Hillary picks Sen. Kaine (D-VA)

The Lizard Queen has chosen her running mate:

Hillary Clinton named U.S. Senator Tim Kaine as her running mate on Friday, making a safe choice that will help her present the Democratic ticket as a steady alternative to the unpredictable campaign of Republican presidential rival Donald Trump.

The selection of Kaine, a self-described “boring” Virginian with wide governing experience and a reputation for low-key competence, could appeal to independents and moderates but is likely to anger liberal groups who object to his advocacy for an Asian free-trade pact.

But the Spanish-speaking former Virginia governor and Richmond mayor fits Clinton’s long-stated criteria that the vice presidential choice be a capable partner who is ready to take over the presidency if necessary.

Just on the optics alone, those two are going to look pathetic compared to Trump and Pence. She had to go moderate, of course, but I doubt Kaine will do much to win back the whites she needs. Whereas Pence was a 7/10 pick, Kaine is 4/10 at best.

Of course, she was handicapped by the need to pick a harmless little guy who wouldn’t overshadow her and make her look like his mother-in-law or his retired secretary when he stood next to her.


How to use Brave at VP

After trying to sort out a different issue, I inadvertently discovered the problem with using Brave to comment here at VP. This is how to correct the problem and allow Brave users to comment here, assuming that you are like me and tend to keep your security levels reasonably high.

  1. Log into Google.
  2. Go to VP.
  3. Click on the orange lion head on the upper right to Open Bravery Panel. It will say Brave site shield settings for voxday.blogspot.com or your national equivalent.
  4. Take the shields down.

This also works with Name/URL for those who don’t wish to utilize a Google account. It is safe because the only scripts here are the local book carousel scripts, the Google scripts, and the Amazon scripts and it will only affect your browser security settings on this site. And you can click to see for yourself exactly what they are and confirm for yourself that they are harmless.

At the present, only one percent of the users here are on Brave. Let’s get that up over 20 percent! Even at this early stage, it really is worth the minor additional effort required.

KNOWN BUG AND TEMPORARY FIX: I was having a problem with both Twitter and Blogger periodically logging me out for no apparent reason. To prevent this, go to Settings, then Security, and under Private Data, turn off Clear All Site Cookies when Brave is closed.


Attack in Munich

Breaking news from Germany:

At least one person has died and another 10 people are injured after a lone gunman went on a shooting spree in a German shopping centre.

A major police operation is ongoing in Munich, around the city’s Olympic Park.

People were seen running from the shopping mall to get away from the incident after hearing gunshots.

The area around the Munich Olympia Shopping Centre in the district of Moosach has been sealed off as emergency services try to control the situation.

 Sounds like the Amish are getting out of control again.

UPDATE: Now reporting “several dead” and a possible second active shooter.

UPDATE: The shooting was at a McDonalds. So we can’t rule out Cheeseburger Rage.

UPDATE: Some sites are reporting the one shooter was white, but from the recorded verbal exchange, he sounds more like a second-generation Turk.

Man: “What makes you German?”

Gunman: “I was born here.”

That’s not how a German national would claim to be German, but it is how secondos often identify themselves. And in Germany, most secondos are Turkish.

Gunman: Ich bin Deutchscher

Man: Du bist ein Wixxer, bist du.

Gunman: Hort auf mich zu filmen!

Man: Was macht dich Deutsch?

Gunman: Ich bin hier geboren worden.

Man: Na und? 

Before he started shooting, the two other guys were calling him a Turkish shit and a scheissen Kanake. The latter term “is now usually used with an exclusively derogatory connotation against people of Turkish or Middle Eastern ancestry.”

UPDATE: Holy cats, a guy on Sky News is just blatantly lying, claiming that the GUNMAN was shouting the anti-immigrant epithets and stressing that he claimed to be a German born in Germany, but ignoring the obvious second-generation context. That being said, I tend to doubt that was an Islam-inspired attack, but more a case of a literally crazy immigrant.


On the Existence of Gods in audio

A #1 bestseller in the Atheism category, On the Existence of Gods is a response to a public challenge posed by a militant atheist who claimed to have never encountered any good arguments for the existence of gods. It is a competitive discourse between a Christian and an atheist, each of whom argue for their position on the subject, after which the arguments are adjudicated by a team of three judges – a Christian, an agnostic, and an atheist – before additional arguments are presented.

The format is compelling and the results are at times surprising, as the discussion takes unexpected twists and turns, while the judges exhibit ruthless impartiality as they criticize the arguments without mercy or favor. Vox Day, the author of The Irrational Atheist, presents the Christian perspective, while Dominic Saltarelli argues for the atheist position. The debate is wide-ranging and intelligent, but remains civil throughout, even as the momentum swings in favor of one side, and then the other.

Narrated by Jon Mollison, On the Existence of Gods is three hours and 22 minutes long. Click on the links or the cover image to listen to a sample.

There is a vast quantity of extant documentary and testimonial evidence providing indications that gods exist. This evidence dates from the earliest written records to current testimonials from living individuals. While it is true that the quality of this evidence varies considerably, it cannot simply be dismissed out of hand anymore than one can conclude Gaius Julius Caesar did not exist because one cannot see him on television today. Each and every case demands its own careful examination before it can be dismissed, and such examination has never been done in the overwhelming majority of cases.

For example, there are many documented cases of confirmed fraud in published scientific papers. If we apply the same reasoning to published scientific papers that some wish to apply to documentary evidence of gods, we have no choice but to conclude that all science is fraudulent. But this is absurd, as we know that at least some science is not fraudulent. Therefore, if one is willing to accept the validity of published scientific papers that one has not been able to verify are not fraudulent, one must similarly accept the validity of documentary evidence for the existence of gods that one has not examined and determined to merit dismissal for one reason or another.

Because it is intrinsically testimonial in nature, the documentary evidence for gods has been impugned on the basis of studies concerning the unreliability of eyewitness testimony for various reasons. However, this critical analogy actually demonstrates the precise opposite of what it purports to show. Since eyewitness testimony has been variously determined to be somewhere between 12 percent and 50 percent inaccurate, this means that between 50 percent and 88 percent of the testimonial evidence for gods should be assumed accurate, at least concerning the correctly reported details of the divine encounter. The correct interpretations of the specific details, of course, are a different matter.


Trump’s speech: an analysis

Note: this is based on the prepared text, not the one Donald Trump actually delivered, which was fairly similar. Key passages:

America is far less safe – and the world is far less stable – than when Obama made the decision to put Hillary Clinton in charge of America’s foreign policy.

I am certain it is a decision he truly regrets. Her bad instincts and her bad judgment – something pointed out by Bernie Sanders – are what caused the disasters unfolding today. Let’s review the record. In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map.

Libya was cooperating. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was under control. After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region, and the world. Libya is in ruins, and our Ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos.

Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.

This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.

Translation: no more neoconnery. He’s rhetorically going after Hillary here, and is correct to do so, but he’s dialectically including the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policy as well. 2016-2009=7, not 15. This is the real reason why the conservative media is opposed to Trump; they want their foreign wars.

The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

It’s important that he directly called out globalism here. America First could be empty rhetoric, but rejecting globalism puts some teeth into it.

The damage and devastation that can be inflicted by Islamic radicals has been over and over – at the World Trade Center, at an office party in San Bernardino, at the Boston Marathon, and a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

Islam. Not radical Islam. This is potentially significant, as the problem is with Islam itself, not the various variants of it. It is Mao’s old fish/sea challenge.

we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place. My opponent has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.

Translation: no more Muslim immigration. Not quite as good as going back to admitting only white Christians of good character, but it’s a very good start.

We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration

He’s either lying to the American people, again, or he lied to the elite media that he specifically calls out as a problem in this speech. I’d bet on the latter.

By enforcing the rules for the millions who overstay their visas, our laws will finally receive the respect they deserve.

Translation: deportation. Again, it’s a start.

I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual countries. No longer will we enter into these massive deals, with many countries, that are thousands of pages long – and which no one from our country even reads or understands. We are going to enforce all trade violations, including through the use of taxes and tariffs, against any country that cheats.

This includes stopping China’s outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal product dumping, and their devastating currency manipulation. Our horrible trade agreements with China and many others, will be totally renegotiated. That includes renegotiating NAFTA to get a much better deal for America – and we’ll walk away if we don’t get the deal that we want.

Holy cow, I NEVER thought he’d take on NAFTA directly. This is phenomenal stuff, even better than I’d anticipated. There are brief throwaways about “fixing” TSA and Obamacare, and while it would have been better to simply announce that they’d be shut down, all in all, he hit the three main issues that are on the table good and hard: immigration, free trade, and globalism.

As for the other two big ones, gun control and the Fed, he didn’t mention them nor did I imagine he would. Trump isn’t interested in gun control and he’s probably not equipped to even begin thinking about the monetary system. Trump is not only more appealing to the Alt Right than I thought he’d be, he’s also more appealing to conservatives and moderates than I would have imagined. It was such a good speech, it even won over the cuckiest of cuckservatives:

Trump is definitely speaking to the moment. He may not be speaking to you, but he is speaking to many, many people in the country right now…. That’s rhetorical gold. All of it. I have never heard Trump or any other politician since Pat Buchanan put it so succinctly.

8.5 out of 10. I see no reason to revise my prediction that the election will be “a Trumpslide of Mondalean proportions.”

Meanwhile, the man who was Trump before Trump, Pat Buchanan, sums up what we saw taking place at the Republican National Convention:

The crisis of today’s Republican Party stems from a failure to recognize, after Reagan went home, and during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, that America now faced a new set of challenges.

By 1991, America’s border was bleeding. Thousands were walking in from Mexico every weekend. The hundreds of thousands arriving legally, the vast majority of them Third World poor, began putting downward pressure on working-class wages. Soon, these immigrants would begin voting for the welfare state on which their families depended, and support the Party of Government.

By 1991, free trade had begun to send our factories and jobs overseas and de-industrialize America.

By 1991, an epoch in world history had ended. With the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the Cold War was suddenly over. America had prevailed.

“As our case is new,” said Lincoln, “so we must think anew and act anew.” Bush Republicans did not think anew or act anew.

They were like football coaches who still swore by the single-wing offense, after George Halas’ Chicago Bears, the “Monsters of the Midway,” used the T-formation to score 11 touchdowns and beat the Washington Redskins in the 1940 NFL championship game, 73-0.

What paralyzed the Republicans of a generation ago? What blinded them from seeing and blocked them from acting on the new realities?

Ideology, political correctness, a reflexive recoil against new thinking, and an innate inability to adapt.

The ideology was a belief in free trade that borders on the cultic, though free trade had been rejected by America’s greatest leaders: Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

The political correctness stemmed from a fear of being called racist and xenophobic so paralyzing, so overpowering, that some Republicans would ship the entire Third World over here, rather than have it thought they would ever consider the race, ethnicity or religion of those repopulating America.

The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away. Rather than shed Cold War alliances and rebuild our country, we looked around for new commitments, new allies, new wars to fight to “end tyranny in our world.”

These wars had less to do with threats to vital interests, than with providing now-obsolete Cold Warriors with arguments to maintain their claims on national resources and attention, not to mention their lifestyles and jobs.

With Trump’s triumph, the day of reckoning has arrived.

The new GOP is not going to be party of open borders, free trade globalism or reflexive interventionism.

The new GOP is not going to be a republican party. It is an American party, which is to say that it is, for all intents and purposes, the White party. That doesn’t mean it won’t have any non-white support; what most people don’t understand is that more than a few Hispanics, Asians, and even blacks want to live in a mostly white country.

The age of ideology is over. The era of identity politics is upon us, courtesy of those who eroded and expanded America’s demographics in 1965.


Vox’s First Law in action

The Left has three insults and one joke. The insults:

  1. You’re stupid.
  2. You’re evil.
  3. You’re irrelevant.

The one joke:

  1. Do you know that guy? He’s stupid.

It’s painful to see left-wing comedians attempt to do political humor. Guess what Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump have in common?

You guessed it. They’re stupid. You can literally take old jokes about Gerald Ford, change the name to Donald Trump, and they’ll be the same as today’s jokes about Trump. And these people genuinely believe they are the smart ones.



Milo banned from Instagram

The Ralph Retort reports:

I know I said I was done with this story for today, but I also said that I’d be back if more news broke. Well, that just happened. Controversial Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos was just banned from Instagram for reasons that are, as of now, unknown. All I know is that his Instagram was pretty mild when I checked it the other day, so this isn’t making a lot of sense.

Excessive Fabulosity, one can only assume. It’s rather remarkable. At this point, Milo is banned from more places than I am.


The cucks concur

Lion Ted Cruz wowed America and all but secured the 2020 nomination with his amazing non-endorsement speech at the RNC:

Erick Erickson ‏@EWErickson
LION TED CRUZ

David Frum ‏@davidfrum
Ted Cruz earned the most honorable boos at a GOP convention since those for Nelson Rockefeller for condemning the John Birch Society.

Erick Erickson ‏@EWErickson
Ted Cruz is the only one in Cleveland not willing to whore himself to Cheeto Jesus. History will favor him.

Matthew Continetti ‏@continetti
The nationalists may very well take over the GOP for years to come. That doesn’t mean conservatives should be quiet. @tedcruz won’t be.

Jonah Goldberg‏@JonahNRO
I choose Ted.

Robert P. George ‏@McCormickProf
Ted has never been afraid to enter a hostile environment and speak his mind. He was like that even as an undergrad. He can’t be intimidated.

Erick Erickson ‏@EWErickson
Trump supporters have so much butt hurt over Cruz, who said to go vote in November and congratulated Trump.

Meghan McCain ‏@MeghanMcCain
Ted Cruz. Mic drop. Thank god someone still cares about the soul of the party of Lincoln and Reagan.

Erick Erickson ‏@EWErickson
Of note, Ted Cruz is getting praised from both the left and right of the GOP, but not from the establishment. Perfect set up for 2020.

Jim Treacher ‏@jtLOL
Ted Cruz Had His Vito Corleone Moment; Trump And The RNC Hate It Didn’t Backfire

Now, my thought is that you might want to look at those names and consider: if your opinion of of Ted Cruz’s self-immolation on the national stage is even remotely in line with theirs, you just might want to reconsider it.


Why banning diversity makes sense

If I ran a con of any kind, I would forbid all discussion of “diversity”. These idiot SF-SJWs have no idea how incredibly boring they are. No wonder no one is interested in reading their books except for each other:

Readercon isn’t exactly a bastion of racial diversity. And this panel was far from the only one this weekend to go downhill when attempts to bring up race and how it intersected with the panel discussion were met with less than adept reactions from white panelists.

I look to the newer fans in the audience and try to draw them into the conversation every single time I panel. So many new faces (particularly of color) were at Readercon this year. For many of them the problem wasn’t, “Well, Readercon only talks about books,” so much as it was, “Readercon seems unwilling to talk about books in a way that includes people like me.”

No one is perfect. No one can ever be perfect. But if con spaces are going to survive, if they are going to attract new attendees, then everyone involved, including panelists, has to be conscious of how they are engaging with each other and with the audience. New attendees can easily decide to spend their money and time at corporate-run media cons. It won’t be as intimate, they might not build the same friendships, but they will also be navigating spaces that are far less fraught. I go to Readercon because some dear friends run it, but for the last 4 years I have had at least one panel go sideways. At some point I will do the math in the moment, wish my friends well, and stop going if Readercon doesn’t get better for me and people like me….

As a community, we have to be willing to have the harder conversations, to have the nuanced discussions, to understand that someone wanting to apply an intersectional lens to a discussion isn’t the enemy but the one trying to make things more inclusive. Are the conversations at sci fi cons changing? God, I hope so.

If I’m on a panel that addresses craft, humans, sexuality, gender, robots that are treated like humans, or whatever else a panel description might contain, I’m going to do my best to broaden the discussion. To talk about the ways that race, class, etc. can impact the topic at hand.

Let’s suppose instead of a rabid diversity advocate, we’re talking about a rabid Trump advocate. This hypothetical Trump advocate is absolutely convinced that Trump is desperately needed in order to Make America Great Again. And now suppose that the Trump advocate is on a panel at a science fiction convention.

If I’m on a panel that addresses craft, humans, sexuality, gender, robots that are treated like humans, or whatever else a panel description might contain, I’m going to do my best to broaden the discussion. To talk about the ways that Donald Trump can impact the topic at hand.

What would Donald Trump do about aliens? How would Donald Trump address the issue of robots? What does Donald Trump have to say about sexuality?

Now, how many people would be happy to have the Trump advocate on the panel? How many would want to invite him back?