Knocked up was misogynistic?

Violent reader, it a rare display of idiocy indeed which can reduce the MadMan to a slack jawed caricature of surprise and sheer whatthefuckery; but those lovably loony losers of the labial legion can still shock even this ferocious fighter of feminist fantasy. It doesn't happen often as I have long been immunised against their inane rantings. But when I saw these little doozies even I assumed at first that they must be the work of sly and crafty fellow fighters of the matriarchy, for not even I, the Rational Mad Man himself, could have imagined that any feminists had travelled so far beyond the bend as to emerge on the other side of the looking glass.

Alas, twas not so, the articles were not written in jest, and feminist are far, far, more deranged than even I had given them credit for. Because, to be frank, in order to see even a hint of misogyny in "Knocked Up", one must be insane, or an idiot, and most likely both. because the fact is "Knocked Up" is on the single most misandrist movies I have ever seen.

Oh you say that I'm the one who has gone round the bend now? That Knocked Up was an outrageously funny movie that was neither Misogynist nor Misandrist? Well I'll grant you the first point, as it was indeed a funny movie. But the second?

Where do I begin?

Lets begin by looking at who the two main characters were shall we?

Allison was a beautiful, intelligent, competent, newly promoted and successful executive.

Ben was an unemployed loser who smokes pot all day and is too stupid to realise that his "genius idea" had already been thought of, and implemented better than he ever could have.

Hmm. Women smart and competent, men dumb and lazy.

Now let us move on to their meeting.

Allison is an empowered women who is going out to celebrate her triumph. She is beautiful, powerful, and totally in control of her sexual choices.

Ben is an idiot who doesn't even have the balls to approach the Goddess that Allison is without the backup of a rather idiotic and sleazy if confidant partner.

Allison initiates the first move, and in fact initiates the sexual encounter. During the sexual encounter Allison is the one demanding sex on her schedule according to her preferences, while Ben is inept, it would seem inexperienced, and unable to stop seeking constant approval from Allison, even to the point of needing to be told to "shut up"


Hmm so the Allison is sexually confident, aggressive, and experienced, while Ben is sexually demure, inexperienced, and needy.

Now, this bear in mind, all takes place within the first few minutes of the movie. During the same time we have also seen that her sister Debbie is clearly dominant to her Husband Pete, even to the point of berating him verbally as well as physically. Pete on the other hand is a passive Milquetoast who doesn't even have the guts to tell his wife what he thinks or feels. So already, less than 20 minutes into the movie we have seen that while women are strong, dominant, intelligent, capable, confident, and competent; men are weak, passive, lazy, stupid, unaccomplished, submissive, and quite frankly useless.

But, despite my belief that this movies representation of the male half of the human race could sink no lower, and be seen in no worse light than already established, we do in fact, sink lower still. Because once Allison has confirmed her pregnancy, our dear boy Ben becomes even less capable, less confident and is shown to be even more idiotic.

Whereas Allison is able to "man up" and deal with the pregnancy in a calm and rational manner, Ben is shown to be overcome by emotion, idiotic in his arguments, and completely without the slightest shred of strength of character. When he does finally try to "do the right thing" as it were, his complete ineptitude, both as a man and as a human in charge of his own life, is again made glaringly obvious by the fact that he can not afford to buy, or to even fashion a crude stand in for, a ring.

This theme of Male inadequacy and ineptitude is followed throughout the movie, as is the idea that men have no role in child rearing (being unable to even say the word rearing without infantile attempts at humor) beyond that which the woman allows him, as he is kicked out of the gynecologists office and banished by the feminine decree from any participation in, or even knowledge of his child's development.

Only at this point, having been completely banished due to his male inadequacies and inability to handle things in a mature and womanly manner, is he then motivated to assume the responsibilities of adulthood. Even then, his "accomplishments" are of a minimal nature and easily overshadowed by what the women have accomplished with ease. (namely getting a job and reading some books)

Until finally, when left with no other choice but to call upon, and his training complete, Allison finally relents and allows Ben to support her, in the small and frankly minor ways in which he can.

And this was misogynistic?

A movie in which the women are as close to feminist avatars of perfection as possible and the men are the exact stereotypes that feminist claim we are? A movie in which the woman has the career, the money, the power, and the choice, and the man's presence is allowed only at the woman's sufferance? This is misogynistic? A movie in which the women are capable, confidant, intelligent, successful, and far superior to every man shown on screen in every way is somehow sexist?

Are you fucking kidding me?

This movie seemed as if it should have pleased every feminist alive. Instead, after seeing a perfect representation of how they already view reality, they complain because despite being smart, and successful, and powerful, and wealthy, they aren't also funny?

WHAT?!?

I'm sorry but considering that the movie was written specifically to cause the audience to laugh at, and in fact feel contempt for, the capabilities of the men, while simultaneously being overwhelmed by the sheer capability of the women is somehow fucking misogynist?

I swear the world has gone mad. I am become Wonko the Sane, observer of Worlds.

Wage Gap? Its real!

And its not what you think.

Female directors in corporate America earned median compensation of $120,000, based on the most recently available pay data, compared with $104,375 for male board members, research group The Corporate Library said in its annual
director pay report on Wednesday.

Keep in mind that this study has appeared, as far as I can tell, only once, and has not been commented on by any major news outlets. Also intriguing, is the fact that it stands in direct opposition to the American Association of University Women (AAUW) study that claimed after one year out of college women earned 20 percent less than men and that the gap widened 10 years later to 31 percent. (Although coincidentally it was also never reported that statistical analyses accompanying the press release reduced the two purported gaps to 5 percent and 12 percent respectively) . Now ask yourself this, why did everyone hear about the AAUW study, yet no one has heard about the TCL study? Especially when the TCL study looked at pay data for more than 25,000 directors at more than 3,200 companies.

Also keep in mind that in the AAUW study, as is SOP when "wage gap" research is done, that the "sample" was not controlled for years of experience, time taken off for maternity leave, or a lack of overtime worked which are the primary reasons for the misleading "women only earn 75% of what men do for doing the same work" quote comes from.

So yes, in some isolated cases, the wage gap does exist, and it turns out that at least as far as Corporate Directors go, men only earn 80% of what women do!

"Cure" for Homosexuality found?

I have long argued, and often been pilloried for doing so, that Homosexuality is not "hardwired". In other words one is not born gay, so much as born with a predisposition to homosexuality, which can then be influenced by experiences, environment, and other factors. Mainly this has been because of the lack of a 1-1 correlation between homosexuality among twins. By that I mean that if you have an identical twin who is gay, you are more likely to be gay yourself, though its not guaranteed, despite the fact that the two of you carry the exact same genes. Given the increased incidence of homosexuality among identical twins, coupled with the lack of a 1-1 correlation, it seemed reasonable to me that while there may be a genetic basis for homosexuality, it was certainly not as simple as being born gay.

There is now some evidence that this is in fact the case. Granted, a fruit fly is not a human, and fruit fly sexuality is different in many ways from human sexuality, however given that these are early trials this new research is very interesting. Whats most interesting, at least to me though, is the possibilities inherent in this research. Namely that it is, at least theoretically, possible that researchers could one day create a "cure" for homosexuality. Naturally this would be a huge issue regardless of your own personal views on homosexuality. But it also brings back a point, or at least has the potential to, that many had already felt was settled. Although it took the WHO until 1992 to officially declassify homosexuality as a disease, the APA had done so back in 1973, based on the assumption that homosexuality was an innate trait, and thus did not qualify as a sexual deviancy. But if a "cure" were developed that could, within hours, turn a gay man straight, (and to be fair vice-versa) would that still be the case?

In other words would the very existence of a "cure" imply that homosexuality is in fact a disease? And if so, what would the implications be? Would forcing a patient to take this "treatment" be a violation of their rights? If so would insurance companies be precluded from paying for this "treatment" for those who did want to take it?

Assuming DADT has not been repealed by the time this hypothetical treatment were made available, would the US army begin placing this drug in the food or water of its soldiers in an effort to ensure no one violates the policy? If so, what would happen to those soldiers once they were discharged? Would they be given the option of "returning"? Would a gay man who wishes to enlist be willing to be "made straight" for the duration of his service in exchange for being allowed to serve despite having been openly gay?

What about the possibilities of using this "cure" as a type of date rape drug? For example slipping it into a lesbians drink in the hope that after the "switch" she would find you more to her liking? Or Perhaps a gay man in an area with a low population of homosexuals might be tempted to slip the "drug" into other men's drinks as a way of quickly increasing the gay population?

And what about this drugs utility as a recreational drug? Would there be those who would pay to temporarily "switch" their sexuality in an attempt to "broaden their experiences" as Grant Morrison suggested in "The Invisible's"?

Furthermore if the suppression of glutamatergic synapses can "switch" a man from straight to gay, is it possible there are environmental factors that do the same? Could there be something in the air/food/water in certain areas that suppresses glutamatergic synapses? Is it possible that some given percentage of the current homosexual population has already unknowingly been switched? if so should that be reversed? Would they want it to be? Even if it could be proven and individual had unknowingly imbibed a substance capable of doing such as a child, and as such had grown up gay even though they were not "supposed to be" what would be the right course of action? Should the medical community treat such cases, if they could be established with a high degree of confidence, as diseases? Where does the choice of the individual come in, and in fact, given how fundamental this change is, would someone in this situation even be capable of making a choice?

Then there are questions relating to parenting. If this "treatment" were to exist, would it be proper for parents who suspect their child may be gay to force their child to be "treated" if they so chose? Where would the line between human rights and religious freedom be drawn for example? If your parents are Muslims, or Christians who believe that homosexuality is immoral, should they be allowed to use that as a rationale for changing your preferences?

What if this treatment were to require a regular medical regime such as the management of Bi-polar disorder requires? Would "I forgot my pills" become a new accepted "excuse" for homosexual behavior by politicians and married men? Would the same hold true for men "medicating" themselves into homosexuality who are in long term relationships? If this "treatment" did in fact make sexuality a choice, in that one could choose to be what one has been or make a change, would that then offer those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals the ability to do so, based on he fact that unlike race, homosexuality or heterosexuality would be a choice available to everyone?

What about population control uses? Would say, the Chinese government require unmarried men and women to take this treatment to "develop" homosexuality as a way of reducing pregnancies? Or perhaps require that all those in the armed services take it due to the Male/female imbalance in china?


A lot of questions, and very few answers. But we need to start asking them now, before this "treatment" is brought to market, even before its been verified such a treatment were possible. Because I have a feeling that none of these questions will be easy to answer, and I know that once others start thinking about it, they will come up with many, many more, and probably better ones.

Does she fufill your expectations?

I believe we help to redeem each other through the power of acceptance. It
is powerful to those who receive it and more powerful to those who give
it.

What type of person does this quote make you envision? A Pastor or priest? A philosopher or a Civil Rights protestor? A liberal or a conservative?

I dont know exactly what type of person this quote makes you think of, whether a secualr humanist or a christian fundamentalist. I am, however willing to bet that none of you, based on this quote, would have guessed what this woman really is; an interrogator at Guantanamo naval base in Cuba.

Are you surprised? Then perhaps, you should re-examine your own prejudices. We are all aware of the popular representations of Guantanamo interrogators, (or should I say sterotypes?) The hard nosed millitary man who will do whatever it takes, the crazed Christian fundamentalist who's a dead ringer for torqemada, the jingoistic racist, nativist white male who hates brown people. But do those caricatures even remotely resemble the woman seen in this article, or heard on this clip?

What about this quote?

My job was to obtain information that would help keep U.S. soldiers safe. We'd
meet, play dominoes, I'd bring chocolate and we'd talk a lot. There was one
detainee, Mustafa, who joked that I was his favorite interrogator in the world,
and I joked back that he was my favorite terrorist — and he was. He'd committed
murders and did things we all wished he could take back. He asked me one day,
suddenly serious, "You know everything about me, but still you do not hate me.
Why?"
His question stopped me cold. I said "Everyone has done things in
their past that they're not proud of. I know I have, but I also know God still
expects me to love Him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love
my neighbor as myself. That means you."
Mustafa started to cry. "That's what
my God says, too," he said.

Does this sound like an exchange thats in line with your beliefs about waterboarding, torture, and government sanctioned evil? Is this the evil caricature you expected?

I dont know whether this authors story is true, in whole or in part. I dont know whether it was embellished to make her look good, toned down to make her seem less compassionate, or completely fabricated to serve a politcal agenda. What I do know, is that this isn't an article wirtten by a caricature, its an article written by a woman who has seen and done things the rest of us are lucky enough to never have to consider. A woman who has "been there" as they say, and has the nightmares to prove it. Whether she used "soft" interrogation techniques, or hooked car batteries up to Mustafa's genitals I can not say, but she doesnt strike me as a twisted theocratic inquisitioner. I could be wrong, I could be right. What I do know is, she doesn't conform to anyones sterotypes, and she challenges all of our preconceptions. As far as Im concerned, thats a good thing.

Anti-Christian murderer kills four, stopped by gun-nut fundie on a mission from god.

You know, I always chuckle when people say religion is the root of all evil. Atheists like to talk about how only the religious are motivated to ideological violence, despite all the evidence from Russia during the last century that it isn't the case. Whether this fits into either of the two narratives I do not know, what I do know is that unreasoning hate, no matter who it may be directed at, turns men into monsters.

On Sunday afternoon, shortly after one o' clock in Colorado Springs Colorado, Matthew Murray walked into the New Life Church and began killing. An apparently hate filled man who had never gotten over the perceived rejection of being left off of a missionary mission The New Life Church had sponsored 5 years ago, Murray developed an intense hatred for Christianity and Christians in the interim. Whether this hatred was motivated by sour grapes, or whether Murray was simply a man with hate in his heart looking for a target we may never know. What we do know is that his hatred turned him into a monster who may well have killed hundreds, had he not been stopped by Jeanne Assam.

Jeanne, a former Minneapolis police officer who used her personal firearm to end Murray's murderous spree, was a volunteer member of the New Life Church's security force. A apparently deeply committed christian who had been fasting for three days at the time of the incident, she felt she had been placed there by god to protect her fellow parishioners. A 14 year veteran of the Minneapolis police force, she also credits her savior for a steady hand and the courage to do what needed to be done. Regardless of what your views of her religious affiliation may be, there is no doubt this woman acted coolly, and decisively in the face of a crisis that would have frozen many.

In many ways, I think this story is just beginning, and that it will dominate discussions for a long time to come. There simply so much "grist for the mill" as they say, and this story slots so neatly into the narrative of the culture wars that it couldn't have been written any better in a script. A gunman, filled with anti-christian hate, stopped by a women with a CCP. What major issue in American life doesn't this story touch on? Feminism, the second amendment, the fourth amendment, the place of religion in society, the effect of religion on society. There's enough here that everyone will undoubtedly filter the incident through their own perceptions, and use it to support whatever they supported in the first place.

I am no different. The fact that, once again, a spree killer was stopped by a private citizen with a CCP reinforces, at least for me, why we need the second amendment. Naturally those who are predisposed to an anti-gun narrative will see Murray access to a gun as proof of why we need more gun control. Feminists will see this as further proof women are equally as capable as men in dangerous and violent situations, while Christians will see this as further proof of an ongoing attack on Christianity, and atheists will see this as further proof of the pernicious effect of organised religion. I think, that as coverage of this story unfolds, this incident will become a type of Rorschach blot for people's own preconceived notions, even more so than any other. Some will undoubtedly try to use it to score points for their cause, and given the nature of the events I suspect the debates will be quite heated. And perhaps, that's how we can finally come to terms with, and extract some small amount of good out of this horrid event. Perhaps if we can, just this once, put aside our preconceptions, our talking points, and our stock rebuttals, and really discuss where we are going right, and wrong, as a society, then maybe, just maybe, something good can come from this.

I hope, but I do not expect.

Freedom Of Speech in Canada? Not so much.

Of all the rights that we as Americans have been guaranteed by the Constitution, (or by our creator and recognised by the constitution, depending on your interpretation of the documents wording) the two most basic, most fundamental, are the first and second amendment's. Without the ability to speak ones mind, one can not be free. Without the ability to defend that right, it can not be maintained. The problem is, while most civilised nations pay lip service to free speech, many, if not most, seem to believe that only "approved" speech is protected. We have seen this in Britain, where a news channel was investigated by the police for "insulting Islam:, we have seen it in France, Germany and the rest of Europe where denying the holocaust is a crime punishable by incarceration. And now, we are seeing it in Canada.

Mark Steyn is a prominent conservative writer who recently penned a tome called "America Alone" which is about the challenges America faces in confronting Islamo-fascism, given the unwillingness by most of the west to either confront Islamo-fascism or even stick up for their own ideals in the face of Islamic opposition, or outrage. (think of the dutch cartoon contrivers) One of the themes Mark touches upon in his book, is that many of the people who attempt to discuss or highlight the problems within Islamic society are intimidated into silence, either through threats of violence from radical Islamics, or through threats of litigation from more "moderate" ones.

Its a bit ironic then that as a result of this book, or more specifically, excerpts of his book printed in McLeans, a Canadian weekly magazine, Mark Steyn is now facing a complaint brought against him by the Canadian Islamic Conference in the both the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as in the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, that his book constitutes "hate speech" against Muslims.

As those of you who have read this blog for awhile know, I am a big believer in free speech. I also believe that Freedom of Speech, and Freedom from offense, are mutually exclusive, and one the first is worth protecting. I haven't read Steyn's book yet, although it is on its way to my humble keep via amazon.com, so I cant honestly say whether this book is islamo-phobic or not, but my question to you violent reader is this; should it matter?

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that America Alone is in fact islamophobic. Lets assume its nothing more than a racist, religonist, occidentalist, screed claiming that all Muslims are secretly worshipping the christian devil and sacrificing dhimmi babies in profane rituals. Even if that were the case, is that a valid reason for tthe Canadian Human rights commission to support the CIC charges by investigating either Mr.Steyn or McLean's? That is to say, should it be illegal to engage in offensive and possibly hateful speech? Keep in mind I am not defending attempts to instigate violence against anybody, merely highly offensive and possible hate motivated speech.

One of the few things that made somewhat proud of the Comics Blogosphere was the overwhelming support retailer Gordon Lee has received since he was charged. In many ways, this support, and the way comics fans and professionals rallied to his cause is a perfect example of why The USA has the most free speech in the world. The reason is that whenever we see our freedom of speech being threatened, whether it actually is or not, we fight to defend it. Well, usually.

The problem is many seem far more willing to support free speech in the name of some things than others. I'm sure some of the same people who have vociferously defended MR. Lee, would probably support the HRC decision to investigate this complaint, as it seems for some its easier to support fights against "morality" laws, than it is to support political speech you may or may not agree with. I suspect this partially because defending someone against morality laws is seen as "cool" "enlightened" and "rebellious" while defending a conservative writer would bee seen by the same as defending a bigot. And yet, doesn't our tradition require us to defend even those we believe are bigots? If we only defend free speech when the cause is "cool" do we truly believe in the principle?

We are all familiar with the quote

"I may not agree with what you say, But I will fight to death to defend your
right to say it"

But how many of us are actually wiling to live it? More to the point, are we truly willing to defend this tradition in the face of assaults from both sides? Its not enough to defend against assaults on free speech from the right if you are on the left, or vice versa. We must, in order to maintain the heritage which made this the most successful nation in history, be willing to defend against speech we do not like, do not agree with, are offended by, and disgusted by. If I am not willing to defend your right to call America a racist, sexist, evil nation, then I am myself betraying the principles by which I live. If you are not willing to defend my right to claim that Islam is nothing more than a barbaric death cult hell bent on world domination then you are betraying the principles we live by.

The problem is, some defenses of speech, seem to cost too much. Its easy to defend speech when all your Friends are doing so, but will you defend it when your friends are howling for the writers head as well? Are you willing to be ostracised, demonised, reviled, and hated in order to defend comments you find repugnant? Most of us it would seem, are not. Especially if that speech is something that goes against everything we believe. Its easy to defend a friend from calls of censorship from your enemy, but are you committed enough to also defend your enemy from calls of censorship from your friend? If you are a gay man are you willing to be ostracised by other gays, because you defended Eminem's right to use fag as a slur? If you are Black are you willing to defend a Grand Kleagle's right to use the word nigger? If you are a christian are you willing to defend a Muslim's right to call Jesus a false prophet? If you are a Buddhist are you willing to defend a Hindu's right to call Buddha a fat pig? These are not idle questions, but questions that are central to our chances of survival as a society.

Sadly, it would seem that for many of us, the answer is no, or at least not all the time. Many of us support "hate speech" laws in order to protect some, at the expense of us all. Others believe that offensive speech should not be covered, as everyone should try to get along and "play nicely"

Well, as I'm sure you have realised by now, I do NOT, play nicely. I actively set out to offend, to annoy, to irritate. I set out to insult and to antagonise. Some find it entertaining, some find it offensive, some don't even care enough to find it, but ask yourself this; if the day comes that I am no longer able to inflame, annoy, or offend, how much longer till you can no longer speak?

First they came for the assholes, and I was not an asshole, so I did
nothing.
Then they came for the neo-cons, and I was not a neo-con, so I did nothing.
When they finally came for me, there was no one left to do anything.

Do not allow them to defile the concept of human rights any mroe than they already have. Supprt Mr Steyn as you would Support Gordon Lee. Because free speech includes offensive speech, even if it offends you.

Glenn Sacks

You might have noticed some new links when you came by the MadMan's Manse. At the top a link to one http://www.glennsacks.com/
This guy is without a doubt, on the ball.

Read through his site, the more you read, the more your eyes open to just how misandrist feminism really is.

This guy should be required reading for every one with a pair.
Nuff said.

Its really sad when former communists understand the American way better than Americans.

A piece today in the opinion Journal reignited my cynicism and pessimism regarding the future of America. It concerns the Stockholm Network, a European based association of free market think tanks modeled after the American Enterprise Institute, such as the Center For Market economics, which was instrumental in passing Bulgaria's 10% flat tax. Whats remarkable about these and other Free Market think tanks, is that they are most popular and taken most seriously in formerly communist countries. For example of the 19 countries wikipedia lists as currently having a flat tax, more than half were once soviet or soviet satellites.

Whereas here in the west, where communism's chief opposition came from, we are moving in the exact opposite direction. This is even more sad when you consider how many "economic miracles" true free market principles have created just in the last few years. Perhaps you've heard someone refer to the "Celtic tiger"? Well that's basically a nick-name that Ireland received after going from one of Europe's poorest countries to one of its richest in just 10 years, by applying solidly free market principles. As further proof that growth and "inequality" are inseparable; during the same time period Ireland also became the second most "unequal" nation, behind only the United States.

Even more inspiring is the massive growth seen in Eastern European nations, whose economies got anally raped by the Soviets, once they began applying free market principles. The growth rate of Romania, which I was fortunate enough to witness first hand when I lived there, was simply astounding.

And yet, despite the tons of evidence that protectionism hurts the very industries being "protected" despite the proven increase in standards of living brought on by globalisation, despite the proof over the last few years here in the States that lowering taxes can and often does increase tax collections, (as well as the reams of evidence form around the world that it does the same) despite the fact that following the principles, even as loosely as we have over the last 30 years or so, has created the single richest, most dynamic, and opportunity laden economy of all time, at least half of the presidential contenders think raising taxes, less free trade, and more government spending will "save" the economy.

I guess its just further proof Einstein was right when he said
"There are only two things I know to be infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe"

Feminist don't care about women, they only care about amssing the power to opress men.

I know a lot of you out there in the wild frontiers of the Internet have drunken deeply enough from the feminist Kool-aid to actually believe that feminism is about women, and more specifically equality between men and women, but if this is so, why do so many feminist oppose our efforts at reforming the middle east?

Why has feminist become synonymous with opposition to the Iraq war? Isn't toppling a regime with actual, officially sanctioned, government funded rape rooms a valid feminist concern? Doesn't a nation containing such, qualify as enough of a "rape culture" to warrant their attentions?

Of course not. Because feminism isn't even really about women. Its about power. And one can not gain domestic power, unless one draws attention to a problem at home. Pointing out the hugely anti-woman policies of say Saudi Arabia, or Iran, while a valid criticism, wont allow feminists to pass Domestic Violence laws here in the US which assume men are always the aggressor, even when they clearly are not. (as in the case of my friend whose girlfriend attacked him with a butcher's knife. Despite the fact that he was one who called the cops, and that he had what were clearly defensive wounds on his arms, or the fact that she was completely unmarked, he was the one who went to jail. To add insult to injury, once he made bail he was informed that due to a restraining order he could not return to his home, as she had taken up residence there in the interim, despite not being on the mortgage, or having lived there previously. In fact it took him over 9 months, before the police would allow him to return to his home, by which time 90% of his possessions had been sold or given away, and his house was destroyed. Oh yeah and when he tried to press charges against her for ruining his home, getting rid of his possessions, and leaving him with a repair bill in excess of $20,000, his Judge, a noted feminist, threw the case out before it even went to trial. He had to appeal three times just to finally get a judgement for half the damage caused, and she still hasn't paid, almost 5 years later) Pointing out that the Quran officially states women are worth half a man in both inheritance, wrongful death suits, and legal testimony, doesn't create a framework under which feminists can pass "sexual harassment laws that criminalise male sexuality. You see the reason feminists, for the most part, ignore Islamic misogyny, and instead focus on perceived Western/Christian misogyny, is that at their core, feminists know their ideology just uses women as an convenient excuse to justify a anti-equality power grab.

After all its far easier to bitch, whine, and gnash their teeth over whether Wonder Woman is wearing a T-back, or a thong, and in the process demonise and vilify any male creator who doesn't worship at the alter of the "Great Hive Vagina" than it is to actually support an effort to drain a real swamp of misogyny. Its far easier to support Mrs. Bill Clinton, than to actually try to help any of the millions of women who are truly living under a repressive rape culture. Not too mention supporting an effort to bring freedom and self rule to a people who have been oppressed by a madman for decades would get them kicked out of the leftist club.

Take a gander at this "feminist mental giant" for example. While simultaneously recognising that Islam is a brutal, oppressive and truly misogynistic culture, she is unable to stop blaming the west for the fact that Islamic nations have brutal, oppressive, and misogynistic cultures.


And this, more than any other, is why feminist will never, ever, admit that equality has ever been reached. Because as long as America is still a "sexist patriarchy" they still have the excuse to push their blatantly anti-male platform. As long as there are sexist inequities, then they have a good reason for their sexist dogma. And the only way feminists would ever give up such a excuse, is if they had sated their totalitarian desire for power. And as Mrs Bill Clinton exemplifies, a true feminist has an unquenchable desire for power over others, and absolutely no compunctions about using it when gained.

Why you should REALLY be Worried about those missing CIA Interrogation tapes.

I'll be honest, when i first heard this story, my bullshit meter started going off. Not because its sounded implausible so much as because this story seemed to be the ultimate "gotcha". A destroyed tape supposedly showing the "torture" of a terrorist subject is really, when you think about it, the perfect charge against the CIA. Since the tape was destroyed, there's no way the CIA can "prove" it didn't show torture, after all. And if the tape is found, then the CIA has to show classified interrogations and put its interrogators (who regularly receive death threats) in additional harm. Its a win/win situation for the defeatists. But it would seem that there really is a legitimate reason to be very, very, concerned by the content that might have been on this tape, and its not because out Interrogators are "torturing" people.

From NRO

Zubaydah, wounded when he was captured in Pakistan, was fooled in a fake flag operation to believe that the Saudis held him. Instead of being afraid of the ‘Saudis,’ he demanded to talk to three Saudi princes (one, the nephew of the King, who happened to be in the U.S. on 9/11). He gave his interrogators the private cell phone numbers of all 3. He did the same regarding the chief of Pakistan's air force.

After the U.S. told the Saudis and Pakistanis of Zubaydah's finger pointing, all four men had tragic 'accidents.' The King's nephew died of complications from liposuction at the age of 43. A day later, the 41 year old Prince named by Zubaydah died in a one-car accident on his way to the funeral of the King’s nephew. The third named prince, age 25, died a week later of "thirst," according to the Saudi Royal Court. And shortly after that, the chief of Pakistan’s air force died when his plane exploded with his wife and 15 of his top aides on board

When my book was published, CIA officials trashed it 'off the record,' but made no public comment. I have always held the same position. There is (or was) firm evidence of what transpired, of whether my reporting was accurate or not. Make the interrogation tapes public and then we'll know whether one of the top al Qaeda operatives accused leading Saudi royals and a top Pakistani military man - now all dead - of being his sponsors. And accused two of them – the King’s nephew and the Pakistani air force chief – of having advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Now, suddenly coincidence of coincidence, the CIA says the Zubaydah interrogation tapes are destroyed. How convenient.

Now I realise I'm just a reactionist, redneck, neoconservative, misogynist, minority hating, ignorant, uneducated, stupid, ugly conservative, but to me, this is pretty damn concerning. Especially when you realise that Saudi Arabia is spending billions to fund mosques, texts, and multimedia content which pushes one of the single most radical forms of Islam.

Now I know that these nuts jobs are supposed to be our Allies, and in truth in some minor ways they are. But one of the things I have consistently disapproved of from the Bush administrations is how cozy our ties to SA are, given that SA is, quite frankly, one of the single most barbaric, primitive, oppressive, and just plain evil cultures on the face of the earth. And yes I know that the record shows that the Bush Administration did recommend for these tapes not to be destroyed, but it still bugs me that our best "ally" in the middle east is a nation whose society is so completely incompatible with our own.

Which is another reason why the ongoing effort in Iraq is so important. We need a real ally in that region, and has history has shown, the best way for the USA to create an ally is to kick the shit out of a country, and then rebuild it in our image. I mean it worked in Japan, and Germany.

Respect Vs Courtesy

It would appear, based on many of the comments I receive' that quite a few of you don't understand the fundamental difference between courtesy and respect. I don't really blame you for that, in fact I seriously doubt its your fault. The problem lies in a society that hasn't taught the difference between courtesy and respect in over 40 years. For the last four decades or more Americans have been indoctrinated into a philosophy of unearned self esteem and consequence free hedonism by popular culture, our educational system, and the entertainment industry. We've been taught that everybody "deserves" to be respected, and only a very few of us are intelligent enough, strong enough, or pay enough attention to the world around us to realise how false this teaching is.


So as a PSA, I'm going to enlighten all of you silly little fools who come here to be offended, while simultaneously boring the few intelligent readers who come here by repeating what they already know.

Courtesy is given.
Respect is earned.

As an example, if you're on the bus and you see an old man looking for a seat, and give him yours, that NOT treating him with respect, that's being courteous.

On the other hand if you recognise that the old man is Stan Lee, and you give him your seat because you admire his work, that IS respect.

Do you see the fundamental difference?
In a civilised society we are supposed to treat everyone courteously, but extend our respect to only a few.
We respect those who have accomplished things we admire. We are courteous to those we do not know.
In fact, its impossible to respect someone without knowing them (or at least being familiar with their accomplishments), as respect can only be earned through ones actions.
I respect Bill gates, I respect George Patton, I respect Chuck Dixon.
You? You're lucky if I even decide to be courteous to you.
So please do us all a favor and stop posting in my comments page that "I don't treat anyone with respect" or asking "what so and so has done to earn your disrespect" because all your doing by asking such a stupid question is proving to me that you're not worthy of my respect. MMkay?

Common Knowledge VS Rational Thought.

We live in a soundbite world, and sadly, many of us have soundbite "wisdom". Rather than looking at issues, doing the research, and coming to our own conclusion, most people simply internalise whichever soundbite conforms to their own preferred narrative and repeat it endlessly like a parrot with tourrette's syndrome.

Take Stephen Grant of "Permanent Damage" fame for example. Stephen, a lovably ignorant leftist loony, recently commented thusly on the recent NIE (National Intelligence estimate) on Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Just to continue the theme, it was like Christmas early today. I woke to
the dulcet tones of THE TODAY SHOW, just in time to watch The Ghost stammer and stumble through his explanation of why the National Intelligence Estimates
declaration that Iran has no functioning nuclear weapons program, hasn't had one
in at least four years, and isn't likely to have one for the foreseeable future

And chances are if you've listened to any of the major media coverage concerning the issue you have heard the same basic story. "Iran suspended its Nuclear weapons program in 03, and is no longer seeking nuclear weapons. The Bush administrations push for sanctions against them was nothing more than fear mongering, and Iran is not a nuclear threat. Furthermore this proves that Iran will respond to diplomatic pressure". There's just one problem with this particular narrative; the facts don't support it.


First of all the Key Judgement of the NIE is as follows.

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear
weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

OK so, as reported, the assessment is that Tehran did suspend its weapons program in 2003. However as we all know it has maintained its Uranium Enrichment program under allegedly "civilian control and goals" Given that the most difficult stage in developing a nuclear weapon is obtaining the fuel, it is easy to see why the NIE believes that Tehran is "at a minimum keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons" However its not merely their uranium enrichment program which makes intelligence agencies suspicious. For example the NIE also states that;

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities
that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to
do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing.
We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been
conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional
military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear
weapons.

And that;

We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to
forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given
the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives,
and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to
develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.

and finally the NIE states that

We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and
industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to
do so.

In summary, while its true that Iran has suspended Overt weapons programs, it is still continuing to enrich uranium under an ostensibly civilian program while also engaging in a number of programs that have use both for nuclear weapons and other purposes (known as Dual use technologies) Further more, given a more than 20 year history of attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, the Intelligence agencies involved believe this suspension is inherently temporary in nature, and that the Iranian regime is still committed to obtaining nuclear weapons. Finally the NIE confirms that Iran does in fact have the know-how to build a Nuclear weapon given the necessary materials.

So we know that Iran wants Nuclear weapons and that the Iranian regime has spent more than two decades pursuing them. We also know that Iran has the technical capabilities to build a nuke once they obtain the fuel. Finally we know they are currently creating enriched uranium which can be used as fuel for a nuclear weapon. So then why did Iran suspend its active weapons programs?

Well according to the NIE

Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in
response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by
a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the
political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some
combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures,
along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and
goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s
leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its
nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination
might be.

Now, on first reading it sounds as if it was diplomatic pressure which caused Iran to suspend its programs. I have no doubts that this is in fact at least partially true. However there has been diplomatic pressure placed on Iran to end its pursuit of a Nuclear weapon for decades with little effect. So what made 2003 so special?

By the end of 2003 the US and its coalition partners had armed forces on two of Iran's borders and the Bush administration had rebuke their efforts to "begin a dialogue" Keep in mind this is the exact same development which probably caused Libya to Suspend its own weapons program. I say probably because while it can not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the invasion of Iraq is in fact what prompted Libya, the fact that;

Libya initiated the dialog in mid-March 2003 when it requested the UK to broker
talks with the US on weapons of mass destruction. A team of American and British
intelligence officers spent about two weeks Libya in October and again in
December 2003

makes this hypothesis highly compelling given that the invasion happened on March 20th 2003. In the same way, the timing of the suspension of Iran's Nuclear Weapons program, after over 20 years of covert efforts, shortly after our invasion of Iraq, makes a strong case that it was in fact our military efforts in the region which convinced Iran to suspend the program.

In other words, it wasn't diplomatic efforts which convinced Iran to "play ball" but the (from their perspective) justified fear that we might invade them as well. In other words it was the very "bellicosity", "arrogance", and "war mongering" of the Bush Administration which lead to this drastic change in stance.

And therein lies the problem. Until this NIE was released, many people supported Bush and Cheney in their "aggressive stance" regarding Iran. Not all by any means, and probably not even a majority, but enough to make his continued stance tenable. However, given the nature of our soundbite world, it seems likely that much of that support will fall away. The vast majority of people will never actually read the NIE, instead preferring to be told what it says in 30 second snippets. Just as Steph-O did, most will come to the (mistaken) conclusion that not only is Iran not a threat, but that the Bush Administrations posture towards it was unnecessary and overly aggressive.

What is truly ironic is it was that very same "aggressive posture" which lead to Iran suspending the weapons program in the first place. In many ways, in this case at least, the Bush administration is actually a victim of its own success. Had we not invaded Iraq in 03, then neither Libya, or Iran would have ended their respective weapons programs, and the "aggressive posture" of the Bush administration would have greater support than it does.

Even more troubling, is that now that this NIE has come out, and support for Bush's "aggressive posture" will crumble, its seems reasonable that Iran is more likely now, then even two weeks ago, to restart its weapons program. Already Russia and China have backed off of supporting sanctions they were recently inboard with, using the NIE as a justification for doing so. In addition, the "common knowledge" that Iran is not a threat, will preclude the Bush administration from making credible military threats against Iran. This is doubly ironic given that it was the perceived threat of invasion in 2003 which compelled Iran to suspend the program in the first place.

All in all in just goes to show how accepting "common knowledge" without critically examining the evidence or thinking for yourself hurts not only yourself but others as well.

And Ragnarok inches yet another day closer.



Additonal links on the subject
State Department Skeptic: Be careful about Iran
NIE not political
How did 2005 NIE go awry?
NIE report is a propaganda victory for Iran
Israel Challneges Report on Nukes.
Spinning the Iran Report
Facts Derail Bush Iran Plan

Sexy women, powerful men, pink locker rooms and rape on campus.

Ahhh, I love the smell of research in the morning, it smells like, victory.


Y'know its funny how powerful perspective can be. Definitions, truths, the difference between sinner and saint, all are determined by our perceptions. Was Joe McCarthy and evil right wing fascist who needlessly persecuted artists? Or was he a loyal public servant using his position to fight an unrecognised danger to the republic? It all depends on your perspective.

In a similar vein is this story, which you will either consider Blasphemy, or a "duh" moment, depending on how much of the feminist Kool-Aid you have drunk.

Now granted to the average person, the idea that men choose their partners due to fertility cues and women choose their partners do to success cues is just plain obvious. I mean hell, there's a reason that Larry Flynt still gets dates, and it aint cause of his looks and charm. The problem for feminists, is that this type of research reinforces the "laughable" claims made by evo-psych scientists. Namely that men and women evolved to fit very different roles, and as such have innate differences beyond just the plumbing.

But more to the point, it also sheds light on comics.

How many times have you heard some bitchy feminist complain because women in comics are "over sexualised", while men are shown as "powerful"? How many times have you heard someone say that "both men and women are signalised in comics" only to have a "bingo" card slapped in his face, or to have some feminist complain that male superheroes don't meet the average females requirements for sexy?

Well now we have proof. Men choose their sexual partners based on cues for fertility including youth, and for a very good, very biological, and very concrete reason, it increases their chances of having children, women on the other hand tend to choose powerful successful men, for the same motivation.

Maybe that's why Bruce Wayne is shown as being strong, while Selina Kyle is shown to be sexy? After all since we know that sexy is to men, what successful is to women, doesn't the current status quo of comics art actually prove that comics sexualise both genders, in the manner the other overwhelmingly prefers? And if so, doesn't that mean that the very same trends feminist bitch about the most, actually prove the sexual parity of comics?



In other news, we find further proof that it is feminists in general, and not just comic book feminists who are stark raving mad.Apparently the University of Iowa is being sued for having a pink locker room. Yes you heard me right. Being sued, over a pink locker room. Apparently painting the locker room pink is "sexist" in some way.

Of course in reality it was painted pink because as a psychologist, former U of Iowa coach Hayden Fry knew that the color pink tends to relax people, and he wanted any advantage he could get for his program, but that hasn't stopped one whack job feminist legal professor, a loony by the name of Jill Gaulding, from suing them under title 9. She claims that painting the locker room for the visiting teams pink the U of Iowa has offended and insulted women and gays.

You may take a break to give in to that overwhelming urge to laugh now.



Alright got that out of your system?

Here's the other items I found interesting this morning, Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite authors,, has an interesting "Random Thoughts" article today on the NRO.

Meanwhile, in very disturbing and distasteful news, it appears that Rapes in new York city Schools have increased. I wonder, given that New York is more feminist, gay, and minority friendly city than other, and given that its also a city where women now make more than men, why are rapes among high school children increasing?

I would submit its because New York is a feminist friendly city. Being such, the City of New York gives no consideration to males in education, and has in fact specifically designed its curriculum for females. As a result, many young men become alienated, frustrated, and angry. Some will naturally take this anger out in criminal ways.

One very interesting fact stated in the source article is that while girls are twice as likely to have been forced into sex as boys, (which in itself would seem to suggest a massive increase in male rape) boys and girls were equally likely to be the victim of violence on a date. Now this is of course assuming these numbers are accurate, and that this doesn't merely reflect and increase in reports of rape.


Another day, another day closer to Ragnarok.

Gene Simmons is Da Shit!

Q: How are you able to keep your Superman stuff and other comics from being
thrown out?

A: Well, I own everything, you see. It's my house and my
stuff. I don't get the you-live-with-a-woman and she can say "we" and "ours."
No, that doesn't play in my house. It's my house. I bought it. You bought it.
It's your stuff, not our stuff.

Can I get a Amen? Can I get a Hell Yeah? Can I get a Testify?
Lay in on me brother Gene.

Its amazing how many women believe this bullshit, what I find even more inconceivable, is how many supposed feminists buy into this. It constantly amazes me how many supposed feminists try to increase their own "value" by appropriating their mans achievements, accomplishments, and property.


I see this all time,take my step-mother for example(please). She is a full-time stay at home mom. Furthermore she has never had a career. While both her brothers and her sister went to university and got degrees, she became a stenographer, married my father (attorney she met in court), and hasn't worked a day since. Now understand, I don't think there's anything wrong with a woman not working, or being a stay at home mom. Personally I think more women should take pride in making their children their priority. The problem is though, she tries to use his career accomplishments, as a way of legitimising herself. Hell just the other day she had the gall to offer my wife career advice. Which is even funnier when you consider my wife has a PhD, and makes almost as much a year as I do. Hell for much more well known example look at Hillary Clinton. Beyond a few entry level jobs after college, Hillary has never accomplished anything beyond supporting Bill, yet when he got elected, she took it to mean "we are the President"

Even stranger is the fact that so many people are willing to accept these women's contentions at face value. How many senators or congressmen have died, only for their wives to take their place, even being elected to his position because they were his wife? Now in some ways this might reflect attitudes of property and inheritance, and in some I guess its a holdover from the practises of royalty, but what I cant figure out, is why, in this day and age, we are still so susceptible to such nonsense? What makes someone think that their spouses accomplishments give them any increased statue, and more importantly, why do we go along with it?

Once again, feminist silence on this subject speaks volumes. Even though there's no doubt that this idea is sexist, even though a ideology which actually preached equality between the sexes would judge each persona by their own accomplishments, feminists have no interest in anything that would require women to compete honestly. As a result millions of "feminists" are championing a woman of no accomplishment, who's only claim to fame is having the foresight to choose the "right" husband. How very,.......feminist.

A little lesson in economics, for those who dont believe in capitalism.

Thanks to Greg Mankiw's Blog

Applause.

Its rare you see someone bluntly and forcibly make as uncomfortable or unpopular a point as Mr Jason Whitlock does here.
Its time to move past the racists like Jesse Jackson and Al sharpton and their empty rhetoric, its time to stop making excuses for thugs and punks, because they are assumed to have been "oppressed" its time to hold people accountable for what they choose to be.
Well said Mr Whitlock, well said.

Henry Hyde, Superhero?

I was thinking about Representatives Hyde's career, particularly in light of the NRLC's stats of 1,000,000 abortions prevented due to the Hyde ammendment.

If Im not mistaken that means that Hyde, in real life, managed to save more lives than most fictional surperheroes. I find that remarkable. Now obviously the big guns, Batman, Superman etc, by virtue of their storylines, and length of continous publication, have probably passed the 1 billion mark, but I doubt that Green Arrow for example, has even come close to 1 million lives saved. Hell most hospitals in TRW cant even say that.

So you tell me violent readers, what other heroes can you think of whos save-count, is less than Hyde's?

Also since we all know that the uniform makes the hero, what type of Superhero costume would henry Hyde have worn?

I wonder if Hyde would have been a Cape and Face or a Cape and Cowl kinda guy?

Either way, hes earned a heroes reward.

The Republican debate.

Wow.
I finally got a chance to sit down and watch this last night.
Just Wow.
Anyone who, after watching that, says CNN is not liberally biased is an idiot in denial.
No less than 6 of the people chosen to ask questions were democratic activists.
The questions chosen were a fucking perfect example of a liberal caricature of conservative views.
Its becoming harder and harder for the Democrats to hide how truly scared of Conservatives they are and how morally and intellectually bankrupt their ideas are. First they were too big of pussies to do a Fox debate, then they conspire with CNN to stack the deck in the GOP primary debates.
I cant even imagine how fucking terrified Mrs Bill Clinton must be to try this crap. Its not even January and already her hopes of creating a gyno-archy are shattered. The "sisterhood" has broken down and her pathetic attempts to con women into believing shes a feminist are also failing.
Sometimes the world gives me a reason to smile.

Quotes of Awesome.

But shes beautiful when shes cries. I love her when she cries"
"In my own special way"

"So you don't know squat. Lets get to work."

"But I cant think about that right now, Ive got a retarded Demi-God to take care of."

Reviews Coming soon, but suffice it to say, All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder is pure crack!

"Estrogen does not inhibit intellect" "Ego does"

"Welcome to my Hell"

"See Bruce, deductive reasoning"

"Stop sucking up and go"


"52 Aftermath: The Four Horsemen" is awesomeness. Keith Giffen has The Batman's voice perfect.

Immigration.

One of the major issues discussed in the GOP debate, and one of the big issue facing the nation today is Immigration, both legal and otherwise. How to regulate, deal with, and track it. How to seal the borders from illegal aliens, drug smugglers, and terrorists How to deal with the estimated 12 ,million illegal immigrants currently in the country. Each of these are issue which need to be dealt with, preferably sooner than later. The problem is, as with any touchy political issue, a complete inability among most to disagree without demonising. The Left calls the Right racist, or nationalist, or just plain xenophobic. The Right calls the Left Soft headed, Socialistic, and anti-American. And nothing gets done.

Now personally I love immigrants. In fact most of my friends were not born in this country, nor was my wife. I find I get along with Immigrants easier than I do native Americans, for a number of reasons. My current boss immigrated to the states from Iran (but don't call him Iranian, hes Persian. There's a diff. )a few years prior to my birth, one of my best friends came here in his late teens, and half my in laws are foreign born.

Now I don't get along so well with immigrants because I'm some multi-culti nut job, or because I run a construction company. Its also not because I speak so many foreign languages. cause I only speak English. Its not because I work in immigration, or even because I have travelled so extensively. The reason is I just tend to find more to like, and admire, in immigrants to America, than in our own native sons.

Now don't get me wrong there are plenty of home grown heroes I admire. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ronald Reagan, and George Patton just to name a few. But I think we can all agree these men were truly singular individuals. But when it comes to interacting with he bulk of the people in their group, I find it far easier to relate to, and be comfortable with, immigrants.

Now knowing the "caliber" of my violent readers, I know many of you are probably already quite surprised, after all I'm a well known ring wing nut job. And we all "know" that right wingers are all xenophobic racist bastards who hate brown people. So they fact that I am not volunteering to waterboard illegals caught by the minute men probably surprises quite a few of you. But then most of you are morons anyway. Those who aren't, and you know who you are without me having to tell you, are probably trying to figure out why I feel more comfortable with immigrants than natives.

Ill give you a hint, How many natives do you know who realise their birth here was a gift from god himself?

Because the thing is Ive met a lot of people who came here from others countries. Some of them came from truly brutal regimes, such as Cuba, others came here from violent and chaotic nations like Haiti, or Iraq. Some came up from South America by Mexico way, and others left eastern Europe and arrived at JFK. No matter how they got here though, the vast majority came here for one reason, to build a better life. They are thankful of the opportunities they have here, as opposed to where they are from, and though they still love their "old country" they are truly grateful for their new one.

When was the last time you met an Native American who felt grateful for being born here? When was the last time you heard someone express that sentiment in a non-ironic or meaningful way? I bet if your honest with yourself, you probably don't even really feel that way yourself. You may think it, but you don't feel it. You may not even be able to, if you have never left this country; because until you understand how the vast majority of the rest of the world lives, you just wont get it. No matter how "cultured" you may think you are. No matter how well you did in cultural studies, or geography, no matter how much you watch the travel channel, you don't really have the imagination or experience to understand how the average citizen of Africa, or China, Or even Russia lives. Most of you can barely understand whats its like in The UK, despite the fact that we have a shared history. You simply don't have the frame of reference.

So understand I'm not accusing you of a failing, I'm just saying you gotta experience something to really understand it. And most of you out there on the idiot-net simply don't understand why you should be so grateful.

But its not just that, there's also a sense of entitlement among Native Americans that immigrants usually don't have, at least not at first. Its almost as if we buy into the American Dream so fully, we forget that we still have to work for it. Growing up in America, the culture imprints us with certain ideas, that anyone can accomplish anything given a little luck and a whole lot of work, that any child could become president, that your opportunities are limited only by your own ability to capitalise on them etc. But somewhere along the line, for most Native Americans, this gets twisted somehow. People stop thinking they can accomplish anything if they work, and start thinking they are owed something. Somehow the Dream gets twisted from "You can be anything you want" to what people hear, which seems to be "You can have anything you want" While Native American families making 60-80K a year a bitching that they cant afford health insurance, Immigrant families I know who make 30-45K a year are riding the bus and brown bagging their lunches to be able to provide coverage for their families.

Its seems to me that Folks born in America somehow get twisted around by popular culture, because instead of feeling obligated to give back because they were lucky enough to live in this country; they seem to think they should be owed more because they were born in this country. How many times have you heard someone refer to their "right" to have someone else support them? The "right" to health care, the "right" to a college education. the "Right" to retire comfortably, the "right" to be free from offense. Since when is having without earning a "right"?

But I'm getting off track, the point was, I usually find it a lot easier to be friends with immigrants than natives. Not always the case, but more often than not. So when I say that our immigration system is broken beyond repair, its not because I'm anti-immigrant. When I tell you I support the Minute Men, understand its not because I hate Mexicans or Canadians. I just think that for any country to abdicate control of its borders and of citizenship, whether de-facto or official, is suicidal. (not that America has done much in the last 30years that wasn't)

Our immigration policy is one of the most perverse, complicated, non-sensical, needlessly complex, self contradictory, and just plain bat-shit crazy messes I have ever had the sorry misfortune to witness. I can tell you, from experience, that our immigration system is totally broken, and needs to be either seriously overhauled or replaced.

The problem is that would require the people outside of Washington to hold those within Washington to standards we haven't help our "statesmen" to in over a century. In order to fix it, The Dem's and the Rep's would have to get out of the pockets of the Labor Unions, Corporations, Special Interests, Lobbyists, etc. and then they would actually have to think before they put pen to paper and created a bill. Of course this all presupposes they aren't too busy passing super sized bacon rolls off as bills, are actually there to serve the people, and are paying attention, which might be too much to hope for.

Now personally I think the best way to go is to put some major funds in to sealing both US borders, and to increase the amount of legal immigration we allow, especially from skilled or educated workers. Of Course we would also have to begin enforcing existing immigration law as well. While we cant exactly round up 12 million people at once, we could get them out over a period of time via attrition, if there were any serious efforts made at enforcement at all.

Of course I'm not in the Senate or the House, so what I think and a tenner will get you a Caramel Frapachino.

But I know we gotta do something. I just figure that, as usual we wont, or even more likely, the geniuses up in Washington will make things worse.

It takes a lot of discipline not to reach for the comfort of false hopes, when you live in a world as bass ackwards as ours y'know?

More on race.

John Derbyshire over at NRO is in the middle of a three part FAQ on race research. From what I gather he has gotten these questions himself after articles on the subject and wanted to preempt them. Parts 1, 2, and 3.

Thankfully, the good dont always die young.

At approximately 3 am this morning, when most of you were asleep and I was fighting insomnia, Henry Hyde died. After serving 32 years as a Republican congressman for Illinois, representative Hyde had a whole host of accomplishments to be proud of, not the least of which is the Hyde-Smith law I mentioned in this post.

But of all his great achievements, one in particular stands out, both from a political and humanitarian perspective, That of course being "The Hyde Amendment" After the Burger Court found "shadows and penumbras" in the Constitution in 1973 Medicaid began funding abortions, by 1976 when the Hyde Amendment was passed over 300,000 American children had been slaughtered in the name of "reproductive freedom" And Henry Hyde did something about it. The Hyde Amendment made it illegal for the federal government to fund abortions through medicaid. A s a result, According to the NRLC, over 1,000,000 American children were saved from being murdered in the womb.

I'm not much of a religious guy, but I gotta believe that when this guy gets to the pearly gates, even Mother Theresa is going to want to shake his hand. After all how many people can honestly say that they have saved one life, much less one million?

RIP Representative Hyde, May the Angels welcome you with open arms, May god love you with an open heart, and may the blessings, and thanks of a grateful nation shower upon you and you kin.

National Review Online is doing a tribute to Representative Hyde.(so far) Articles can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

Reproductive Freedom, Fathers and China. OR, Feminists hate Fathers.

Reproductive Freedom. Its a phrase on the lips, websites, and blogs of every feminist alive. And why not? we all want to be free to reproduce. Of course when feminists use the term, what they really man is the "freedom" to slaughter and unborn child like a pig while its still in the womb and possible the "freedom" to sell the murdered corpse for scientific research. But there are those, millions of them, who are actually fighting for Reproductive Freedom, that is to say the Freedom to reproduce. Here in the states we call them "The Chinese"

As many know, China has an official "One Couple/One Child" rule. What many don't realise, or choose to ignore, is how that policy is enforced. To put it simply, if a woman in China is found to be violating this rule, she will be forced to have an abortion whether the child is "wanted" or not. Furthermore, all women who go to the state hospitals to have their first child, are required to be sterilised afterwards. China also requires all unwed mothers to have abortions, whether they want to or not. Finally there are severe penalties beyond the murder of ones child for violation of said policy including imprisonment and in some cases execution.

As I'm sure you can imagine violent reader, this leads many, many Chinese couples, in an effort to have actual reproductive freedom, to flee China, primarily for the USA. Until recently it was the USA's policy, to accept asylum applications from both parents in these matters, as both are penalised for for their "crime" DHS, which, of all the federal agencies is the one most corrupted by feminist theory, wants to change that policy. You see according to the DHS, fathers don't matter.

Ever since Bill Clinton attempted to end defining forced abortion as a form of persecution, when he deported 13 pregnant Chinese women back to china, (yeah the Clinton's really care about women) and the passing of the Hyde-Smith law, there has been a lot of opposition to it from the left. Apparently somehow, preventing women who want their children from being forced to abort them is not included in "reproductive freedom".

And now the DHS, has decided it might be able to keep at least half of them away. According to (apparently successful) arguments made by DHS counsel before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, The fathers of the unborn children these couples are fleeing to save, are not protected from deportation due to their wives being forcible sterilised or forced to get abortions from the Chinese government. The mothers are, the father's aren't.

Because after all, who needs a father right? As long as you got a mommy your'e good, (if you got two you're even better) but a dad? Pfft, useless as tits on a bull.


Bush, early in his first term refused to fund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)because it was shown to be assisting the Chinese government in enforcing its policies, And hopefully he will take a stand here as well.

But the fact remains that this type of "policy" would never even be an issue if DHS weren't a cesspool of feminist theory. If it hadn't been hijacked by ideological extremists who believe the average man is little better than a walking sperm bank, no one there would have drank enough Kool-aid to believe this policy makes sense in the first place. I have said before that "family law" would, if we were being accurate, be referred to as feminist legal theory, as its assumptions of female superiority and male guilt are uniquely feminist in nature. Its blatant in domestic violence statues which force cops to assume the male to be the aggressor even when the evidence obviously shows different, its inherent in the practise of automatically awarding custody to mothers unless the father can prove she is unfit, (which is damn near impossible to do)its blindingly apparent in the fact that after a divorce a man is required to pay his ex-wife's living expenses, in the form of alimony, until she remarries, and its immediately noticeable upon even the most cursory of examination of the inequities of abortion/paternity laws.


For a mroe indepth anaylsis of this new policy and the histroy of it, please see David Freddos's excellent article China's Doomed at NRO

BTW one last question, Knowing that Bill had a policy of deporting pregnant women back to China because he didn't consider forced sterilisation and forced abortion to be a form of persecution, and given that Mrs Bill Clinton supported these policies, do any of you feminists out there think that maybe you're backing the wrong horse?
Doesn't the fact that both Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton think a government forcibly sterilising women is A-OK even the slightest bit disturbing?

The Wage Gap is a Myth.

Heres the thing. I beleive that if I cant say something better than another already has, is better to quote that person.
So instead of writing a post proving the wage gap is a myth, Im going to link to one that does.
Here in a post entitled "The Wage gap myth is Hazardous to mens health" Mr Stephen Jarosek demolishes the wage gap myth, and shows that as a result of feminist misandry, over 800,000 men have died tragic, and early deaths.

Yessssss!!!!!!

The Supreme Court of the USA has decided to take on the federal Appeals courts ruling on the DC gun Ban . This promises to be the first in depth examination of the second amendment and the rights it confers in almost 70 years.

And its about damn time. The whole "gun rights are a collective right, not an individual right" argument is pure D bullshit. Hopefully the Supreme Court will recognise this. At the very least if they uphold the appeals courts ruling, even if they don't comment on the second amendment or the collective/individual right issue directly, upholding the verdict would make outright gun bans unconstitutional (rather it would recognise that they always have been).

Come on Roberts, Come on Alito, come on Thomas, come on Scalia, make us proud!

Someone who gets it.

I wanna give a big shout out to RHJunior a Guy Who Gets IT (tm)

You go tell it on the mountain brother. Testify!!!!

Bad News For Biological Egalitarians.

William Saletan is penning a fantastic series of articles over at Slate.com * on the racial gap in intelligence. So far hes written parts 1 and 2 of a 3 part (perhaps more) series.

What I find truly amazing about it, is that though Slate trends fairly liberal (can't say about William as I don't know, though his "voice" in the articles is liberal.) There's no PC bullshit, no feel good platitudes, no racial epithets, just reasoned analysis and rational thoughts, Just like on this Blog really.

This should be terrifying feminists, minortists, and all biological egalitarians, that rare breed of cuckoo who believes that, despite all evidence tot he contrary, there is no innate physical difference between races, genders, or cultures.
You see the racial Gap is very very real. Now understand just by saying this, I have in fact invited people to hurl racist epithets at me, and label me little more than a bigot. Those of you whose definition of an open mind doesn't include your brains leaking out of your head may read on.
You see the racial gap isn't a function of who's better, but of which genealogies are better adapted to certain activities. Because all race really is, is genealogy, your particular extended family tree. Mine for example branches from Fort Lauderdale where I was born, to Scotland, England, Russia, Irish, Jewish, Germanic, Cherokee and Seminole. (Yeah, I'm a Mutt, its why Americans are Better, between massive racial interbreeding and the competition based economy we are the best "race" deal with it.) Now for some that list might include Bantu, Pygmy, Moor, Egyptian, and Persian, or perhaps Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc.
But no matter who your grammy was, or wasn't, chances are, up till about a few hundred years ago, they had lived in the exact same place, among the exact same people, for centuries. And as such they evolved together.

So you may be asking, well OK, so why is this bad for feminists?

Well put that old noodle to work there son. We know the races show differences based on different evolutionary conditions right? And we know, that women, for the vast majority of human existence, took on different roles than men did. So doesn't it stand to reason that perhaps, just as Asians adapted to have a greater mental skills across the board than say whites do, perhaps women adapted to better carry out the roles they had taken? In fact even if there had been no biological difference between men and women in the first place,would we not expect to see differences arise over time due to women filling the same role consistently? In other words even if there were absolutely no biological basis for sex roles whatsoever, by consistently taking those roles wouldn't women have over time adapted to better fit them?

Now keep in mind this isn't even touching upon the subject of why the innate biological differences between men and women exist in the first place. I'm assuming for arguments sake, that you actually buy into feminist bullshit about there being no "sex" only "gender"

Add to that the facts that the "races" only separated somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago, and that women and men have been separate sexes since pre-humanity (literally, all primates are sexed as well, and in most males and female have different roles) and it seems even more absurd to assume that "gender is a societal construct"

As always my point, is that the answer lies not in putting men against women, or whites against Asians, but in everyone against everyone else. That's why Capitalism works, a dollar doesn't care if your white black or green, as you long you can get him together with his buddes. Thats why feminists, and minorists are destined to failure for their causes, disappointment, alienation, regret, and irrelevance, to their adherents. Eventually people stop buying the company line and actually think. It doesn't happen often, but when it does?
Its Fucking Glorious.





* Yes I read Slate. I also read NRO, The Huffington post , The American Prospect, Daily Kos, Human Events, The Nation , the WSJ , the NYT, Commentary, the Financial Times ,the CSM , the Economist, the New Republic, RCP, and and many many other publications which cant easily be described as either right/left, or even political such as Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Space.com.