Tag: trainwreck

Celebrating Egyptian democracy

Apparently we’re all supposed to be horrified to discover that dangling a chicken over a swamp full of alligators may end in the devouring of the chicken. In Mala Fide is visibly unmoved over the reported “sexual assault” of Lara Logan:

You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. I don’t care how many disaster areas she’s reported from, how many awards she’s won, it was going to happen eventually. Christ, even Anderson Cooper, that twinkle-toed pansy, couldn’t handle the heat on the streets of Cairo. What the fuck did Logan think was going to happen? Did she really think that the teeming, America-hating, angry, sex-starved crowds of men she was surrounded by wouldn’t view her as a tasty treat? Is she THAT clueless about the non-Western world? Or did she truly think that her crew of yes-men could protect her every time she touched down in Surprise Sex Country?

Obviously what Miss Logan needed was a phalanx of armed American amazons to protect her. On second thought….

“In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed. The Defense Department shows much lower numbers, but that is because it only counts reported rapes—and, as the DoD admits itself in this year’s annual Pentagon report on military sexual assault, some 90 percent of rapes in the military are ever reported at all. Nonetheless, that same report showed that in 2008, reports of assault increased by 8 percent military-wide, and by 26 percent in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.”

Rather than pursue the obvious solution and keep women out of the military, the social engineers who have succeeded in getting so many women raped by men who are specifically trained to overcome their societal and moral taboos about not killing other people is to attempt to remove those who refuse to abide by societal taboos from the military. So, it should be interesting to see what their proposed solution for Egyptians rape-mobs is.

But the most interesting thing about the Logan incident is the way it is a metaphorical lesson on the choice facing Western women between three different futures: a) a return to traditional Christian culture, b) rape and the brothel, or c) submission and the burqah.

The useless Tea Party

Most of you will recall that unlike those bloggers that leaped on the bandwagon with alacrity, I have been extremely skeptical of the Tea Party from the very beginning. And, as Karl Denninger points out, the skeptics were correct:

That’s thirty-one out of forty voting for the bill (77.5%), eight voting against, and one no-vote. Despite the eight nay votes, Tea Party-backed candidates overwhelmingly supported an extension of the PATRIOT Act.

As I expected, the Tea Party is an ineffectual and ideologically incoherent joke. They don’t see the intrinsic dichotomy of claiming to support small government while simultaneously playing totalitarian world police. Yes, the movement managed to get a few people elected to office, but that’s totally irrelevant because, as we have seen every time that Republicans get elected to office, they support extending and expanding central government power. This behavior is as predictable as the phases of the Moon; it is the nature of the sort of beast who runs for office.

And despite the brave “well, we’ll just throw them out again” rhetoric that we’ll likely hear from the more principled Tea Partiers, I am confident that most of the 31 Tea Party-backed sellouts will easily win re-election with the enthusiastic support of the very people they betrayed. Notice, by the way, that it is Republicans who are pushing the Patriot Act extensions.

“Republican leaders will bring the bill back to the floor under a rule, where it will almost certainly secure the 218-vote threshold.”

As for Michelle Bachmann, I was unsurprised to see that she was one of the frauds. I remember when she was first getting started in Minnesota politics. If I recall correctly, my father was one of her contributors, but I didn’t think much of her at the time and I have seen no reason to revise my opinion since.

A tale of two bad ideas

It occurs to me that American police would be wise to consider abandoning their police state mentality sooner rather than later. Despite their ongoing militarization, the badge gang isn’t actually capable of enforcing the law or anything else upon the population. They only look as if they are in control so long as the populace is largely law-abiding of its own free will. Consider the following anecdote from just across the border:

11/23/2010 CIUDAD JUAREZ — In the bloodstained chaos that is Mexico’s drug war raging on the doorstep of the United States, Erika Gandara, 28, is standing tall, and alone. As her town’s only police officer “I am the law,” she says…. “Yes, I am a police officer,” the fresh-faced Gandara, who might be mistaken for a high (secondary) school student in her purple hoodie if she were not packing an [A]R-15 rifle, told AFP in an interview in her sparsely furnished office.

“I am this town’s only cop. I am the law,” she said.

And she meant it.

I remember reading that a few months ago and thinking that it was a classic example of female bravado, which rests entirely upon the false notion that a woman’s sex renders her untouchable. Needless to say, I wasn’t terribly surprised to read this today.

“Érika Gándara, 28, seemed to relish the role, posing with a semiautomatic rifle and talking openly about the importance of her new job. “I am the only police in this town, the authority,” she told reporters. Then, two days before Christmas, a group of armed men took her from her home, residents say, and she has not been seen since.”

I’m not sure which was more ill-conceived, Gandara’s brief career as a police chief or Pippa Bacca’s attempt to hitchhike across Turkey in a wedding dress. Regardless, they appear to have come to the same end. And speaking of ill-conceived notions, both the government and the police should keep in mind that it is not wise to aim into the abyss.

Perhaps you could try not being a wimp

I have zero sympathy for this loser:

Haywood was trying to transfer to the Yellow Line around 7:15 p.m. when the assault happened. He was headed home to Fort Totten after working out at Results on Capitol Hill, a gym bag slung over his shoulder and a book in his hands. As he read with his back to the station wall, “all of a sudden someone whacked me on the back of the head really hard,” he recalls.

Haywood turned around. The boy looked to be about 11 or 12 years old. Baffled, Haywood asked, “What the fuck are you doing?” The boy stood there laughing. Then someone else cracked Haywood from the other side. He turned around again. This time it was the girl in the video above. She didn’t stop swinging for more than a full minute, chasing Haywood around the platform as other kids egged her on.

As seen in the video, Haywood repeatedly asked the girl why she was attacking him, pleading with her to end it. “Stop it! Stop it! Goddamn it! You stop this shit right now! I did nothing to you!”

No wonder the nation is swirling down the drain. Little bastards like this wouldn’t be attacking strangers for kicks if they knew that they’d get their faces shattered in immediate response. Can you imagine Chuck Liddell or any MMA fighter begging a 12-year old boy or girl to stop hitting him? If you’re a man, you simply do not take that from anyone, let alone a child.

For the pro-war “conservative”

An educational quote from George Will’s column today:

Two years ago this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, when asked about U.S. objectives in Afghanistan, stressed creation of a strong central government.

Since intrepid Tea Partiers can’t seem to grasp the fundamental contradiction between their support for small and limited government and foreign entanglements, perhaps this statement from the Secretary of Defense will expose their incoherence in a manner they can understand.

How can you possibly claim to support a limited and decentralized government at home while simultaneously supporting the establishment of a strong central government abroad?

A noble opportunity to contribute

I am confident that the American people, being staunchly committed to their hallowed and time-honored principles of diversity, social justice, and the sanctity of public union contracts, will welcome this opportunity to ensure that no retired government employee is denied the right to live large while not working at home instead of not working at the office:

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more “fairly” distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.

This is precisely why I never contributed a dime to any 401(k) plan. Even in my misspent youth, I understood that which Congress gives, Congress will take away the moment it decides it wants to do so. Fortunately for those who have been diligently salting away their retirement money in these plans, since 2008 we have repeatedly been shown that Congress is much more prone to listen to the voice of the outraged masses than to a statistically insignificant but wealthy and politically influential special interest group that is demanding large sums of money.

Wait a minute….

Et tu, Jonah

Mr. Golberg takes an astonishing position on the Obama administration’s assertion of a right to assassinate American citizens without trial:

Some civil libertarians seem to think we can never, ever kill an American citizen without a trial by jury (and perhaps not even then). That argument would have been silly during the days of conventional warfare. Now it’s plain crazy. And the Obama administration is right. This is no job for courts. Wars and how we fight them are political decisions, properly left to Congress and the president.

Jonah should know better. He is, after all, the one who built the case against the pragmatic, “it’s just this one brick” approach of progressive totalitarianism in his very good Liberal Fascism. He further compounds his error when, after being correctly called on his erroneous reasoning by a reader, he attempts to justify his position by bringing up the example of World War II.

“Surely, “the battlefield” is a very amorphous term these days. An American fighting in Nazi uniform in 1943 could be killed and even singled out for killing without a trial by jury, or at least I think that’s the case. Awlaki — like all of al Qaeda — refuses to play by the rules even the Nazis agreed to. I’m at a loss as to why they should be rewarded for it.”

Of course, the only reason that an American fighting in Nazi uniform – more likely Wehrmacht, but never mind that – could be killed on the battlefield was because no one knew he was an American. The Constitution clearly and explicitly deals with the question of treason in time of war, which makes since because it was written by men who had recently fought in the Revolutionary War, so it is ludicrous to appeal to some pragmatic sense of sobriety and sanity and claim that it supersedes the Constitution.

Article III
[Section 3.] Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Jonah isn’t one of National Review’s Trotskyites, so it is a little disappointing to see him toeing the anti-constitutional neocon line on this issue.

Global Warming Nazis

I had previously preferred the term “global warming fascists”, but the term simply doesn’t do justice to these twisted, human-hating idealogues.  It appears we may end up eventually having to go to war with the sick bastards should they take over a country or two just like we did with their German predecessors; as with the National Socialists, the global warming extremists genuinely believe that their mad pseudo-scientific myths justify killing people. 

Fortunately, given that their tanks will be solar-powered and their cruise missiles will be launched by turbine windmills, it should take a lot less than five years to defeat them and wipe them out.  And, seeing how they won’t be utilizing carbon anymore afterwards, it will be a win-win.

It’s clear that the pro-warming media has the vague idea that something has gone seriously wrong here, even if they don’t quite understand what the negative reaction is all about.

“While many people said they found the short an amusing way of addressing the issue of apathy towards climate change issues, others found it tasteless and unnecessarily violent.”

Yeah, that was just explosively hilarious, wasn’t it? I mean, about the only thing that would have made it funnier if the self-appointed climate saviors were murdering Jewish schoolchildren… no, make that gay Jewish schoolchildren. Ho, ho, ho.

NRO endorses assassinating Americans

I am not a conservative. I am a Christian libertarian technodemocrat. But if this is what is actually supposed to pass for conservative opinion leadership at a leading conservative publication, it’s no wonder that the Tea Partiers are abandoning both the Republican Party and the conservative media:

The Obama administration is not, by authorizing Awlaki’s assassination, green-lighting his killing under all conceivable circumstances. The administration, I suspect, is just making sure that if he’s found congregating in a sanctuary with other terrorists, we can bomb the sanctuary — we don’t have to forfeit a worthy military operation just because one of the terrorists happens to be an American citizen. But if he’s found under other circumstances, where there is no demonstrable military value in killing him, he will be captured, held, interrogated (one hopes), and tried — either by a civilian or (I would hope) a military court.

This seems like common sense to me. The unfortunate thing is that the assassination authorization should never have been made public. Clearly, the administration leaked it to underscore the president’s willingness to fight al-Qaeda aggressively. All the leak has done, though, is cause unnecessary legal headaches. If the administration had handled this top-secret authorization appropriately, chances are: Awlaki would, at some point, have been either killed or captured; the attendant circumstances would have made it obvious why the option chosen (kill or capture) was chosen; and no one would ever have thought to ask whether Obama had authorized his assassination.

In other words, McCarthy is just fine with passing laws that authorize the government murder of its own citizens because it happens to be politically unviable at the moment. This is deeply, profoundly, and abysmally stupid. It is insane. And there is literally nothing conservative, in the American political sense of the word, about it.

If I were the editor of NRO, I would fire McCarthy on the spot for this defense of legalizing government murder.

His argument is risibly incompetent and not only depends entirely upon the transient nature of temporal politics but also upon what he imagines Obama’s reasoning behind the assassination authorization to be. McCarthy writes: “We are a political society, not a legal one. The executive branch typically has vast legal authority, but its exercise of that authority is hemmed in — thank goodness — by politics.”

Ergo, under his reasoning, once it becomes politically popular to murder certain American citizens en masse, it will be legal to do so. This isn’t merely madness, it is the familiar route to the guillotine, the gulag, and the gas chamber. To make this argument while simultaneously claiming to wear the mantle of Edmund Burke, among others, is a grotesque offense to reason, history, and conservatism itself.

If Awlaki is genuinely a traitor, the correct Constitutional thing to do is to arrest him, put him on trial for treason, and then execute him. The fact that the Obama administration is openly attempting to omit the first two steps with the support of the conservative and mainstream media alike is an indication of how completely lawless both the United States government and its lapdog media have become.

UPDATE: McCarthy isn’t the only NROcon to cheer on Obama’s American citizen assassination policy. David French writes: “We need to stop incentivizing enemy violations of the laws of war, and one way to do that is to find them and capture or kill them no matter their location, no matter their clothing, and no matter their nationality.”

He also attempts to claim that it’s not “assassination” so long as the person assassinated is an enemy. Which, no doubt, would be news to Abraham Lincoln, among others. And William F. Buckley wept.

NRO clings to sanity

Apparently they haven’t gotten completely blitzed on the Neocon-spiked Kool-aid:

The Awlaki case speaks to something even more fundamental than law: Decent nations do not permit their governments to assassinate their own citizens. I am willing to give the intelligence community, the covert-operations guys, and the military proper a pretty free hand when it comes to dealing with dispersed terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates. But citizenship, even when applied to a Grade-A certified rat like Awlaki, presents an important demarcation, a bright-line distinction in our politics.

If Awlaki were to be killed on a battlefield, I’d shed no tears. But ordering the premeditated, extrajudicial killing of an American citizen in Yemen or Pakistan is no different from ordering the premeditated, extrajudicial killing of an American citizen in New York or Washington or Topeka — American citizens are American citizens, wherever they go. I’m an old-fashioned limited-government guy, and I am not willing to grant Washington the power to assassinate U.S. citizens, even rotten ones. The three most powerful people in government at this moment are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, a fact that should give pause even to the most hawkish conservative. I would hope that other conservatives see this at least as a matter of prudence, if not a burning moral question.

We’ve reached a very problematic state of affairs when the so-called “liberals” have endorsed a policy of the federal government intentionally murdering American citizens and most of the so-called “conservative” media is kind of maybe okay with it.