Monday, June 30, 2014
Saturday, June 28, 2014
What is "drastic action"?
What is a "stronger international response"?
Effectively quarantine so vast an area?
Nuke that entire corner of Africa?
Psychologically and politically impossible.
An infected UN medico gets on a plane to Geneva and that's it, we have a real pandemic killing 60 to 90% of mankind.
Who's quoting odds?
Or you could call it just another world government power grab in favor of officially sponsored experts, academics, and institutions.
Private salvagers are looters, says BBC.
Not 6 million.
Not 5.5 million, as the Russians said in 1945.
Not even the 1.2 million claimed by Raul Hilberg.
8 hundred thousand people were killed at Auschwitz, about 630,000 of them Jews killed in the gas chambers.
Yes, there were gas chambers.
And unprecedented crematoria for rapid and complete incineration of thousands a day.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Words cannot express the stupidity of this meddling.
The reality is that interventionist policies put America and American interests at risk that would otherwise be much safer.
Interventionism endangers America.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
He was splendid in Lord Jim, too.
He played villains with great verve, good humor, and tremendous spirit.
Contrast him with Curt Jurgens who often brilliantly played a cowardly villain.
Wallach played a fearless villain.
Again, think of Lord Jim.
They were both born in 1915.
Jurgens died in 1982.
Her husband is old, past it, missing for years, thought dead, and a hunchback.
And a vengeful bastard and a truly poor loser, at that.
Was Hawthorne afraid we'd otherwise have little sympathy for his inwardly defiant, scornful, and remorseless "heroine"?
Was this the first "enlightened" book in America written in defense of adultery?
A defense of the sinner is not a defense of the sin.
Divorce. Adultery. Fornication. Homosexuality.
In enlightened literature, the sinner is only a stalking horse for the sin.
The Scarlet Letter, 1850.
She's a better man than Dimmesdale, that's for sure.
Liberals today on liberal XM claimed that "of course" the NSA doesn't need a warrant to seize and examine everything and anything on your phone, openly or secretly, for reasons of national security no court will ever question.
Or even suspect.
"Actor" and "actress" are OK, but not "waiter" and "waitress," "steward" and "stewardess," "author" and "authoress," still less "aviator" and "aviatrix."
The PC arbitrators are, well, deliberately arbitrarily, to keep us wrong-footed at all times, exhausted, beaten, and at their mercy.
Even truth is no defense.
Gary Oldman found that out.
In America, there are truths the mere utterance of which can ruin your career.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
On the most recent episode of 24 the writers gave us the first, unmistakable Jack Bauer moment of the season.
The wife and I did not at all see that coming, but when it happened it was so perfectly in character we laughed and I applauded, "Yes! You go Jack!"
Anyone familiar with previous seasons knows exactly what I am talking about.
More than made up for the wuss move, merely faking the death of the president.
Massive inequality is fine if you make your tax returns public and lay claim to rather startlingly arbitrary divine favor as the basis and, let's face it, moral justification of it all.
Who can quarrel with the blatant and horrific unfairness of life, the profound injustice of not just nature but culture, if it all goes back to the will of God?
And is that the line you expect liberals to take on these topics?
Well, guess again.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Per the story,
On ABC's "This Week," Jonathan Karl asked Cheney to respond to an op-ed Paul wrote for the Wall Street Journal, in which he criticized the former Vice President.
"But if we spend our time debating what happened 11 or 12 years ago, we're going to miss the threat that is growing and that we do face.
"Rand Paul, with all due respect, is basically an isolationist.
"He doesn't believe we ought to be involved in that part of the world."
Yes, he's pretty much that.
And his view is more popular than Cheney's, right now.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Oh, all right.
Not this time.
The patent office overreach
Not that many sincerely give a damn, but the patent office was wrong to do this.
And he's right on the broader issue, too.
Another highly questionable liberal invention.
If they are really serious about such a right can the states be permitted legal agencies and processes to remove children from their dreadful parents?
But then why is that all right but the other not?
Because Hitler did the other?
Sterilizations in California
Looks like doctors do have a way of taking this sort of decision into their own hands, doesn't it?
They would absolutely have destroyed any Republican guilty of such conduct and their behavior in defense of Bill Clinton, "the nation's first black president," was so contemptible that those who lived through it will be scarred by the memory to their dying days.
Next up, Hillary.
She is not even the nominee and she does not have to be.
But they are rising to her defense in this matter, and that is too disgusting for words.
By the way, didn't Nuremberg put an end to that "just doing my job" defense, once and for all?
There are jobs it is disgraceful to take, such as death camp guard, torturer, or maybe lawyer.
And what does it tell you about the profession and the entire legal system if what she did to that girl falls under "giving her client the best possible defense"?
She apparently lied to the court and the jury about the girl's sexual history and habits.
A 12 year old girl who got raped by a grown man.
Given what we know of their "professional ethics," who can be surprised that lawyers are the font et origo of the open sewer of lies about the constitution that runs right down the center of American politics and government?
These people take great pride in what they do.
They really think a lot of themselves.
Anyway, read MC's story.
He is right on the money about the story, about what it says about Hillary, what it says about lawyers, and the significance of the spike.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Oh, there will be more than hundreds, if they are serious about breaking the Brotherhood and crushing Islamism in Egypt for a generation.
Well, radical Islamism.
As it seems they are.
I think Machiavelli says somewhere that if you have to hurt someone enough to make him hate you then you'd better kill him.
Revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries know this well, if only by their fear, and act accordingly.
And, of course, if he already hates you . . . .
And you thought the government was Shiite.
In Europe in the age of the Crusades bishops were sometimes warlords, huge men, mounted and in armor, hung about with swords and battle-axes.
Moqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Mehdi Army, though not quite so colorful, is every bit as medieval a figure.
This is the true face of the lands of Islam, lands of furious warrior Imams, blood-soaked Ayatollahs, and slaughtering holy men with their harems of 9 year olds, not all of them girls.
Armed and bristling with the best technology they could buy, these savage throwbacks, with the vast wealth the West has given them for the oil beneath the sands they happen to walk upon.
Their retarded and terrifying culture with its psychopathic religion is a menace to the world only because the West has made it so.
Thank decades of enlightened struggle to set Caliban free, make him rich and powerful, and turn him loose, the same malignant monster he was to begin with.
Friday, June 20, 2014
The majority of mankind are not existential flaneurs.
They are too conventional for that.
Fox, the WSJ, and maybe the entire Murdoch neocon noise machine are clamoring for action.
Sean Hannity reportedly tore RP up in a Fox interview, the other night.
He will likely not get the nomination, but he certainly deserves credit for sticking to his guns.
And he's right on this, of course, the eyewash about Reagan and Cap Weinberger aside.
He's right to oppose further involvement in Iraq and right to demand O go back to congress before re-committing the US to war there.
That is to say, I approve most heartily.
Glad someone is telling the American people the best thing for the US to do is stay the hell out of this.
Well, he's not quite alone.
There's Pat Buchanan, driven off the air for racism by people who were not his audience, anyway.
And still a voice for sanity on questions of war.
And some of the usual hippies, of course, whom no one listens to.
I'm partial to Rachel M, myself.
Back in 2006 I wrote a post called “Save Us From CEOs” which is more or less about the phenomenon of high-level executives and politicians who are pathologically incapable of perceiving their own failures.
Dick and his pal Shrub are featured prominently, and I think it holds up pretty well.
The problem is that, as a species, we seem always to allow the self-confident, assertive types to be in charge whether they actually know what they’re doing, or not.
I don’t think this is a new thing (see, for example, the Civil War and General George B. McClellan).
The Dickster is such a perfect example of such a specimen that for a time “Dick Cheney” became a kind of euphemism for “arrogant clueless empty suit.”
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Quotha, giving John McCain the lie,
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Monday, June 16, 2014
Africa, the Middle East, and all known regions of the world have been plagued by war and conquest for as far into the past as anyone can see.
Better him than ISIL (ISIS).
Also, better him than us!
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Profit is made from X when total revenues from production and sale of X exceed total costs.
Nothing else is profit from X.
Thus only people in the trade, themselves, can profit from slavery, those who produce slaves as well as those who buy slaves in bulk for distribution and resale.
Before the whites put a stop to it, that would have been black Africans who captured untold millions of other black Africans for enslavement, for example, and the Arabs and other Muslim traders they sold to, and the Muslim, European, and American shippers they sold to, and the wholesalers they supplied in African and Middle Eastern lands, in India, and in the Americas, as well as retailers if any in those same areas.
Persons employing slaves in their enterprises do not profit from slavery or even the labor of the slaves they own, nor by any other factor of production, but certainly may diminish their costs by use of slaves as they might by use of any form of cheaper labor, or any cheaper factors of production.
And that, I think, covers it.
Do people or enterprises buying products made by slaves, or produced using components or materials or other factors of production made by slaves, or themselves using components or materials or other factors of production made by slaves, or etc. . . . profit from slavery?
Well, no, though they may indeed realize savings and it may even happen that they can only afford such products and cannot afford alternatives made only by free labor, produced using only components, materials, and other factors of production made only by free labor, themselves using only components, materials, and other factors of production made only by free labor, and etc. . . . - even free labor more viciously sweated and worse compensated than the slaves.
If I recall correctly, there was a time in ante bellum America when it was pretty much impossible for ordinary folks to buy clothing, for example, not incorporating materials made by slaves, or etc. . . . and perhaps many other products as well.
Leaving out the really, really poor who wore only used clothing or found castoffs, of whom there were many.
The post as KOS to which I link threatens moral condemnation of white consumers buying shrimp from farms recently discovered by The Guardian to be using shrimp feed made from fish caught by boats using slave labor, and thus also indirectly future moral demands that their white descendants pay reparations to the Asian descendants of those slave fishermen to the billionth generation.
Hence these questions that might as well have been raised by recent demands of privileged black writers in America and their well-off white allies that another black skin privilege be created here, that of receiving reparations for slavery though they were never slaves, from white people who never owned slaves or lived in a society that legally allowed slavery, almost none of whose ancestors were in the trade and many of whose ancestors were not even Americans at the time.
These whites, of course, are very, very far from profiting from slavery, and it is equally far from evident that they or their non-American ancestors ever faced lower costs because of slavery.
As to those ancestors who were American at the time of slavery and may (it is uncertain) have faced lower costs on account of it, it is far from evident either that the cost difference was significant or that they had any actual alternative.
Anyway, as to the moral issues the proper and final response is that morality is coercive bunk by no means always in a laudable cause, as are the political demands purportedly resting on it.
And in this case both the moral condemnation and the demands resting on it are particularly revolting.
Given that those on whose behalf demands are made do not include descendants of non-slaves whose exploitation was equally awful or even worse this is transparently racist special pleasing.
Given that those upon whom demands are made include only white and leave out black descendants of those who actually did profit while including (again) only white descendants of multitudes who did not, this again is transparently racist special pleading.
In sum, the whole business stems from and powerfully encourages the racial hatred of American blacks for American whites.
That, along with the looting, is of course the point.
Anyway, to return to the matter at hand, people buying these shrimp don't profit from slavery though they may face lesser costs on its account.
As to that, just how important that cost difference is, by the time the shrimp get to the super market, is hard to say, though I must point out that despite the KOS writer shrimp at the local store are very far from cheap.
Should you avoid buying such shrimp on account of the involvement of slaves?
Should you stop buying anything at all because of such involvement, assuming you have the least idea of it?
Well, that's up to you, but your individual choice will have no noticeable effect - far more shrimp are simply lost along the way in a few days than you will ever buy in all your life.
Come to that, should you stop buying goods from Asia or wherever labor is, by comparison with America and Europe, much, much cheaper or cruelly exploited?
No more consumer electronics for you, eh?
And where will you buy your clothes?
And, again, you as a single consumer are as invisible and utterly insignificant as you as a voter.
And what can these questions about what you should do mean, anyway, if they are not meaningless moral questions laden with menace?
You may do as you wish, of course, but morality swept aside, why would something so completely out of your hands as the ultimate sources on the far side of the world of what you buy in any case concern you?
Just a thought.
Here is a little something about right and might.
Jean de La Fontaine, The Wolf and the Lamb
Translation by Eli Siegel
In the water of a pure stream.
A fasting wolf came by, looking for something;
He was attracted by hunger to this place.
—What makes you so bold as to meddle with my drinking?
Said this animal, very angry.
You will be punished for your boldness.
—Sir, answered the lamb, let Your Majesty
Not put himself into a rage;
But rather, let him consider
That I am taking a drink of water
In the stream
More than twenty steps below him;
And that, consequently, in no way,
Am I troubling his supply.
—You do trouble it, answered the cruel beast.
And I know you said bad things of me last year.
—How could I do that when I wasn't born,
Answered the lamb; I am still at my mother's breast.
—If it wasn't you, then it was your brother.
—I haven't a brother.—It was then someone close to you;
For you have no sympathy for me,
You, your shepherds and your dogs.
I have been told of this.I have to make things even.
Saying this, into the woods
The wolf carries the lamb, and then eats him
Without any other why or wherefore.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Like George Will, media comment in general on the rise of the EU-rejectionists conflates patriotism with political ethnic nationalism.
Let's clear this up a bit.
The world is full of sovereign states that are not nation-states in the generally accepted, biological / cultural / linguistic sense of that term.
Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, and even the UK are among the most markedly non-national states in Europe.
India is among the most markedly non-national states outside Europe, and very few of the settler states left by European colonialism around the world are even close to being that.
Swiss patriotism is not Swiss nationalism since the Swiss people is not in the requisite sense a nation, and the same is true of the US, Argentina, Colombia, South Africa, and many other countries around the world.
And the same is true of the countries making up the EU, none of which is without some ethnic diversity and most of which are very far from the uniformity required by the 19th Century ideal.
Too, ethnic nationalism isn't even always political, being sometimes a sentiment or a loyalty similar to familial attachment, which rarely aspires to political sovereignty.
And political ethnic nationalism is itself a diverse thing, its aims being sometimes no more than acceptance of diversity within a non-national state, sometimes preservation of majority status within an ethnically diverse state, sometimes secession and creation of a separate state in which one's own ethnos can dominate, sometimes unification of separate states of the same ethnos into a single, encompassing national state, and notoriously sometimes conquest of neighboring peoples to reduce them to permanent servitude to one's own.
Contrast, for instance, the political aspirations of ethnic Russians for language rights as an accepted minority within some mostly non-Russian states that became independent with the breakup of the Soviet Union with the aspirations of those Germans and Austrians who together welcomed the Anschluss.
On the other hand, Will is right that nationalism is something different from racism and does not entail it.
It is perfectly possible for a Slovak nationalist to be in no sense a racist, either as regards positive sentiment, loyalty, or political aspiration regarding whites or negative sentiment or aspiration regarding those of other races.
And anyway racism, either positive or negative, can involve a variety of political aspirations or none at all, being again something similar to familial feeling.
As to the matter at hand, EU-rejectionism is overwhelmingly motivated by a mix of patriotism, nationalism, and racism, and not at all exclusively by the last or even the second.
Nigel Farage has been at pains to demonstrate that his party and its program are patriotic but not racist; and I believe its domestic politics are opposed to those of both Welsh and Scottish nationalists.
And that is at the root of his wish to remain distant from Marine Le Pen's Front National since the latter, as inherited from her irrepressible and inconvenient father, is heavily influenced by leaders and supporters whose politics are indeed a brew of patriotism combined with nationalism, racism, and anti-Semitism - those last being a legacy, however, she seems to be trying to overcome.
All the same, the aims of his movement and hers largely coincide: withdrawing from the EU to restore national sovereignty and shutting off immigration for economic, but also nationalist and sometimes racist reasons, as well as reasons of national security and domestic tranquility.
All of this, of course, Will distorts, spinning popular rejection of the EU like mad into some sort of Thatcherite rebellion of free-market devotees, as have many others on the American right.
And here again the FN, with its frank protectionism and support for France's family-friendly welfare state and customary dirigisme, is an inconvenient reality.
Meanwhile, others of both left and right, for exactly contrary reasons, depict the anti-EU movement as motivated entirely by various forms of tribalism of which, say, Pat Buchanan approves and those who got him fired disapprove.
For "religion" put "Christianity."
That's what people who say such things normally have in mind, isn't it?
But now for "religion" put "communism."
Beginning to have doubts?
And do such political versions of the warm-hearted, liberal remark about religion make the Nazi Party, the Iron Cross, the Red Guards, the Khmer Rouge, the Shining Path, and all the others less horrific enemies of the human race?
And now put "Islam" in place of "religion."
Friday, June 13, 2014
Interviews exposing the shocking rape culture of urban street gangs, the boys holding the girls in common, the girls forced into common sexual service, the Big Dogs sometimes setting one or more aside for their private use.
How does BBC think street gangs have always treated their groupies?
OK, they prettied it up in West Side Story.
Welcome to the primal horde.
Many think the region is coming apart.
The "Arab Spring" was blind and even willful wishful thinking of the kind that has deceived - self-deceived - all the idiotic democracy exporters in the country, of both parties, since the White House jackasses who worked for GW told us it would be a cake walk and the peoples of the region would greet our triumphal armies with parades and flowers, in overwhelming gratitude for liberation.
To the people who protested nothing of the kind would happen on this planet they replied America was so powerful we could "make our own reality."
Confident fatheads always rise to the top.
Alarmed nay-says always get pushed aside.
Humans are fucking idiots.
Update, subsequent reports say Iran has sent no forces and does not plan to send any.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
"Nobody could have foreseen . . . "
I remember the fall of Saigon and the terrible sight of the helicopters carrying people from the roof of the US embassy and other last vestiges of safety to carriers offshore, only to be pushed into the sea once emptied to make room for more arriving behind them.
I remember the fall of Phnom Penh.
How does the danger pass, or at least receed, as that of the red menace has?
Or maybe it doesn't?
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Or maybe not.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
But it was absolutely not only Ireland that was possessed by this evil genius of Christianity, itself the product of wretchedly ordinary humanity.
The animal badness of humans will always out.
We see it in the ways of yesterday.
Someone tomorrow will see it in our ways.
6/18, The carter stuck in the mud.
Just as well he gave this one a pagan setting.
Monday, June 9, 2014
How exactly would that have worked, motivating Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?
Some crackpots faiths are more dangerous than others, but they are all crackpot and all dangerous in some degree.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Before the middle of the 20th Century, in movies and pop culture holy water and crucifixes were a perfectly efficacious defense against vampires.
Not any more.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
What do we know about coercive rituals of public confession and reconciliation?
What do we know about official truth?
We know the left loves both.
We know the left agrees with the Holy Office that error has no rights and those who publicly espouse it should be silenced, made to recant, and punished, with or without public ceremonies of shame or reconciliation, as the occasion demands.
It used to be only the radical left, the so-called "hard" left, that went in for that, the rest being liberals committed to the Enlightenment values of freedom of speech and of the press.
Freedom from censorship of ideas or political controversy, that is, not from suppression of pornography, obscenity, or even mere profanity.
In Orwell's 1984, of course, error again has no rights.
For that matter, neither does truth, if politically inconvenient.
But morals censorship has been abolished to make way for the political neutering of the masses with abundant prolefeed.
If the climate change flaks are right - there is a problem, humans are causing it, and humans could or could have stopped it at a cost that is worse as time passes and will soon become impossible altogether - then so is he.
He is right that we won't do anything remotely like what the climate alarmists demand.
Neither we Americans nor anyone in the world.
So this could be how humans go extinct.
Well, that was coming, eventually, anyway.
Per Jeff Spross,
He criticizes the “frontier” individualist strain in much right-wing thinking, pointing out that “the human individual is a social construct,” that individual freedom emerges out of our relations to others, and that government is a natural emergent property of this impulse “to hold each other to account for what we do.”
So much BS, so little time.
“the human individual is a social construct,”
No, it's not.
individual freedom emerges out of our relations to others
As does slavery, serfdom, etc. Talk about cherry-picking.
government is a natural emergent property of this impulse “to hold each other to account for what we do.”
No, it is a natural result of the coercion, struggle, and violence typical of human sociability.
Don't let's moralize it or pretty it up.
He reports Scruton writes,
On the liberal view, therefore, government is the art of seizing and then redistributing the good things to which all citizens have a claim. . . .
Maybe not "is." Perhaps "ought to be."
On this view government is not the expression of a preexisting social order shaped by our free agreements and our natural disposition to hold our neighbor to account.
So far as I know, RS is the first to express so succinct a libertarianism.
But it is true liberals are not libertarians.
As to his straw liberal view, well, who can say.
It is the creator and manager of a social order framed according to its ruling doctrine of fairness and imposed on the people by a series of top-down decrees.
All government is "imposed on the people by a series of top-down decrees."
It is force backed by baloney, be it religious or moral, except when it is raw force not pretending to be backed by either.
Wherever this liberal conception prevails, government increases its power, while losing its inner authority.
It becomes the “market-state” of Philip Bobbitt, which offers a deal to its citizens in return for their taxes, and demands no loyalty or obedience beyond a respect for the agreed terms of the deal.
Actually, that sounds more like the libertarian view of what government ought to be, and nobody's view of what it is.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Such cheap bullshit.
Look, I want to see this movie and I enjoy Tom Cruise.
But even so the Times' sex role/sex reality bullshit here is a bit thick, with this review approving of the film's Tarzana as a praiseworthy, artistic representation of a "strong woman" character.
And then there was Maude.
And the Times loved her.
It ain't just the Times.
It's the unified voice of the liberal/libertarian/secularist cultural established.
My wife showed me the review in EW, #1315, June 13, 2014.
Almost giggling with enthusiasm, Chris Nashawaty writes,
It's being sold to the public as a Tom Cruise movie.
But deep down, it's the most feminist summer action flick in years.
Since Ripley's last set-to with the aliens, in fact.
Not a thing in the world he could do about it.
A shortcoming harmless to others, most likely, all his life, had he not been carried off to a stupid war America had no need to be involved in.
And then murdered for being wholly unsuited for the job.
Like an agoraphobe kidnapped for high iron work, and then shot for his incapacity.
And pour encourager les autres.
Btw, right down through the Civil War, it was not unusual for POWs to be released during a war, on their promise not to resume fighting.
Americans so released sometimes simply went home, personally done with the wars in question.
Leon Panetta in Pittsburgh on the question
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
The advantages of capitalism over socialism cannot be had without significant inequalities not only as regards ownership of the means of production but in particular and especially of personal wealth.
And I refer to advantages accruing even to the poor.
There is no reason to sympathize with government power thus exercised to back the private interests of museums and academics over others.
Or simply grabbing things.
My sympathies are with private collectors, and even poachers, over governments and over museums and academics whose interests are served by this sort of government looting.
The idea that art, archeological, and paleontological treasures belong, no matter what, to governments or universities or other agencies supported by government is liberal moral bunk.
The objection brought by this journal of propaganda for the educated Jewry is that the wrong narrative dominates.
Not that I like the dominant narrative, myself.
But they obviously don't want to even hint we might have a problem with the idea that whose narrative dominates the media also dominates politics.
Well, it's man against mass society, I guess.
Btw, the O administration is just flat wrong on Syria, was wrong on Libya and Egypt, was wrong on Turkey where they sided against Ataturk's generals, and was just as wrong as the neoconservatives on Afghanistan.
The globalist democracy exporters have, hand in glove with the American Likudniks, royally screwed the pooch all over the Muslim world.
Global Islamic Jihad is funded by European and American petro-dollars and assisted by the refusal of the West to resist for fear of economic attack.
America is just not ready to stand aside, quit meddling, end all foreign aid, and let the dogs still in the pit devour each other.
Thank God I won't have to live through another 65 years of this stupidity.
P.S. And still Tom is right about much
It is interesting I did not find this in any of his usual conservative venues.