Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Officer Darren Wilson, the Mossad Agent?

It's reflexive with these people, I swear to gorn...  

Every one of the world's problems boils down to one of their little pet issues.  No opportunity to bring up some shibboleth is ignored.  

Apparently, Officer Wilson shot Mike Brown because...

Picture shamelessly stolen from Tam.  Like a boss.

...wait, what?  

Because Israel, I guess?  

I will note that while this IS in Washington State, it is on the "other side" from where I live.  I take no ownership of this mess, and do not claim these people as my own. 

Big thanks to Tam, as always, for venturing out into the valley of the shadow to read about these things and bring them back for those of us not brave enough to venture there to consume and...

...enjoy, I guess?  

On the Proper Way to Protest

It pisses me right off that these things always devolve into looting and vandalism.

If you're pissed at the government, take it out on the government, not the local pizzeria.

Go throw rocks at the cops, with my blessing*.  But you start burning down buildings, that's not "protest".  That's ARSON.

You start stealing TV sets from the electronics store, that's not "anger at the police having shot an unarmed man".  That's "rank opportunism".

If you want to be perceived as having morality and ethics, and to have people take you seriously, then act morally and ethically, and be serious about it.

Burning down your neighbor's store is not the way to show "the man" that you're angry.  It's just a damn good way to hurt your neighbor, and make sure he leaves and takes his store with him.

*On second thought, let me clarify.  Yeah, don't do that.  Don't throw rocks at the cops.  The point I MEANT to make was that if you're mad at the government, take it out on the government.  At least that makes sense.  The point could have been made without approving of doing bodily harm to someone's Dad.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Bill Cosby

Doing a little looking into this thing today.  The upshot is that I'm convinced that Bill Cosby is a dirtbag rapist.  I don't really think, after doing the research that I did last night. that you can honestly conclude otherwise.

I think it's pretty clear that he got away with raping quite a few women in his time, and will continue to get away with it, legally.  But privately, and in the court of public opinion, he's ruined.

Fine.  It's probably just.

But that's the problem, then, isn't it?


That's a word that, when it comes to criminal justice, and the ruining of a man over his criminal activity, I really, really hate.  It doesn't feel right, piling on like this.  Without a trial.  Without a presentation of evidence and deliberation.

Everyone deserves that.  Even dirt-bag rapists.

So while this is meant primarily as a screed against Cosby, for his betrayal of all of our trust, I also want to make another point.

Feminists will tell you why none of these women are responsible for their having been sexually assaulted.  Why it isn't their fault.  Why to examine their actions in context, and to list the ways that they acted stupidly and participated in their own sexual assault is "perpetuating rape culture" and "blaming the victim."

Let's get this straight, okay?  A white guy in polished wingtips and a three piece suit, counting a huge fat stack of cash, visibly, as he walks un-escorted through the dark streets of Detroit DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE ROBBED.  Got it?

But he is sure as hel a dumb fucker for doing that, and I think it is a smart thing for all of us to examine this man, and see what he did wrong, so that we can avoid being robbed, ourselves.

Having this discussion in no way excuses the acts of his assailant.  He is a robber and a thief, and regardless of circumstances, he should be tried as such.

Fair enough?

Okay, so here goes.  I'm donning my flame suit for the inevitable accusations of "victim blaming".

But that's not my intent.  What I'm fixing to do here is make one point, to which you MUST agree if you are intellectually honest, and then create a quick list of things that these women did that I will advise my daughter to never, ever do.

Okay, first, my point.

I saw a news article today in the local paper, about students at Gonzaga who were protesting the GU policy on sex assault.  One young woman was picketing with a sign that said something along the lines of "Stop Teaching Young Women How Not To Be Raped, and Start Teaching Men Not to Rape".

Or something of the sort.

The entire concept behind this is horribly offensive to me, because it assumes that every man needs to be taught how not to take advantage of someone who is physically weaker than them, and how not to violently assault them.  It's fucking bullshit.  If there as a campaign going around about "teaching black men not to be thugs" it would be universally decried as the most racist, awful, offensive thing out there, and yet, a higher percentage of black men are thugs, than men are rapists.

I do not need to be educated on how not to harm other people.  I'm a human being, with empathy to other human beings, and it never even occurs to me that I could gain anything by hurting other people.

Which brings me to my point - rapists don't give a fuck about your education campaign.  You could educate them all you want, and you know what they are going to continue to do?


Is it really your theory that a man like Bill Cosby, who is by all metrics a very smart man, didn't know that he was doing wrong?  That when he (allegedly - trying not to get sued here) drugged and raped those women, that he did it because he had been denied the information at some point in his life that what he was doing was illegal, immoral, and wrong?  That if only he'd been "educated" on how not to rape women, he would never have done what he did?

Give me a break.  Seriously?

Rapists are going to rape.  Regardless of how many classes you force men into.  Rapists are going to keep raping.

Knowing this fact, (and I think you really have to admit that it's true, if you're being honest) isn't it a smart thing to do to instruct young women on the things that they should probably be guarded about when they interact with people?

Is it too much to ask?

From the stories I've read, every one of these women took pills that Cosby gave them, or accepted a drink from him that he made not in their presence, after they'd agreed to go to a private apartment/hotel room with him alone.  Every one of these women willfully went with him to the private apartment/hotel room alone.

The only one that was only assaulted, and not raped, refused to take any pills that he offered, and ran away once he started trying to force himself on her.  She also didn't go to a private room with him, alone.

So here's my take-away:

Women, if you don't want to get raped:

  1. Don't take drugs that strangers give you;
  2. Don't go into private rooms with a man, alone;
  3. Stay reasonably sober and capable of handling yourself in public (don't get black out drunk;
  4. Don't accept drinks that other people made you, especially if that drink was made by a man that went into a private room with alone;
And finally, my parting shot.  

These allegations have lit up a massive debate on the internet, about whether these women are telling the truth or not.  Whether they are really victims, or just fame whores, trying to get their 15 minutes in the spotlight.  This is fuel, added to the fire lit by false rape allegations, like the Duke Lacrosse case, and others.  

These allegations hurt other victims of rape.  They make it impossible for them to be taken seriously.  The public sees the damage done by false rape allegations, and the more false rape allegations that happen, the more they get jaded.  These allegations are not false, but they are also 100% un-provable.  The reason that they are 100% un-provable is because none of these women went to the police.  

So the lines are blurred.  It is up to the public to decide whether Cosby is guilty or not.  The public sees Cosby's career taking a hit, and they wonder if that's fair and just.  They wonder if he really deserves it.  They wonder if maybe, just maybe, an innocent man is getting railroaded by a bunch of opportunistic fame whores.      

Even if he isn't, the doubt is there.  Maybe these women are truly victims of a sociopathic rapist, but the concern that maybe they are not is right there.  The fear that maybe an injustice is being done sits in the minds of every decent citizen.  And that doubt will continue to erode away at their resolve when it comes to these "he said, she said" situations.  It will erode away at the credibility of every woman that comes forward and says "he raped me."  

So my final bit of advice to women - stop making excuses.  Stop letting fear rule you.  If you were raped, the only course of action is to go to the police, immediately.  If for no other reason than to stop your rapist from raping others, but also to lend credibility to other rape victims in the future.  

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

King George, is that you?

On the eve of Barack Obama's decision to scrap the Constitution and just usurp Congressional powers into unchecked, imperial executive powers, I feel compelled to song...  (to the tune of "Sound of Silence.")

Hello King George, my old friend,
I’ve come to suffer you again.
Making proclamations sweeping,
Leaving your opponents weeping.
Until they, once again take the throne,
And send you home.

These are the acts
Of tyrants.

I really doubt very much
That you’d give your opponents such
Wide and unchecked powers, sweeping
But that’s exactly what you’re choosing.
Unless, you think you’ll always be in charge?
Your blind spot is large.

These are the acts
Of tyrants.

I don’t want to hear a word,
You insufferable turd,
When in two years you’re seeing
The effects of what you’re doing
And the GOP starts ruling without leave
It’ll be bereaved

These are the acts

Of tyrants.  

Fucking idiot.  Stupid, stupid fucking idiot.  

Unless he's absolutely convinced that he will always be in charge, and that an opponent will never again hold the office of Presidency, this is an insanely dangerous precedent for him to set.  

It's dangerous for everyone, and he apparently hasn't bothered to think about that.  

What's he going to do if President Romney decided to use these shiny new usurpations to his own ends?  

Or President Palin?  

Is the democrat party incapable of looking forward into the future beyond NOW, to see the amazingly dangerous repercussions of this?  Holy fuck on a stick, people, this is how Banana Republics get started.  If he has the power to wave his pen and make things law, then why not just get rid of that pesky Presidential term limit thingy while he's there?  Okay, so you trust Obama not to do this.  How about Jeb Bush?  Or Bobby Jindal?  Sarah Palin, maybe?  Would you trust them to not "sign away" the next election?    

If you would not want your ideological opponent to wield a power, you should not be in favor of holding it yourself, because - get this - in a Constitutional Republic, that holds regular elections and has term limits, YOU WON'T ALWAYS BE IN POWER, YOU SUB-MORON!  

I respectfully request permission to face punch every stupid motherfucker that I see lauding this suicidal act of idiocy.  Pretty please?  

Monday, November 10, 2014

Mars and Venus

I’m certain that all of you know about the old marriage-therapy book “Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus.” 

The book used that title in an attempt to rightly get people to start understanding that men and women, while being the same species, taxonomically, might as well be from different planets for all that they are alike and share in common.  The book became well known in large part because it was successful in getting people to understand that your husband (assuming you are a woman) or your wife (assuming you are a man) will understand and interact with things entirely differently than you will, in a manner that you won’t understand, unless you first take time to learn and see things from their perspective. 
"When I'm sick, he tells his friends that his 'dishwasher is broken'"

I noticed a good example today, of a late 20-something woman CEO of a small business, who couldn’t figure out why the attractive men at her office don’t want anything to do with her sexually.  In her eyes, power, wealth, and prestige are huge attractants, because that’s what women want in a man.  She can’t see how men wouldn’t want a woman of higher status than them, or be attracted to a woman who is successful and powerful and wealthy. 

What she doesn’t understand is that she is reviewing her attractiveness as a mate from a Venusian perspective – she finds power, wealth, and prestige massively attractive, and therefore cannot figure out why the men she’s seeking don’t do likewise. 

It also reminds me of the “nice guy” who is meek, and seeks a woman’s approval, and is sweet and sensitive to her, and sacrifices his needs and desires to ensure he keeps her happy, and then acts shocked when women find him unattractive.  The fact is, he is becoming what he seeks in a mate – meek, sensitive, sweet, sacrificing…

…those are the traits that men are hard-wired to find attractive in a woman.  He is basing his attempt to be attractive to women on a Martian perspective, failing to understand that those traits are what HE finds attractive in a mate, not what women find to be attractive. 
I could do a long post on how not being a "nice guy" doesn't mean you're a dick.  It isn't binary like that.  There is
a lot of territory between being a wimpy, mincing, sycophantic "gay friend nice guy" and this douche bag
But the idea is that each gender is coming at the mating game with completely different views and perspectives, and if you don’t speak the language, and fail to understand the perspective of the person on the other side of the dining table, you’re going to be in for a pretty rough date night. 
"If she fucking talks about her cats one more time, I'm leaving..."

It occurs to me that the situation with Lena Dunham, admitting in her book that she systematically molested her little sister over a period of many years, and the subsequent shock that many expressed at the revelation (and the reverse shock from side #1 that people were shocked) is a just such a case of two different groups of people being so different in constitution, that they may as well come from separate planets. 
"Greetings, Marklars!"
I base this observation off of the almost clueless, genuinely surprised reaction of Dunham, et al, at the backlash springing from her revelation.  They act as if admitting to sexually molesting your younger sister over a period of years is so completely normal that they honestly cannot figure out what all the hubbub is about. 

This is not an act; they really are confused. 

To the modern-day, far “progressive” left, such a thing is perfectly acceptable, because it falls within a group of far-leftist shibboleths:

A woman (or other oppressed group) can do no wrong.

Lorena Bobbitt was perfectly within her right to cut off her husband’s penis while he slept.  But a man who mutilated his wife’s sexual organs in her sleep?  He’d be a fucking monster.

Likewise, if Lena Dunham were a man confessing to having sexually molested his younger sister when they were both children, the calls for his head would be broadcast from every rooftop. 

As it is, about half of left-wing America is defending her as some pioneer of women’s lib for some damn reason.  

It is for this same reason that Islamic Terrorism is not roundly decried by the progressive left in the same manner as a white guy shooting up a movie theater.  An Islamist who enters a theater shouting “Allah Ackbar” and shooting the place up is not to be talked about.  His ethnicity and motive are to be covered up. His story is to be told, and we are supposed to “understand” why he did what he did, and at least on some level, relate to it.

But a white guy does the same thing?  Oh, he’s just got a small dick and is a piece of shit and we’re glad he’s dead.  Oh, yeah, let’s make sure we take guns from everyone so it can’t happen again… 

Anything that a woman does that is “different”, or outside of societal norms, is to be celebrated.

Lena Dunham is “different” from most other women, and is not ashamed of that, so she works as a poster child for feminism (which has just become an offshoot of far-left progressivism) because she isn’t being constrained by “societal norms”, which progressives see as the greatest evil of all.  
She is comfortable with her body, and shows this by displaying it at any opportunity, even when the situation doesn’t necessarily call for it.  
Which, by the way, please stop doing?  Because eeew!
She is comfortable with her sexuality, and is vocal about that, too.  She is “different” than the hated, “repressed” woman who has the decency to not constantly talk about sex and be naked all the time, so she’s a feminist hero. 
I am patiently waiting for feminism to applaud the next female serial killer as a “strong woman who rejected the norms of society and went out on her own to blaze new trails for feminism and femininity everywhere.”
Nothing says "you GO, GIRL!" like a good murder, amirite?
Progressivism, at its base, is the rejection of everything that is, and the acceptance and embracing of everything else.  It is the arrogant belief that you know better than 5,000 years of humanity before you, and as a result, the social norms and traditions in place should all be shit-canned and replaced with whatever you think is best.  This isn’t a screed against progress where progress is warranted.  This is a screed against “progress” that is just for the sake of doing something different than the people before you, because fuck them. 
"What did we ever do to you?  We're relatively certain that you'd float just fine!"
 This is very common among the more progressive-minded folk – that rejecting the way things are, for no other reason than to reject the way things are, is a noble goal and a purpose in and of itself, even if doing so accomplishes fuck-all and even if doing so rejects traditional, in place morality that is pretty clearly black and white.
Like protecting our children from sexual abuse, for example, which I think
is a traditional social more that we should all agree to rally behind
For another instance, consider that the same people that pretend to literally fucking die inside every time a gun is used to commit a violent act against white people, are pretty goddamned silent about condemning more “ethnic” types of violence, such as Islamic terrorism and urban gang (read: black person) violence, since supporting diversity and ethnicity against what they call the “status quo” (which was, in their opinion, all white, all the time) is more important than opposing violence. 
Sexual obsession (for women, mostly) is a good thing.

Lena’s mother took full-on pornographic pictures of herself, and put these pictures throughout the house that she grew up in.  Everywhere Lena turned, she got to see her mother, “full spread” showing off what God gave her. 

Her father’s “art” specialized in stylized pictures of women’s genitalia. 
"Looks like we got ourselves a couple of weirdos, Guinevere!"
Her entire life, Lena has been surrounded by sexual obsession, and this obsession is part and parcel for the progressive left.  Look at their current list of sacred political cows, and you’ll see that very few of them are not sexual in nature.  Some examples:

  • Abortion on demand (freeing women from the negative repercussions and responsibilities of sex)
  • Free birth control, anytime, anywhere, subsidized by the taxpayer (think of all the times you’ve heard caterwauling about how women who don’t have their birth control paid for by someone else are being “denied access to birth control”)
  • Reduction to outright elimination of due process in rape cases (giving 100% of the sexual initiative and control to women, even after the fact)

In areas where reality does not match up to their perfect utopia, you are not allowed to speak of those examples without facing the wrath of the progressive.  You are not allowed to state that promiscuity is both physically and psychologically unhealthy.  You are not allowed to discuss the psychological and physical risks of abortion.  You aren’t allowed to point out the stupidly high incidence of AIDS in gay men, or discuss the fact that it is probably a good idea to not encourage young girls to sexually molest their little sisters.

Because to do differently would be to suppress Lena’s right to explore herself, sexually, and sexual exploration is the most important sacred cow of all.  As long as it is a young, white girl doing the exploration, of course. 

A young boy who did the same thing would be burned at the stake, because that would be a violation of the leftist shibboleth of the disadvantaged that I mentioned above.  By their way of thinking, the disadvantaged get to do things the advantaged are not allowed to do.  A woman can maim her spouse.  A sister can molest her sibling.  A brown-colored man with a funny name can blow people up.  And through it all, we’re not supposed to ask the question about why it is okay coming from these groups, and not from others, because they know that they cannot develop any sane-sounding reasoning to justify their opinion.  So instead of debating the topic, they just call you a racist misogynist hater, and end the discussion. 

It all boils down to Mars and Venus.  The two sides don’t speak the same language, and it routinely shocks both sides, because neither side seems to understand this simple fact. 

The progressives were shocked when the rest of the world looked at the facts of the Trayvon Martin case and did not convict George Zimmerman, because they cannot comprehend a situation where a black guy versus a white guy can end without the black guy winning, or injustice having happened (those being the only two options, regardless of circumstance).  They were shocked when Lorena Bobbitt was prosecuted for cutting her husband’s penis off, because they cannot comprehend a world where he was totally in the wrong for making her so mad that she did that.  Essentially, if a woman did something like that, it must have been because he deserved it.   

And likewise, they are shocked that the rest of the world looks at a case of the sexual molestation of a child and are revolted at the idea of it, and also of the comfort that the perpetrator felt in telling the entire world what she’d done – because in her mind, she hadn’t done anything wrong.  She had nothing to hide.  She’s a woman, exploring her sexuality.  By the leftist shibboleths, she’s heroic.