Friday, June 19, 2015

All Lives Matter

An excellent post at Sipsey Street Irregulars on why #BlackLivesMatter is stupid:

I had a run-in at a local thrift store (one of my favorite haunts) the other day with yet another black fellow wearing a "Black lives matter" tee-shirt. There's nothing that sets me off like racial identity politics, black or white, so I said in a reasonable tone, "You know, I don't want to pop your balloon, but ALL lives matter." You could see he immediately got pissed off, but before he could give me a rejoinder, I said, "That's why God invented firearms," and patted my right front pants pocket. He saw the gesture and said the first thing that came to his mind, "F-ck you, motherf-cker." I replied, still quite reasonably, "No, that's what the pistol is preventing, but I'm serious, all lives matter, yours, mine, everybody's, regardless of skin color. We all matter, don't you agree?"
This gave him a bit of pause, not being used to being asked to think about life in terms other than that of slogans. "I'm talking about cops killing young black men," he replied. "Oh I know what you're talking about, and I'm no fan of killer cops either, but when you put things in terms of race and race alone, you're no better than the cowards of the Klan."
Now he just looked at me. "You know," I said, "I've been fighting THOSE bastards all my life and I'll tell you something, they are damned happy to see you adopt their way of thinking about life in pure racial terms. And I'll tell you something else, they are happy as shit to see y'all murdering each other by the bushel-full every damn day. Hell, not even at the height of their power could they lynch you that fast. And I'll tell you something else as well. The ghost of every Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan and every wanna-be Neo-Nazi fuhrer who ever lived laughs like hell every morning when the abortion clinics open for business in your neighborhoods. They love white people killing black babies (and most abortionists are white) and they love black kids killing other black kids. Hell, y'all are putting ALL the lynchings of the Klan throughout history in the deep shade and you're giving the Holocaust a run for its money (and here I raised my voice for the first time) -- AND YOU'RE DOING IT ALL TO YOURSELVES. Lord knows that you're good for comic relief in the parts of Hell that THEY inhabit. And the Devil does too. 
He just gaped at me. And we were drawing a small crowd, mostly black women. And two of them were nodding. 
"And when you put it terms of 'Black lives matter,' that implies that white lives, and Asian lives, and Eskimo lives, and every other kind of lives don't matter. So we get the feeling that if this is all about some sort of race test that we can't hope to pass to your satisfaction because of who we are, not how we act, then screw you buddy, we're not gonna play that game. So the rest of us get the feeling that if our lives don't matter then why the hell should we care if you think 'black lives matter?' And it's just a little ways from there for the rest of us to conclude that black lives DON'T matter either." 
"That's right," said one of the black ladies softly. 
"So if you wanted a slogan that the Klan could understand and use to recruit with, well, brother, that's it. So that slogan is either the worst kind of stupidity or the bastard who thought it up is trying to separate you from your natural allies or get you killed, or both. I can't think of another slogan more calculated to get an American Hitler elected, and I HATE Nazis." 
Everybody was quiet now, but I thought, what the heck, might as well give 'em the whole sermon. 
"And I'll tell you something else" (I'm always telling somebody something else), "when I see these black racists of Farrakhan's bunch talking about wanting a race war I'd say they haven't looked at how the numbers stack up. Because let me tell you something about white folks at their worst. When they get scared that people are trying to kill them just because of who they are, when they get pissed off along racial lines, they don't tear up their own neighborhoods or burn down their own communities like y'all do. They come to the neighborhoods of the people who threaten them and burn THEIR communities down and kill THEM. They have burned down whole CONTINENTS. And if you don't believe me, just ask the Indians. So before you wear a slogan like THAT," (and I pointed at his shirt), "you'd better think this shit through. If you manage to make this all about race and some American Hitler decides to put y'all on railroad cars leading to some camp, me and my white-assed friends will have to be the ones out blowing up the train tracks to keep that from happening, and I'll tell you, I'd really rather stay home than get shot at because somebody was stupid enough to buy into some racist's idea of how to view the world." 
I concluded: "This ain't about black or white, it's about good versus evil and ALL lives matter." "And," I added, "you forget that at your own peril." It seemed like a good time time to walk away, so I did, leaving the cart behind. As I walked off, one of the black ladies said, "DAMN!" 
It was perhaps my finest extemporaneous speech (with the possible exception of the one I am told I gave after-hours in the militia commander's tent in Texas that time back in the fall of '96, but I was drunk on Jameson's Irish whiskey at the time and don't remember a word).
 Yeah, I despise the Nazis and the KKK as well, and not just because they were (are) socialists.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

M.E.s Don't Have To Return All Organ After An Autopsy

The New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York) has ruled that medical examiners do not have to return all organs to a family after conducting an autopsy. In related news, the television program I Zombie has been renewed for next year.

Election 2016: Rubio v. Bloomberg?

Based on the negative press from the so-called "liberal" media, Jim Treacher believes that Marco Rubio is the presumptive Republican nominee. I disagree. That the New York Times and other Democratic apparatchiks are attacking Rubio so early indicates that they are worried sick that Rubio will be the nominee, so they are going to do everything they can to assure is is not the nominee. Given that they are currently stuck with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic ticket, the Democrats' only hope to win the election is for Jeb Bush or Lindsey Graham to be nominated. Both are RINOs that will appeal to the Republican insiders, alienate the party base, and offer no real choice to the independent voters.

However, the Democratic establishment does not want Hillary. I don't believe this is an issue of Hillary having too much baggage to hide since, after all, the media did an excellent job of ignoring Obama's background. No, the Democratic apparatchiks are pushing the various Clinton scandals in order to driver her from the race. The conundrum is who would replace her as a viable candidate. Thomas Lifson, writing at The American Thinker, believes that Michael Bloomberg may be the Democrats white knight. Bloomberg has the money and the name recognition, and isn't dogged by the many scandals (and general dislike) like Hillary.

Friday, June 5, 2015

NOAA Magically Makes the Global Warming Hiatus Disappear

And scientific credibility be damned. From The Daily Caller:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

Female College to Admit Transgender Men

Barnard College has decided to admit transgender women, becoming the latest women's college to issue a new policy acknowledging the fluidity and complexity of gender. 
The policy, announced Thursday, says Barnard will consider applicants "who consistently live and identify as women."
Where have I see this plot line before? I wonder if they will admit transgender women who are also lesbian?

The Hypocrisy of the Left--Undeserved Income

Weasel Zippers caught some Tweets from "Lawrence Brown[,] ... an assistant professor in the Public Health Department at Morgan State University in Baltimore. He’s an activist who basically believes blacks should receive reparations, that America is segregated, that blacks suffer from historical trauma from white supremacist America." In these Tweets, Brown states that white supporters of #blacklivesmatter should deposit their "unearned wealth" in Black accounts.

I'm pretty sure that by "Black accounts" he isn't suggesting a hidden account in the Cayman Islands.

Hence, what he is stating is that it somehow wrong for the white supporters to have "unearned wealth"--e.g., inherited money--but it is somehow right for blacks to have that "unearned wealth." In other words, whites should have to earn their wealth, but not blacks.

Nearly Half of Women Think of Someone Else When Having Sex

According to this article from Metro News, 46% of women fantasize about a person other than their partner during sex. Interestingly, this other person is likely to be a work colleague. It is not surprising since women will settle for having sex with someone that they are not attracted to in order to gain access to the resources he can provide.  As the cited article from Just Four Guys points out:
In today’s SMP [Sexual Market Place], this creates problems because most women cannot marry men they are sexually attracted to. This is a problem for most men because they are beneath most women’s attraction floors. With all restraints on female sexuality removed, this creates situations in which you have a majority of women marrying men they don’t really want to have sex with. The average man can marry a woman he’s sexually attracted to, but the average woman cannot marry a man she’s sexually attracted to.

Keep in mind that in this post, “attraction” means sexual attraction. It refers to women who men want to have sex with; and men who women want to have sex with.

Hypergamy just means “attracted to higher sexual market value than one’s own sexual market value”.
The article goes on to note that while men have fairly forgiving standards for with whom they want to have sex (i.e., they will want to have sex with a woman even if she is below the man's sexual market value (SMV)), a man will never have sex with a woman below his attraction floor. For women, though, the attraction floor is generally set above their SMV, and perhaps at their own SMV. But, here is the key difference: a woman may not be attracted (i.e., want to have sex) with someone below their own SMV, but may be willing to do so. From the aforementioned Just Four Guys article:
The attraction floor is set, but that doesn’t mean a particular woman won’t go below “the floor” to seek men if those men have other things a woman wants at a particular time. A woman will go below “the floor” if and only if the man has other things the woman wants, most notably resources and commitment. Depending on multiple factors such as age, past sexual and relational experience, desire for children and status, and culture and familial pressures, many women will compromise attraction in order to secure resources and commitment.
The problem for the man in such a situation is that the woman may be married to him, but still not want to have sex with him. In the past, this wasn't necessarily a significant issue: marriage laws and societal norms prevented the wife from divorcing a spouse if she found someone better, or his usefulness ended; and simply being married constituted "consent" to sex. None of this is true any longer. Liberal divorce laws not only make it easy for a woman to leave a husband, but to also take his resources with her; and rape laws have expanded to include marital relations. It is possible for a man to marry and not realize any benefit from the bargain. Thus, the most important question a man needs to answer before marrying is whether his putative spouse wants (i.e., is not just willing, but wants) to have sex with him.
There are many different reasons a woman offers sex, only one of which is pure desire. Others include validation, attention, bragging rights, rebounding, and husband/commitment seeking from men to whom she otherwise wouldn’t give any attention. What is required is her sexual desire for you. And you cannot negotiate for that desire. And you cannot create it from nothing. She either desires you, or she doesn’t. You either arouse her sexual desires, or you don’t.
Due to a woman's hypergamous nature, if she is thinking of someone else during sex, it is probably because she is willing, but doesn't really want, to have sex with her partner.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Evolutionary Deadends

The Daily Mail carries three female writers' thoughts on growing old and single in response to Kate Bolick’s new book, Spinster: Making A Life Of One’s Own, which apparently argues that spinsters should be proud of their single status and enjoy their lifestyle.

One of the responding authors, Kate Mulvey, writes of how she was recently attending a birthday party for the son of one of her friends:
Amid the hubbub, I was shouting into my mobile, organising my Saturday night ahead. I laughed and joked about yet another date, but my laughter was empty, merely a mechanism to cover up the loneliness I felt. 
After all, I am 51, and quite honestly, I’d much rather be spending a cosy night in with a husband and children than running around like the teenager I so obviously am not.
She also notes:
I wonder if Bolick has factored in what will happen when old age catches up with her. The fact is, she is still in her early 40s, stunning with tumbling locks and full lips. Wait till the lips are puckered and the cheeks sunken. I often wake in the night terrified no man will ever want me again. 
Because — and here’s the nub — Bolick’s feminist mantra of ‘If bachelorhood can be celebrated, why not spinsterhood?’ is simply naive. I am sorry, but as cruel as it is, being single is different for women. It’s unfair, even disgustingly so, but it is also true.
The next two writers are still in their 40s. The first of these, Claudia Connell, who is in her late 40s, reasons that at least she is not stuck in a lousy marriage. She writes:
I’m glad, and rather proud, that I didn’t allow myself to feel pressured or panicked into being with somebody who didn’t feel right, as so many of my friends did. 
In fact, the very same women who urged me to be less fussy are now the ones who tell me how much they envy my life. 
They’re the ones stuck at home with moody teenagers who won’t leave home until they’re 30 and a boring, lazy husband they don’t seem to even like, let alone love. 
I have freedom, a good amount of disposable income and only myself to please. I know who I think got the better deal.
Melissa Kite, 43, writes:
We are capable, high-earning women who are opting for a life alone because we prefer it. Alone, not lonely. There’s a difference. Yesterday, I woke up, sauntered to an Italian deli for coffee, walked the dog, did some work, drove to the country and rode my horses, drove back into town, popped a chicken in the oven, watered the garden while it cooked. After dinner, I sat in my immaculate living room and read a gripping thriller in perfect peace and quiet. Finally, I made a cup of herbal tea and slipped between the crisp white sheets of my king-size bed with my spaniel curled up beside me. Perfection. 
If you ask me how that same day would have passed with any of my last three ex-boyfriends, my answer would be: somewhat tediously, very stressfully, and with hidden tears of frustration. 
I would have been drawn into a dozen logistical nightmares over accommodating his life before I could even think about mine. He would have wanted a far more complicated dinner than chicken with salad. I would have had to make pudding. I hate pudding. 
We would have watched a bad movie until the early hours, too bored and fed up with each other after a day of niggling over the small stuff to even try to have sex. 
Now, I ask you, what’s in it for me to live like that? 
I suppose, you would say, companionship or the joy of children. The problem is I have never had a great yearning for babies and my friends make great companions.
What all three seems to have missed is that men are the gate-keepers of commitment. Mulvey is at the age that men are not interested in her, and she is facing the sudden realization that her health will not last forever, and being childless was not an accomplishment.

Connell's rationalization that at least she is not stuck in a lousy marriage is pitiful. It is a tacit acknowledgment that she was incapable of a having a healthy relationship, or unwilling to put in the time to build a healthy relationship--i.e., that she had commitment issues. I suppose it is a good thing that she has only herself to please because it is only herself that will bother to please her.

Kite is the most delusional of the three. She likewise concedes that she is incapable of healthy relationships. Under her two scenarios--spending a weekend with her dog and spending a weekend with her imaginary bad boyfriend, she still winds up with no sex. That she reveals that it is frustrating to accommodate anyone's else's desires and values an immaculate house and crisp white sheets above companionship just shows that she is a selfish control freak.

It is also interesting what is not said: all the things these women contribute or do. They have traded companionship for self-pampering. They don't build or create anything, at least that they reveal. They appear to represent dead-ends not only evolutionary, but socially and creatively. Nothing will mark their passing.

Minister John M Swomley Justifies Abortion Because of "Original Sin"

Life News reports in an article entitled "Methodist Pastor Justifies Abortion by Saying Unborn Babies Have Original Sin," an interesting, albeit, erroneous argument that abortion is justifiable because of the concept of original sin. Swomley's argument is:
“The first claim is that society should protect innocent human life that is unable to protect itself. The term “innocent,” originally used by various popes, refers to fetal life which has committed no sin. Yet the Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed only one person, Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as having an immaculate conception and hence free from original sin. In any event, public policy cannot be founded on theological claims to innocence.

There is another meaning of “innocence” which comes from two Latin words, in (not) and nocere (to harm), and therefore means “not harmful or dangerous.” However, it is precisely the fact that some pregnant women (and their physicians) view the fetus as harmful or threatening to their health or welfare and hence leads them to consider abortion.”
There are some flaws to "original sin" argument for justifying abortions. First, we know from scripture that children are born innocent.
46 But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten;

47 Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me;
D&C 29:46-47. I believe it was James Joyce that pointed out that the concept of "original sin" as applied to children was incompatible with Christ's commandment that the little children be gathered to him, as well as urging us to become as little children.

Second, if we were to accept Swomley's argument, murder would be justified. That is, even if we accepted the doctrine of "original sin" and apply it to unborn infants, it would necessarily follow that anyone successfully born would not only have their "original sin" but all his or her other sins accumulated through their life besides, and thus even less innocent than the newly born.

His final argument based on a fetus potentially being a threat to health and welfare does not resolve the issue. Most people that are opposed to abortion would probably concur that a genuine threat to the health of the mother would justify an abortion. Some fewer numbers would agree that an abortion could be permitted under other circumstances where there might be severe emotional trauma, such as pregnancies from rape and incest. However, neither of these positions would support abortion where the pregnancy is merely inconvenient to the mother, or to further the Progressive/Liberal plan to reduce certain "surplus" populations.