Category: Uncategorized

I’m beginning to think that Cedarford has never actually spoken to a real live woman:

And my point is that it is good if they do, because middle America, particularly women, are profoundly disturbed by the police state and restrictions on rights they promise….

This, right here, is evidence that otherwise intelligent people can say incredibly stupid things in defense of their most-cherished positions. It may be one of the silliest things I’ve ever seen anyone write here.

There is no evidence whatsoever that women are profoundly disturbed by a police state, to the contrary, they demand it on a regular basis! Women are delighted when smoking is banned, they weep tears of joy when repressive gun control is enacted and they are happy to be strip-searched at the airport and halted at mandatory late-night traffic stops. The reason is that most women are afraid of liberty and prefer Recht und Ordnung in the name of security; the popularity of the Nazis with women, the suffragettes’ embrace of Fascism and the fact that there are no Founding Mothers are not random accidents of history.

The only reason the right-to-life movement hasn’t managed to win over women the way MADD and DARE have is because many women are more afraid of having a baby than of the physical repercussions of having an abortion. They couldn’t be less concerned about Cedarford’s “anti-abortion police state”, and if one were to make women as fearful of abortion as they are of crime, drunk drivers, drugs and terrorism, they’d embrace that police state with open arms.

I received many, many emails in this vein. BS is not alone in his frustration:

I abandoned my families Democrat Party ties to vote for Reagan. Two years later, I became a Christian and I’ve never “voted for” another Republican. However, I have voted in every election “against Democrats,” which meant pulling the lever toward to Republicans. Every time I vote I feel like I’m sticking one more finger in a dike that’s overflowing with a flood of evil and immorality, I’m fed-up with choosing lesser evil candidates. All my Christian friends and I have agreed that if the Republicans nominate a pro-choice Presidential candidate for 08, we’re out! We’ll either stay home or vote for a pro-life third-party candidate even if he or she doesn’t stand a chance.

AG is weary of the Three Monkey commentariat:

I’m getting really tired of commentators like Sean Hannity and Michael Medved and Rush Limbaugh (who I happen to love otherwise), telling me that I have to support Republican candidates because the alternative is unthinkable. I was once a registered Republican, but found myself increasingly unable to reconcile my principles with the continued deterioration of the Party in actual power and practice.

Just last week, Michael Medved was on the radio telling us conservative voters that we had no choice but to support Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor in November. He is the greatest example of why we shouldn’t blindly support Republicans. He has saddled us with homosexual curricula in the schools, onerous gun control regulations, and economy-killing environmental nonsense. With Republicans like that, who needs Democrats? It makes me more and more proud that I supported the real conservative in the recall election.

I think what really sealed the deal for me was when Jim Nicholson told a New Hampshire newspaper that the Republican party was no longer interested in being the party of small government. That told me that the Republicans were only interested in power, and holding on to it, rather than doing what voters sent them to Washington to do. There has to be a better choice than this.

BW isn’t enamored of either of the ruling party’s factions:

What sort of conservative still supports the Republican Party? The answer is the same as what kind of liberal still supports the Democratic Party. The Kool-Aid drinkers. No one with an ounce of intelligence can possibly defend the platforms, agendas, leadership, or rank-and-file legislators of either major political party.

Pick a topic, any topic. Reasonable people are not capable of backing either major party.

This should be an interesting election. I expect that a large number of conservativs will stay home and enjoy watching the faux-conservative Republicans go down in flames. To put a different spin on what Dick Morris said yesterday, the Republicans are doing their best to ensure a Hillary Clinton victory in 2008.

And while I’d love to see Democrats impeach George Bush, they won’t do it even if they take the House and Senate. Never forget that these jokers are all on the same team, Bush has just done their heavy lifting for them. It took a fake conservative Nixon to go to China and it took a fake conservative Bush to get the Patriot Acts through.

Democrats propose, Republicans dispose. That’s how it works.

I don’t think this is any business of any government in the first place. It’s not a government’s responsibility to guard against corporate idiocy and an employer should be free to pay an employee more just because he wears nice suits or she has big breasts if he’s dumb enough to do so… but at least they’re not trying to require companies to give people raises for work they haven’t done:

Women who take time out of the workplace for maternity leave have no automatic right to the same pay as male colleagues who are doing the same job but have not had time off, Europe’s top court ruled yesterday.

One wonders if perhaps the European courts aren’t beginning to rethink the wisdom of encouraging women to work and importing Muslims to replace missing children instead of encouraging women to stay at home, have children and raise a succeeding generation of Europeans.

Or perhaps their motives are more nefarious and they wish to remove even the smallest incentive for a woman to have children. Given the strange state of Brussels, either could be true.

A radio station in Atlanta contacted me about coming on to talk about the Foley piece. I declined, of course, but I thought that the invitation was interesting. Obviously the scandal is of massiveinterest if columnists as completely out of the mainstream loop as I am are being sought for opinions.

I read some comments from someone claiming to be a former page who mentioned that they’d been warned about two other congressmen besides Foley, so this thing looks likely to spread and take a few more scalps before it’s over.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Congress:

Teen: are you going to be in town over the veterans day weekend
Maf54: I may be now that your coming
Maf54: who you coming to visit
Teen: haha good stuff
Teen: umm no one really
Maf54: we will be adjourned ny then
Teen: oh good
Maf54: by
Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen: yes yes 😉
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen: shhh…
Maf54: ok
Teen: that’s not what my ID says
Teen: lol
Maf54: ok
Teen: I probably shouldn’t be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we don’t get busted

Of course, you should vote for Mark Foley, Denny Hastert and company because, you know, someone might retire from the Supreme Court or something.

This thing isn’t even close to being over. From what I’ve read, there’s at least two other GOP congressman who will likely be exposed before the election. And there’s no point in wasting energy complaining about Democrats who do the same, they’ve already been inoculated against this by the Republican campaign against “San Francisco Democrats”.

Everyone already knows Democrats are perverts and psychos, that’s the whole point of their appeal.

As expected, a few statistically challenged gay men protested my use of the word pedophile in yesterday’s headline, despite the fact that I made use of the technically accurate term for Foley – ephebophile – in the column itself. However, the queens doth protest too much, as a survey of the statistics from the Department of Justice for substantiated sexual abuse will show:

Rate of sexual abuse by gender:
1.7 victims per 1,000 female children
0.4 victims per 1,000 male children.

To keep things simple, we’ll put on our Pandagonian beret and assume that all sexual abuse is committed by men. Defensive gays may look at these statistics and rightly claim that more heterosexual men sexually abuse children than homosexual men… but that is a futile attempt at sleight of hand because there are far more heterosexual men than homosexual men.

Since normal men outnumber gays by a factor of 49, one would expect there to be 19.6 victims per 1,000 female children, not 1.7. So, while most gays are not pedophiles, the average gay man is approximately 11.5 times more likely to be a pedophile than the average normal man.

Of course, women do commit sexual abuse, but since they abuse both male and female children, the differential is not likely to change dramatically.

UPDATE: It appears that homosexual women are also disproportionately prone to commit child sexual abuse. The data is sparse, but two different studies report that 53% and 65% of the underage victims of sexual abuse by women were female. This supports my suspicion that the 11.5 percent ratio is unlikely to change much even with the blame properly apportioned to men and women alike.

I find myself quoting Amynda with approval:

In the biggest non-surprise of the century, Republicans are getting bolder about just dropping the pretense that they give two shits about Afghanistan.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government.

So, what was the Senator’s first clue, the first British defeat in Afghanistan, the second British defeat in Afghanistan, the third British defeat in Afghanistan or the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan?

And how much longer will it take before a similar admission is made with regards to Iraq? Rich Lowry was complaining today on NRO that if our military is only good for breaking things and killing people, it can never defeat the Iraqi insurgency.

That’s kind of the point, Rich. There are two ways to defeat an insurgency, the Roman way and the British way. The Roman way requires killing and enslaving a statistically significant portion of the populace and colonizing the land. The British way requires dividing the potential resistance and constantly playing the various parties against each other.

Simply pointing machine guns at people and telling them all to play nicely together will never cut it. Since Americans possess neither Roman ruthlessness nor British mercantilism, there is no point in playing at occupation. Once it became clear that no one was ever going to be interested in buying condos overlooking the Euphrates, the occupation was doomed.

This isn’t rocket science. It continues to amaze me that the warmongers are still making their idiotic appeals to a nonexistent national will to win, as if that has ever made any difference when the strategic equation is stacked against one.

Bring the boys home. Kick the jihadists and their sympathizers out. Deport illegals. Jealously protect our national sovereignty and the God-given rights of the individual. Marry and have children. Foster entrepeneurialism and technological advancement. History repeatedly proves that this the only road to lasting victory.

Septeus wonders:

Do you think that more intelligent folks are more likely or less likely to change their opinions on politics or various disputed topics than us regular folk?

I would say that more intelligent individuals tend to have a more dynamic approach to ideology and therefore politics. For example, I have gone from a Reagan Youth Republican to a nonpartisan libertarian as has one of my college roommates, while another has gone from conventional Democrat to skeptical Republican. Both of them are three standard deviations above normal. I’ve also seen smart people go the other way, like Hillary Clinton for example, moving from Goldwater Republican to socialist Democrat. And while the Lizard Queen is evil, she’s also smarter than the norm.

I haven’t seen much similar ideological mutation among my normal friends and acquaintances. Most of them don’t seem to think about such things very often, they simply vote (R) or (D) without wasting any time contemplating the issues and there’s no quicker way to bore them than to bring up politics. I have a number of friends who have no idea that I write a political column and it would never occur to many of those who do know about it to ever read it.

This is because politics ultimately boils down to abstract issues, and an ability to think in the abstract is one of the hallmarks of intelligence. Just as one wouldn’t expect an individual with Down’s Syndrome and an IQ of 50 to concern himself much with the question of whether Republicans are more fitted for office than Democrats, one wouldn’t expect a normal individual with an IQ of 100 to spend much time contemplating whether voting is properly a right, a responsibility or a reward, much less the counterintuitively adverse relationship between universal suffrage and universal liberty.

This is one reason I despise limited democracy. It’s a fraud that relies entirely on the manipulation of the easily manipulated. Even the mob rule of true democracy would be a massive improvement on this.

Mary Kenny causes more than a few feminists to have a heart attack in today’s Telegraph:

When the failure of women in general to have attained equal pay or equal leadership in the workplace is publicly discussed, it is still put down to constructs such as “the glass ceiling”, or the way in which girls are “socially conditioned” not to aspire to top pay or high leadership.

The evident fact that most women are, by definition, not driven by testosterone-fuelled competitive ambition is seldom suggested. Far from females being “conditioned” by society, it is Nature doing the programming.

It is interesting to note how it is possible for some people to simultaneously decry “testoterone-fueled aggression” and what they perceive as an unnatural shortage of women in leadership positions. What’s particularly strange about this is that if one looks at the sort of women who do pursue such roles, they tend to be women of the strikingly masculine appearance that suggests an abnormal amount of testosterone.

One thing I enjoy about the European newspapers is that they are significantly less PC than their American counterparts, as I’ve pointed out previously, European countries have already begun numerous public debates on immigration and many countries have already instituted stricter immigration controls despite an immigrant population that is less than one-fourth the size (in percentage terms) of America’s ongoing immigrant invasion.

Granted, Islamo-fascists are more problematic than Hispano-fascists, but nevertheless, they are taking action while US politicians busy themselves trying to diddle the pages.

My favorite thing about Kenny’s article, however, was the response from this zeta male:

Presumably Mary Kenney has never ever heard of any of the following…..Boudicca, Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I, Mary Wolstenholme, Marie Stopes, Emmeline Pankhurst, Marie Curie, Anita Roddick, Mary Quant, Coco Chanel…to name but few. She needs (either) i)a serious reality check, or ii) a proper introduction to some of the most basic historical (and current) facts of life amongst which belonging to the female sexual gender does not of necessity equate to a “subservient” role in society.

Let’s examine those great women leaders, shall we?

1. Boudicca – Inherited her husband’s crown and sought revenge for her family’s humiliation by leading the Iceni and Trinovantes into rebellion against the Romans. She and her army of 250,0000 won a few battles, wiped out a Roman legion and massacred 75,000 people before losing to Suetonius despite outnumbering him 25 to 1.

2. Joan of Arc – Inspired the French and legitimately deserves credit for the victory at the Siege of Orleans. Unfortunately, her single tactic was to charge the enemy head-on without hesitation, which worked a few times until her luck ran out. She was captured in a minor skirmish while stupidly insisting on remaining with the rear-guard.

3. Queen Elizabeth I – A canny leader, but one who was always conscious of her limitations. Adroitly made use of her sex as a weapon. Excellent politician but never led her troops and had the benefit of some very skilled ministers. Never dared to marry for fear of political and religious intrigue and was forced to leave her throne to a Catholic in the end.

4. Mary Wolstenholme – I don’t know and neither does Google or Wikipedia.

5. Marie Stopes – Eugenicist who called for sterilizing the feeble-minded and “half-castes” and disowned her son for committing the “eugenic crime” of marrying a woman who wore glasses.

6. Emmeline Pankhurst – Suffragette led the campaign for women’s right to vote as well as the White Feather campaign to jail men who did not volunteer to fight in the Great War. A nascent fascist, as her daughters and fellow suffragettes later proved.

7. Marie Curie – gifted physicist and chemist, worked with her husband Pierre and won two Nobel prizes.

8. Anita Roddick – Founded The Body Shop. A teacher whose entrepeneurial husband had previously started a restaurant and a hotel… and joined her business after she’d opened her second shop. I don’t know enough about that industry to have an informed opinion here, but my suspicion is that it was probably her idea and his execution.

9. Mary Quant – invented the mini-skirt. In the immortal words of Derrick Coleman, whoop-de-damn do. It’s nice, but come on.

10. Coco Chanel – Clothes designer and Nazi collaborator.

So, this list of female immortals appears to demonstrate that women are capable of a) getting themselves and many others killed through military incompetence or insane ideology, and b) working effectively with their husbands to enjoy great scientific and commercial success.

How these ten examples are supposed to disprove anything Kenny has written about a biological handicap is beyond me. I note that he just happened to leave off one successful female leader, unfortunately, even Margaret Thatcher managed to get herself seduced and suckered by sweet-talking evil men when she bought into the bait-and-switch of the European Union, to the great detriment of her legacy.

91 West Texas Vikings
49 Burns Montgomerys

79 East Mesa White Trash
59 Newport Sea Dogs

73 Mounds View Meerkats
71 Pale Horse Cowboys

73 COS McRays
50 Greenfield Grizzlies

61 Santa Barbarians
47 Mile High Club