Category: Uncategorized

Spacebunny writes:

I don’t actually pick the movies. These are just the ones that happen to be on t.v. I haven’t actually rented a movie in years. Besides, the last movie Vox picked was Van Helsing for pity’s sake.

It was a movie with Kate Beckinsale wearing a tight corset! I apologize for nothing. Sure, it wasn’t as good as the movie with Kate Beckinsale in a vinyl catsuit, but… oh, who am I kidding. Van Helsing was the worst movie I have seen in a long, long time. The writers should have VH branded on their foreheads just so no one will ever make the mistake of hiring them again, and the director should be rolled in bat guano then forced to parade through Hollywood wearing nothing but a black cape and plastic fangs.

The Sports Guy doesn’t have a monopoly on those who tread the borderlands between sanity and lunacy:

I’ve survived the diversity training courses they made me take, ala “A Clockwork Orange”. They can’t break me. I may end up on the desk like Gibson in Braveheart screaming “Freedom!” but I won’t be wearing any rainbows.

That’s the spirit! Nice work, BillyD.

Paula unleashes a cri de cuoer:

“So what, no woman should be allowed to work out side the home because wages are lower? I like my job. My Irish ancestory “lowered” the wages for other workers, like former slaves, and it all worked out in the end. I’m better at what I do than most men or women. Welcome to captialism. Get over it.”

Actually, capitalism existed quite nicely without women’s rights for decades, indeed, the West enjoyed a faster growth rate than it does now. But when did I say anything about outlawing women’s labor? It’s a question of what society encourages and discourages. A society that discourages its women from reproducing is not long for this world, regardless of how much you like it. Also, your Irish ancestors increased domestic consumption and therefore demand for labor. You didn’t.

Imagine the ultimate World of Women. Nothing but trashy romance novels, unfattening gourmet food, robots who look like Brad Pitt and George Clooney equipped with adjustable-speed vibrating genitalia and none of those mean, brutish beings called men. Imagine that every woman thought it was paradise. How long would it last if women were too happy and self-fulfilled playing with their pleasure robots to bother propagating the species?

It doesn’t matter that Paula and Jennifer and Susie all like their jobs and feel more productive making Powerpoint presentations and writing legal briefs than they would raising children. There is a tipping point at which a society begins to die, and that is 2.1 children per woman. We’re still there thanks to our formerly Mexican neighbors. France is still close, thanks to a population now 10 percent Muslim. Most other countries in Western Europe are already down to half that rate – Italy is at 1.17 – and it is mathematically impossible for them to maintain their existing society without following France’s lead.

In the long run, there appear to be four choices for American women. A return to Western tradition, economic collapse and whatever follows that, Mexification (which could be described as a half-baked version of the first option), and sharia. But the liberated secular society is a dead end every bit as untenable as Soviet Communism, and considering it is a mere 33 years old, may not even last as long as the 70-year Soviet experiment.

Welcome to demographics. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, Missy adds:

Despite the apparent sense that a lot of WND’s readers tend to be Judeo-Christian – based conservatives, I’m sure you’ll get a lot of vitrolic hate mail from some women. So, as a Christian conservative, college-educated former IT professional of nearly 18 years and not some dumb redneck white trash chick (as some feminists might think of we “unenlighted” women) – let me say thank you so much for having the courage and conviction to say the truth. I hope mine is one of the first of only many other letters of appreciation and encouragement you receive. 🙂

Actually, I’ve received more emails of support from women than I have opposing emails, let alone hate mail. In fact, the only thing that was even close was Proud Liberal’s little essay, and that was downright friendly compared to some I’ve received in the past.

My theory is that the numbers were too scary for the feminists to mess with. You know what Barbie says. Math is hard!

He who shall not be named discovers this for himself:

Experimentation gone bad. I printed out several copies of VD’s article this morning, and scattered them among the employee cafeteria tables here at my workplace before 9:00 break. By 9:15, there were already several woman at the Human Resources directors door, bitching. I had to grab an IS guy and have him wipe my pc records for net surfing and printing so as not to be identified.

The HR lady was not amused. I, however, was.

As usual, the first and only response, run to authority…. A most excellent fnord. You see, it’s at moments like this that I deeply regret that whole syndication thing not working out.

And in the meantime, half of corporate America is being forced to attend feminist reeducation camps by their employers. This is the home of the free, right?

It turns out my column today was slightly inaccurate. Weekly real wages peaked in 1972, not 1973 as I wrote, at $331.59 (in 1982 dollars), which equals an annual salary of $34,979.36 in 2005. In the last 32 years, wages have declined 16.3 percent to an annual salary level of 29,280.68. This long-term decline resumed again in 2004, as the Congressional Joint Economic Committee reported that real wages declined another .4 percent last year despite the economic recovery.*

Meanwhile, the average married women’s contribution to family income has increased from 26.7 percent to 35.2 percent in the same time frame, a 31.8 percent increase. In other words, fully half of a wife’s contribution to household income is eaten up by the decline in wages, which stems from the increase in the labor supply.

From 1973 to 2004, the percentage of women working rose from 44.7 percent to 59.2 percent. The effects of this increase were obviated somewhat by the declining percentage of men who worked, from 78.8 percent to 73.3 percent. The reason that this effect is a generally negative one is that unlike in the case of immigration, these new workers were already consumers, so they did not bring the concomitant increase in consumption (and demand for labor) that immigrants do. Considering that this had a definite effect on the number of children being raised, it should probably be characterized as a net demand-reducing development.

*The situation is actually worse than it looks here because the Federal Reserve’s CPI manipulations seriously underestimate inflation and therefore the true decline in real wages and purchasing power is greater than these statistics would indicate. But we have to work with the tools available to us.

Proud Liberal Man demonstrates his rudimentary grasp of the language:

The only evil is this recent composition of yours. “vanilla minded commentators?” more then likely just a smarmy-unhip white boy trying to distance himself from is culture. “Customary for women to immediately reject any assertion that womens rights are wrong?” How about when a silver spoon hate filled little ultra conservative starts spouting off on what he thinks are original and thoughtful insights. “I very much like women” yeah and I bet you have black friends too, and call them bro. The intelligent women I know are not lamenting but making substantive life choices, albeit they dont follow your capital-communist loving ideals. And unlike generations before her, she does’nt have to put up with a shit kicking lout that swarms in your lineage, where she needed permission to purchase a house or get a credit card. Feminzation of the Courts? thats a good one, Unless you mean that to your chagrin that more women are becoming lawyers and judges. You hardly know your history o f marriage as a financial contract if you think it was beneficial to both. It was always favorable to the male by law. Paternal responsiblity for the young females? you must mean some of the southern stalwarts that have incest or rape of the underage girls..or would that be that grand old roman catholic church that has permanently destroyed the belief of god in a multitude of girl childern? The present need for women to work outside of the home is the Conservative(libertarian republican) love affair with communist china and their espoused cry of “free trade”. So your afraid that europe is’nt reproducing fast enough eh? To bad white boy, whether you are liberal or conservative, we are going to outnumber you very soon..Hows your spanish..better yet, have you brushed up on your ebonics? Unborn baby girls are being aborted because the male is elevated to a small deity status..The problem in china started in the early seventies due to the attempt at populatin control..(tsk,tsk..you’ ll never be big as karl the turdblossem if you dont get at least your grain of truth right) I hardly think a womens personal choice is murder, when mankind is so much better at slaughter, (do pause for a moment of silence for just a moment for the slaughter of every child in the last and present wars. The right to work, vote and have sex as one choses with out your small minded, narrow point of your religon and god on my woman’s body is all that I ask for now. at least in my party,,, our women are taught not to be cocksuckers, but hey, keep training yours the way you do..I love getting head from the republican, libertarian girls..you fellas sure know how to train them..

Well, if liberal women are all frigid or lesbians as Proud Liberal Man implies, it’s no wonder that he’s so angry. I’m betting he scored at least a 75 on his TOEFL, however. Good for him.

The thing that amuses me about liberal positions is that they are so prone to recommending impossible solutions to deal with easily averted problems. Faced with the problem of millions of women choosing to murder their unborn daughters, they’ll advocate changing 6,000 years of Chinese culture. Right, good luck with that.

I might add that I have not ever referred to anyone, of any color, as “bro”.

DC writes approvingly:

As a Christian mother and grandmother, I want to thank you so much for your WND article “Why women’s rights are wrong”! It has long been my contention that we ladies were far better off before anyone ever heard of Womens’ Lib.

I am almost one of the Baby Boomers (born slightly before the end of WWII) – and I was never taught that I needed to be “liberated”. What I was taught was that I was a free, native-born American citizen and as such, was guaranteed the right to pursue my “happiness” – whether that was marriage and family or being an astronaut. I was also taught that the Constitution did not guarantee that I would achieve that goal.

As a result, over the years, I have reached some goals – and been disappointed in others. That’s called Life. I have held “traditional” and “non-traditional” jobs, and in every case, because of my hard work, I earned the respect and friendship of both male and female co-workers. Yes, I have encountered incidences of sexual harrassment, and even physical abuse – but my mother taught me very effective ways of handling those. In short, I have never felt the need of a courtroom, attorney or judge to establish or affirm my “rights” as a woman….

My late dad made a truly profound statement not long before his death: “We are the only nation on earth stupid enough to kill off our own future taxbase.”

Oh, for the days “when men were men, and women were women” – oh, for the days when they were allowed to be!

She sounds very oppressed to me. Page Gloria Steinhem, stat! Meanwhile, BW demonstrates that the oppression spans generations:

Awesome commentary! From a stay home mother who homeschools and loves every minute.Whose children, 5 and 7, want to adopt so they can have other brothers and sisters; who, themselves, play with their babydolls and have their pretend family. Maybe we’ll adopt the little boy who can grow up learning that daddy loves their mommy and loves his role as husband, provider, protector and daddyman.

Thanks and keep them (commentaries) coming!

Doesn’t she know that I hate women? What’s a poor embittered mysogynist to do?

Powerline defends the Republican Party’s favorite affirmative action doll:

Michelle comes in for more than her fair share of abuse because of her gender and ethnicity–you could pursue this line of thought further, but I don’t recommend it–but she stands so far above her mostly-anonymous left-wing critics that their slanders reflect only on them.

I’m not anonymous. I’m not left-wing. And yet I, too, think Malkin is a media whore as full of merde as most of her left-wing critics. Sure, she comes in for some unfair criticism as do we all, but she is nevertheless an incompetent and intellectually dishonest armchair historian who is willing to lie rather than run the risk of being exposed for an ignorant sham.

As for her gender, not even those who like her columns take her very seriously. Ann Coulter is respected in part because she isn’t afraid to take on anyone, while Malkin not only ran from me but couldn’t handle that rapier wit Chris Matthews when he hadn’t even read the book under discussion.

Anyhow, I don’t know if this is a case of pimping a bigger media ho or what, but considering how the Powerline guys couldn’t be bothered to show up to defend their little friend on their own show last summer, this ringing defense tends to ring a bit hollow in my ears.

Hey, do what you do. Win awards. Whatever.

For shame! I have to say that TNT does have a point of genuine grievance, in that his initial question was wholly legitimate, and while it was laced with some of the usual assault verbiage, it nevertheless demanded a fair response. And while it’s true that he did not provide the definition of genius that was required in order to reasonably respond to his question, in my opinion the only correct response was: “how do you define genius?”

You can do better than that, people. Have I taught you nothing? As I’ve repeatedly written, emotional and evasive responses that fail to address the relevant issue are inherently defensive and indicative of a low level of confidence in one’s position. FIRST answer the question, THEN mercilessly mock the questioner, his physical shortcomings, preferences in sports teams and sexual inadequacies!

However, I’m also disappointed in TNT’s subsequent responses. Why bother to ask the question if you’re determined not to accept any answers? The question, properly framed, was very simple: name a Christian whose IQ is over 160. I named two, men with whom I am personally acquainted and about whom I know the relevant detail.

The correct response is, okay, thank you, apparently my hypothesis is incorrect and needs to be refined. To sail off into existential questions of “what defines a true Christian” and “how can I be sure that what you believe to be true actually is true” is as silly and indicative of an absence of confidence as the previous example. It’s remniscent of trying to talk to a college freshman after his first Philosophy 101 class. “But how do I know you really exist… wait, how do I know I even exist!” (The answer, of course, is to punch him in the face. If the incipient philosopher is female, removing her bra is recommended instead.)

Now, keep in mind that at no time did I indicate that I accept TNT’s definition of genius. I don’t, and I was simply playing his game by his rules. To me, genius is determined post-facto by the originality and difficulty factor of the intellectual achievement by the individual, while a high IQ, however glorious, represents nothing but potential. I suspect that one reason there are fewer Christians among the openly high-IQ set is that the current system of academia encourages the our finest young minds to spent an inordinate amount of time in an environment that is awash with hostility to Christianity.

However, the fact that this very same group has a powerful tendency to subscribe to obvious economic and political idiocies means that I consider their general disdain for Christianity to be a substantial sign that the intellectual foundation for my faith is strong.

I would even go so far to argue that despite their lack of impressive educational degrees, the average Christian is more literate and historically educated than the average masters degree holder. I know several Ivy Leaguers whose collective libraries wouldn’t add up to more than 50 books. Even your stereotypical Bible thumper has at least read the Bible.