Category: Uncategorized

Last week: 10-6. Fantasy 9-3.

W-Indianapolis Colts over Tennessee Titans
Seattle Seahawks over Philadelphia Eagles
W-San Diego Chargers over Oakland Raiders
W-Chicago Bears over Green Bay Packers
W-Minnesota Vikings over Detroit Lions
W-New England Patriots over New York Jets
W-Miami Dolphins over Buffalo Bills
L-Denver Broncos over Kansas City Chiefs
L-Dallas Cowboys over New York Giants
W-Cincinnati Bengals over Pittsburgh Steelers
W-Baltimore Ravens over Houston Texans
W-Tampa Bay Buccaneers over New Orleans Saints
W-Jacksonville Jaguars over Cleveland Browns
W-Washington Redskins over St. Louis Rams
W-Carolina Panthers over Atlanta Falcons
L-San Francisco 49ers over Arizona Cardinals

And speaking of why Mike Tice should have been fired around this time last year, please note that even an NFL linebacker is capable of outthinking the man who is still mysteriously the Vikings head coach. Miami had the second worst run defense in the league last year, giving up an average of 143.9 yards per game, and Minnesota had three decent running backs who were healthy. Naturally, Tice ran the ball a grand total of TWELVE times, if I recall correctly, thus managing to provide the Dolphins with one of their four victories that year.

Here, it’s just a matter of how bad the Houston run defense is. Houston linebacker Antwan Peek said it best – “if you don’t run on us, you should be fired.”

She’ll probably be appalled that I linked to her, but Bellatrys has some interesting commentary on a relatively obscure play by Thomas Ortway called “Venice Preserv’d”. As I’m a great fan of Venice and used to be somewhat of a theater buff before it went All Gay All The Time – back when I had season tickets, the Guthrie had a fantastic season that I still remember fondly – I found her post to be well worth the reading:

This obscure Restoration play by the tragic Thomas Otway (who just about embodies every cliche of the Great Romantic Artist you can think of, no less than the Byron-Shelley-Keats crew of a hundred-plus years later) is something I’d never encountered until I dowsed up a book of Restoration Drama at the secondhand store and found it there.

Whereupon I could instantly see why it was both a) obscure, and b) popular whenever it was put on. It’s a strange play, and you can see why – if it’s typical of Otway’s work – that he never attained the role of guys like Congreve or Dryden in the Canon of English lit. He’s just too bloody weird. It’s not exactly realism that he’s doing, any more than Puccini’s Tosca or La Boheme are “realistic” – but it’s a damn sight closer to naturalism-in-art than the highly ritualized and poetry-for-poetry’s sake Tragedy of Dryden’s All For Love, the classic neoclassical Shakespeare fanfic rewrite of Antony and Cleopatra.

Amandagon and company are up in arms about a rape accuser being convicted:

Victim found guilty…..

What a fucking nightmare. A 17-year-old girl is allegedly gang raped, and instead of prosecuting the men she said raped her, the girl is prosecuted for filing a false report.

While this could be taken as a good sign that rape will eventually be treated like any other crime, with burden of proof being on the accuser and normal standards of evidence applying, this particular case appears to be troublesome. If nothing else, the girl responsible for making the accusation should have been given the jury trial that is her right.

As the woman has apparently not recanted or withdrawn her accusation, she does not meet the standard of a false accuser used by the Purdue, Air Force and Washington Post studies that have shown how accusations made and later admitted to be false by the accuser herself have ranged from 25 to 60 percent of all rape accusations made. And of course, it’s always possible that the accuser was genuinely confused about what does and does not constitute rape, which: “spans a spectrum of incidents and behaviors, ranging from crimes legally defined as rape to verbal harassment and inappropriate innuendo.” – Swarthmore College training pamphlet

Not having been privy either to the incident itself or the subsequent trial, I have no idea if justice was served or not. As justice must be impartial, I don’t see how one can rightly convict a woman on nothing more than he said vs she said evidence anymore than one can convict a man. Yes, in this case it’s the word of three against one, but as all three men have an obvious interest in the matter, that’s just not relevant here.

It is probably too optimistic to hope that the “all accused men are guilty” crowd will come away from this with an understanding of how relaxing the standards required for a conviction is dangerous for everyone, not just the hated rapists, but we can always hope.

In any event, there is no question that the “justice” system in this country is corrupted far beyond what most people would believe. Having been firsthand witness to a judge “deciding” a case by a literal coin flip – a case wherein I was the only person on either side who had been there and knew exactly what had happened – I can attest that an American courtroom is one of the last places to look for justice. And that’s not sour grapes, either, we actually won that case but I remain entirely disgusted by the process with victory was granted.

In baby-strapped Italy, politicians are proposing that women be paid not to have abortions. The scheme – put forward by the left – comes at a time when the Roman Catholic church is urging a rethink of the country’s 1978 abortion law, reported The Guardian. It allows abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Last year a majority of MPs from across all parties succeeded in bringing in a law on assisted fertilisation that gave embryos full rights from the point of conception. This could affect the abortion law.

With a general election due in four months, both sides are keen to woo the decisive Catholic vote. Under the scheme, women with financial problems would get between 250 euro ($495) and 350 euro a month for up to six months before giving birth.

The plan is outlined in a proposed amendment to next year’s budget, which is sponsored by a group of MPs that includes two women ex-ministers. This move is the latest development in a rising controversy over abortion in Italy.

The language issuing from the Vatican has grown stronger in recent weeks with one cardinal describing abortion as ‘the worst kind of murder’.

On Wednesday, a parliamentary committee gave the go-ahead for a commission of inquiry into the law, which was passed at a time when the feminist lobby in Italy was stronger and more active than today. One reason for the latest initiative gathering support is that it addresses Italy’s failure to produce enough children.

Feminism has been a complete disaster for Italy. You have only to walk through the ghost towns, or through the piazzas of the surviving villages to see the preponderance of old people and the haunting absence of children. Feminism still threatens to accomplish what waves of Islamic invasion, Byzantine power struggles, Viking conquest, internecine war on the peninsula and French dynastic pretensions could not do, namely, eliminate one of this planet’s great cultures.

I don’t normally look approvingly on government intervention, but the concept of limited government in Italy is simply outside the range of the political discussion there. If they want to restore their birth rate, they’d do better to lower taxes – Italians only have one child because they have to dress it in un modo bello – put restrictions on birth control and ban abortion entirely.

Some might suggest attempting to keep women out of the workforce, (actually, they could keep most of the men out too, it’s not like most of them are spending much time doing what an American would call working), because then you wouldn’t have the requisite four or five women in short black skirts collectively serving as what passes for a receptionist.

Don’t get me wrong, I very much enjoy the Italian approach to business, it just drives me up the wall sometimes. I once met a friend for a coffee at 11; I didn’t get back until almost five. Lunch itself lasted more than two hours and two bottles of wine; on the way back to the office, we ran into the Milanese with whom my friend was meeting who insisted that hitting a bar for drinks were the first order of the day. As the friend of a friend, I was naturally greeted as a friend and was expected to accompany them all… hey, when in Rome….

Get the girl some absinthe… and a clue:

The sound of this post is my head bashing into a wall repeatedly.

Okay, I’m a glutton for punishment. I don’t know why I pore over things that make me boil inside the the fury of at least 3 volcanoes, but I think I do it in an attempt to make some fucking sense of the crazy people in this world. This is why I am finding myself reading over again the post by Vox Day…. The sentiments expressed by the clearly insane Vox and his commenters are as follows:

1. There is no such thing as date rape. Date rape is made up, and is akin to “post-sex buyer’s remorse.” Women cry date rape when they slept with a man and regret it afterwards.

Yes. “Date rape” is distinguished from real rape as it involves inherently sexual situations where there is seldom any possibility of obtaining evidence of either criminal activity or criminal intent, both of which are necessary to demonstrate in the conviction of real crimes.

2. Most of the time, women are responsible for being raped. The feminist movement is an attempt to eschew personal responsibility for said raping.

This is wildly inaccurate. A more accurate summary would be: “Women can be partially responsible for being raped. This does not, however, take away from the guilt of the rapist.” Apparently OOA doesn’t grasp the concept of the zero-sum game and its inapplicability here either.

3. Atheists and other liberals are moral relativists.

Thinking atheists are. They have no non-subjective basis for their “moral systems” and the rational ones subscribe to Nietszschean amorality. The vast majority, however, are simply unthinking moral parasites who pick and choose from the dominant morality as it suits their requirements at the moment.

4. The logical consequence of “moral relativism” is that there is nothing wrong with rape, since men deem the “slaking of [their] desire or lust” an intrinsic good. Therefore, even if you aren’t a conservative and don’t hate women like Vox et al. do, you are a liberal and therefore moral relativist and therefore you think rape is good.

By definition, there are no objective wrongs in the eyes of the moral relativist. Nor are there objective rights. OOA demonstrates a certain trouble with logic here. A moral relativist might think rape was good for her or she might not. Whatever her opinion, it would bear no significance for anyone else who defined their morality differently.

5. It would probably be a good idea if we adopted the approach to rape common in medieval-style Islamic law, which provides that another man must testify that a woman was raped (apart from the rapist) in order for the claim to be valid.

No one suggested Sharia as a potential solution to anything. However, the existence of some evidence – eyewitness evidence generally being considered the least conclusive – should be required in order to convict a human being of any crime.

6. It might also be a good idea if we punished false accusers. The proper punishment would be the same punishment as for rape. So, 20 years for every woman who brings a rape charge but fails in the investigation stage or at trial.

As opposed to rewarding them? Of course! A false accusation is a willful intent to harm an individual and more socially destructive than a simple assault. Also, a false accuser is someone who admits to having fabricated a groundless charge, not someone whose testimony does not lead to a guilty verdict. Such as was the case in 41 percent of the 109 rape accusations examined by Dr. Eugene Kanin of Purdue in 1994. (Wikipedia)

7. If women have regular consensual sex with multiple partners, her claim of rape is suspect and likely false. Therefore, if you consent to two partners, you consent to them all.

It depends on the circumstances. The simple point which OOA attempts to obscure is that if a woman regularly engages in consensual sex, the probability that she was having consensual sex and not being raped is significantly higher than if she never makes a habit of doing so. This is difficult to understand?

8. Rape is different from other crimes because rape is the “possibility of life” while other crimes are “destruction.”

Yeah, I didn’t buy this one. Of course, I didn’t write it either. But I note that most men would be satisfied to see rape treated like any other crime with normal standards of evidence, testimony and courtroom procedure; it is women who have lobbied and demonstrated to see it treated differently. There is no Murder Shield Law and at least a modicum of evidence beyond “I say so” is required to meet the burden of a reasonable doubt for every other crime.

She’d better keep on with that bashing. Perhaps it will knock some sense into her.

Charles Stross has a surprisingly familiar notion:

The key insight I’d like to bring to your attention at this point is that the purported political axis of the latter half of the twentieth century — between capitalism and socialism or communism — is a canard; in historical terms it’s an aberration, for the historical pattern is a struggle between the proponents of authoritarianism and those of what is today called libertarianism (and used to be Liberalism). The aberrant conditions of the cold war made for strange bed-fellows, so that the socialist and capitalist factions were themselves coalitions of libertarian and authoritarian types: and today the old power axes are breaking down and the deeper historical factions are surfacing.

It has been argued that there are two key influences on the neoconservative policy makers: the Shachtmanite version of Trotskyism, a somewhat mutant American variant, was clearly an influence of many of the neocons in their earlier 1960s incarnation, and the views of right-wing crypto-Nieztchian philosopher Leo Strauss. There’s a curious intersection between the views of Trotsky (it is the job of the vanguard to lead the proletariat but not to represent them, to form their opinions and give shape to the revolution that will overthrow the bourgeoisie) and those of Strauss (the rise of the bourgeosie is a tragedy for western civilization: the correct order for society is one oriented towards struggle, led by warriors whose actions will be shaped by an elite of behind-the-scenes philosopher-princes). And it’s worth noting that former leading denizens of Trotskyite organizations — in the UK, the former Revolutionary Communist Party is the leading example, as dissected by George Monbiot — have developed a habit (especially noticable since 1979) of suddenly turning up wearing suits and driving BMWs while working for right wing think-tanks.

Forget the left-right terminology when you’re reading this; remember, Stross is a pan-Europeanist Scot and his perspective is rather different than an American one. It’s particularly interesting to note that he grasps the fundamental Libertarian – Totalitarian axis that I’ve been vehemently trying to beat into people’s heads, as well as the Trotskyite aspect of the neocons.

I don’t usually post fan mail, but RT’s missive amused me:

Sir Vox – I have to confess that I worship you. You are the kind of man every guy aspires to be. I would be grateful to be of use to you in any way – do tasks for you, turn money over to you, do anything you say – like you deserve.

Please let me know how I can be of use so I can help contribute to your rise, like you deserve.

Whoah… easy there, hoss. The compliments are much appreciated and all, but let’s not get carried away. Anyhow, the first thing you have to do if you want to be an alpha is stop thinking like a beta and resist the urge to kowtow to those you admire. Bend the knee to no man and no government but God. As to your offer, if there was one thing I could wish for this Christmas season, it’s that all the children of the world could join hands together and sing in a spirit of peace and harmony….

If I am ever in need of a mule to make the Bogota-Miami run or am looking score some retired Soviet military-grade plutonium, rest assured I won’t hesitate to think of you.

The wisdom of the Vixen:

Every year, to kick off the holiday season, Oprah Winfrey unveils her favorite things in barely watchable, screamfest show. For a right-wing twist on the topic, GOP Vixen unveils Bridget’s Favorite Things, a collection of cool items presented without the audience freebies and the hyperventilating. Because I believe that we have a responsibility to share our talents with the world — and one of mine is shopping!

Since this blog has a lot of male readers, I initially considered compiling a list of cool gifts that women really like: cashmere, fragrance, lingerie, etc. But I realized that effort would be useless if a man is dating or married to a Complainer. The Complainer responds poorly to nearly any gift: “Cashmere makes me itch.” “Chanel No. 5 makes me sneeze.” “You want me to wear what from Victoria’s Secret?” No man can win gift-shopping for a Complainer.

Here’s a little holiday advice for the Complainers: learn how smile, say thank you and then shut up. It doesn’t matter how carefully you couch your explanation of how you prefer emerald green to forest green, point out that you are not a DD, but a C, or remind the giver that pink Izods went out of style two decades ago. A gift is a gift, and remember that concept about it being better to give than receive? Telling someone why their gift is inadequate, whether you blame them for it or not, steals them of their joy in giving it to you. Smile. Say thank you. Then shut up.

I’m not saying that you have to keep the ugly striped sports coat that would be two sizes too big even if you gained ten pounds.. Go ahead and return it the very next day, by all means, but don’t let them know unless you need the receipt or something. They don’t need to know, and by the time they figure it out, they won’t care. It’s better if you can have someone else score the receipt for you, but most of the time stores will take stuff back after Christmas whether you’ve got one or not. In my family, everyone just hands over the receipts after the gift opening is over, leaving the recipients free to do whatever they want without having to worry about offending anyone.

Now, people can go too far the other way. My grandmother used to take forever to open up her presents, because she had to ooh and awe about the beautiful paper, the way it was wrapped, the lovely ribbons and so forth every single time. Then she had to remove it all without marring it, fold it and stow it safely away before getting around to seeing what it was. I remember my brother once asking my mother why we bothered buying grandmother anything, he figured that considering how much she enjoyed the unwrapping ritual, we should just give her a bunch of empty boxes and spend the money on some really nice wrapping paper.

The point is to let Christmas be a time of joy for everyone, not worries about perfectly anticipating the desires of others. Try to remember that when you receive a gift, it’s not about you, it’s about the giver.

Moira weighs the costs and probabilities of breaking the law versus experiencing victimhood:

i’m a 20 year old college girl (BC college) in boston, mass one of the worst states for fascist gun control. i go to school in a moderately dangerous neighborhood and take public transportation because i dont have a car. i will be “allowed” to buy a handgun when i turn 21 but have heard it is almost impossible to get a license to carry a concealed weapon in mass.

in the opinion of experienced gun owners here, do you think it’s worth it for me to carry a concealed weapon around (illegally)? this of course would be after a long period of practice/training (i am strongly built/tall for a woman and i’ve been taking hard martial arts for five years but i’m not stupid enough to think i could definitely fend off a stronger/better trained guy). i don’t go partying or drinking and i dont go out at night when i dont need to, but muggings/rapes are increasing in boston even during the day and from watching the news i realize the police can’t protect me one bit. i think it would be moral to arm myself even if its technically illegal, but what do you guys/gals (not the feminazi gun control gals) think?

Oh, and what’s a good handgun for a medium-to-tall woman to carry concealed? i know i would have to learn a lot more before possibly doing this.

Moira, what you’ve done here is the metaphorical equivalent of waving a big red flag in front of a herd of bulls. I’ll let the Volk handle this one, with the following comments:

1. Don’t conflate legality with morality. They are not the same. And as you mentioned, only you are responsible for defending yourself.

2. Martial arts help, but they aren’t enough and you have clearly figured out that the speed and strength gap is too great to be overcome by mere skill. Anyhow, some of the most lethal martial artists I know carry. Our dojo used to go shooting from time to time; most of the guys owned at least one pistol.

3. The gun actually being there is the most important thing. For carrying, I favor the Smith and Wesson .38 Featherweight revolver. In general, I favor the Glock 23, which is the compact .40. Spacebunny likes the Glock 9mm with a laser attached.

Gaultslue confesses to listening to Stephanie Miller:

“… And I think Donald Rumsfeld is inventing new words. When he said, “I was thinking about it this weekend and there’s no reason they should be called “insurgents”, I mean it’s not like their trying to create a Caliphate over there.” Caliphate, Don? What’ s exactly is a Caliph or Caliphate?”

When I read this, my second thought after cracking up was: who in the world is Stephanie Miller and why does that name ring a bell? And then I remembered, she was the woman from Air America who was reading “dating tips from a skinhead” a few months back and theorizing that I live in my parent’s basement. This sort of thing never ceases to amaze me; despite all the copious evidence to the contrary, the Stephanie Millers of the world truly believe themselves to be more intelligent and more educated than those they criticize, while simultaneously referring to themselves “the reality based community”.

Fraters, by all means set up that undercard!

And as long as we’re on the topic of left-wing historical ignorance, here’s a nice example from Mecury Rising:

Now, [“Vox Day”]isn’t just a sexist dork. He’s also an anti-Semitic dork. He used to be employed as a techie/gaming columnist for the St. Paul Pioneer Press until he got booted for being an anti-Semitic pig in print. His daddy, who is one of the guys behind the vile right-wing electronic hate crime known as World Net Daily, is apparently rich enough for [Vox] to never have to learn from his mistakes. He’s a Pretend Man.

As I am not anti-semitic, it should surprise no one that I have never been “booted” from any newspaper, much less for being an “anti-Semitic pig in print”. But don’t take my word for it; readers are certainly welcome to peruse my virulent Judenhassend prose in my column archive. After all, who but a Jew-hater would dare to title a column “Throw the Jew Down the Well”? It is true, however, that Dad doesn’t do so bad for a farm boy. His basement is not only bigger than Stephanie Miller’s entire house, but I’m reasonably sure it has more jacuzzis.

In keeping with the strange cognitive incapacity of my critics, I find myself curious about Newshog’s reasoning here:

Feministe has a post on what she describes as the most disgusting thing she has ever read. Conservative blogger Vox Day gets into her comments with the opinion that “Being raped doesn’t confer some mystical moral superiority on a woman, it just makes her a victim. And unfortunately, in all too many cases, it just makes her a stupid one.” Honest, that’s what he said! Talk about sociopathic.

So, is Newshog saying that being raped doesn’t make a women a victim? Or is he arguing that being raped does confer mystical moral superiority on a woman? Is it possible that he possesses statistical information of which I have hitherto been unaware regarding the little-known correlation between Mensa status and rape victimhood? I’m more than a little curious here.