, but calmly stick to your position until you are proven demonstrably wrong. If it is so demonstrated, concede at once and admit your error.

2. Do not concern yourself with what others think. That’s their job. You do your own thinking and do them the courtesy of allowing them to do theirs. If they require assistance, they can ask.

3. Never bluff. If you don’t know, admit it. “I don’t know” may perhaps be the most self-empowering phrase in the English language. I don’t understand precisely why, but people have a strong tendency to respect and even fear those who do what they say they will do.

4. Be decisive. When a decision is required, make it immediately. If more information is genuinely required – it usually isn’t – then make a tentative decision pending the receipt of the additional information. If you are asked for a decision, make one even if you don’t personally care one way or another. Often you are not being asked for your preference or your expertise, you are being asked to shoulder the burden of decision-making

5. Accept responsibility and consequences, even when it isn’t your fault.

From a physical standpoint, lifting weights and increasing your body strength will not only improve your appearance and your posture, but increases your psychological sense of self as well. Breast implants often seem to provide a similar effect for women.

None of this will cause women to want you and men to respect you immediately. But reliably behaving in this manner will color your interactions in such a way that others will begin to defer to you and raise your social status. It’s really not about looks or brains or things, it’s primarily about dominance and deference.

Here’s an example. Prior to meeting me for the first time, an old girlfriend of the White Buffalo asked him why he spoke about me the way he did, because she’d seen his pictures and she was (correctly) of the opinion that I wasn’t even one of his two best-looking friends at the time. Nor was I the tallest, the strongest or the wealthiest. But he laughed and told her that if she simply talked to me for half an hour, she’d find herself obediently taking her pants off if I told her to.

I was unaware of this, although I do remember her being intensely conversational the first time we met, and I was tremendously amused when the WB explained why she’d been so interested in talking to me. It was even more amusing, of course, to learn that she was in accordance with his assessment of the situation.

And breasts, apparently. Anyhow, the Pan-Galactic one has his harem up again. I knew “Renee” was a bit of a nut, but I had no idea that she was married to Tom Cruise, the little Scientologicial minx.

VDH on attacking Iran:

There are really only two bad choices…. One is the present “outsourcing” course: Let the Europeans exhaust negotiations, pressure the Chinese and Russians to allow the matter to go to the U.N., bolster Turkey and the Arab Gulf states and advise them to build a regional coalition to contain the problem, hope that Ahmadinejad alienates the world even more. Then, perhaps, sometime during this process, a popular uprising or even a right-wing worried cleric will thwart the nuclear party in Iran before this latest Great Mahdi gets the bomb, and with it impunity through national adulation….

The other unmentionable alternative — if we set aside the real appeasement of letting the mullahs have the bomb, or the equally cowardly policy of gently suggesting that the Israelis do the deed, or some Lord of the Rings fantasy about a grand aerial armada of NATO, American, and Russian jets descending in bombing formation over the modern forge of Mordor — is a preemptive (or in-sourced) American “air strike.”

I don’t understand what is cowardly about telling Israel that if they are genuinely threatened by an Iranian strike, they should go ahead and attack Iran themselves. Wasn’t such self-defense the precise point of supplying them with billions of dollars of military equipment for decades? The neocon logic is completely circular.

Israel will be endangered if Iran goes nuclear, therefore, the United States must attack Iran before Israel can be endangered. Why? Because Israel is in danger. Why doesn’t Israel defend herself with a preemptive strike? Because if she did, that might make Iran attack Israel, thereby endangering Israel. What sort of kindergarten logic is that? The neocons must have an even lower opinion of the average American voter than I do.

Iran may hate the United States – and legitimately so, considering how we discuss attacking them as blithely and openly as their mullahs discuss attacking us – but it’s quite clear that the primary focus of their hatred is Israel. If this potential Iranian aggression is truly a concern for Israel – and I see no reason to suggest that it is not – then Israel should make no bones about seeing to her own defenses. As Israel’s ally, the USA should certainly support any such actions, but it is reprehensible to suggest that the USA should bear the brunt of any such action which is not only in another nation’s primary interest, but also her capability.