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
Tuesday, April 12. 2016
Image stolen from Moonbattery
Never, ever. Even at home. Even burgers and franks are evil cultural appropriations. There otta be laws.
Feminism and multiculturalism in Western Europe
HOLY BIBLE ON LIST OF 'CHALLENGED' BOOKS AT LIBRARIES
Ban all books. Few will notice.
Campus Lunacy - Inside the world of the Fascist Left's intimidation tactics.
Academic decay: Harvard students are triggered by pro-lifers and American flags
The word 'trigger' triggers me
First Brown, now U. Oklahoma students whine about the ‘hardships’ of campus activism
How White Castle Will Adjust to a $15 Minimum Wage in New York
The Eco Struggle:
Problem is that the climate moonbats discredit worthy efforts at habitat conservation and the like. Serious air pollution, for example, almost eliminated in the US. That's good.
Joe Scarborough: Obama 'Rigged' Clinton Email Probe
Be lenient with Chelsea Clinton. When your mission is to solve all
Five Clinton shell companies established in Delaware
"Goodbye GOP. I Will Not Be Forced to Vote for Somebody I Don't Want. You're Toast. To Hell With the Republican Party"
Drones of the Sea: DARPA Unveils Sea Hunter
UK Equalities Chief Who Popularised The Term 'Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This is exactly what I have worried about. The zeal to dump Trump (where was that zeal when running against Obama?) has exposed the GOP's sucidal side. The best way that the GOP could have handled this is to allow the voters and the caucuses to proceed without any of the backroom Tom foolery and allow the voters to decide. Maybe they would have picked Trump in the end and maybe that would upset the GOP elite but how could it be worse than when Obama won? Instead the GOP has 'rigged' everything they could with the intent of making sure Trump is not the candidate. In the process they have alienated 30% or more of their base. How stupid can you be?
So the GOPe will win this fight and Cruz or Kasich or Ryan will get the nomination and those voters who believe that the GOP stabbed them in the back won't vote or will vote for someone else and Hillary will win the election. Seems suicidal to me. How is wise to intentionally alienate your base and then tweet out props and brag about it? I think Rush is right (again) and the GOPe would rather have Hillary win the presidency and keep their power and privelage than elect Trump.
What bothers me the most this morning on any news program is that they are trying to make Trump look the fool for calling the Colorado process 'rigged' by pointing out how this selection process was out in the open back in the summer, etc.
What the press ISN'T talking about is the actually rigging that went on DURING the Colorado delegate selection process. They are focusing on 'the rules' to make Trump look stupid, rather than focus on the fact that at least one man who attended the delegate selection process was so disgusted by what took place to get Cruz the delegates that he wants to leave the GOP entirely. I have also read about incorrect lists, disorganization, etc. These are the kinds of things that allow shenanigans to take place, people to feel marginalized and selections to be 'rigged.'
Where is the discussion about what actually took place on the ground? It's not the 'rules,' but the actions taken during the process.
The CO GOP tweet says it all. Clearly a rigged game.
I don't know, I expect the GOPe might not lose to many voters in this contest, but the ground does seem to have been plowed for a new party to arise for 2018.
People think the Tea Party has gone, and it has but in name only. The people are still out there with the same basic issues and beliefs. And they were the middle class.
Now we have the more populist Trump supporters, who the GOPe and the MSM love to taunt as the declining middle class. They like to argue they are uneducated, but really all you can say is many are university credentialed.
So here's the thing most are missing. The revolts, the protests, the "Mob", as he puts it, goes nowhere until the middle class sign on. So it seems odd to me that everyone it taunting that this is the end of the middle class.
Now, funny thing is, if the "uneducated" white men who are supposedly all Trump attracts were to take a week off, the cities would be drowning in their own garbage and sewage, and don't forget the crime. So, who are working in the real "service economy"?
There are a number of things happening that are affected by this. The middle class in America is in a decline and by every measure it seems to be the intent of government to continue to push the middle class down. Many believe we need to return to a constitutional republic and seriously limit the power of the federal government (I'm one of them). They don't see anyone, any politicians who is willing to give up their free ride and power to do that except Trump. For many of those disgruntled folks, (not all men or white or uneducated) they see a quickening of events that foretell a fast approaching tipping point beyond which no white knight or constitutional politician will ever be able to save us (I'm one of them). Once we pass that point it's over and the federal government seems hell bent of passing that as quickly as possible.
As for the missing revolt or mob I think it's gonna happen. Probably not as rowdy, violent or lawless as the left's mob is but I think it will happen after the convention and someone is deemed the candidate and Trump (and perhaps Cruz too) is dumped. I do think a lot of them will not vote or vote for someone else. I think that the Republican base will split the vote and give the presidency to Hillary. AND I would expect a lot of handwringing from the GOP but internally they would breath a sigh of relief because now they can function as the underdog where it seems that is the only way they can function. The seem to be unable to handle being in power and perhaps we were always destined to become a one party Socialist nation and why not now.
But, I would recommend staying away from the usual hot spots until this sorts itself out because I think the left is going to try to cause riots and the right feel they have been backed into a corner. Lets just say I won't be going to Cleveland anytime soon.
The citizen must not be so narrowly circumscribed in his activities that, if he thinks differently from those in power, his only choice is either to perish or to destroy the machinery of state.
Mises, Ludwig von (2010-12-10). Liberalism (p. 59)
The parties have made themselves part of the machinery of state. And people have reached this juncture of choice.
Essentially I think the Tea Party followers have now been radicalized. In the beginning they believed in the Constitution, the Flag, Mom & Apple Pie. They thought they were mainstream values Americans. But since they started they have been called wackos, fundamentalists, rightwing kooks, etc. Not just by the Left, but by the folks they thought should agree with them (e.g., the GOPe).
I think as a result, at this point they are just pissed off and have concluded that both parties are corrupt. They are more than willing to burn the present house down, thinking that a new structure with American values will grow in its place. Whether that happens is another question.
There is some irony in this, insofar as the Colorado rules were changed last summer (along with the rules of a number of other states) to serve as a firewall against anti-establishment TEA Party types like Ted Cruz.
The Eco Struggle
As the projected effects of climate change involve the future of humanity's place in the ecosystem, of course the struggle entails human passions.
What strikes me about it is the utter pointlessness of it.
The point is to prevent ecological calamity.
Bird Dog: Problem is that the moonbats discredit worthy efforts at habitat conservation and the like. Serious air pollution, for example, almost eliminated in the US.
Huh? It's the political left that pushed for environmental laws, and continue to work to improve the environment.
Z: As the projected effects of climate change...
Gee, we've never had climate change before!
mudbug: Gee, we've never had climate change before!
That's right! The Earth has gone from ice ages to ice-free periods. What will those climate scientists come up with next!?
Apparently, that we're supposed to try to control the climate so it doesn't change.
mudbug: Apparently, that we're supposed to try to control the climate so it doesn't change.
Modern civilization has grown up in a relatively stable environment. Anthropogenic climate change threatens that stability. Humans will persevere regardless, but humans have the scientific and technical knowledge to prosper without destroying their own environment.
Some think they can tell the difference between this time this period of warming and any other period of warming. Some think they can actually do something about, and some change past data to make things fit their perception.
mudbug: Some think they can tell the difference between this time this period of warming and any other period of warming.
Those people are called scientists.
Actually, it was a statement of fact.
Furthermore, appeal to authority is not always fallacious, if the authority is an expert in a valid field of study.
The 'authority' can have an agenda other than promoting the truth, or the 'authority' can be discounting evidence that doesn't agree with his theory, or the 'authority' can decide that his financial bread is buttered by government government grants to produce studies that would increase government power, or the 'authority', could be wrong...
When you can't reason for yourself, all that's left is reliance on experts. That's why Z always comes back to an appeal to authority, no matter what facts or arguments he's confronted with.
Texan99: That's why Z always comes back to an appeal to authority, no matter what facts or arguments he's confronted with.
Actually, we nearly always appeal to the evidence. For instance, a warming surface and cooling stratosphere is a signature of greenhouse warming.
mudbug: The 'authority' can have an agenda other than promoting the truth, or the 'authority' can be discounting evidence that doesn't agree with his theory, or the 'authority' can decide that his financial bread is buttered by government government grants to produce studies that would increase government power, or the 'authority', could be wrong...
An appeal to authority is valid when
The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
Consequently, an authority can be wrong for any number of reasons.
There is no evidence of undue bias.
Another point for me. Thanks!
You haven't shown undue bias, in this case, applying across many different scientific fields, with scientists from different countries, cultures, and political systems; but if you did, it would tend to undermine an appeal to authority.
In any case, the evidence of greenhouse warming remains.
UK Equalities Chief Who Popularised The Term 'Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better’
Nonetheless, Phillips is confident that Britain can integrate new Muslims, just as they have previous immigrant populations, though admitting it will take a lot of work.
The poll is interesting:
“Wives should always obey their husbands” — 39% agree (strongly agree 15%, tend to agree 24%)
That's probably not far from where Western culture was in the mid-twentieth century.
“Homosexuality should be legal in Britain” — 18% agree (strongly agree 8%, tend to agree 10%) and 52% disagree (strongly disagree 38%, tend to disagree 14%)
That's probably not far from where Western culture was in the late twentieth century.
Tell me whether you sympathise with or condemn people who take part in stoning those who commit adultery — 79% condemn (completely condemn 66%, condemn to some extent 13%) and 5% sympathise (completely sympathise 2%, tend to sympathise 3%)
It probably wouldn't be hard to find a few percent of people in Western culture who would stone gays.
"It probably wouldn't be hard to find a few percent of people in Western culture who would stone gays."
I think you are wrong in a very ironic way. The people in the U.S. could care less about gays. If we think of them at all it is because someone on TV has made a big deal about it. But the real truth is I don't think it would be hard to find a few percent of the people in Western culture who would stone Christians. I think the left would applaud it.
Climate change fanatics have nothing but a hopeless misery. Even if all of their policies are enacted, nothing comes of it.
the zman is half wrong, as usual. the warmal coldist fetishist isn't doing this to save Mother Gaia from the coming ice age or george bush-induced global heatering, or hockey sticks.
the consensus of Science (I read this on PLOS) is that the warmer warrior is completely satisfied with branding himself as an earth savior fighting the good fight against an increasingly indifferent internet. it's entirely image.
nothing captures the essence of a Planeteer better than the image of guy reading hostile responses and knowing that, in spite of this terrible, terrible persecution, nothing will stop him from defying the Deniers. preach on, brother!
returning the earth to the halcyon climate days of the mid-Clintonian Period isn't the purpose.
it can't be, given the near perfect record of climate prediction fails. if we'd acted to stop the comin' ice age back in the '70s, we'd be living on Planet Inferno now. for every coincidentally correct prediction made 20 years ago, there are 20 fails. there's no sane explanation for these people. ridicule is the only solution.
All the 100+ climate models (computer generated) predict warming...but the actual measurements show no such thing. So what to do? Obfuscate? Done that. "Adjust" the measurements? Done that. Lie? Done that. Litigate? Done and doing that.
Simple answer to the climate change issue--follow the money.
rocdoctom: but the actual measurements show no such thing.
In fact, 2015 had the warmest instrumental temperatures on record, beating the record set way back in 2014.
I did my part, thank you.
I drove a muscle car everywhere, burned bag after bag of kingsford, kept the a/c running. refused to recycle.
I personally undid the gaiaistic wet dreams of hundreds of warmerists.
White Castle will just automate the hamburger making process and avoid the $15.00 minimum wage. The machine already exist.
re To Hell With the Republican Party
Well that may be what many think, but life will go on with a crippled GOP.
"The Mob" as the proles are referred to in the piece will remain pacified as long as the wealth transfer payments give them plenty to eat and a warm dry place to sleep. Something as trivial as rigging elections will not rouse The Mob to action. Despite the bravado one reads in the blogosphere, no one is going to trade their comfy life style for a prison cell or worse.
OTOH if the wealth transfer payments dwindle or stop and real economic hardship grips the land for some time, perhaps a Rumanian style revolution could occur. Maybe. Or perhaps the ruling class would prevail as they usually do. Anyone seeing the ruling class being disemboweled in Venezuela for instance?
The link above goes to an AOL sign-in page. As I wasn't able to parse the headline, I thought this was some sort of meta-joke that I just don't understand, but I suspect it might actually be an incorrect link for a recent book review:
I still don't understand the title of the article.
Stating the obvious... "Progressivism’s stupidity has no boundaries. "
The IT office where I work is heavily staffed by Asians. When we go out to lunch as a group it is always the Chinese Buffet. Their favored Chinese Buffet serves a multitude of international foods to appeal to lunchtime crowd. One day someone in the office (non-Chinese) suggested lunch at the franchise P.F. Changs and all hell broke loose! One of the elderly Chinese ladies just couldn't stand that P.F. Changs has Mexicans in the kitchen doing the cooking.
RE First Brown, now U. Oklahoma students whine about the ‘hardships’ of campus activism
this is funny. those kids are shadowboxing and getting their asses whipped.
re: "appropriating" other cultures' food. The fallacy in all this twaddle about who is entitled to cook what kind of food is that we are all mongrels. So no one has a pure claim on any culture. Anyone who has their DNA tested will find that their background is a mix.
But who is to say that one's culture has to derive solely from genetics anyway? How incredibly limiting of individual liberty! In earlier times, food was regional more than it was locked and tied to particular ethnic groups (with the exception of a few religious groups), simply because certain foods grow well or can be hunted/stock raised in an area.
If one's family lives somewhere for centuries, aren't they entitled to prefer and consider their own the cuisine of that area? My colonial British born dad certainly preferred hot curries to all other foods. Likewise, my Evil Virginia Plantation Owners on my mom's side ate food that certainly was not what is nowadays considered "white bread American", but closer at times to what is now called soul food. Who determines what is "white" food anyway? When white skinned people vary so hugely culturally from each other?
A couple of generations ago, average American food was generally a bland variant of German food, because over 50% of the population were of German descent. By contrast, when my New England Puritan side of the family were farming, seafaring, ministering, and trading, alternately massacring and marrying Indians in the 1600s and 1700s, the food was quite horrid: bland split peas, corn meal mush, maybe oatmeal, clams and salty fish, scrawny and tough wild turkey or deer for a great treat, old mutton once sheep were brought over, stewed chicken maybe once in a great while. Am I condemned to eat that dreary stuff because I am descended from them? Or do my French Huguenot ancestors entitle me to eat some more tasty "French" cooking? But what is French? So many regional variants. And what about my Scottish ancestors (please don't make me eat their food, tho I am grateful for their physical stamina, fortitude, and warlike temperament in our family).
Does living somewhere for a few years entitle you to cook that food? The Brazilian maid who helped raise me, taught me how to make feijoada (the black bean national dish of Brazil) which I am shamelessly appropriating and cooking tonight, while reminiscing about places she took me like Copacabana beach, songs she sang to me, and the wretchedness of the favelas she showed me (that turned me young into a rabid, albeit limousine, liberal).
The thing about food is that it is part of the universal ritual of hospitality, and should bring people together. Loved ones and strangers. How very wicked of the PC food police to create divisions and discord about something so basic, so enjoyable, something that sparks curiosity about the other.
I will cook Thai food tomorrow, Mexican the next day, Indian the following, perhaps Italian the next. The point is not who cooks which cuisine, but how well they do it, and that they do it with love and hospitality...
I am of Scottish descent born in the North East and learned to cook Italian food from mother who learned it when she was a child from her Italian neighbors. She also learned to make Greek food from her Greek neighbors. And of course there was Irish and English food (or at least Americanized versions of it) as well. When I moved to the Southwest I fell in love with Mexican food (or more correctly Southwest food since it is the native food of Puebloans and Navajos too). I have eagerly accepted the opportunity to learn how to cook a Mexican dish from Hispanic friends. Perhaps food brings us together better than any other social function, we should embrace this commonality not disparage it.