By some estimates, ISIS has murdered more than ten thousand people since declaring their caliphate. That's less than a fortnight's cull at Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood leads the way in body count, but Abortion Jihad would argue that most of its victims aren't fully aware yet. ISIS' victims are certainly fully aware of their fate, because cameras are pointing towards them during their ultimate indignity.
Meanwhile, Reuters reports that ISIS has authorized organ harvesting from live prisoners to save the lives of Muslims. However, there is no proof that any organ harvesting has taken place.
There is plenty of proof that Planned Parenthood alters abortion procedures in order to maximize organ harvesting. Abortion caliph Cecile Richards declared in front of Congress that the videos documenting this practice were "doctored." Ricards never denied the fetal tissue harvesting, which casts further ethical shadows on their mode of production.
Another thing ISIS is known for is the sexual slavery of women and girls. They have open air markets where they sell Yazidi girls. As of yet, there is little direct evidence that Planned Parenthood endorses this practice. But PPFA does consistently oppose parental consent laws, which would require an abortion clinic to notify the parents of a minor about to have an abortion.
Some minors who seek abortions have been impregnated by older men. Planned Parenthood is shielding men who prey on girls. PPFA practically condones child rape.
One hallmark of Islam in general and ISIS in particular, is that they have zero tolerance for blasphemy. Even President Obama declared that those who would "slander the prophet of Islam" were on the wrong side of history. Barack Obama is a well-respected lawyer and constitutional scholar, who understands that a slander is a tort. His Attorney General has promised to take action against "anti-Muslim rhetoric."
When Robert Dear shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, abortion activists seized upon what they thought was Dear's motivation and impetus. They blamed the videos compiled by Center For Medical Progress. That's kind of like blaming a video for the Benghazi attacks. I'm glad nobody has ever done that. But blaming a video is deflecting blame from a perpetrator who is likely clinically insane.
What nobody wants to admit is that a mode of production involving fetal murder and dismemberment will inevitably create a certain number of, shall we say, detractors.
Hillary Clinton has advised us to empathize with our enemies, and understand what motivates them. ISIS followers just want what every good Muslim wants, and that is a worldwide caliphate. Well, that's sort of what Planned Parenthood wants also! Many American citizens must be proud that our imperialism is finally promoting something they believe in.
And don't forget that ISIS is inspired by the "prophet" Muhamed, who put thousands under the sword. Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, had similar ideas about population control and race.
All things considered, the question of whether ISIS is worse than Planned Parenthood depends on your perspective. If you are a viable fetus, stubbornly clinging to your uterine wall, then you have a twenty percent chance of meeting a violent death at the whim of your mother. But a fetus can't read the bill of rights or retain a lawyer, so, sucks to be you.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
We're From The Government, And We're Here To Give You AIDS
President Reagan famously said, in a news conference on August 12, 1986, that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language" are "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
The problem, Reagan said, is "the government's long history of conflicting and haphazard policies."
Just in time for Christmas, the Food and Drug Administration has lifted its lifetime ban on accepting blood donations from homosexual men. This is terrific news for all the selfless gift givers out there, who altruistically donate their viral loads. Up until now, the only way they could share their generosity was by participating in unprotected anal sex.
I would use a different word other than haphazard to describe this policy shift. Absurd is more like it.
Kelsey Louie, CEO for Gay Men's Health Crisis, said, "The United States government has to stop reacting to HIV like it is the early 1980s." Actually, American homosexuals should stop reacting to HIV like it is still the 1970s. Perhaps Louie has a vested interest in continuing high transmission rates: Gay Men's Health Crisis is the nation's largest provider of HIV and AIDS care.
"It is time for the FDA to implement a policy that is truly based on science, not blanket bans on certain groups of people," Louie said.
You want science? The highest transmission rate is through HIV tainted blood. According to the CDC, the transmission rate of tainted blood is 92.5%.
The transmission rate of receptive anal intercourse is 1.38 percent. The next highest transmission rate is from using an HIV-tainted needle, at 63 per 10,000, or 0.63 percent. Other forms of transmission, such as receptive vaginal sex, are in the neighborhood of one in a thousand.
Therefore, if you have unprotected sex with an infected person, you might get HIV, but if you receive a blood transfusion from an infected patient, you will get HIV. So, no big deal.
Or is it a big deal? Homosexual men account for less than two percent of the population, they account for two-thirds of new HIV cases.
And nearly thirteen percent of homosexual males aren't even aware that they have HIV.
I might feel more confident if FDA Acting Commissioner Stephen Ostroff, M.D. received a direct blood transfusion from Dan Savage.
Love Wins!
The problem, Reagan said, is "the government's long history of conflicting and haphazard policies."
Just in time for Christmas, the Food and Drug Administration has lifted its lifetime ban on accepting blood donations from homosexual men. This is terrific news for all the selfless gift givers out there, who altruistically donate their viral loads. Up until now, the only way they could share their generosity was by participating in unprotected anal sex.
I would use a different word other than haphazard to describe this policy shift. Absurd is more like it.
Kelsey Louie, CEO for Gay Men's Health Crisis, said, "The United States government has to stop reacting to HIV like it is the early 1980s." Actually, American homosexuals should stop reacting to HIV like it is still the 1970s. Perhaps Louie has a vested interest in continuing high transmission rates: Gay Men's Health Crisis is the nation's largest provider of HIV and AIDS care.
"It is time for the FDA to implement a policy that is truly based on science, not blanket bans on certain groups of people," Louie said.
You want science? The highest transmission rate is through HIV tainted blood. According to the CDC, the transmission rate of tainted blood is 92.5%.
The transmission rate of receptive anal intercourse is 1.38 percent. The next highest transmission rate is from using an HIV-tainted needle, at 63 per 10,000, or 0.63 percent. Other forms of transmission, such as receptive vaginal sex, are in the neighborhood of one in a thousand.
Therefore, if you have unprotected sex with an infected person, you might get HIV, but if you receive a blood transfusion from an infected patient, you will get HIV. So, no big deal.
Or is it a big deal? Homosexual men account for less than two percent of the population, they account for two-thirds of new HIV cases.
And nearly thirteen percent of homosexual males aren't even aware that they have HIV.
I might feel more confident if FDA Acting Commissioner Stephen Ostroff, M.D. received a direct blood transfusion from Dan Savage.
Love Wins!
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Socially Conscious Investing
The greatest moral responsibility of a corporation is the maximization of shareholder value. Corporations have other responsibilities, such as consumer safety, and treating its workforce fairly. If a company is doing those things right, then they will also be maximizing shareholder value.
That's why I raise my eyebrows when I see how Starbucks wears its social activism on its sleeve. I'm not talking about the cup, either. Starbucks' social activism was manifest during the desultory effort by Howard Schultz, called Race Together, to get America talking about race.
But we're way beyond that, now. Starbucks is a leading proponent of homosexual marriage. Starbucks is "deeply dedicated to embracing diversity" and "proud...to support...marriage equality for same-sex couples."
Allow me to translate the smarmy inclusive language. Starbucks rejects traditional marriage.
Therefore, I will not patronize Starbucks, and not just because their coffee tastes like burnt piss. The question is, has Starbucks breached its fiduciary responsibility by openly supporting the degeneration and demoralization of traditional values? Schultz is all out of fucks, saying that Starbucks "did provide a 38% shareholder return over the last year."
Would a shareholder lawsuit contending Schultz left even better returns on the table convince him to be a little more discreet about his contempt for traditional values?
Perhaps, but there is a segment of stock market investors that esteems feeling virtuous over return on investment. Kiplinger publishes a list of mutual funds that appeal to "socially conscious" investors. The first fund listed is iShares MSCI USA ESG Select Index (KLD), an ETF that tracks an index of companies it says follow "high environmental, social and governance standards."
Who's in this ETF? By share weight, their top five holdings are 3M, NextEra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, and Ecolab. 3M is also known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. Isn't mining also known as resource extraction? How socially responsible is stripping the tops off mountains? Doesn't society bear the cost of the "externalities" of resource extraction, like pollutants and increasing scarcity?
Apple? I can't even. Apple is basically a smart-phone manufacturer. They employ tens of thousands of assemblers in the far east and pay them slave wages. Plus, they are building a corporate HQ that dwarfs the Pentagon and will permanently scar the earth. But they have somehow maintained their counter-culture corporate identity.
NextEra? I actually like this company. Apple I would short. NextEra could be a good long term investment (I am not giving financial advice). So how does NextEra make its money? Their second-quarter income statement reports earnings of $1.59 per share. Of that, $0.97 per share is contributed by their subsidiary, Florida Power & Light.
Florida Power & Light generates much of its own power using natural gas. Smart. Natural gas, on a price per kilowatt basis, is competitive with nuclear generation (which they also provide). NextEra is investing $500 million dollars a year in natural gas power plants. NextEra also owns and maintains natural gas pipelines. Pipelines are icky and dirty and they always rupture and kill endangered flagellates. They better make sure those pipelines don't come near San Diego bearing dirty, non-renewable natgas. Our city fathers have declared San Diego will be running on 100 percent renewables within twenty years.
Perhaps the socially conscious investor tucks themselves into bed at night knowing NextEra also generates renewable energy. They provide this because certain municipalities mandate renewable energy and allow utilities to subsidize their lower income ratepayers, shielding them from skyrocketing rates. So, what is the bottom line contribution of its wind projects? Ten cents per share. Ten cents per share won't even pay the dividend, not even close.
NextEra admits in its outlook statement that they depend on "public policy support for wind and solar development and construction." Public policy support means subsidies for low income utility consumers and government mandates on renewable energy purchase levels. When government wants to be partners with corporations, its tempting to call it fascism. Perhaps that is a bit strong. Whatever its called, it is certainly tyranny.
That's why I raise my eyebrows when I see how Starbucks wears its social activism on its sleeve. I'm not talking about the cup, either. Starbucks' social activism was manifest during the desultory effort by Howard Schultz, called Race Together, to get America talking about race.
But we're way beyond that, now. Starbucks is a leading proponent of homosexual marriage. Starbucks is "deeply dedicated to embracing diversity" and "proud...to support...marriage equality for same-sex couples."
Allow me to translate the smarmy inclusive language. Starbucks rejects traditional marriage.
Therefore, I will not patronize Starbucks, and not just because their coffee tastes like burnt piss. The question is, has Starbucks breached its fiduciary responsibility by openly supporting the degeneration and demoralization of traditional values? Schultz is all out of fucks, saying that Starbucks "did provide a 38% shareholder return over the last year."
Would a shareholder lawsuit contending Schultz left even better returns on the table convince him to be a little more discreet about his contempt for traditional values?
Perhaps, but there is a segment of stock market investors that esteems feeling virtuous over return on investment. Kiplinger publishes a list of mutual funds that appeal to "socially conscious" investors. The first fund listed is iShares MSCI USA ESG Select Index (KLD), an ETF that tracks an index of companies it says follow "high environmental, social and governance standards."
Who's in this ETF? By share weight, their top five holdings are 3M, NextEra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, and Ecolab. 3M is also known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. Isn't mining also known as resource extraction? How socially responsible is stripping the tops off mountains? Doesn't society bear the cost of the "externalities" of resource extraction, like pollutants and increasing scarcity?
Apple? I can't even. Apple is basically a smart-phone manufacturer. They employ tens of thousands of assemblers in the far east and pay them slave wages. Plus, they are building a corporate HQ that dwarfs the Pentagon and will permanently scar the earth. But they have somehow maintained their counter-culture corporate identity.
NextEra? I actually like this company. Apple I would short. NextEra could be a good long term investment (I am not giving financial advice). So how does NextEra make its money? Their second-quarter income statement reports earnings of $1.59 per share. Of that, $0.97 per share is contributed by their subsidiary, Florida Power & Light.
Florida Power & Light generates much of its own power using natural gas. Smart. Natural gas, on a price per kilowatt basis, is competitive with nuclear generation (which they also provide). NextEra is investing $500 million dollars a year in natural gas power plants. NextEra also owns and maintains natural gas pipelines. Pipelines are icky and dirty and they always rupture and kill endangered flagellates. They better make sure those pipelines don't come near San Diego bearing dirty, non-renewable natgas. Our city fathers have declared San Diego will be running on 100 percent renewables within twenty years.
Perhaps the socially conscious investor tucks themselves into bed at night knowing NextEra also generates renewable energy. They provide this because certain municipalities mandate renewable energy and allow utilities to subsidize their lower income ratepayers, shielding them from skyrocketing rates. So, what is the bottom line contribution of its wind projects? Ten cents per share. Ten cents per share won't even pay the dividend, not even close.
NextEra admits in its outlook statement that they depend on "public policy support for wind and solar development and construction." Public policy support means subsidies for low income utility consumers and government mandates on renewable energy purchase levels. When government wants to be partners with corporations, its tempting to call it fascism. Perhaps that is a bit strong. Whatever its called, it is certainly tyranny.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
The New NORML
Stumbled across this tweet today, from Christopher Ingraham's Washington Post Wonkblog.
I would expect someone using the title "wonk" self-referentially would be a little more "wonky." What Ingraham has done is to mis-represent a survey's findings. Then he published a story with the headline that would be amplified and re-tweeted throughout the marijuana-legalization web universe.
Right in the first paragraph, Ingraham asserts that there was "no change in monthly marijuana use in nearly every U.S. state compared to last year."
In fact, Ingraham continues, "the only significant changes were in Rhode Island, Ohio and Hawaii, where monthly marijuana use fell year over year."
In the age of ever-shrinking attention spans, this false "factoid" is going to be the takeaway. We've gone from Two Minutes' Hate all the way down to Two Seconds' Hate. The takeaway is that all the alarmists' predictions of increasing use after legalization were wrong.
Ingraham admits that in the two states that have legalized marijuana, Washington and Colorado, teen marijuana use "ticked up." But that increase, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, wasn't "statistically significant."
Ingraham didn't bother to check the survey's methodology, or even do some basic math.
The Colorado teen marijuana use for the years 2013-2014 was 12.6 percent. The corresponding marijuana use for the years 2012-2013 was 11.2 percent. The way to find the percentage point increase is to subtract 11.2 from 12.6. The result is a 1.4 percentage point increase.
Then, to find the percent increase, divide that by 11.2. The percent increase in Colorado teen marijuana use is therefore 12.5 percent. That is a little more than than "statistically significant." That is alarming.
Especially when you realize that 2014 was the first full year of legalization in Colorado. SAMHSA lumped 2014 in with 2013, so they included statistics from before legalization. It would be reasonable to infer that the increase due to legalization is much higher- perhaps 20-25 percent.
When one out of eight people under the age of eighteen admit to abusing a powerful drug with known consequences for their still-developing brains, you have a public health crisis.
What a "wonk" should do, is instead of measuring usage, is measure second-order effects, like test scores, teen arrest rates, teen involuntary psychiatric admissions, and property crime. That's the benefit of having a state laboratory of democracy like Colorado.
At least, we can hope, they are getting off the Ritalin.
New federal data: rates of teen marijuana use essentially unchanged in Colorado and Washington post-legalization https://t.co/AhlelX464S
— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) December 18, 2015I would expect someone using the title "wonk" self-referentially would be a little more "wonky." What Ingraham has done is to mis-represent a survey's findings. Then he published a story with the headline that would be amplified and re-tweeted throughout the marijuana-legalization web universe.
Right in the first paragraph, Ingraham asserts that there was "no change in monthly marijuana use in nearly every U.S. state compared to last year."
In fact, Ingraham continues, "the only significant changes were in Rhode Island, Ohio and Hawaii, where monthly marijuana use fell year over year."
In the age of ever-shrinking attention spans, this false "factoid" is going to be the takeaway. We've gone from Two Minutes' Hate all the way down to Two Seconds' Hate. The takeaway is that all the alarmists' predictions of increasing use after legalization were wrong.
Ingraham admits that in the two states that have legalized marijuana, Washington and Colorado, teen marijuana use "ticked up." But that increase, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, wasn't "statistically significant."
Ingraham didn't bother to check the survey's methodology, or even do some basic math.
The Colorado teen marijuana use for the years 2013-2014 was 12.6 percent. The corresponding marijuana use for the years 2012-2013 was 11.2 percent. The way to find the percentage point increase is to subtract 11.2 from 12.6. The result is a 1.4 percentage point increase.
Then, to find the percent increase, divide that by 11.2. The percent increase in Colorado teen marijuana use is therefore 12.5 percent. That is a little more than than "statistically significant." That is alarming.
Especially when you realize that 2014 was the first full year of legalization in Colorado. SAMHSA lumped 2014 in with 2013, so they included statistics from before legalization. It would be reasonable to infer that the increase due to legalization is much higher- perhaps 20-25 percent.
When one out of eight people under the age of eighteen admit to abusing a powerful drug with known consequences for their still-developing brains, you have a public health crisis.
What a "wonk" should do, is instead of measuring usage, is measure second-order effects, like test scores, teen arrest rates, teen involuntary psychiatric admissions, and property crime. That's the benefit of having a state laboratory of democracy like Colorado.
At least, we can hope, they are getting off the Ritalin.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
America's Great Leap Forward
The Great Leap Forward was Red China's economic and social campaign between 1958 and 1961. The communists wanted to "transform the country from an agrarian economy into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization."
The Great Leap Forward was the People's Republic of China's second Five Year Plan. They borrowed the concept of five-year plans from the Soviets. The Chinese communists introduced reforms to encourage the creation of a state-run and managed economy. To do this, it was necessary to "transfer property to collective ownership."
Chairman Mao found something wanting from the Great Leap Forward, and it wasn't the scores of millions who died from starvation. People still had the ability to think. That would all change during China's Cultural Revolution. The Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution was China's attempt to erase all vestiges of traditional culture.
Some of the changes made during the Cultural Revolution were seemingly harmless, like changing street names and the names of cities and people. Other changes were violent, such as the ransacking of Confucius' Tomb and the purge of Confucian thinking. Buddhism was portrayed as a cult of superstition and hostile foreign influence. Temples were destroyed and believers sent to re-education camps.
This is the lens through which I view what is happening in the United States right now. Today's news story was datelined New Orleans, as their city council voted to remove four monuments commemorating the Confederacy.
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said that the monuments to, among others, Robert E. Lee, had to go, because the Confederacy was "on the wrong side of history."
That is exactly what a marxist would say.
Councilwoman Stacy Head was the only dissenting vote. She proposed an amendment to keep the Lee statue and the P.G.T. Beauregard statue, while adding explanatory plaques to them. She's exactly right. The statues represent a history that must be taught to each generation. These men existed at a place and time that deserves proper context.
Because what's next? If the standard is that slave-owners don't belong in the public square, then Thomas Jefferson is next on the list. Democrats rightly ought to be ashamed of being the party of slavery, which is why they are very quietly changing the name of the Jefferson-Jackson dinner.
Then what. When you realize that some people view George Washington's name with contempt and feel unsafe around the American flag, then what's next is fairly obvious.
Forward!
The funny thing about cultural revolutions. According to Newtonian physics, a force will always create a reaction equal in size, that is opposite in direction.
The Great Leap Forward was the People's Republic of China's second Five Year Plan. They borrowed the concept of five-year plans from the Soviets. The Chinese communists introduced reforms to encourage the creation of a state-run and managed economy. To do this, it was necessary to "transfer property to collective ownership."
Chairman Mao found something wanting from the Great Leap Forward, and it wasn't the scores of millions who died from starvation. People still had the ability to think. That would all change during China's Cultural Revolution. The Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution was China's attempt to erase all vestiges of traditional culture.
Some of the changes made during the Cultural Revolution were seemingly harmless, like changing street names and the names of cities and people. Other changes were violent, such as the ransacking of Confucius' Tomb and the purge of Confucian thinking. Buddhism was portrayed as a cult of superstition and hostile foreign influence. Temples were destroyed and believers sent to re-education camps.
This is the lens through which I view what is happening in the United States right now. Today's news story was datelined New Orleans, as their city council voted to remove four monuments commemorating the Confederacy.
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said that the monuments to, among others, Robert E. Lee, had to go, because the Confederacy was "on the wrong side of history."
That is exactly what a marxist would say.
Councilwoman Stacy Head was the only dissenting vote. She proposed an amendment to keep the Lee statue and the P.G.T. Beauregard statue, while adding explanatory plaques to them. She's exactly right. The statues represent a history that must be taught to each generation. These men existed at a place and time that deserves proper context.
Because what's next? If the standard is that slave-owners don't belong in the public square, then Thomas Jefferson is next on the list. Democrats rightly ought to be ashamed of being the party of slavery, which is why they are very quietly changing the name of the Jefferson-Jackson dinner.
Then what. When you realize that some people view George Washington's name with contempt and feel unsafe around the American flag, then what's next is fairly obvious.
Forward!
The funny thing about cultural revolutions. According to Newtonian physics, a force will always create a reaction equal in size, that is opposite in direction.
Environmental Reporters And Other Oxymorons
The San Diego City Council approved a Climate Action Plan by unanimous vote Monday. The plan's ambitious goal is one hundred percent renewable energy by 2035.
The Climate Action Plan, or CAP, is little more than a city proclamation. It does not carry the force of law. It's like the city declaring that silver tinsel should be the city's official holiday decoration.
The word, "shall" does not appear in the CAP. The word, "should," however, does appear twelve times. It is not an ordinance. It's a municipal wish. The city could declare that today is "unicorn day," and it would be just as legally binding.
That hasn't stopped "environmental reporters" like San Diego Union Tribune's Joshua Emerson Smith to falsely declare that the CAP "creates legally binding mandates for reducing levels of greenhouse gases."
Maybe he's just following the lead of the Gray Lady.
One of the following inferences can be made by this distortion: either it's intentional, or it isn't. If he doesn't understand why the CAP is not a law, then, he's a jackass, and what the fuck is he doing pulling a paycheck? If he knows CAP isn't a law, but says it is, then he is an advocate. I know he's an advocate, he knows he's an advocate, and the only people that don't know this are the readers mistakenly putting their trust in him.
It would be more accurate to say that San Diego's CAP complies with existing law. The California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA of 1970 requires public agencies "to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts."
In other words, all projects must conduct environmental impact reports and adopt feasible mitigation. I think the key word there is "feasible." The Sierra Club took the County of San Diego to court within the context of CEQA. The California Supreme Court agreed that the County's CAP must consider the feasibility of the Sierra Club's own proposed mitigation.
The Sierra Club cited the main legislative impetus mitigating climate change, AB 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 empowered the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations that would reduce California CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Sierra Club also cited former Governor Schwarzenegger's executive order S-3-05, which set the goal of an 80 percent reduction of 1990 CO2 levels by 2050.
AB 32 is established law, and valid precedent for San Diego's CAP. Executive Order S-3-05 is extremely shaky ground on which to erect legal precedent; it's another one of those wishful decrees.
One final word on the feasibility of mitigation. Union Tribune reporter Smith cites unnamed "urban planning and environmental experts," who say that the "technology already exists" to reduce carbon emissions. One thing is clear. Smith didn't read the CAP. The CAP implicitly states that the technology does not exist. Further reductions in carbon emissions will require "improvements in energy technology and efficiency, transportation technology and fuels, building standards, consumer behavior, and future federal and state regulations."
The Climate Action Plan, or CAP, is little more than a city proclamation. It does not carry the force of law. It's like the city declaring that silver tinsel should be the city's official holiday decoration.
The word, "shall" does not appear in the CAP. The word, "should," however, does appear twelve times. It is not an ordinance. It's a municipal wish. The city could declare that today is "unicorn day," and it would be just as legally binding.
That hasn't stopped "environmental reporters" like San Diego Union Tribune's Joshua Emerson Smith to falsely declare that the CAP "creates legally binding mandates for reducing levels of greenhouse gases."
Maybe he's just following the lead of the Gray Lady.
One of the following inferences can be made by this distortion: either it's intentional, or it isn't. If he doesn't understand why the CAP is not a law, then, he's a jackass, and what the fuck is he doing pulling a paycheck? If he knows CAP isn't a law, but says it is, then he is an advocate. I know he's an advocate, he knows he's an advocate, and the only people that don't know this are the readers mistakenly putting their trust in him.
It would be more accurate to say that San Diego's CAP complies with existing law. The California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA of 1970 requires public agencies "to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts."
In other words, all projects must conduct environmental impact reports and adopt feasible mitigation. I think the key word there is "feasible." The Sierra Club took the County of San Diego to court within the context of CEQA. The California Supreme Court agreed that the County's CAP must consider the feasibility of the Sierra Club's own proposed mitigation.
The Sierra Club cited the main legislative impetus mitigating climate change, AB 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 empowered the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations that would reduce California CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Sierra Club also cited former Governor Schwarzenegger's executive order S-3-05, which set the goal of an 80 percent reduction of 1990 CO2 levels by 2050.
AB 32 is established law, and valid precedent for San Diego's CAP. Executive Order S-3-05 is extremely shaky ground on which to erect legal precedent; it's another one of those wishful decrees.
One final word on the feasibility of mitigation. Union Tribune reporter Smith cites unnamed "urban planning and environmental experts," who say that the "technology already exists" to reduce carbon emissions. One thing is clear. Smith didn't read the CAP. The CAP implicitly states that the technology does not exist. Further reductions in carbon emissions will require "improvements in energy technology and efficiency, transportation technology and fuels, building standards, consumer behavior, and future federal and state regulations."
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Hate Is Not A Family Value
Brian Cates (@drawandstrike) blocked me on Twitter yesterday. It made me realize why people block others. I mean, why block, when you can mute? And why mute when someone appears three times in your notifications? Ignoring someone is the most powerful response.
You block someone because they know they have been blocked.
It's a behavior I'll call clique-signalling. I have been told by Cates that I don't belong in his group. It reminds me of being in high school, when social climbers would exclude people like me from their pack. It's a manifestation of insecurity.
The really popular kids, secure in their place, are nice to everyone.
Cates is a prolific at clique-signalling. His Twitter avatar is Westley the Pirate from the movie The Princess Bride. His background is one of Westley's quotes from the movie, "Get used to disappointment."
People who quote movie lines to each other are practicing a kind of password "challenge and response" type of exclusion. It's a trite, shopworn technique for practicing group cohesion, and preventing outsiders from accessing the group's resources.
What are Cates' group's resources? As far as I can tell, an unreadable and mostly unread blog. The blog posts are usually articles with virtue-signalling themes, and grabber titles like "Conservatism Is Not Now, Nor Has It Ever Been About Race."
That title is so hackneyed that it could fit on a bumper sticker. At least if it were on a bumper sticker, it would attract more eyeballs.
The thing is, conservatism will always be conflated with racism. African-American voters are always going to vote monolithically for the Democratic party. The failure of the G.O.P. to attract these voters is always going to be used as evidence of the G.O.P.'s "race problem."
The only way the G.O.P. could hope to gain voter share among minorities, would be to promise to give away more stuff than the Democrats. But that is a false illusion, because it will be framed as pandering.
I'll just close by noting that I quote movie lines too. If I ever met a real movie star, I would never quote one of their lines back to them, and tell them "it's my favorite." Plus, it's incumbent on the person quoting the line, to do the voice. If we ever meet, ask me about my hair.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Virtue Signalling
I don't follow Chris Loesch. His wife Dana is a useful human. I like her. Chris seems to be defensive about the use of the word "cuckservative." He tweeted this today, and Brian Cates (@drawandstrike) re-tweeted it.
I like Cates. He is a blogger, but his posts are mostly compendiums of his tweets. It's like reading a transcript of a telephone conversation. Tedious. Or, maybe he's found the format of the future. His Twitter bio states that "BREITBART IS HERE." Why not post a photo of himself and Andrew together? Maybe that will antagonize his total repudiation of Breitbart's namesake.
Milo Yiannapolous is an editor at Breitbart.com, and he has called the word "cuckservative" a "gloriously effective insult." It's certainly more direct than Cates' weird insult in his Twitter bio, "Liked Your Mom." Is he saying that my dad was a cuck?
Hmmph. My dad believed that Israel should annex Judea and Samaria and expel all the Arabs. Yes, Arabs. Palestinians are Arabs. My dad was never cucked. My father was a fucking golem.
I replied to Cates' re-tweet that "Politics make strange bedfellows." What I mean, is that maybe we should focus on things we have in common with the Alt-Right. If you bothered to look beyond their surface distrust of the other, what you will find is love. Abiding love of people that are like them.
I encounter these people daily, and some of their expressed views make me cringe. Semitic images superimposed on bars of soap. Oven references. They don't bother me too much because I, too, am a fucking golem. It is necessary to find allies wherever they are, even if some of their viewpoints are repellent.
The most important issue of this election cycle is immigration. Are we a nation that wishes to secure our destiny, or leave it to the tender mercies of our conquerors?
I consider abortion to be a very important issue as well. I happen to believe that cultural will is the best way to chip away at the Abortion Industrial Complex. So, if #BlackLivesMatter were to come out tomorrow against second-trimester abortions, how could I not support them?
By this very same logic, this Jew stands with certain elements of the Alt-Right, for their resistance to the unrestricted immigration so much in favor these days. Because you know what? It doesn't matter how much conservatives virtue-signal to everybody that we are not racist. Prog-tards, muslim cucks and media marxists are going to call us racist anyway.
Stop apologizing.
The #WhiteGenocide people are the same as the #BlackLivesMatter people. Anyone using the term #cuckservative seriously is a useless human.
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) December 13, 2015I like Cates. He is a blogger, but his posts are mostly compendiums of his tweets. It's like reading a transcript of a telephone conversation. Tedious. Or, maybe he's found the format of the future. His Twitter bio states that "BREITBART IS HERE." Why not post a photo of himself and Andrew together? Maybe that will antagonize his total repudiation of Breitbart's namesake.
Milo Yiannapolous is an editor at Breitbart.com, and he has called the word "cuckservative" a "gloriously effective insult." It's certainly more direct than Cates' weird insult in his Twitter bio, "Liked Your Mom." Is he saying that my dad was a cuck?
Hmmph. My dad believed that Israel should annex Judea and Samaria and expel all the Arabs. Yes, Arabs. Palestinians are Arabs. My dad was never cucked. My father was a fucking golem.
I replied to Cates' re-tweet that "Politics make strange bedfellows." What I mean, is that maybe we should focus on things we have in common with the Alt-Right. If you bothered to look beyond their surface distrust of the other, what you will find is love. Abiding love of people that are like them.
I encounter these people daily, and some of their expressed views make me cringe. Semitic images superimposed on bars of soap. Oven references. They don't bother me too much because I, too, am a fucking golem. It is necessary to find allies wherever they are, even if some of their viewpoints are repellent.
The most important issue of this election cycle is immigration. Are we a nation that wishes to secure our destiny, or leave it to the tender mercies of our conquerors?
I consider abortion to be a very important issue as well. I happen to believe that cultural will is the best way to chip away at the Abortion Industrial Complex. So, if #BlackLivesMatter were to come out tomorrow against second-trimester abortions, how could I not support them?
By this very same logic, this Jew stands with certain elements of the Alt-Right, for their resistance to the unrestricted immigration so much in favor these days. Because you know what? It doesn't matter how much conservatives virtue-signal to everybody that we are not racist. Prog-tards, muslim cucks and media marxists are going to call us racist anyway.
Stop apologizing.
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
Critical Theory
I was drawn to an article in The Atlantic today which reviewed the first season of Amazon's The Man in the High Castle. Reviewer Noah Berlatsky compared the TV series to the Philip K. Dick book of the same title. Amazon, Berlatsky complains, inverts and "betrays" Dick's source material.
Amazon, Berlatsky contends, is pushing a "banal" story of "plucky Americans fighting for freedom against the evil invaders." Is there anything more irritating than someone who reads a book, and then uses that basis to criticize the movie?
Probably the only thing more irritating is a Marxist using critical theory to infer the author's intent, and then using that analysis to condemn America.
Berlatsky writes that, "One of Dick's characters muses, for example, that the basic insanity of the Nazis is that 'They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike.'" This, Berlatsky says, is "a reasonable analysis of Nazi obsessions," and also "a reasonable analysis of American obsessions."
Dick, says Berlatsky, citing Carl Freedman, links "the quintessential Western will to domination with the horrors of genocidal Nazism." This "will to domination" expresses itself in Dick's book in the Nazi plan to use nuclear weapons on the Japanese home islands. But in real life, it was America that used the atom bomb. Shorter version: America bad.
I submit that the "will to domination" is universal, not Western. The Soviet Union had agents in Cuba, Angola, South Africa, and every nation in South and Central America. They exerted total control over Eastern Europe. Their determination was worldwide communism. And don't forget that the very word "Islam" means submission. Islam's determination is a worldwide caliphate. So the only place where the only pure "will to domination" is Western is at the Department of Critical Theory.
The beautiful thing about critical theory is that every argument always begins with the outcome. The conclusion is that some Western institution is the cause of all of society's problems. Patriarchy, capitalism, Christianity, Europeans, Western Civilization, whatever, take your pick, these all represent the enslavement of mankind.
Virtually any text can be subject to critical theory. Ever see the movie Point Break? A group of surfers rob banks. The surfers are disguised as Ex-Presidents Reagan, Johnson, Nixon and Carter. FBI Agent Johnny Utah (Keanu Reeves) must infiltrate the group and while he does, he forms a complex relationship with Bodhi (Patrick Swayze).
The banks represent the systematic oppression of the proletariat. The Ex-Presidents are robbing the banks as social commentary about how the leaders of the American political system are colluding with the capitalist robber barons.
The Ex-Presidents live as one with nature, harnessing the ocean's energy to make manifest their symbiosis with the universe. They represent the natural state of man, before industrialization. The growing kinship between Bodhi and Johnny Utah reflects the complex relationship between Marx and Engels. When Bodhi comes to trust Johnny Utah, he reveals that they aren't robbing banks for profit, but rather, they are rebelling against a system that "kills the human spirit."
The best way to understand marxist critical theory is to realize that all its practitioners are walking around with undiagnosed personality disorders. Berlatsky seems to be defending himself from unwanted thoughts by using displacement. Maybe Berlatsky is still suffering from the trauma of being born. He was ripped from his natural state and he has been forced to become a cog in the wheel of commerce.
Once you understand marxist critical theory, you begin to understand why progressives "invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success."
Amazon, Berlatsky contends, is pushing a "banal" story of "plucky Americans fighting for freedom against the evil invaders." Is there anything more irritating than someone who reads a book, and then uses that basis to criticize the movie?
Probably the only thing more irritating is a Marxist using critical theory to infer the author's intent, and then using that analysis to condemn America.
Berlatsky writes that, "One of Dick's characters muses, for example, that the basic insanity of the Nazis is that 'They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike.'" This, Berlatsky says, is "a reasonable analysis of Nazi obsessions," and also "a reasonable analysis of American obsessions."
Dick, says Berlatsky, citing Carl Freedman, links "the quintessential Western will to domination with the horrors of genocidal Nazism." This "will to domination" expresses itself in Dick's book in the Nazi plan to use nuclear weapons on the Japanese home islands. But in real life, it was America that used the atom bomb. Shorter version: America bad.
I submit that the "will to domination" is universal, not Western. The Soviet Union had agents in Cuba, Angola, South Africa, and every nation in South and Central America. They exerted total control over Eastern Europe. Their determination was worldwide communism. And don't forget that the very word "Islam" means submission. Islam's determination is a worldwide caliphate. So the only place where the only pure "will to domination" is Western is at the Department of Critical Theory.
The beautiful thing about critical theory is that every argument always begins with the outcome. The conclusion is that some Western institution is the cause of all of society's problems. Patriarchy, capitalism, Christianity, Europeans, Western Civilization, whatever, take your pick, these all represent the enslavement of mankind.
Virtually any text can be subject to critical theory. Ever see the movie Point Break? A group of surfers rob banks. The surfers are disguised as Ex-Presidents Reagan, Johnson, Nixon and Carter. FBI Agent Johnny Utah (Keanu Reeves) must infiltrate the group and while he does, he forms a complex relationship with Bodhi (Patrick Swayze).
The banks represent the systematic oppression of the proletariat. The Ex-Presidents are robbing the banks as social commentary about how the leaders of the American political system are colluding with the capitalist robber barons.
The Ex-Presidents live as one with nature, harnessing the ocean's energy to make manifest their symbiosis with the universe. They represent the natural state of man, before industrialization. The growing kinship between Bodhi and Johnny Utah reflects the complex relationship between Marx and Engels. When Bodhi comes to trust Johnny Utah, he reveals that they aren't robbing banks for profit, but rather, they are rebelling against a system that "kills the human spirit."
The best way to understand marxist critical theory is to realize that all its practitioners are walking around with undiagnosed personality disorders. Berlatsky seems to be defending himself from unwanted thoughts by using displacement. Maybe Berlatsky is still suffering from the trauma of being born. He was ripped from his natural state and he has been forced to become a cog in the wheel of commerce.
Once you understand marxist critical theory, you begin to understand why progressives "invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success."
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
Obama Meets With Victims' Families
President Obama has met with the survivors and families of those killed in the recent shooting. He said, after the meeting, "I've got very strong feelings about this because when you talk to the families you are reminded this could be your child ... or your mom or your dad or your relative or your friend."
But these weren't families affected by the San Bernardino martyrdom operation on December 2. These were the families of the survivors of the Umpqua Community College shooting, two months ago.
Obama has met with the families of the survivors of Sandy Hook and Aurora, and delivered the eulogy for the victims in Charleston, S.C. He lobbed a phone call to Sandra Fluke. What urgent business is keeping him away?
The President is a very busy man, certainly. Today's schedule consists of the daily briefing at ten, a meeting with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter at three, and a DNC Roundtable at the Jefferson Hotel at 4:40.
I think the daily briefing item is boilerplate. It's well known that Obama routinely skips his daily briefings. Maybe that's by design. Maybe he believes that allows him to claim that the first time he heard about this crisis or that scandal was when he read it in the papers.
Maybe it is a way to deflect blame for mismanagement, such as laying responsibility for the rise of Islamic State at the feet of his Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.
"I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria," Obama said.
Which is total bullshit. Obama only wants happy talk from his intelligence assets. Intelligence reports are being changed by CENTCOM to "adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra."
That three-o'clock meeting with SECDEF Carter must be a situational update on the implementation of the U.S. military's newest battlefield asset. This new asset will be heavily scrutinized, as it will be replacing field combat units in all forward situations. The SECDEF must be able to demonstrate that he will be able to withstand criticism of this operational conversion, even in the face of the fact that the new unit will perform more poorly than the unit it replaces, and it will break down and fail twice as often.
This new field unit is the female combat soldier.
What I want, is for the President to be seen in San Bernardino. Talk to local authorities. Meet with victims' families. Meet with survivors. Receive a direct briefing from the local FBI person in charge. I'm concerned about Obama's seeming disconnection from the events that occurred a hundred miles from my front door. I'm dismayed that Obama is deflecting blame for the slaughter towards the guns used.
Why can't we be more like France? France has conducted 2,235 raids, closed three mosques, and seized hundreds of Kalashnikovs. And us? We've searched a house belonging to a former neighbor of Farook.
Obama's approach to any situation is desultory, unless there is a political objective.
But these weren't families affected by the San Bernardino martyrdom operation on December 2. These were the families of the survivors of the Umpqua Community College shooting, two months ago.
Obama has met with the families of the survivors of Sandy Hook and Aurora, and delivered the eulogy for the victims in Charleston, S.C. He lobbed a phone call to Sandra Fluke. What urgent business is keeping him away?
The President is a very busy man, certainly. Today's schedule consists of the daily briefing at ten, a meeting with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter at three, and a DNC Roundtable at the Jefferson Hotel at 4:40.
I think the daily briefing item is boilerplate. It's well known that Obama routinely skips his daily briefings. Maybe that's by design. Maybe he believes that allows him to claim that the first time he heard about this crisis or that scandal was when he read it in the papers.
Maybe it is a way to deflect blame for mismanagement, such as laying responsibility for the rise of Islamic State at the feet of his Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.
"I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria," Obama said.
Which is total bullshit. Obama only wants happy talk from his intelligence assets. Intelligence reports are being changed by CENTCOM to "adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra."
That three-o'clock meeting with SECDEF Carter must be a situational update on the implementation of the U.S. military's newest battlefield asset. This new asset will be heavily scrutinized, as it will be replacing field combat units in all forward situations. The SECDEF must be able to demonstrate that he will be able to withstand criticism of this operational conversion, even in the face of the fact that the new unit will perform more poorly than the unit it replaces, and it will break down and fail twice as often.
This new field unit is the female combat soldier.
What I want, is for the President to be seen in San Bernardino. Talk to local authorities. Meet with victims' families. Meet with survivors. Receive a direct briefing from the local FBI person in charge. I'm concerned about Obama's seeming disconnection from the events that occurred a hundred miles from my front door. I'm dismayed that Obama is deflecting blame for the slaughter towards the guns used.
Why can't we be more like France? France has conducted 2,235 raids, closed three mosques, and seized hundreds of Kalashnikovs. And us? We've searched a house belonging to a former neighbor of Farook.
Obama's approach to any situation is desultory, unless there is a political objective.
Sunday, December 06, 2015
Has Justine Landed Yet
It's been almost two years since Justine Sacco pressed "send" on the tweet that would change her life forever. On her way to Africa, she wrote, "Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!" At the time, she had a decent job as senior director of corporate communications at IAC, and 170 followers.
While she was in the air, sleeping, twitter exploded with the white-hot rage of ten thousand social justice warriors, thanks largely to an anonymous tip sent to Gawker's Sam Biddle. The hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet was trending, with people gleefully asking if there would be anyone there to greet her when she touched down in Cape Town.
Justine's story is at once a cautionary tale about prudent use of social media, and proof that saying the wrong thing can get you fired. Progressives shrugged off the public shaming, by saying that nobody is entitled to be protected from the consequences of their speech.
That's precisely what leads progressives like John Kerry to insist that the islamic butchers who murdered the staff of Charlie Hebdo were provoked by the prophet-mockery. Kerry believes that the killers had a "rationale" to their barbarism.
And that's what leads to progressives like Linda Stasi of the New York Daily News to claim that the attack in San Bernardino on Wednesday only left "13 innocent people" dead. Nicholas Thalasinos was not innocent, she contends, because he was a bigot.
Thalasinos, according to Stasi's in-depth investigation of his Facebook account, was an "anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be 'Freaking Awesome' if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security." Well guess what? I agree at least in part to each of those sentiments. According to Stasi, if someone burst into my workplace and shot me to death, well, I had it coming. That is somewhat disconcerting.
I never heard of Linda Stasi before yesterday, and I don't care to learn more about her now. But I bet she is against the death penalty, and in favor of physician-assisted suicide.
Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that a hypothetical young woman posts on her Instagram account that she is against the two-state solution, and wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and that she is a member of the NRA. Suppose one of her followers stalks her, attacks her, and kills her.
Was she asking for it?
Of course not. The person who perpetrated the crime is solely responsible for his actions. What Linda Stasi has demonstrated is a good example of psychological displacement, a defense mechanism which gives her a way to deal with unpleasant thoughts. There has been a great deal of this coming from the progressives in the last few days. They have to find a way to demonstrate that the San Bernardino massacre had nothing to do with Islam, while at the same time maintaining the position that the Planned Parenthood killings were committed by an anti-abortion fanatic representative of the entire pro-life movement.
People are noticing this disconnect. Evan Sayet used to be a huge liberal. All his friends were liberal, parents, and so on, and Sayet noticed something in the aftermath of 9/11. All his liberal friends were blaming America, saying that America deserved it.
Evan Sayet realized then that liberals really do hate America. Reactions to San Bernardino like Linda Stasi's are going to make a lot of people come to the same realization.
While she was in the air, sleeping, twitter exploded with the white-hot rage of ten thousand social justice warriors, thanks largely to an anonymous tip sent to Gawker's Sam Biddle. The hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet was trending, with people gleefully asking if there would be anyone there to greet her when she touched down in Cape Town.
Justine's story is at once a cautionary tale about prudent use of social media, and proof that saying the wrong thing can get you fired. Progressives shrugged off the public shaming, by saying that nobody is entitled to be protected from the consequences of their speech.
That's precisely what leads progressives like John Kerry to insist that the islamic butchers who murdered the staff of Charlie Hebdo were provoked by the prophet-mockery. Kerry believes that the killers had a "rationale" to their barbarism.
And that's what leads to progressives like Linda Stasi of the New York Daily News to claim that the attack in San Bernardino on Wednesday only left "13 innocent people" dead. Nicholas Thalasinos was not innocent, she contends, because he was a bigot.
Thalasinos, according to Stasi's in-depth investigation of his Facebook account, was an "anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be 'Freaking Awesome' if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security." Well guess what? I agree at least in part to each of those sentiments. According to Stasi, if someone burst into my workplace and shot me to death, well, I had it coming. That is somewhat disconcerting.
I never heard of Linda Stasi before yesterday, and I don't care to learn more about her now. But I bet she is against the death penalty, and in favor of physician-assisted suicide.
Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that a hypothetical young woman posts on her Instagram account that she is against the two-state solution, and wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and that she is a member of the NRA. Suppose one of her followers stalks her, attacks her, and kills her.
Was she asking for it?
Of course not. The person who perpetrated the crime is solely responsible for his actions. What Linda Stasi has demonstrated is a good example of psychological displacement, a defense mechanism which gives her a way to deal with unpleasant thoughts. There has been a great deal of this coming from the progressives in the last few days. They have to find a way to demonstrate that the San Bernardino massacre had nothing to do with Islam, while at the same time maintaining the position that the Planned Parenthood killings were committed by an anti-abortion fanatic representative of the entire pro-life movement.
People are noticing this disconnect. Evan Sayet used to be a huge liberal. All his friends were liberal, parents, and so on, and Sayet noticed something in the aftermath of 9/11. All his liberal friends were blaming America, saying that America deserved it.
Evan Sayet realized then that liberals really do hate America. Reactions to San Bernardino like Linda Stasi's are going to make a lot of people come to the same realization.
Saturday, December 05, 2015
First Amendment Exception For Islam
Our nation is at war, and the enemy walks among us. What, then, are we to do? Should we close mosques? Expel Muslims? Intern practitioners of Islam in camps, like we did to the Japanese? These are all fine ideas.
People who say, "but that's not who we are" ought to pick up a history book.
We are hostages of political correctness. We can't even get our Commander-In-Chief to level with us about the nature of our enemy.
Plus, there is the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The one that our religious liberty is founded upon. But I'm not going to argue that the First Amendment exception to Islam has a basis in the Free Exercise clause.
I'm going to argue that the First Amendment exception for Islam is based on known exceptions of protection of freedom of speech.
A well-known exception of protection of Freedom of Speech is known as the incitement exception. Words that are intended to directly incite violence are not protected speech.
For example, Robert Bork argued that,
"advocacy of law violation is a call to set aside the results that political speech has produced. The process of the ‘discovery and spread of political truth’ is damaged or destroyed if the outcome is defeated by a minority that makes law enforcement, and hence the putting of political truth into practice, impossible or less effective. There should, therefore, be no constitutional protection for any speech advocating violation of law."
What if I started a new religion tomorrow? I could put regular moral codes in there, like, don't commit murder, don't commit adultery, and I could fill a book with a lot of bloated revelations. But in that book, what if there was a commandment from my god to strike at the necks of abortion providers?
That is not protected speech, because it advocates violating the law.
But that's exactly what Islam is. It's a moral code that informs all political, moral and social activity, and it instructs adherents to murder anyone who offends their prophet or their god. This is not based on a loose interpretation of the Koran, it's based on reading it.
Time to shut it down. I am entitled to my safe space from these assholes.
People who say, "but that's not who we are" ought to pick up a history book.
We are hostages of political correctness. We can't even get our Commander-In-Chief to level with us about the nature of our enemy.
Plus, there is the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The one that our religious liberty is founded upon. But I'm not going to argue that the First Amendment exception to Islam has a basis in the Free Exercise clause.
I'm going to argue that the First Amendment exception for Islam is based on known exceptions of protection of freedom of speech.
A well-known exception of protection of Freedom of Speech is known as the incitement exception. Words that are intended to directly incite violence are not protected speech.
For example, Robert Bork argued that,
"advocacy of law violation is a call to set aside the results that political speech has produced. The process of the ‘discovery and spread of political truth’ is damaged or destroyed if the outcome is defeated by a minority that makes law enforcement, and hence the putting of political truth into practice, impossible or less effective. There should, therefore, be no constitutional protection for any speech advocating violation of law."
What if I started a new religion tomorrow? I could put regular moral codes in there, like, don't commit murder, don't commit adultery, and I could fill a book with a lot of bloated revelations. But in that book, what if there was a commandment from my god to strike at the necks of abortion providers?
That is not protected speech, because it advocates violating the law.
But that's exactly what Islam is. It's a moral code that informs all political, moral and social activity, and it instructs adherents to murder anyone who offends their prophet or their god. This is not based on a loose interpretation of the Koran, it's based on reading it.
Time to shut it down. I am entitled to my safe space from these assholes.
The Duluth "Doll"
2015 was the year when one person was simultaneously upheld as a model of femininity and scorned for perpetuating sexist stereotypes. All the more interesting given the fact that this person still has their penis. That's not to say that masculine ideals are not celebrated anymore.
Masculine ideals are perfectly acceptable when women aspire to them.
Take the commercial for Duluth Trading Co., promoting their women's plaid flannel shirts. The commercial opens with an image of a blonde, blue-eyed woman wearing the product. The kind of woman that most people would rather see wearing a dirndl and proffering ale. Then the voice-over begins, and it's a raspy female voice. Duluth found a female voice-over actress with the most gravelly voice, which appeals to the demographic that smokes cigarettes at nearly twice the rate as heterosexual women.
The "Doll" advertisement tells the 30-second story of a solitary young woman at her isolated mountain ranch. It's like an updated, feminist Western. There are a succession of images depicting her typical ranch duties. Surveying the ranch on her horse, clearing brush, stringing barbed wire, tooling around in her pickup, and chopping wood.
If you look carefully at these images, you realize that there is subtle messaging going on.
She's all hat, no cattle.
If you think her collection of lariats and lassos is impressive, wait until you see her collection of strap-on dildos.
Notice the absence of any firearms.
The animal skull totem has deep meaning. Lots of dykes are into wiccan. Also, there is the symbolism of the black widow. Meaning: this is what happened to the last man who tried to touch her, and good luck finding where the body is buried.
The barbed wire also has layers of meaning. It represents the Western archetype of keeping hostile, external forces at bay. In a typical Western, that means keeping out the Apache.
It also means her twat has sharp, pointy objects inside meant to keep out the warlike penises out there.
This is the money shot. She is literally chopping off the penis of her would-be rapist. Today's modern, self-sufficient woman is allowed to gratify her urges. Her envious desire to possess a penis is matched only by her yearning to hack down the penis forest, and clear enough safe space for her homestead.
Masculine ideals are perfectly acceptable when women aspire to them.
Take the commercial for Duluth Trading Co., promoting their women's plaid flannel shirts. The commercial opens with an image of a blonde, blue-eyed woman wearing the product. The kind of woman that most people would rather see wearing a dirndl and proffering ale. Then the voice-over begins, and it's a raspy female voice. Duluth found a female voice-over actress with the most gravelly voice, which appeals to the demographic that smokes cigarettes at nearly twice the rate as heterosexual women.
The "Doll" advertisement tells the 30-second story of a solitary young woman at her isolated mountain ranch. It's like an updated, feminist Western. There are a succession of images depicting her typical ranch duties. Surveying the ranch on her horse, clearing brush, stringing barbed wire, tooling around in her pickup, and chopping wood.
If you look carefully at these images, you realize that there is subtle messaging going on.
She's all hat, no cattle.
If you think her collection of lariats and lassos is impressive, wait until you see her collection of strap-on dildos.
Notice the absence of any firearms.
The animal skull totem has deep meaning. Lots of dykes are into wiccan. Also, there is the symbolism of the black widow. Meaning: this is what happened to the last man who tried to touch her, and good luck finding where the body is buried.
The barbed wire also has layers of meaning. It represents the Western archetype of keeping hostile, external forces at bay. In a typical Western, that means keeping out the Apache.
It also means her twat has sharp, pointy objects inside meant to keep out the warlike penises out there.
This is the money shot. She is literally chopping off the penis of her would-be rapist. Today's modern, self-sufficient woman is allowed to gratify her urges. Her envious desire to possess a penis is matched only by her yearning to hack down the penis forest, and clear enough safe space for her homestead.
Friday, December 04, 2015
Anti Muslim Rhetoric
The New Yorker cover illustration features a caricature of Marco and Jeanette Rubio happily purchasing rifles, hand grenades, and cartons of milk. The political statement signalled by the cartoonist is that he and the editorial staff believe guns are too easy to buy. How unaware of irony the editors must be, since this illustration needs just a few tweaks to accurately portray the San Bernardino attackers. Just replace the hand grenades with pipe bombs, and darken their skin a little, and viola! you have Farook and Malik.
I have a better idea for a cover than that, even. Just now CNN flashed to an overhead shot of the Inland Regional Center. A technician wearing booties was exiting the building. All around her were parked cars. Those parked cars have been there for two days. The persons who drove those cars to the Christmas party on Wednesday are all lying on slabs. They won't be coming back for their cars.
Investigators are still trying to determine a motive. Apparently they have determined that they have all the evidence they will ever need from the Farook residence, as MSNBC reporters are corrupting the scene. Reporters are opening underwear drawers, displaying documents on live TV. Top. Men.
When I heard that Farook was a health inspector, my first thought was how much, as a devout muslim, he must have hated his job. Muslims have very specific dietary restrictions, and they are forbidden to eat pork. Maybe having to grade restaurants that were serving haram food contributed to his hatred of the West. Or maybe he was resentful about having student loan debt. NPR was theorizing that he may have felt a sense of alienation. I get that. Everywhere he went with his wife, they got dirty looks because she was covered.
The only way Christian Americans can register their discomfort with aliens among us is with dirty looks and stares. We have been admonished for holding onto the instinct of self-preservation. They call it "islamophobia." That doesn't really fit me. I'm not afraid of muslims so much as I openly despise them. Perhaps I should start referring to myself as "mislamic."
Attorney General Lynch has delivered a brush-back pitch to those who may tire of our government's dereliction of duty. Lynch has promised to prosecute those who use "anti-muslim rhetoric."
This is the reason we are losing, and will probably lose this war. And we are in a war against islam. We are certainly not in a war with every muslim, any more than we were at war with the people of Imperial Japan or the people of Nazi Germany. But make no mistake that we are in a war, and we are forbidden to mock, criticize or deploy weaponized rhetoric against those people who want to destroy us.
Farook had a very nice job with the County. Not only was it illegal to not hire him, there was probably a diversity bonus for the person in HR who did hire him. There is nothing unconstitutional about discriminating in hiring or housing of persons based on their religion. The constitution only says the state can't prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Preventing a person's employment based on religion is a statutory obligation. And statutes can and should be thrown out in time of war. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Japanese-Americans were interned. Why should a person like Robert Adams be forced to work with people who are compelled to murder him? Why should a misguided goal like diversity mandate that Adams' 20-month old daughter, Savannah, grow up with a giant hole in her life where her father should be?
Why should Adams' wife have to be the one to come pick up his car, under such circumstances?
I have a better idea for a cover than that, even. Just now CNN flashed to an overhead shot of the Inland Regional Center. A technician wearing booties was exiting the building. All around her were parked cars. Those parked cars have been there for two days. The persons who drove those cars to the Christmas party on Wednesday are all lying on slabs. They won't be coming back for their cars.
Investigators are still trying to determine a motive. Apparently they have determined that they have all the evidence they will ever need from the Farook residence, as MSNBC reporters are corrupting the scene. Reporters are opening underwear drawers, displaying documents on live TV. Top. Men.
When I heard that Farook was a health inspector, my first thought was how much, as a devout muslim, he must have hated his job. Muslims have very specific dietary restrictions, and they are forbidden to eat pork. Maybe having to grade restaurants that were serving haram food contributed to his hatred of the West. Or maybe he was resentful about having student loan debt. NPR was theorizing that he may have felt a sense of alienation. I get that. Everywhere he went with his wife, they got dirty looks because she was covered.
The only way Christian Americans can register their discomfort with aliens among us is with dirty looks and stares. We have been admonished for holding onto the instinct of self-preservation. They call it "islamophobia." That doesn't really fit me. I'm not afraid of muslims so much as I openly despise them. Perhaps I should start referring to myself as "mislamic."
Attorney General Lynch has delivered a brush-back pitch to those who may tire of our government's dereliction of duty. Lynch has promised to prosecute those who use "anti-muslim rhetoric."
This is the reason we are losing, and will probably lose this war. And we are in a war against islam. We are certainly not in a war with every muslim, any more than we were at war with the people of Imperial Japan or the people of Nazi Germany. But make no mistake that we are in a war, and we are forbidden to mock, criticize or deploy weaponized rhetoric against those people who want to destroy us.
Farook had a very nice job with the County. Not only was it illegal to not hire him, there was probably a diversity bonus for the person in HR who did hire him. There is nothing unconstitutional about discriminating in hiring or housing of persons based on their religion. The constitution only says the state can't prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Why should Adams' wife have to be the one to come pick up his car, under such circumstances?
Thursday, December 03, 2015
God Isn't Fixing This
A violent act is a very difficult thing to process. When the bullets were flying yesterday in San Bernardino, I was experiencing detachment. Now that the attackers have been identified, my feelings are of rage.
Feelings comprise words, and these are emotions that are as the leaves being shed from a tree. Next to the tree is a large river that moves slowly over rocks and around other trees. Sometimes a leaf falls from the tree, and descends gently onto the surface of the flowing river. The river then carries this leaf along its meandering, inevitable journey.
I can observe my feelings as I observe leaves falling from a tree and drifting along. There is no shame in feeling a feeling.
I think about two murderers standing before a group of co-workers who recently gave them a baby shower. The murderers shower their co-workers with hot lead, and the Go-Pro cameras roll. Has the video gone wide? I cannot imagine being able to process what carnage the camera saw.
Aspiring islamic murderers who saw this attack will incorporate tactics that they think worked, and try to improve on the tactics that didn't work so well. Sure, they had pipe bombs, but they weren't rigged properly for remote or timed detonation. Sure, they had body cameras, but next time they will make sure to have the feed go out live.
The video which captured the assault would prove to be a potent recruiting tool. But it may turn out that the ultimate propaganda piece is the cover of the New York Daily News, "God Isn't Fixing This." The headline mocks Republican leaders who offer prayer in lieu of gun control talk.
Ever wonder why islamic murderers shout "allahu ackbar" whenever they blow something up? They are shouting, "God Is Greater." A lot of people think they are saying, "God Is Great." They are not. They are saying that their god, allah, is greater than your god. Their god wills the destruction of all who worship other gods, or like America, those who worship secularism.
The New York Daily News cover will be used to inspire jihad forevermore, because it tells the islamic barbarian that we do not believe our God favors us. They might as well put a minaret up at 4 New York Plaza and start playing pre-recorded muezzin calls to prayer.
The New York Daily News has announced the capitulation of the west.
If the Obama administration gave the slightest fuck what the American people needed right now, they would be emulating the French response. Within hours all over France and Belgium, doors were being kicked in and suspected accomplices were being arrested. A female suicide bomber in a French suburb detonated her explosive vest as police were closing in, and her head flew out a window and landed in the street.
That is what I need, today. I need to see female islamic butcher's heads flying through windows and into the street. But that's not what I'm getting. Instead, house nigger Susan Rice is being prepped for the Sunday shows, and Secretary of Defense Carter wants everyone to know that all combat jobs are now open to women.
Maybe the New York Daily News is right. Maybe God knows that America has turned away from Him, and He is content to let us fight a mortal enemy with our good intentions.
Feelings comprise words, and these are emotions that are as the leaves being shed from a tree. Next to the tree is a large river that moves slowly over rocks and around other trees. Sometimes a leaf falls from the tree, and descends gently onto the surface of the flowing river. The river then carries this leaf along its meandering, inevitable journey.
I can observe my feelings as I observe leaves falling from a tree and drifting along. There is no shame in feeling a feeling.
I think about two murderers standing before a group of co-workers who recently gave them a baby shower. The murderers shower their co-workers with hot lead, and the Go-Pro cameras roll. Has the video gone wide? I cannot imagine being able to process what carnage the camera saw.
Aspiring islamic murderers who saw this attack will incorporate tactics that they think worked, and try to improve on the tactics that didn't work so well. Sure, they had pipe bombs, but they weren't rigged properly for remote or timed detonation. Sure, they had body cameras, but next time they will make sure to have the feed go out live.
The video which captured the assault would prove to be a potent recruiting tool. But it may turn out that the ultimate propaganda piece is the cover of the New York Daily News, "God Isn't Fixing This." The headline mocks Republican leaders who offer prayer in lieu of gun control talk.
Ever wonder why islamic murderers shout "allahu ackbar" whenever they blow something up? They are shouting, "God Is Greater." A lot of people think they are saying, "God Is Great." They are not. They are saying that their god, allah, is greater than your god. Their god wills the destruction of all who worship other gods, or like America, those who worship secularism.
The New York Daily News cover will be used to inspire jihad forevermore, because it tells the islamic barbarian that we do not believe our God favors us. They might as well put a minaret up at 4 New York Plaza and start playing pre-recorded muezzin calls to prayer.
The New York Daily News has announced the capitulation of the west.
If the Obama administration gave the slightest fuck what the American people needed right now, they would be emulating the French response. Within hours all over France and Belgium, doors were being kicked in and suspected accomplices were being arrested. A female suicide bomber in a French suburb detonated her explosive vest as police were closing in, and her head flew out a window and landed in the street.
That is what I need, today. I need to see female islamic butcher's heads flying through windows and into the street. But that's not what I'm getting. Instead, house nigger Susan Rice is being prepped for the Sunday shows, and Secretary of Defense Carter wants everyone to know that all combat jobs are now open to women.
Maybe the New York Daily News is right. Maybe God knows that America has turned away from Him, and He is content to let us fight a mortal enemy with our good intentions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
A human being is truly a sentient being. All of us are masters of communication. We have internal mechanisms, to detect false notes pr...
-
The search string "scientists believe fracking causes earthquakes" returns nearly four hundred thousand Google results. The defi...