Category: Uncategorized

Jon Podhoretz gets definitive:

This is the chance to seize the populist high (or low) ground with the new terminology for ’08. They’re Merlot Democrats? Fine. We’re Budweiser Republicans.

On that note, I hereby me and my ilk to be Amaretto Libertarians…. Okay, so maybe we’re not so great when it comes to the whole popolism* thing.

*See, Norah, that’s a joke. I know how to spell populism. Really, I promise.

SD doesn’t disappoint:

I read worldnetdaily every day and will occasionally read your articles, although I find you pompous and long winded and not to mention a little scary looking ( are you a skinhead by the way?) As a Christian I completely disagree with your subtle condoning of polygamy, this is apparently what you secretly desire for your life! Yes Abraham had several wives, but against God’s commands. God created one man and one woman and wished that they be together joined in unity as one. You and your ilk are the reason that so many non Christians hate Christianity, because they see a nation that will force women into a Taliban type situation where women are used only for child rearing purposes. When God Created Eve, he did not say this is Eve, mother of your children, he said this is your mate taken out of your side to stand equal and one with you. I will no longer suffer through your articles.

SD can read or not read, as she wishes, but she shouldn’t be so predictably ridiculous. Does she honestly believe every commentator who argued that the Iraqi invasion did so because he wanted to shoot himself some Ayrabs? This is an issue that is coming down the pike thanks to the Supreme Court. Therefore, it bears consideration whether SD wants to think about it or not.

I’m curious to know how those taking Biblical exception to today’s column explain God telling one of the minor prophets – Habbakuk? – to take more than one wife.

Not to mention the fact that that whole monogamous Eve thing worked out just as God planned, right? I mean, constructing an argument for God’s ideal plan based on The Fall strikes me as more than a little bizarre. Genesis, too, would appear to illustrate that the Biblical ideal is to remain unmarried, so those who would base legislation on it should probably consider joining the Sisterhood in working towards the abolishment of marriage.

Only a little scary-looking? Hmmmm… how very disappointing. I knew I should have filed my teeth.

Peter J. Wallison makes like The Continental on National Review:

The astonishing thing about President George W. Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers for a seat on the Supreme Court is that he made the same mistake that sank his father’s presidency. When George H. W. Bush agreed to raise taxes after promising “no new taxes,” conservatives and Republicans felt betrayed, and simply wrote him off. The lack of support from a group that should have been his base was one of the key reasons for his loss to Bill Clinton in 1992. Yet conservatives should keep in mind that we know little about Miers, and abandoning this president at this time — as his father was abandoned — could result in the collapse of support for his major domestic initiatives as well as his all-important Iraq policy.

This strikes me as a “please don’t throw me in dat der briar patch” moment. If I don’t stick by Bush because of Creepy McCrypto, the Iraqi Occupation will end and the Great Society II program will fall apart… now where, exactly, is the catch?

My little wide-eyed, white-tailed doe.

From NRO’s Corner:

Here’s the thing: early Pinter is brilliant stuff, if you care even marginally about theatre. He made a mark on theatre that has been profound and important and–speaking strictly from the perspective of what happens on a stage, and what happens between actor and audience–magnificent….

the work remains, whatever kind of dunce the artist may be when he’s not doing his thing. If it is passionate art, if it is evocative art, if it resonates in some extraordinary way with its audience, then whether it is high art or low art, from Bambi to Stagecoach to The Birthday Party, I truly don’t give a rat’s rear end what the artist does or says when he’s off the clock. I’m sick and tired of all this passion about other people’s points of view–it lends a relevancy to their politics that really doesn’t exist. And it transforms the experience of being a consumer of the arts into a sort of priggish screening process, in which the artist is carefully vetted for wrongthink before we can sit back and drink in his work. Leave that to our Stalinist chums on the left…please let’s not join them.

I thought this was interesting, especially in light of the criticism of my fiction – even the attacks on my right to sit in judgment of the work of my SFWA peers – that one regularly encounters among those who dislike my political opinions. Now, it’s no secret that I’m not a great novelist, but I’m a reasonably popular one judging by my print runs and the number of publishers who continue to offer me book contracts.

And if THE WAR IN HEAVEN is somewhat cringe-inducing at times, I’m quite optimistic that the improvement shown in THE WORLD IN SHADOW will continue in THE WRATH OF ANGELS. I quite like the fact that a good third of my fan base is made up of a largely non-Christian goth crowd; they correctly view my Christian worldview as the starting point for the novels, not the end. I’m quite confident that they will like WRATH very much indeed – I’ll post the first draft of the cover here soon.

As The Corner emailer noted, one’s enjoyment of a book, a play or a movie should not completely depend upon its stroking of one’s own opinions. Sure, it’s impossible to enjoy something that is too heavy-handed in its assaults on one’s perception of reality, (speaking of which, I’ve got to write a review of David Weber’s Honor Harrington books soon), but one should be able to enjoy a well-crafted tale even if it contains elements of those who think very differently.

This is not to say that my books, or anyone else’s books, can’t suck. But they should be judged on their own merits, not on the personal merits of the author. In my opinion, this distinction has been almost entirely lost in the SFWA, which is why the OC and I will be running for office in the next SFWA election.

I hope you, my gentle readers, will not mind helping me develop my program to lead the SFWA into the 21st century and beyond….

It’s always interesting to note the reactions of any group of religious faithful to the honest questions of skeptics. Fred, whose recent column is quoted below, is no Creationist; he’s not even a Christian. I do happen to be a Christian, but I am largely agnostic on the question of origins, and I suspect that the truth is far stranger than anything anyone sane currently believes. I mean, it’s not as if quantum theory looked either practical or credible to anyone prior to 1900, right?

I note that Compulsory Evolutionists are fellow travelers of the regnant cultural Marxism, though I don’t think that they are aware of it. They display the same hermetic materialism, the same desire to suppress dissent by the application of centralized governmental power, the same weird hostility to religion. They do not say, “I think Christianity is nonsense and will therefore ignore it,” but rather “These ideas shall not be permitted.”….

I once posed these questions in a column on Fredoneverything.net and, in another place, to a group of committed evangelicals of Evolution. A tremendous influx of email resulted. Much of it was predictable. Many Christians congratulated me on having disproved Evolution, which I had not done. The intelligent and independent-minded wrote thoughtfully. Of the Knights Templar of Evolution, none—not one—answered the foregoing yes-or-no questions. They ducked. They dodged. They waxed wroth. They called names.

This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers.

For me, it is primarily this aggressively defensive behavior on the part of its hard-core faithful that leads me to believe evolution will eventually come to be seen by future scientists as one of the great embarrassments of 20th Century science.

Since I am a Christian, I can be easily dismissed as an ignorant Flat Earther. But ignoring intelligent atheists like Fred Reed who share my evolutionary skepticism is a little more difficult.

TS brings up the Biblical question of Christian marriage:

I read with interest your article in WND stating that polygamy was simply against the present status quo and was not against God’s law.

You gave one example from the Bible (from Timothy) that has been used by Christians to argue against polygamy, and basically you dismissed it (with a rather weak counter-argument, in my opinon.) However, even discounting the Timothy argument, I would offer that there are many other examples suggesting – at the very least – that paired relationships are God’s ideal:

-God created Adam and Eve. He created one woman for Adam, and made her Adam’s complement. He did not create two or more women for Adam. This original pair is referred to as the example of perfection.

-Jesus referred to marriage as a man and a woman becoming one flesh. He did not refer to a man and women becoming one flesh.

-The Old Testament Israeli kings were told not to have multiple wives (although they all disobeyed.)

-In every example of the Bible where polygamy is practiced, the households are torn with great jealousy and strife. We have no examples of polygamous, biblical relationships which were happy or content.

First, let me note that the question of the Biblical ideal is largely beside the point. Although they are the primary foundation of the Western cultural tradition, Biblical ideals have no place in secular law per se – the significant distinction between morality and legality that my feminist critics also can’t seem to grasp – and if Christians were to be serious about enshrining Biblical ideals into law, they would probably consider banning marriage altogether. (1 Corinthians 7:8 and :38). Alternatively, one might interpret the concession Paul grants to rampant immorality as requiring marriage of everyone.

Since most Christians are not deacons or elders, your description of my Timothy- and Titus-based counter-argument as weak is very strange. If Christians could not marry more than one wife with the Church’s blessing, there would be no need for the qualification. Jesus Christ’s reference to “one flesh” appears to be either metaphorical or a literal description of the marital consumnation; it cannot be a reference to souls becoming one spiritually in light of his answer to the question of the ill-fated brothers and their single, much-widowed bride.

As to the Biblical examples, that statement is simply inaccurate. There are many men with multiple wives in the Bible whose states of marital harmony are not described as problematic as they are not described at all. Furthermore, most of the examples of monogamous marriage provided are equally problematic, beginning with the Adam and Eve pairing working out in sub-optimal fashion. With regards to the reference to OT kings, were the black robes to permit it, there is no reason why an additional requirement that in addition to being 35 and a natural-born citizen, a man must also have but one wife in order to be elected President.

But the main reason that these Christian objections to polygamy are spurious is that if seven of the Ten Commandmends are not enshrined in law, if the Great Commandment is not enshrined in law, there is no significant requirement for something that is only potentially a minor Biblical ideal – on the level with temperance – in comparison to be enshrined in secular law.

In fact, one could make a better Biblically-based argument for making greed illegal. It is said that the good of things can be best judged by their fruits, and there are few things as unfruitful as modern monogamous marriage in the West.

This should be mildly entertaining. I can already predict about 90 percent of the responses now, despite the fact that no one ever accuses those who foresee war of doing so out of a personal desire to invade a foreign country and shoot people up.

Last Week: 8-6. Season: 44-30, .594. Fantasy: 3-2.

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

Not bad at all, but my satisfaction turned to ashes in my mouth when I looked up the weekly results and saw – horror of horrors – that the name atop the 114 names in the picks pool was none other than THE WHITE BUFFALO! In fact, if Indy loses, he’ll end up taking home the weekly pot this week and I won’t hear the end of it until either the season’s over or Chokechain and I nab one. I’m already feeling nauseous – come on, Marvin and company!

I’ll write about the ongoing debacle that is known as the Minnesota Vikings eventually, but probably not until Mike Tice gets fired. I tried to talk myself into the notion that trading Randy Moss would be a positive development, but from the very moment I heard the news, I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.

From Pandagon’s comments:

“Be warned though, he tends to send his minions over to troll the comment threads of any blogs that post something negative about him.”

Judging by the three comments contained in most of the threads I’ve seen, this would appear to be somewhat of an exaggeration. Actually, if someone devotes the time to write a substantial critique that actually has a point, I usually post it here in its entirety. I did leave out two paragraphs of Amanda’s recent response to last week’s column but only because they were largely redundant and the link was provided for those who want to read the whole thing.

“In the meantime, ask any younger libertarian you know and they will also cringe at the mention of one Vox Day.”

Apparently these are the libertarians of the Bill Maher school who voted for John Kerry. That’s “libertine” not “libertarian”, mon cher. But don’t feel bad, there’s no shortage of Republicans who make the same mistake.

“It’s strange. On the one hand, he advocates marriage and childbearing for young women, but in other columns, advises young men strictly against marriage. What’s a girl to do? I think his answer would be: Submit to the man as the leader of your household so he can be assured that you will not divorce him in a family court where he is guaranteed to lose everything. Because if you have a career you will most likely emasculate him, then take him to family court where he is guaranteed to lose everything.

What this does — and again, this is anti-libertarian — is deny the individual nature of each human in a relationship. How can one self-actualize if one must live in submission to someone else’s will? If your partner need not and would not even entertain that you have a world worth seeking outside of marriage? Not libertarian.

In essence, “regular” libertarians, so to speak, believe that one person’s will need not work in conflict with another’s. If it does, then one is with the wrong person; it’s an individual situation. I am sorry to go on and on about this guy, but that he calls himself a libertarian confounds me.

This commenter fails to grasp that the interests of society and divergent groups within it can be at odds. Ergo, a young man wishing to protect his financial interests is best off pursuing one thing, a young woman wishing to get married and have children will benefit most from pursuing a very different path. Specific advice to either of these parties relating to the maximization of their interests should not be confused with what actions would be optimal for society at large.

The commenter also does not understand that libertarianism is a political philosophy relating to law and government, not pop psychology and interpersonal relations.

“I thought it was amusing when the president of the organization popped in to say they didn’t know Vox was such a dick until it was too late and that he was emphatically excluded from the next jury, but it was right to hassle the other guy who just whined that he basically put a jury together of anyone who asked to be on one. If they really are a 1400+ organization, I guess Vox was a wake-up call that in the future they’ll have to be a bit more careful. Awards lose thier prestige when people like Vox begin to tarnish them.”

In addition to being unable to spell, this commenter can’t read. To its credit, the SFWA is not about to exclude anyone from being on any of their juries on the basis of their political beliefs; I’m significantly less controversial than a number of SFWA Grandmasters were in their day. Anyhow, if the SFWA was concerned about the prestige of the Nebula, they shouldn’t have given the one for best novel to Catherine Asaro, the organization’s former president and foremost committer of romance novels in space.

His blog is worth checking out, especially the responses he writes to people who disagree with him. He seems to think that “calling him on his bullshit” == “lack of reading comprehension.”

It does seem strange that I should often conflate the two, considering the thoughtful, well-reasoned responses I so regularly receive. Just look at these fine examples!

By the way, what the hell is “casual dating” supposed to be, anyway? I get puzzled when all the personal sites distinguish between the goals of “dating” and “serious relationship” — everyone always checks both, anyway, but I guess someone other than Vox Day thinks in those terms.

Pandagon has quite the high IQ set, don’t they? Let me try to explain. Casual dating is an ongoing romantic relationship with someone in whom you have no real expectation of a permanent relationship. If you see no point in introducing your boyfriend or girlfriend to your parents, or even bothering to mention their existence, you are probably engaged in casual dating.

Good luck with that – I just went to Amazon to check out what he’d written, but oh dear, no entries. Must be self-published, then, I guess …

Okay, the average IQ there must be even lower than I thought.

“It’s my experience that women are less willing to marry in their early 20s than men are, since a woman has far more dating opportunities at this age (or at least an easier time of it).”

Apparently this poor soul missed the point about how a woman’s prospects narrow with age, while men’s tend to widen. That, or he doesn’t understand how the two concepts might relate.

I had no idea that politics and geography were ‘less academically rigorous’ subjects than computer science.

Oh dear. And this is from a woman studying physics. No doubt, like that professor at the University of Minnesota foolishly cited by one of the Electrolyte crowd, this commenter will wind up using her astrophysics BA to teach Lesbianism in Hindu Film for a Women Studies program.

Amanda fears white slavery:

I mulled over and mulled over this nauseating article by Vox Day where he makes a list of things women must do if they want to get married, a list that is so disturbing by the end of it I’m worried about my female friends that are married, even though I know for a fact they pretty much have lived their entire lives differently from how they were instructed by Vox–as far as I know, that is. There was that real worry–are their generally normal and kind-seeming husbands reallly crazy Mormon-style patriarchs with a backroom full of child brides? Married women I know seem to have education and jobs–I swear I’ve even seen some read and write!–but apparently, that can’t be true since those things screw your chances from day one. But then I realized that my real problem with his essay wasn’t even the batshit craziness of it. It was the fact that he thinks that women looking at marriage don’t do a cost-benefit analysis.

Yes, Amanda, because most executives with economics degrees are unfamiliar with cost-benefit analysis. Brilliant stuff. Indeed, Amanda betrays her own apparent unfamiliarity with the basic economic concept of opportunity cost. None of my advice was intended for women who want to devote their lives to themselves and their cats, it was for women who desire marriage and children and do not understand how they have been misled by the Sisterhood into risking their opportunity to have both. Except for a few of the long-term demographic implications, I quite like how a significant percentage of feminist professionals have turned themselves into evolutionary dead-ends.

Of course, it goes without saying that Vox’s other problem is thinking that all men require that their mates be cringing, invisible, miserable child brides. That’s demonstrably not true, but even if it were, it is silly to think that with 99% of women opting out, men wouldn’t be slightly willing to compromise in order to at least get laid. But I think I know why Vox is so insistent on pretending that it’s only women that want and need companionship and that men have to offer nothing in return on relationships. It’s all about the money, baby.

Yes, it’s shocking to assert that most women do prefer high status men, as they have throughout all of human history. Spacebunny is not cringing, invisible or miserable, indeed, she is a beautiful and cultured woman in whose presence Amanda would surely be all but invisible. A lack of desire for a career-focused bitch who can’t find the time to go to the gym or bear your children is no indication of a desire for a female slave of any color. It’s also interesting to note that Amanda considers women between the ages of 18 and 25 to be “child brides”. I would imagine this is because she’s still a child herself, intellectually speaking.

As most of you probably know by now, the supposed “libertarian” Vox Day is actually a spoiled rich brat named [Tom Riddle]. And of course he’s never had to work hard for a day in his life–the delusion that one could be completely self-reliant in a libertarian paradise pretty much requires that you’ve never had to rely on yourself for anything, or it would fall to pieces. But the important thing to remember here is that [Riddle] is rich as shit, and he’s rich in a society where those rare women willing to trade in complete submission for marriage go to the highest bidder. You everyday misogynist slobs who listen to Vox’s bullshit about what you supposedly deserve and will get from a woman–cringing servitude–pay very close attention. Vox can buy that sort of self-hating woman. You can’t.

This is amusing. First, the notion that honesty, the application of logic and the direct pursuit of one’s priorities amounts to cringing servitude explains everything you need to know about Amanda’s childish rage and bitterness. Second, if Amanda or any of my other critics had actually done any digging instead of relying on the information of someone who falsely claimed to be working for me, they’d have come across an article written in the early 1990’s by Mike Wechsler of Computer Gaming World, wherein two individuals are credited with developing the concept of using 3D CAD hardware to accelerate computer game software. One of those names is Chris Taylor of Microsoft (formerly Electronic Arts), and the other is the aforementioned [Tom Riddle]. More digging would reveal that the second name is also the original holder of the “3D Blaster” trademark.

I may not have done as well as another innovator from that era, my erstwhile rival Jensen Huang, but I did well enough, thank you very much. You see, the greatest earthly inheritance one can receive from a financially successful father is not money, it is the knowledge of how to go about building one’s own wealth.

It’s unfortunate, but unsurprising, that Amanda cannot understand I am not a secretly Republican social conservative, but a true libertarian instead. Not once have I advocated laws to control the social behavior of anyone, male or female; that sort of thing falls within the paradigm of feminist neofascists like Amanda. And as a libertarian, I’m pretty much indifferent to the ironic reality that some of those young women who read last week’s column will prefer to take advice on life and marriage from an unmarried feminist “cum-guzzling boozehound” instead of me. Fate can be unfair, to be sure, but more often than not we end up living the life we chose.