Vox Popoli

SK has a request:

Our eldest daughter is the mother of our beloved X who is four-years-old. Her mother is certain that she cannot do an adequate job teaching her daughter, her husband has resented that she has stayed home with her so far by working as both a housekeeper and a home day care mother. She is a capable business manager and able to earn a substantial salary, but does NOT want to raise her daughter in childcare. It is clear that her husband is insistent on public school ASAP. My daughter did not attend public school past the fifth grade, and was unable to read when we took her out.

I recently talked to my daughter about K-12 sex ed, which indoctrinates children into the belief that homosexuality is acceptable. She was absolutely certain that it couldn’t be so. I need the “low-down” on California Public Schools… I need information that will be persuasive with her parents, especially when her dad did not finish the eighth grade, and believes that public school is just great, that private school is elitist and that the idea of home school is outrageous….

Please feel free to pass my request on: creative52x@earthlink.net

As I have no more information on the particulars of the California public school system than I have on ritual human sacrifice – actually less, come to think of it – I thought I’d pass this on to you all. If anyone has specific information, (no generalities or theoretical arguments), please email it to the above address.

As an aside, it’s always interesting to me how people can be certain of this or that when they freely admit that they have no information on the matter. And speaking of human sacrifice, I suspect that many parents couldn’t care less what is or isn’t going on with their children’s “education” and won’t give up their cherished free K-12 day care until the so-called teachers of the NEA actually start sacrificing children to whatever dark god is is they worship.

Rod Dreher writes:

…a personal essay from today’s NYT Magazine about a Manhattan woman living with her boyfriend, who got pregnant with triplets. Stricken by the possibility that having three children at once would force her to move to Staten Island and start shopping at Costco, she decides to have a doctor pierce the beating hearts — she and her lover saw the hearts throbbing on the ultrasound — of two of the babies in her womb, and kill them. All so she could maintain her Manhattan lifestyle. The mind reels…

Tell me that equine excrement again about how the USA is uniquely blessed. As Flavor Flav would say: “You’re blind from the facts on who ya are cos ya watching that garbage.”

Alexis de Tocqueville once famously wrote that: “America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good she will no longer be great.” America is no longer great nor is it good, it is, as I wrote last week, entirely dead. What is left is a corpse, and one that reeks of blood and evil at that.

We’re not only on the cusp a third of a third down, as a nation we deserve to plunge into the Abyss. I don’t know about you, but I suspect I’ll be watching the next 9/11 with dry eyes. “All so she could maintain her Manhattan lifestyle.” Reading that makes me wish they’d sunk the whole damned island.

Sarah ruminates:

I like the idea of writing reviews. I changed my mind about it, though. How can I possibly write a decent review in the face of everyone else who goes to Vox Popoli. I can’t compete with that. I won’t even try. It’ll probably suck. And what if I give a positive review on something, somebody reads it, and then they say that the book sucked! What if it’s not just one person but a whole bunch of people. I can’t deal with that sense of failure.

First, it will be a little while before Digital Cowboy and I get the CGI forms going and work out the HTML design for people to contribute book reviews to voxday.net. But what Sarah needs to understand is that one cannot improve without doing. Sure, her first reviews might well be unintentionally amusing – if they weren’t at least half about her instead of the book, I’d be shocked – but she will learn from both the rightful and the unreasonable scorn.

Sarah, consider how your ability to articulate an argument has been refined since you first started posting here. Now, it’s not important for you to write book reviews – it’s certainly not a way to make a living – but it’s important for you to learn how to face down your fear. Fear of failure is not only unreasonable, it’s pernicious since it guarantees failure without learning. It’s much better to try and fail 100 times than to never try and always fail, because each failure provides information that may increase the odds of success the next time around.

So, write a review or two on your blog. If you use the model I used in reviewing The Atrocity Archive, you’ll at least have a structure and ensure that you address all the significant points, which will put you ahead of 85 percent of all book reviews ever written right there.

Frank Herbert was right. Fear is a mind-killer. So, instead of seeing fear as something to be avoided, look at it as a test. Do it precisely because you’re afraid of it.

Inbound Links: 786

Inbound Unique: 709

Current Rank: #38

Current Status: Playful Primate

This is interesting. A reasonably major syndicated columnist, who shall remain nameless, is often on TV. Everyone in Blogworld knows who they are, and so when he/she/it began a blog, everyone jumped on the bandwagon in a hurry to link to it. Presumably because they just love reading it, right? Just to put everything in perspective, Vox Popoli’s rank is as follows:

Inbound Links: 238

Inbound Unique: 189

Current Rank: #322

Current Status: Large Mammal

I think that’s respectable in an Blogosphere of some 3800 blogs. I’m happy with it, anyhow. Now, as this nameless columnist also appears on WND, I happen to know that my WND readership is, on average over a three-month period, about 25 percent larger. However, this is perhaps not a fair comparison as the other individual’s column is much more widely syndicated than mine, so it’s quite po many WND readers skip it on WND since they’ve already read it elsewhere.

This discrepancy, however, is a little more difficult to explain:

Average Daily Visits: 182

(data from SiteMeter)

Average Daily Visits: 1,669

(data from SiteMeter)

In other words, 709 bloggers are linking to what they think is a big name blog, but it’s obvious that most of them aren’t even bothering to check it out on a regular basis. Now, perhaps this will change over time or perhaps the SiteMeter data is bad, but if it is correct then it would appear to reveal both: a) the embarrassing limits of human reason, and b) the unattractive human tendency to kiss tush.

jr considers the fate of Miss Spears:

The whole thing resembles nothing so much as the pagan virgin sacrifices of old, where the admittedly (at least on the surface) willing victim is showered and adorned with the riches of the village on her way to being consumed in the belly of Moloch. And the crowd cheers.

Magumba hey

Magumba ho… ungowa

Magumba hey

Magumba ho… ungowa

Magumba hey

Magumba ho… UNGOWA!

Still the young man sits there on the beach.

He’s staring misty-eyed out into space.

He’s thinking about his girlfriend, (the late deceased).

At least her death had purpose,

His life is a waste!

Let’s face it, songs about tribal virgin sacrifice rule. Leilani don’t go to the volcano….

Char gets pensive:

Interesting — the construct “free will” here and in the Tolstoy story above, the opposite or lack of free will. The contrast makes some food for thought. I enjoy your web site and thanks for allowing visitors.

I don’t see that Tolstoy is NECESSARILY anti-free will in the quotidian details of life – shall I have yogurt or cereal for breakfast – so much as he is intent on puncturing the illusion of free will with regards to the individuals who stand at the cusp of great events. True, if one had to pin him down to one camp or the other, I suspect he would likely side with the omniderigents, but that’s largely irrelevant with regards to the matter with which he is concerned. Tolstoy is clearly wrestling with the What, not the How much less the Why.

J did well, although it shouldn’t have been very difficult to ascertain where I am going tomorrow as both Tolstoy and Elliott Waves were both mentioned recently on the sidebar of the blog.

There is appearently some connection between EWT which holds that markets are not moved by individual events but mass psychology, and Tolstoy who believed that history/sociology is not moved by individual actions but by the sum of countless forces acting upon mass society.

There is indeed such a connection, although I’ll leave the matter for tomorrow’s discussion. But I was quite surprised by Gary’s comment, as he picked up on an insight that I, too, had reached.

“War and Peace”, for example, is not a novel. It’s an arguement presented in the guise of a novel. It was the only way Tolstoy could present characters thoughts prior to actions and show how they often contradict, thus how no one is in ultimate control of himself but move through “unconscience action”.

The depths of truth can be illustrated at times by the most unlikely sources. Consider the case of the recently divorced and currently affianced Miss Spears. Here is a young woman more attractive than the norm – not significantly so, but that is part of her appeal to the masses – who has amassed a remarkable amount of fame and fortune in her short time on the planet. Even what would, to the casual observer such as myself, appear to be a complete lack of talent beyond the choreographed rump-shaking that your average pole dancer could approximate with ease, has not prevented her from becoming a top-tier star.

A few weeks ago, Matt Drudge brought our attention to the sad story of Miss Spears’ first husband, a childhood friend, who, despite being handicapped by an apparent intelligence barely on the north side of a rock, appears to be a genuinely decent human being. According to his telling – and we have no reason to disbelieve him – it was not his wife who wished to end the marriage but her parents, advisors, employees and assorted hangers-on, all of whom are financially dependent upon the Britney Spears industry. Obviously, they felt that at 22, the industry would be more profitable were it not distracted by the blessed state of matrimony.

There is a saying: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. The Spears’ profiteers succeeded in breaking up the marriage, as the humble Mr. Alexander was not about to stand in the way of his old friend’s business. But Miss Spears has that sort of youthfully lush figure which not only indicates today a woman who will likely endure a long battle against caloric intake, but in days of yore was seen as a woman ready to breed.

As Miss Spears was no sooner wrested from the large, but harmless clutches of her ex-husband than she managed to fall “in love” with a useless male specimen of the sort known as a “dancer”, it would seem that the industry was indeed more interested in her natural instinct to find a mate and propagate the species than maximizing her future profit potential. The biological imperative trumps the financial mandate, it seems. One imagines that Britney Spears Incorporated is not only ruefully wishing that it had been wise enough to leave the industry to its own devices in matters romantic, but is collectively wincing as it calculates what it will eventually cost to remove this parasitical gigolo. If the parasite is as ruthlessly self-seeking as it appears to be – it takes a stone cold squid to abandon not one, but two children, and their mother – it will require some expensive financial surgery indeed.

I found it amusing that on the very same day that Britney Spears Inc. was threatening to sue the New York Post for claiming that she had been drinking whiskey in a picture it published a few weeks ago, (for the same reason that CourtneyLove is not often used to endorse teen products), the U.K. Sun published several photos of her publicly groping the aforementioned useless specimen in an R-rated manner. One wonders if B.S.I. will soon release a press release explaining that Miss Spears was only attempting to determine what brand of underwear her fiance was wearing, and that in her innocence of male intimates, she did not realize that the tag generally goes in the back.

Let me assure the gentle reader, there is indeed a point to this vaguely salacious pop cultural gossip. For if a young woman cannot be controlled by her parents and those closest to her, even when her financial best interest manifestly depends on her accession to such control, no human can be reliably controlled by anyone, much less the decrees of a distant government. Humans cannot be controlled! Not in their best interest, not in their long-term interests, and certainly not in the interests of their self-anointed masters. Not for long, anyhow.

This is the great tragedy of the Platonists. Regardless of what current ideological excuse is currently justifying their mastery, the Platonist will always end up betraying it, as, in frustration, he turns lethal force on those he once thought only to guide and help. For all the empty-eyed, gum-chewing, udder-engorged resemblance that the average teen mall rat bears to domesticated ungulates, she cannot be herded! What God has given to even the least of those created in His image – free will – no mere mortal may hope to take away.

Here’s another one for the precognitive-minded. Next week’s column conflates the work of a Russian novelist and a contrarian form of technical analysis. No one managed to score last week – a few hapless post-column assertions notwithstanding – so I’m curious to see if anyone can do better this week.

Kyle Williams writes on WND:

Yet, for some conservatives, choosing a candidate isn’t limited to George W. Bush and John Kerry. Because President Bush has betrayed conservatives on various social and fiscal issues, the conservative base is divided and hasn’t rallied around Bush like it did four years ago. This leaves some conservatives wondering whether or not they should jump ship for a third-party candidate like Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka or even the Libertarian, Michael Badnarik. Meanwhile, the rest of the conservative/Republican camp is griping that a vote for a third-party candidate will do nothing but help John Kerry.

In reality, they’re right. A vote for a third-party candidate may be a stand for ideals, and it may send a message to the GOP, but it won’t do much good. There aren’t enough conservatives who will vote third party to scare GOP officials, but there are just enough third-party voters that it may help John Kerry. Yes, a vote for Michael Peroutka is a wasted vote. It’s hard to say whether a third-party candidate will ever be viable, but it’s obvious that no third-party nominee has a shot at the presidency in this election cycle.

Therefore, conservatives need to look at the priorities. What’s important? If we truly care about appointing conservative judges, then we can’t have John Kerry in office. If we truly care about the economy, then we can’t have Kerry in office. If we care about the War on Terrorism, then we can’t have Kerry in office. If we truly care about cutting taxes, then we can’t have Kerry in office.

The only viable alternative is President Bush. He’s not a conservative, true. He has betrayed conservative principles and has taken actions that would make a liberal proud, but he’s the man when it comes to the economy, taxes, war on terrorism and, most importantly, the judicial branch.

This column could be cited as a persuasive argument against homeschool, if only the public schools still taught logic. But in an case, let’s follow young Mr. William’s advice to look at the priorities:

1) “If we truly care about appointing conservative judges….” George Bush hasn’t managed to get any conservative judges through a Republican House and Senate. Perhaps if conservatives are satisfied with mere appointments, one could construct a case on this basis for Bush. But, as conservatives are more likely concerned with seating conservative judges, not merely seeing them appointed and rejected, Bush’s first term should suffice to demonstrate that this is not an adequate reason to vote for him. Whether he truly wishes to seat such judges or not is unimportant, the fact of the matter is that he hasn’t and he won’t. Still, the president’s work to retain Arlen Spectre as the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee suggests that he does not truly wish to see conservative judges on the bench.

2) “If we truly care about the economy….” George Bush has engaged in unrestrained Keynesian expansion, using tax cuts and increased government spending in combination with massively easy monetary policy in order to postpone the inevitable post-boom bust. This never works long and only exacerbates the eventual bust, the next (third) wave of which has already begun. It’s no secret that George Bush is an economic illiterate, but so are his economic advisors, who are using outdated economic models repeatedly proven to be disastrous failures.

3) “If we care about the War on Terrorism….” Right, undeclared and extra-Constitutional war on method and a Commander-in-chief who’s afraid to name the enemy or attack his strongholds. No thanks.

4) “If we truly care about cutting taxes….” This is the one viable point. If you’re a one-issue voter, by all means, vote for George Bush on this basis. But it may be wise to keep in mind, he’s not doing it on principle, he’s doing it because he’s desperately trying to increase liquidity and get you spending in order to bring up the C component of GDP… and his concomitant inflationary fiscal policy in collaboration with Greenspan’s inflationary monetary policy has the net result of lowering your discretionary buying power even as more money goes into your pocket. 2 percent more money doesn’t buy 18 percent more gold, or 40 percent more gasoline.

And then, there’s the open admission that George Bush is no conservative. So, why should conservatives support a non-conservative? Right, because he’s the lesser of two evils. I should point out that as a Christian libertarian, I believe in free will, so I fully expect people to decide to support evil on a regular basis, using a wide variety of rationalizations. All I ask is that conservatives remember that this is indeed a choice they are making, that no one is forcing them to knowingly support that which they believe to be wrong.