We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, March 21. 2016
Re exercise, via Ace: 'I finally have the body I want. It's easy, actually, you just have to want a really shitty body.' - Louis CK
The Secrets of the Wave Pilots - For thousands of years, sailors in the Marshall Islands have navigated vast distances of open ocean without instruments. Can science explain their method before it’s lost forever?
American University candidates promise snowflakes 24-hour counseling, more ‘inclusion’
The school safety debate: Mollycoddle no more - There are two sides to the debate over school discipline, and the policy being pursued is wrong.
Moving beyond the contemporary ‘stigma’ of dismissing disruptive kids from the classroom, school
Fact Checking the Washington Post’s Fact Checker on Trade and Manufacturing
Commercial solar is not ready
Former Secret Service Agent Explains The ‘Open Rebellion’ Against DC Politics
From the perspective of the political Left, racism is highly useful. I’m not just talking as a shaming tool. I mean as a political wedge.
2016 election is not important
Dem Michael Goodwin: Why it’s time for a Trump revolution
Would Clinton vs. Trump Be the Ugliest Campaign in History? - Attack ads circa 1800 suggest otherwise.
Every Republican Presidential Candidate Is Hitler - The “Big Lie” has been around for over fifty years.
The Return of Socialism - It was lying in wait all these years, and now it’s come roaring back to life
When Trump gets serious: Trump by the Script
LEAD ORGANIZER Who Shut Down Hwy to TRUMP RALLY Is “Soros Fellow” from New Orleans
Dilbert Creator Scott Adams on Donald Trump's "Linguistic Kill Shots"
Obama Addresses the Diaper Divide
Join the Campaign: Stop the Jew Hatred on Campus
Obama Addresses the Diaper Divide
The Road to Internet Serfdom - China, Russia, and Orwell’s boot
The costs of Obama’s Syria policy are apparent to everyone but him
Atheist British Author Challenges Liberals to ‘Become Jewish’ to Experience Antisemitism
Who Is Salah Abdeslam? The French national
The Lethal Cocktail of Terrorism: The Four Necessary Ingredients that Go into Making a Terrorist & Fifty Individual Vulnerabilities/Motivations that May also Play a Role
“Raping Me is His Prayer to God. It’s Allowed. It’s Halal.” A terrifying look at the Islamic State's religious duty to rape.
Obama Has Already Destroyed World Order, So What’s The Beef About Trump?
If century-long trends continue, Canada will be a Muslim majority nation by 2050
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The Case for GOP Obstructionism ... But before the R Gang can return to that Edenic Garden of Cooperation, it must deal with the Original Defection: the rejection of Robert Bork. R announces that to reach a new State of Cooperation, D’s Bork Defection will be treated as Round 1 in the game, and the current Obama nomination will be treated as Round 2. R votes to “defect,” consistent with the tit-for-tat strategy, and freely discloses the game theory rationale.
Unfortunately, in this case, tit-for-tat would lead to a situation where each act of retaliation leads to the next, where each party feels itself to be innocent, and the other party unyielding. Rather, tit-for-tat with forgiveness is the way to avoid such a death spiral.
Well, the Republicans have tried it several times - hence the hatred for the GOPe. Please put some of your boundless energy into convincing the Democrats to stand down in order to get along, just once.
Assistant Village Idiot: Well, the Republicans have tried it several times - hence the hatred for the GOP
In modern history, it is the Republican Party that has been intransigent, going so far as to shut down the government when not getting their way, often on unrelated issues — and even threatening to default on the national debt.
If century-long trends continue, Canada will be a Muslim majority nation by 2050
If the current rate of human population growth continues, humans will swallow the Sun in about 5000 years.
Fortunately, Islam, especially when not propped up by the free people of the classically liberal West, is a very effective means of population reduction through murder, oppression and economic stagnation.
A lot of people were lynched or otherwise given 'justice' in the past and most were not black. So what was you point and how does it relate to Islamophobia?
Seems pretty obvious. You posted a video showing violent behavior by Muslims. We posted an image showing violent behavior by Christians.
Kind of an equality thingy. So you really believe Christians are bad and a threat to innocent people? Really? Oh, I'm sure you will point to a number of criminals and claim they must be Christians since they aren't wearing a hijab. Perhaps you even believe half of the Paris terrorists were Christians. Here is a story about some people who may or may not have been Christians http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/03/somali-refugee-influx-continues-unabated/
I wonder if the police they are going to kill will be Christians? No way to know right? No reason to develop any kind of phobia over it.
GoneWithTheWind: So you really believe Christians are bad and a threat to innocent people?
No more so than most other people.
But no less so, right?
Let's play a little game. We each put $100 on the table and when the next terror attack takes place if it is a Muslim individual or group that commits it I get the pot and you drink a shot of whisky. We keep doing this until one of us is too drunk to continue or one of us runs out of money. What do you say? Wanna play?
Breaking news - terrorist bombing in Brussels. Zach is too busy to respond he is out looking for a Christian terrorists...
GoneWithTheWind: Breaking news - terrorist bombing in Brussels.
Terrible incident. However, the actions of radicals doesn't justify condemning a billion innocent people who are far more likely to be the victims of radicalism than to be its perpetrators. Furthermore, it is self-defeating to blame the innocent.
"the actions of radicals doesn't justify condemning a billion innocent people who are far more likely to be the victims of radicalism than to be its perpetrators."
That is a misstatement of fact. I have never heard anyone "condemn" all Muslims. This is the same dirty trick the left uses if you do not agree with gay marriage they accuse you of being a homophobe and hateful with the intent of shutting down free speech and shaming anyone who doesn't think like they do.
To put it simply the religion of Islam demands/condones exactly what we see happening. The terror, the beheadings, the rapes, stoning, throwing people off buildings, immigrating to commit jihad. Islam teaches/commands/condones believers to do these things to non-believers. While 80%-90% of Muslims may not choose to do these things almost ALL of them will condone it, applaud it, allow it and even cover up for it. So while a moderate Muslim may never be a direct threat to you or me they will not prevent the radical Muslims from being a threat. So we are not "condemning" all Muslims we are simply acknowledging that a very large percentage want to commit jihad and an even larger percentage want the radicals to commit jihad. Since it is impossible to look into another man's heart and mind the only rational thing is to not allow anyone from the Islamic religion to come to Western countries. To be clear that IS discrimination NOT condemnation. Until and unless those elusive moderate Muslims can fix this Muslim problem we need to exclude ALL Muslims.
It is actually an incredibly wise decision to exclude all Muslims and would prevent many many deaths. But we are not wise we replaced "wise" with "PC" many years ago so we must accept the consequences of our unwise choices. Until the death toll has grown into a mountain of dead kafir until the terrorists are able to pull off some kind of "grand" 9/11 attack, until the totality of the problem is fully understood we will continue to pay the price of electing leaders who are not wise (or as Trump says; "stupid").
GoneWithTheWind: I have never heard anyone "condemn" all Muslims.
GoneWithTheWind: While 80%-90% of Muslims may not choose to do these things almost ALL of them will condone it, applaud it, allow it and even cover up for it.
There you go again. That is NOT a condemnation it is a statement of observed fact. It is now known that in that Brussels neighborhood where these Islamist terrorists hid and built their bombs that their moderate Islamist neighbors knew about them and did nothing to stop it. When a group of Muslims who have immigrated to a Western country and presumably not intimidated by radical Muslim government still agree that Sharia law should be followed and Jihad is good and that it is appropriate to kill the kifar if they won't convert and bow down to Islam. In their own words they "condemn" themselves.
If you choose how you define an act than indeed you can find people committing that act anywhere you need to in order to prop up your own beliefs. Anyone who says anything at all negative about Islam must be intimidated and cowed into silence. This is a critical effort without which Islam cannot achieve world domination. You are part of that effort and presumably one of it's useful idiots.
2016 Election Not Important: Many people lament that “Obama has destroyed America these last eight years” or, alluding to same, will say “I don’t recognize my country anymore.”
Race Unrealism... There’s a debate whether race is the right word as there is great diversity within races.
No one argues that there is no diversity in the human family. While there are certainly genetic differences in human populations, any notion of race that lumps all blacks together, that groups Khoisan with Bantus, or South Asians with Saan, is not based on genetics, but are social constructs.
Demanding proportional representation in legislatures, for example, benefits the Left politically.
Having representation is a fundamental foundation of liberty.
Z: (regarding racial classification) Having representation is a fundamental foundation of liberty.
Representation based on skin color?
mudbug: Representation based on skin color?
Yes, minority representation is a foundation of liberty, especially in a country with a history of minority oppression.
So we should have racial quotas in representation? A black person can't adequately represent a white person? How many racial divisions should we define for purposes of representation? What if there aren't enough people in those racial categories running for office?
Just how far should this segregation taken?
mudbug: So we should have racial quotas in representation?
Didn't say that. However, the U.S. Constitution envisions the weighting of different political entities.
The debate is not about genetic diversity. The debate is whether "race" is the proper term. Race is not a "social construct" any more than gravity is a social construct. The debate is whether race is the correct term for many of these debates when we're really discussing something closer to extended families. Race is not granular enough in many cases.
As to the other bit, you don't seem to understand the term "proportional representation." In the context of race, elements of the Left have argued that 13% of the Federal legislature should be reserved for blacks. Some percentage for Hispanics and so on. In addition to or in place of geography and population, demographics should determine the makeup of legislatures.
BD: But gravity is a social construct!
Diversity is a biological fact. Race is a social construct.
If race is a social construct then it is dependent on social whim. How does it make sense to base representation on it?
mudbug: If race is a social construct then it is dependent on social whim. How does it make sense to base representation on it?
It's not whim, but entrenched historical experience. Nor did we advocate explicit proportional representation. However, the U.S. has a long history of racial discrimination. Minorities often have difficulties in democratic societies, but especially so when the system is constructed to minimize their representation. In particular, the U.S. weights legislative power towards small, generally homogeneous states, and then uses gerrymandering to maintain majoritarian control.
If it is a social construct, then somebody can change their race at their whim - as we've seen with Rachael Dolezal and Shaun King. This makes race even stupider to base representation on. Minorities, especially blacks, have had problems with representation because of the Democratic party, not the US law (except those instituted largely by Democrats). Gerrymandering is often done to create black districts.
mudbug: If it is a social construct, then somebody can change their race at their whim
It's not whim, but entrenched historical experience.
mudbug: Gerrymandering is often done to create black districts.
And even that is often used to reduce minority representation, by crowding all the minorities into single districts. Why doesn't the U.S. move towards non-partisan redistricting?
The Z Blog: The debate is whether "race" is the proper term. Race is not a "social construct" any more than gravity is a social construct.
Any notion of race that lumps all blacks together, that groups Khoisan with Bantus, or South Asians with Saan, is not based on genetics, but are social constructs. It's like saying that redheads are a different race. It's using an arbitrary trait as a poor signal for genetic diversity.
The Z Blog: As to the other bit, you don't seem to understand the term "proportional representation."
We're quite aware of the meaning of proportional representation. If minorities are 31% of the population, but 12% of the legislature, then that means they are underrepresented, increasing the danger of majoritarianism.
"If century-long trends continue, Canada will be a Muslim majority nation by 2050"
This is not just by chance or some natural evolution. There is zero chance that by 2050 any of the Muslim countries will be majority Canadian by 2050. There is a war going on and one side is neither fighting it or acknowledging it. The Muslims are NOT moving to Canada because of it's great climate or even job opportunities. They are moving there exactly to become a majority and to create a Sharia law Muslim country. When their percentage of the population becomes sufficient they will over throw the Western government and they will behead and enslave Canadian Christians and rape young Canadian girls. This IS the war and the Canadians and other Western countries are not only naively aiding the enemy they are eagerly aiding and covering up the enemies war (see Zach's post above). This is not immigration it is an invasion and the liberals (Justin Trudeau) are collaborators with the enemy. These collaborators will first argue with you to change your views, than they will disparage you and call you names and finally they will attempt to silence and bully you to shut down debate.
If century-long trends continue, Canada will be a Muslim majority nation by 2050
Well now, let's see, our population is currently over 35 million or so. In 1982 it was about 25 million - so about 10 million more Canadians in 34 years. So, for argument's sake, let's say we have a conservative estimate of 45 million for our population in 2050 (34 years from now).
And the one million or so Muslims in the country will number 22.5 million or higher by then?
Positively Malthusian calculating, I'd say.
The article about school discipline made some good points but also seemed to bemoan things like enforcement of the sock color rules.
If rules are to be respected, they must be rational and contribute to the educational goals. Arbitrary and capricious "because we can" rules are not constructive discipline. At this point a very good idea goes off the rails into mindless authoritarianism.
One thing students have to learn is how to behave well when there isn't someone with a stick over them.
Let's make some assumptions about the life situation of a number of these kids. 1 - they have interactions with their peers outside the school walls. 2 - some of those kids engage in interactions that are civilly constructive (i.e. study groups). 3- other students interact in non-civilly constructive ways (dealing, gang membership, etc.). 4 - the student interactions are also rational (i.e. the civil members want to escape their situation and avoid conflict; and the non-civil members want to improve their status within their situation).
Take these extracurricular interactions and place the participants in a school setting and, if you're non-civil you see opportunities to take advantage of the scholastic environment if your opponents are there as well -(likely unarmed, large audience - to assist in "broadcasting the message", ineffective authority figures, etc.). Why not seize the chance - particularly if you see no profit in following the example of the civil characters (a.k.a the truly innocent bystander).
" Arbitrary and capricious "because we can" rules "
never been in the armed forces, have you?
Lots of fodder today. re: More Therapists on Campus When I was a grad student we had two ways of dealing with stress--beer or study more...sometimes a combination of both. We certainly didn't go looking for someone to tell us "everything will be alright" or "it's not your fault".
I'll stand up for therapists. College is very stressful for some kids. Back in the old days they would go back home to mom or dad after not being able to make it through the first semester. I am sure many of you would say, 'good, that's where they belong.'
However, I think that we want to encourage these people to succeed on their own in life. If it takes some therapy or counseling, what is the harm? I will bet that some of us have met with a therapist during a particularly difficult time in life: divorce, death of a loved one, etc.
These are stressful life moments. There is nothing 'weak' about seeking out the help of a therapist if it helps you get over the hump and get back to normal life.
Not every kid is stalwart and able to handle the pressures of living on their own for the first time...whether it be poor parenting or an actual issue such as depression or anxiety. Why would you want these kids to fail and never be given the outlet that a therapist could provide? Do you know how hard it is to wrangle healthcare for a kid who is a thousand miles away in another state?
Anyway, I don't see a problem with having more therapists available to kids. We want the same for ourselves, don't we?
MissT I'll give you that. Certainly valid just not for every bump in the road--if everything is crisis then nothing is crisis. "There is nothing 'weak' about seeking out the help of a therapist..." and I agree with this statement as I have family members who have benefited greatly.
Appreciate that. I do believe some college kids are definitely whiney brats who need to figure things out without mommy and daddy stepping in. But many are kids just needing some help...some for the very first time in their lives have access to counseling.
I also think it is interesting that you said in grad school many turned to 'beer,' which is, for many, a way to cope with pressure. And not such a great one. Treating stress with illegal drugs or too much drinking should probably be discouraged, no?
The guys I knew who killed themselves in college, or tried to, did it over girls. I think they could have used therapists, but that was back in the early days of feminism, version 1.0, when girls were being taught that as "empowerment" they could just string along a guy and then dump them, and guys hadn't yet evolved into the hookup mentality as a result.
GoneWithTheWind: That is NOT a condemnation it is a statement of observed fact.
Of course it's a condemnation. You claim it is based on fact.
GoneWithTheWind: It is now known that in that Brussels neighborhood where these Islamist terrorists hid and built their bombs that their moderate Islamist neighbors knew about them and did nothing to stop it.
It is known that there are active cells in Belgium, if that is what you mean. Do you have a citation?