The Chapin Nation

Saturday Fluff At the Chapin Nation!

Courtesy, Ian Common photography.

Posted by Fire @ 3:12 PM

Shirin Ebadi has ruined secular movement in Iran

The appeasing comments of GW Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html


….It should be clear to all that Islam — the faith of one-fifth of humanity — is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries — in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.

As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize…”

This shows how utterly ignorant GW Bush, for the Iranian people themselves want Islam completely out of their government, and see it as a direct contradiction to human rights.

Posted by Amber @ 10:29 AM

Lobbying for Androgyny.

Here’s more in my “Adventures with Textbooks” series. It’s depressing I’ll warn.

Mike just put it up.
Throughout our history, what on earth did a dominant, bossy woman ever offer a man? Absolutely nothing. Was she going to fight the bear for you? Hell no. At best she’d criticize the way you were fighting the bear before the two of you got eaten. Even more likely, her personality would have got you into the fight with the bear in the first place. Not to mention all the altercations she would have managed to get you into within your own tribe.

Posted by Fire @ 9:31 AM

Evolution is Reality.

Amber, I honestly think you’re very confused about this. I’ll let you respond to this and then I’ll drop it as we’re boring our readers. Evolutionary psych is a description of why we do the things we do. It is not a religion. I’ve offered great analysis of this below which you have not responded to. Life is not a hallmark card. There is a reason why men are attracted to women and vice versa (yawn).

Evolutionary laws do not ever stop! We adapt to changing conditions and will forever. We can no more stop evolution with our minds than we can mentally stop our revolving around the sun.

Have you heard of environmental issues? If you have, then you know we’re at the mercy of our environment. Drink some lead and then mentally say that it would hurt you–see what happens.

No, Amber, the flamingos like many other birds, would migrate to warmer climates. Jeepers! That’s what birds do. That’s why flamingos are not found in Illinois or Penn to begin with.

We evolved and learned how to use tools, and as time has gone on our clothing and shelters have become more sophisticated as our brains have expanded.

Amber, ignoring human nature is to abandon reason. I’m embracing reason. This is not religious. Your distrust of evolution is based on faith…and personal fear, not reason.

Respect and affection in women is a part of a package men search for, but they must meet minimal physical criteria for all men.

I’m surprised fundamentalist Christian men (the only ones who outright reject evolution) would date you as–you’re an atheist. I’d distrust their motivations if I were you.

Objectivists, if they reject evolution, are fools. You’d do well to leave that group then. Theory is never a substitute for live. PhD means nothing as far as wisdom goes, ask a Womyns Studies professor.

Men are animals and no man only searches for looks. Who are you arguing with? Straw men, not me.

At 21, the world is at your fingertips, but get it done and quit the fantasizing or you’ll squander the youth that will beholden so many men to you.

Posted by Fire @ 9:29 AM

Non-Refutation Nation.

Amber, I’ll be here when your ready to argue this issue. You need to actually read some of the evolutionary works to critique their positions. A good start would be Matt Ridley’s The Red Queen or Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal. I don’t think you have a good grasp on any of these positions. Let’s take a look at what you said:

1. In your article, you are wrong. Human beings are part of evolution otherwise we would not share 99% of the same DNA as chimpanzees. If a cold front comes through then some animals will die and some humans will too. Dogs, elk, carabou, muskoxen, wolverines, bears of all varieties, and deer survive the winter as everyone else reading this blog realizes. Having a mind and producing has nothing to do with this discussion so I don’t know why you’d bring that up, but, of course, dolphins have minds and produce intelligence information for the US military. Thus your claim is non-unique.

2. The study of evolution was popularized in the 19th century in England and the US. The Soviets did not make any claims that are similar to what we call evolutionary psychology today. They celebrated evolution in the new Soviet man; meaning that a change in your individual life (hard work) influenced your child’s life. See “Trofim Lysenko” if you want to read up on it. No one would ever agree with that outside of the commissars in the USSR. Evolution does not in any way preclude Christianity. I believe that God make us and we evolved afterwards. End of argument. You have no knowledge of evolution from which to critique it. No one except Marxists consistently refer to production in their arguments. I’ve never heard this mentioned in the course of my readings in the field.

3. I granted that we can control some of our instincts–ie. the best looking girl or the richest man is not the best choice for a mate. One must balance characteristics, but even then it is done under evolutionary principles.

Men and women, for evolutionary reasons, look for

a. Intelligence

b. Kindness

but men seek

c. Beauty

d.Youth

Whereas women seek

c. Status

d. Wealth

Unfortunately, I have read your article. I think, at 21, you don’t really know enough about the world to discuss these issues. I’ll be here once you educate yourself. Be careful though, too much belief in your own abilities means you’ll learn nothing new.

Go ahead and run from guys who understand life. I think that’s a good move for you! No man I know says looks is all there is. Who are you arguing with?

Furthermore, Bill Maher is an idiot, so what?

As for rational women, they do not discuss things of which they are not educated. You are not rational if you think we choose what we are sexually attracted to–it is as instinctual as drinking water. As for rationality, you claim to be simultaneously a Christian and an atheist. In the words of Marvin Gay: “What’s going on?”

Furthermore, why would a rational man select a woman who has so little knowledge of human nature? This is an important question. Your positions, I’m afraid, are built upon your likes and dislikes and not reality.

Posted by Fire @ 8:05 PM

Read my article, please

Well, if you read my article, I make it quite clear my position as to why human beings are not part of evolution’s cycle. Classic example: if a cold front comes through, all animals die. Human beings won’t. Why? We can make fur coats. We aren’t at the mercy of evolution laws because we have a mind and are capable of production.

The study of evolution was popularized in Soviet Russia. That is because it serves propaganda purposes. One of them was to destroy Christianity, but another one was to destroy our productive capitalist world. The evolutionist, as a rule, does not understand production and see man, rather, like any other animal who lives in the wild. I outline this in my article, which I don’t think you read.

Ya, I knew you’d beat me over the head with the “but it’s the truth, these are the facts” stick. Again, read my article. I make a very solid case of why evolution is not the end all and be all of sexual/romantic attraction.

Frankly, I’ve learned to run from guys who start yelling about evolution. I have no problem with men liking attractive women. It’s when they think that’s all there is that it becomes a problem. As I say in my article, die hard fans of evolutionary sexual theory like die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate what separates humans from animals: their mind. Die hard evolutionist men have a tendency to not look for rational women. They can’t really understand to look for a woman who can offer them more, and that they can eventual settle into with in a mature marriage.

Classic examples of men who sport the evolution argument as the only governing influence on man include Bill Mahr. This man is a playboy, believing he is on earth to do nothing but spread his seed. He’ll never get married. He’ll always be a jerk. He’ll always look at women through a collectivist lens, never getting to appreciate, know, and ultimate love and marry one.

My advice, ladies, is to run from these kind of guys and run fast.

Posted by Amber @ 6:21 PM

Evolutionary Psychology is Great Truth.

Amber, thanks of making comment on evopsych. I’m sorry if you don’t like or loath it. There are many things that I loath (like radical feminism) but that does not mean that they don’t exist. I do wish that I could fantasize some of the bad things on this earth away though.

1.If we believe in evolution with animals then we believe in evolution with humans as we are animals. I suppose it could be used as propaganda by someone just as any reality could be. The Germans used the Treaty of Versailles as propaganda and, as we know, it was a real event.

2. Your argument on sexual attraction is as incorrect as an argument can be. We do not choose what we are attracted to. Sexual attraction is a biological imperative that allows us to reproduce and obtain the best possible genes from our partner. I did not choose to find women attractive, but I do. For me, it would have been easier to be attracted to furniture.

3. No, there is no such as think as choosing to feel desire, otherwise no relationships would end because there’s no chemistry between a man and a woman. People would simply concentrate and put the chemistry in there.

4. It is all animal instinct, but, like choosing not to eat when we are hungry or sleep when we’re tire, we can sometimes successfully resist our urges.

5. Men like younger women because they are the most likely to reproduce. I, and all our male readers, are the descendents of thousands of humans who successfully found fertile women with whom to mate. If they picked older distinguished women like the CEO of HP or Ebay their genetic line would have died out.

6. Attractive women and those who are physically fit have better chances of successfully surviving childbirth. For 200,000 years our personalities were forged and there were no antibiotics or hospitals to rely on. Attractiveness is a fantastic indicator of health.

7. If sexual attraction were a conscious issue then most men would not choose to become aroused by images on screen or photography. They’d save their money and say “I’ll choose not to find hot women attractive” and simply hang out with people they get along with better.

8.

Males being attracted to youth and fitness is actually very deep and not shallow in any way.

Without such an urge, we would not have made it to this point on earth.

9. Partially right about wealth but it is STATUS that is key to women’s interest in men. Wealth is also important. They love men who are SUCCESSFUL in life–be it in a band, politics, art, sales, whatever. Nothing more impresses a women more than status. Age is not an issue as most men are fertile forever. If a man went after high status women like Madeleine Albright, he’d have nothing gained as children would be an impossibility.

Ultimately, Amber, there is much in life that we do not like but we must accept it. That’s part of growing up. You’re young now and on top of the world, but, whatever you do, don’t use denial as its a dead end.

Posted by Fire @ 4:02 PM

Signs That the Apocolypse Is Upon US

Clan leader pleads guilty to incest

Tribune news services

November 7, 2003

SALT LAKE CITY — Jeremy Ortell Kingston, a member of a Utah polygamous clan that has its own church, pleaded guilty to incest with LuAnn Kingston, who is both his aunt and cousin and was 15 when he took her as his fourth wife.

Under a proposed plea bargain, Kingston would get no more than a year in jail and the felony would be reduced to a misdemeanor if he successfully completes probation. But the judge is not bound by that recommendation and could impose a stiffer penalty at sentencing.

LuAnn Kingston left her marriage in 2000, taking the couple’s two daughters. She went to police, hoping to set an example for other polygamous wives.

Jeremy Kingston told the judge, “I had a relationship, a sexual relationship, with LuAnn for about four years. That relationship ended about four years ago.”

After the hearing, LuAnn Kingston said it was “kind of a shock to hear him actually admit to it. He’s never admitted to anything like that before.”

The Kingston clan, with an estimated 1,200 members, is known as the Latter-Day Church of Christ, not to be confused with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), which once practiced polygamy but abandoned it in 1890.

Family members say Kingston has at least 17 children

Posted by CommonSense @ 1:40 PM

Doesn’t This Look Like Fun?

Let’s see Fire get his hands on boobs this big. . .

Posted by CommonSense @ 10:19 AM

The Evolutionary Sexual Attraction Argument

I loathe the evolutionary argument about sexual attraction. Actually, I mostly loathe evolution in general. I believe in evolution over animals, but I believe evolution biology is mostly used as a propaganda tool anymore, and it serves little use in man’s life.

My argument against the evolutionary sexual attraction argument in a nutshell is that it negates that a man can have a conscious, chosen set of values that he will desire in another person. Instead, it’s all animal instinct. Also, it’s shallow on both ends. Men, it argues, will only like a physically attractive women with whom to mate; women will only mindlessly like a man who is wealthy.

I have an article on it called Evolution’s Devolution.

Posted by Amber @ 10:03 AM

“All right, Fire, tell Nice Guy he’s next!”

Posted by Fire @ 6:03 AM

Let’s Jay Today!

Here’s our guy Jay on Alan Colmes, Rosie O’Donnell and everything else in Lu Lu Land.

Jay Nordlinger’s ultra-short, many topic, paragraphs are some of the most readable on the internet.

My mother and our old school nurse, Marge, are signed up for the automatic email of them. I think, if you haven’t read him before, you’ll be glad I directed you his way.

Posted by Fire @ 6:00 AM

Evolutionary Sexual Attraction.

The only kind of sexual attraction if you ask me. Cousin Vic sent this one over.

Pass this article on to some people you know who are social constructivists.

They won’t know what to do with it. Maybe we can, slowly but surely, get them to see some light. Second thought, I doubt that’s possible.

“What is the fascination with Jennifer Lopez’s bellybutton?” he asks. Because it draws attention to her hourglass form, a sign of fertility.

Posted by Fire @ 5:56 AM

Hating Rush.com
The media and the left’s hatred of Limbaugh is palpable and this story exposes the unseemly underside of the assault on El Rushbo.

If you didn’t feel a little sorry for him before–you may now.

Posted by Fire @ 5:47 AM

Common Sense Turns Leftist!

We see below that old quivery, Common Sense, has not only produced a piece attacking the President, but that he even quoted the diabolical LA Times while doing so. Well, friends, there’s a reason. He called me yesterday in an angry voice around 9 pm and said, “That’s it, Fire, I’m f—– getting the hell out of here! Chicago is nowhere’s ville.”

“Why?” I asked.

“All right…promise not to tell anyone?”

“Of course, Common Sense.”

“I’ve met someone special. Her name is Belinda and she’s a goat. No, don’t try to tell me I’m a sicko because you know that, if given the opportunity, you’d do the same damn thing.”

I was shocked. “What can I say? I guess I don’t understand.”

“Look, Fire. We’re moving to the Left Coast where a man and his goat can live as one and maybe even get a free housing stipend from Gray Davis.”

“Gee, I don’t know what to say, CS.”

“Well, I’ll still blog for you but now I’ve got to be a leftist. No more Libertarianism for me. Yuck! That won’t fly in Santa Barbara…or at the homeless shelter in Compton where I may stay with my homeboys for awhile.”

“Umm, that’s okay, we don’t need any leftists. There’s enough of them out there without being on the blog.”

“Don’t be a wuss, Fire. Tomorrow, Belinda and I, after her mid-day milking, will start critiquing you from the left. Maybe I’ll start with a piece criticizing Bush on the environment…Say, Fire, what exactly do goats eat?”

Posted by Fire @ 6:51 PM

More Dirty Air. . .

What the hell is Bush thinking? Does he really think polluting is ok? Bush’s environmental policy is disgusting. Apparently he went to Mexico City and said, “hmmm, perhaps because there are so many Mexicans in America, we should have air like they are used to breathing.”

Bush abandons pollution cases

Dozens of coal-fired plants in the clear thanks to Clean Air Act change

By Elizabeth Shogren, Tribune Newspapers

Los Angeles Times

November 6, 2003

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has dropped enforcement actions against dozens of coal-fired power plants that were under investigation for violating the Clean Air Act and allegedly spewing thousands of tons of illegal pollution into the air, officials from the Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday.

The Bush administration previously had said it would vigorously pursue the enforcement actions, which were launched by the Clinton administration.

However, the Bush administration recently eased a provision of the Clean Air Act that requires companies to install modern pollution controls when they build plants or expand or modernize old ones. Under the new policy, the alleged release of pollution that sparked the enforcement would be legal.

For months, top Bush administration officials had said that the new rules would apply only prospectively–that past violations still would be pursued. But EPA officials told regional enforcement officials in a meeting Tuesday evening in Seattle and Wednesday in a conference call that the agency would no longer pursue cases of past violations under the old rule.

EPA attorneys were surprised by the change in policy.

“Up until now, people were saying it’s business as usual,” said one EPA attorney who participated in the conference call.

The only violations of the old rule that will definitely still be prosecuted are the seven cases against electric utilities already in court.

“This confirms my worst fears,” said Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.). “First the administration weakens our clean air law, and now it won’t enforce it.”

The announcement provides a tangible example of the impact of the Bush administration’s efforts to ease regulations, environmental activists said.

The Bush administration plan would allow companies to spend as much as 20 percent of the cost of a polluting unit on repairing and modernizing it before they would be required to install new pollution controls.

The EPA press office said in a statement: “There has been no decision by the agency to drop all new source review enforcement cases. As the agency has consistently stated, we are vigorously pursing all filed cases and we will evaluate each pending investigation on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it will be pursued or set aside.”

However, two EPA attorneys and a senior adviser to EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko confirmed that the investigations against coal-fired power plants had been abandoned.

Posted by CommonSense @ 4:05 PM

This just in from Sri Lanka:

President Chandrika Kumaratunga has suspended parliament, sacked the ministers and declared a state of emergency.

Yes, another excellent example of why women make morally superior leaders of humanity.

Posted by NiceGuy @ 9:37 AM

Two Sided Race Politics

Apparently Howard Dean is some sort of trouble for saying the Democrats should pay attention to the white Southerners who fly the Confederate flag. Barring those that are Lynard Skynard fans, Dean says the Democrats should find out why those people are so angry and try and get them back in the fold. That hardly seems racist to me. Actually, it seems like some sort of reconciliation.

However, Al Sharpton doesn’t think so. Al Sharpton is appalled that Dean would choose to acknowledge people who so blatantly flaunt a racist symbol like the Confederate flag. I’m sure Al Sharpton is demanding an apology from Dean.

My question is, why are the Democrats even tolerating Sharpton’s presence in the Democratic primaries? Never mind that Sharpton has absolutely no chance of winning. Sharpton is running as an attempt to usurp Jesse Jackson’s power in the black community. Sharpton wants to become the new “go to guy” whenever white America is extorted. It made Jackson rich. Now Sharpton wants his piece of the action.

But more importantly, Al Sharpton is the biggest racist since David Duke to be on the national political radar screen. Sharpton of course is the main perpetrator behind the infamous Tawaney Brawley hoax where a black teenager was supposedly kidnapped, raped, smeared with excrement, and left in a dumpster by a group of white men.

The incident never happened. It was completely made up. Sharpton said it didn’t matter that it was made up. The event was symbolic of black/white relationships in the U.S. It certainly is symbolic – symbolic of blacks blaming whites for all their problems. Never mind that Sharpton publicly called a man a rapist, then admitted it was a lie, he has yet to apologize to the accused or the American public.

Before Sharpton calls anyone a racist, he ought to take a long, hard look in the mirror. Calling Dean a racist sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. But if Sharpton won’t apologize for the Tawaney Brawley case, we can’t expect him to apologize to Dean either.

Meanwhile, the Democrats will continue to ignore the sins of one of their own. Isn’t that right Sen. Byrd?

Posted by CommonSense @ 8:50 AM

History of Beer.
I know I linked to this two months ago on our old blog but I didn’t want any of our new MND readers to miss this sensational article.

Like beer? Wish I didn’t, but if you do, you’ll enjoy this magnum opus of the world’s finest beverage. It begins with the Mayflower and then gets better and better.

Posted by Fire @ 5:45 AM

MTV the Vote!
Jonah’s back with why he hates “youth politics.”

This also isn’t bad coverage of the “Rock the Vote” debate the other night. I’m sure that most of us didn’t watch it. Why don’t politicians pay more attention to the young? It’s due to the fact that they’re erratic voters; whereas, the elderly reliably fill out their ballots every two years. As always, fine humor from the man at NRO.

Posted by Fire @ 5:44 AM

The Democrats Anti-Southern Strategy.
Yeah, this’ll work:

fillibuster southern judges, continue to pretend the south is a land of segregation and endorse leftist dogs as candidates. George, get ready to sublet the place in Crawford for another four years. Guess what the leftist elitists think about the south? They think they’re a bunch of dumb rednecks. Guess what they think about you and I or anyone who doesn’t vote Democratic? Same answer.

Posted by Fire @ 5:39 AM

I Hate Barbara Ehrenreich, And So Should You.
Magnificent article.

I walked into a classroom in November 2001 and saw that the professor before me had scratched the name of Babs’ book on the blackboard as a recommendation. It was a “let’s all hate America and reality together” moment. Sickening. Anyway, the writer here deftly reveals her to be the socialist totalitarian she is. Must read!

Posted by Fire @ 5:31 AM

The Accused Have Rights Too.
Cathy Young, who has been known to irritate a few of our readers, comes in with a strong piece on those accused in rape trials.
Rape is a despicable crime, and an accusation of rape should be taken very seriously—but the rights of the accused should be rigorously protected. After the 1997 trial of sportscaster Marv Albert, defending the judge’s decision to admit compromising information about Albert’s sexual past but not about his accuser’s, feminist attorney Gloria Allred decried “the notion that there’s some sort of moral equivalency between the defendant and the victim.” Yet as long as the defendant hasn’t been convicted, he and the victim are indeed moral equals in the eyes of the law.

What’s more despicable than Gloria Allred?

Posted by Fire @ 5:27 AM

The War on Men: Removing the Protectors

My new article on MND

Someone sent me this article related to what I say.

It is about Lt. Col. Allen B. West, whose only crime – like the “Doctor”‘s (above) – was his ability. West effectively interrogated an Iraqi (saving US soldiers lives in the process) by shooting a pistol near his head, and now he is being punished.

Good men – protectors – being criminalized. All an effort to leave us helpless both to domestic and foreign criminals.

Posted by Amber @ 11:56 PM

What the hell is in that Ohio air?

Fire, if I am not mistaken, several years ago there was an S&M;, B&D; club at Kenyon.

Also boys had to ask girls if they could touch them.

I really don’t know what to say about all this Oberlin-Kenyon stuff except I am thinking of applying for admission to study with some old yogi somewhere high, high, high up in the Himalayas.

Posted by Gus @ 4:34 PM

Failing Schools, Failing Students, But Who’s To Blame?

A whopping 44% of Illinois schools failed to meet academic standards in 2002. As the Chicago Tribune reports “Most 11th graders from low-income families failed the high school reading and math tests. The vast majority of 8th graders who speak limited English flunked the state’s ISAT reading test. Most special-education students in the 3rd grade couldn’t pass the state math test.”

Under pressure from the No Child Left Behind reforms, the State is trying to prove that children from all backgrounds can perform equally. Apparently they cannot.

Which begs the question, why are we trying?

I will bet dollars to donuts that the “it’s societies fault” liberals will point their crooked fingers at the schools, saying it is the teachers fault. To top it off the Chicago Public School teachers are set to strike on Nov. 18. Loyalties will be strained by these same liberals as they try to defend the teachers while saying “well, how can you expect students to get an education when there are no teachers?”

It is high time that we stop pointing our fingers at the teachers. If anyone ever spent time in an inner city school, e.g. Chicago, one would empathisize with the teachers. They get paid squat to put up with retched little trolls who show no respect for authority and have no desire to learn. When a child does show an interest in learning, he is quickly chastised for selling out “to the man.” Teachers cannot be expected to teach in that type of environment and all the school reforms in the world are not going to change a thing.

I guarantee the low-income and non-English speaking students who bare the burden of Illinois’ “failing schools” come from homes where education is not valued. The parents don’t care so the students don’t care. It is the culture of poverty that feeds itself.

And because it is taboo to “blame the victim,” the real problem will continue to be ignored. Instead, our resources will continue to funneled into programs that don’t show results. What good does a computer do in a classroom where the kids can’t read?

The answer lies with the parents. New York City has developed a program where a parent is paid to act as a liaison between the school and other parents. It is that parent’s job to get other parents involved in their child’s education. If we are going to throw money at our failing schools, perhaps this is the type of program that needs to be paid more attention to. It is the only program that seems to be addressing the issue of why Johnny can’t read.

Posted by CommonSense @ 2:00 PM

Womyn’s Studies Program Reveals New Logo!

Other than insulting the like of us they always said they weren’t interested in fat.

Posted by Fire @ 5:05 AM

Gay Marriage as a Threat To Women.
Another brilliant Commentary piece.

This is not a short read, but it offers some arguments that, quite frankly, I have never thought of before. The author contributes weightily to the debate:

The truth is banal, circular, but finally unavoidable: by definition, the essence of marriage is to sanction and solemnize that connection of opposites which alone creates new life. (Whether or not a given married couple does in fact create new life is immaterial.) Men and women can marry only because they belong to different, opposite, sexes. In marriage, they surrender those separate and different sexual allegiances, coming together to form a new entity. Their union is not a formalizing of romantic love but represents a certain idea—a construction, an abstract thought—about how best to formalize the human condition. This thought, embodied in a promise or a contract, is what holds marriage together, and the creation of this idea of marriage marks a key moment in the history of human development, a triumph over the alternative idea, which is concubinage.

Posted by Fire @ 5:02 AM

On “The Matrix.”
This article claims that the most recent version, or sequel, of the film is just a sham.
IF THERE IS ANYTHING GOOD to be said about “Revolutions,” it’s that attempted intellectual extrapolation based on “The Matrix” trilogy will probably grind to a halt. After “The Matrix” was released, a fleet of books appeared, with titles like “The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real,” “Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in ‘The Matrix,'” and “The Gospel Reloaded: Exploring Spirituality and Faith in ‘The Matrix.'” “Revolutions” will cause many of these authors to blush.

Posted by Fire @ 4:55 AM

Bowman on Media.

He writes a monthly piece on the media for The New Criterion along with a gazillion movie reviews.

Today, Bowman argues that the more the media slams Bush, the more he likes the President.

The relationship is directly proportional.

Posted by Fire @ 4:50 AM

Can Conservatives Be Optimists?

Well, Reagan sure was and, compared to angry guilt ridden leftists, we all are.

But here’s our old friend Paul Cella addressing the issue.

The writer is not an optimist. I suppose when you see how many young people hold nihilistic, anti-American views, one’s optimism is challenged.

The role of conservatives, then, is more counterrevolutionary than it is “conservative” in the strict sense of the word; for to conserve the structures of decline and fall, the forms of cultural rapine and plunder, is to isolate a friend in lonely despond, and blockade him from desperately needed succor in his moment of despair; it is to frustrate the approach of solicitous physicians in the patient’s hour of agony; it is, in short, to make the civilization of the West safe for suicide. The conservative’s role is properly restoration not conservation: restoration of the spirit of enterprise, by which we prosper, and the subjection of human pride to truth, by which our prosperity is tempered and corrected.

Posted by Fire @ 4:45 AM

Radical College II.

I had to add this trinket just in case people don’t see the full link:

Speakers have included a gay Muslim who gave a talk called “Being Queer and Muslim.” Annie Sprinkle also paid a visit to campus. The former porn star and hooker conducted a meditation for a packed auditorium of students and faculty called “Zen Pussy.” Sprinkle showed graphic sexual images including a graphic to illustrate how many men she’d performed fellatio on. The rest of her presentation was too obscene to recount.

Posted by Fire @ 4:36 AM

Radical College USA.
This concerns Oberlin.

I found this piece highly valuable as my uncle by marriage went to Oberlin and is a complete nutjob who voted for Huey Newton (by write in) for President in 1972. What a piece of work! I got into with him at my sister’s wedding in 2001 as I refuted all of his anti-American beliefs. He turned to my mom and said, “What the hell has gotten into this kid?” He’s a millionaire who’s leaving all of his money to–you guessed it–Oberlin College.

But the folks who send their kids to Ohio’s Oberlin College aren’t typical parents. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Oberlin is the number-one college choice for professors’ kids in the Northwest. It’s also popular with the children of far-Left activists, many of whom attended the school themselves. And it’s become a haven for gay and “transgender” students…Some 800 to 1,000 students typically attended an annual college-sponsored, administration-approved “Safer Sex Night,” an orgy held on campus. The Oberlin Review, the student newspaper, described the scene: “Educational, sexually explicit videos played on TV screens, and students sat in booths in g-strings and halter tops.” Other students, the paper reported, simply go naked. Students can enter something called the “Tent of Consent” to, shall we say, interact sexually.

Posted by Fire @ 4:24 AM

The cry of a coward

I’m doing some research for something and came upon this quote,

“But progressive educators are no more inclined to permissiveness than strict, school-uniform, standardized-testing traditionalists are to inculcating fascism.”

I see this all the time, from both liberals and conservatives. When under criticism (such as the accusation that progressive education leads to permissiveness), instead of defending their position they cry, “but the other side does it too!” Such as in this case, “But the other side is bad too: they lead to fascism!”

This has to be the most cowardly arguments on the face the planet. I see it often. Liberals might not defend the 2nd Amendment, and instead of defending their position against it, they’ll cry, “but conservatives don’t defend the 1st amendment!”

Since this is so pervasive in our culture, I’m trying to put my argument against it in as quotable a way as possible, for future use.

How about,

“‘But he does it too!’ is the call of a coward.”

Coward isn’t really the word I want. I want a word that means not only someone who is too wimpy to defend their position, but won’t because they are morally corrupt. Someone who rationalizes his vice because of other people’s vice.

Dastard? Swine? Evader of responsiblity? Scum bucket? Dirty yucky person? I can’t think of anything.

Here is a qood quote: “You will not become a saint

through other people’s sins.” (Anton Chekov).

Posted by Amber @ 2:31 AM

Babs on Reagan

[Posted By Amber Pawlik]

“On her Web site last week, Streisand said criticism of the film was typical of ‘what the right wing does when they are faced with a truth that is not 100 percent positive for their side — they … scream and yell until they get their way. Instead of boycotting and trying to have the movie changed, why don’t they all just wait to see the film when it airs like the rest of us.'”

Posted by Fire @ 9:12 PM

The Future Is So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades

Despite the insurgency of the politically correct/multicultural college classroom the last ten years, it looks like the Progressives might actually be losing the battle on their very own turf. A new poll says many on college campuses are marching to the GOP’s beat.

Posted by CommonSense @ 1:50 PM

Fat Asses and Bad Behavior

Well, looks like we can add another problem onto the growing list of things associated with obesity. A new study shows a link between bad behavior and childhood obesity. America, it’s time to put down the Cheetos and lose some GODDAMN WEIGHT!

Posted by CommonSense @ 10:53 AM

Congratulations!

I’d like to send a shout out as the kids say to my childhood best friend Marc and his wife Betsy. Last Friday Besty gave birth to beautiful baby boy named Seth. Congratulations to the both of you. If anyone is interested in viewing the happy couple, you may do so in the picture section at www.webroberts.com.

Posted by CommonSense @ 9:07 AM

“What are the values of hockey?”
By John Buccigross

Special to ESPN.com

What Are The Values of Hockey?

I believe we are on the precipice of great change in the great game. The economic landscape and the rules of the game both need to be drastically changed for the 21st century. The NHL has always been largely about young men playing their hearts out in front of young working class fans cheering their hearts out. The game has become too corporate, too expensive, too defensive and too predictable. It’s time to shake it up, to open it up on the ice and in the stands. The time is now for drastic change, for a younger vision of the game. The required vision is being bogged down by old-thinking, stodgy, owners and GMs. It’s not their game. It’s OUR game.

That being said, the values of this great game remain, untouched and unblemished. And while the details need renovation, the pillars remain strong:

1. Heart

Hockey is a blood sport and the heart is the essential blood organ. A life can only be a life with something to be enthusiastic about. That is living from the heart. The act of skating — with stick, puck, and net — is pure enthusiasm. All heart. It’s the great mystery of the game and it’s greatest value, a divine-like feeling of freedom, movement, and action. When you think back of those moments on frozen outdoor ice, alone, can you ever imagine feeling more ALIVE? Watching Marc-Andre Fleury play goal in Pittsburgh is watching heart in action.

2. Courage

This is the value that is needed to turn heart into a commodity. Everyone who loves skating has heart, but everyone who skates isn’t a hockey player. Courage carries the heart and the dreams around the rink. There are nine other skaters, boards and glass. Courage enables the player to play as if he or she is skating on Lake Michigan, to play with freedom in narrow, cluttered spaces, ignoring the obstacles and charging on. A life can only be a life if you have the courage to go for your dreams. Watching Jason Smith play defense in Edmonton is watching courage in action.

3. Mental toughness

No sport combines the aerobic and anaerobic strength of ice hockey. Its high level players are walking Bowflex commercial models. Ripped and muscular. The winners grind out shift after shift, day after day, with 100 percent effort. To relent is to die. Every stride, every shift, every day has purpose. Hockey is not meaningless for it is life and every bit of life should be purposeful. A life is only a life if you have the mental toughness to make every breath purposeful. Watching Chris Drury take a shift down 5-1 in the third period is mental toughness in action.

4. Artistic expression

To be a great artist you must be a great thinker. You must expand the mind and train the mind to see things, to understand how things work, to think life. Thinking life is observational learning, experimentation and recall — watching how things work, trying new things and applying them into action. Thinking the game. We all can’t be great, but we all can be dependable. We can think the game. Learn the flow, sense the opportunities and learn when to strike. A life is only a life if you serve others by thinking the game. Watching Peter Forsberg stickhandle behind the net is a player thinking the game.

Heart. Courage. Mental toughness. Artistic expression. These are the values of our game. The values we want our children to have, as hockey players and as people.

As we move forward in this time of NHL uncertainty, on the ice and off, always take the values of the game first, for this is why we love the game. Watching the best incorporate a share of all four.

Posted by CommonSense @ 8:49 AM

REAGAN SHOW MIGHT BE CANCELLED

Read the story

“Drawing Republican fire over the accuracy of its upcoming mini-series “The Reagans,” CBS appears ready to present a kinder, gentler portrait of the ailing former president than originally produced — if the network airs it at all. “

Posted by Amber @ 7:02 AM

Humans, Tigers and Innate Aggression.

[Here’s more analysis by our new friend: Dr. Kent G. Bailey]

In a May 26, 2003, column, human paleopsychology was introduced as a means of making sense of the ancient evolutionary bases of human behavior. This approach is based on the premise that human beings have a rich phylogenetic history that intrudes into every nook and cranny of human experience.

We humans are moral, ethical, and cultural beings, but our thin veneer of humanness and civility ruptures ever so easily. Stress, a blow on the head, too many high balls, or a personal insult can phylogenetically regress us back to “cave man” impulsions or even back to subhuman levels.

Now, what does all this have to do with the Roy Horn tiger attack? Simply this…like humans, animals often phylogenetically regress under stress or provocation. This is particularly true for wild animals that have been domesticated, tamed, trained, and even put to work by their human masters. The nice dog that attacks a neighborhood child on a hot day, the pet cat that hunts the back yard at night, or the circus elephant that attacks and kills a handler illustrate the commonness of sudden reversions to natural wildness.

The technical term for reversion to natural wildness is feralization. Such reversions may be more-or-less permanent, as with the family dog that joins a renegade pack, or it might be an isolated incident, as with the Roy Horn tiger attack. In the 1980s, psychologist Robert Boice studied feralization in laboratory rats, and he marveled at the ease with which experimental subjects reverted to natural modes of behavior even after many generations of captivity. He further stated these findings had “enormous implications” for both animals and humans.

Experts have been all over the map trying to explain why the 600 pound, 7-year old white tiger named Montecore suddenly attacked Roy Horn during a show at the Las Vegas MGM Mirage Hotel on October 3, 2003. Some say it was an accident or the act of a confused animal, and Horn’s partner, Siegfried Fischbacher, suggested that the tiger was actually “protecting” Roy and helping him offstage. Bernie Yuman, the pair’s longtime manager, theorized that the animal was “distracted” and the casino’s owner Steve Wynn even suggested that the attack was set off by a patron’s large hairdo on the first row! These explanations verge on the silly with the apparent goal of protecting the image of the number one cash cow of Las Vegas…the Siegfried and Roy show.

More to the point was animal behaviorist, Louis Dorfman, who commented that “stress led to the bite.” Jonathan Kraft, who runs the non-profit group Keepers of the Wild, theorized that the attack featured a “typical killing bite” (italics added). When Roy fell onstage during the encounter with Montecore, he immediately became “prey” to the tiger. Moreover, going for the throat and dragging the prey to a safe place are all part of the normal predatory behavior of tigers in the wild. Indeed, the tiger attack was a classic instance of feralization…which is one of many forms of phylogenetic regression.

The tiger attack tells us more than we want to know about the deep, inner minds of both animals and humans. Indeed, the human brain is more a hair-triggered, Saturday night special than a reliable Swiss watch. When injured, stressed, or provoked, the brain scans its lower levels for a solution when upper levels cannot solve the problem. Yes, Montecore was probably stressed and distracted on October 3rd, but feralization defined the essence of the attack.

Prior to the 1950s, the Semai of Malaysia were a peaceful tribe for whom murder, physical punishment of children, and intergroup aggression were unknown. But after the Semai were recruited by the British to fight Communist rebels, a sudden kind of insanity overcame them which they called “blood drunkenness.” Anthropologist R. K. Dentan quoted them, “We killed, killed, killed…we were drunk with blood.”

Compare this example with recent revelations about an elite unit of American soldiers that mutilated and killed hundreds of unarmed villagers in 1967 during the Viet Nam war. Soldiers of the Tiger Force Unit dropped grenades into bunkers where villagers hid, shot farmers without warning, and even made necklaces from the severed ears of the dead. Really, are we humans all that different from Montecore? Instances of human feralization and reversion abound.

Kent G. Bailey is professor emeritus of clinical psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. His major focus is on how ancient evolutionary processes affect current human affairs. His major monograph is Human Paleopsychology: Applications to Aggression and Pathological Processes. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987.

Posted by Fire @ 3:51 AM

How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life.

Although I did not realize it at the time, I began internalizing Peter Robinson’s message sixty pages into How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. The day after the book arrived in the mail, I sat in a meeting where absolutely anything that could go wrong did. I almost had to reschedule it twice due to people not showing up. None of my co-workers gave me any help and the outlook was gloomy. It was just as the parent (whose child the meeting concerned) was about to walk out of my office in disgust that I mastered the situation. A major crisis was averted. Then, later in the day, I thought back to the book I had been reading the night before. Suddenly I understood that my ability to solve the problems I had, despite intense frustration and lack of support, exemplified one of the principles Robinson outlines in his work.

Peter Robinson was one of President Reagan’s speechwriters and, like many others who were in the Administration, he decided to write a tribute to our 40th President. His efforts directly focus on the profound impact that Reagan had on his life. There is little in the way of author/subject conversations in this work. Robinson barely knew Reagan; yet, the absence of a personal relationship is why this book is so unique. I will not offer suspense in this review: I read the book in three days and highly recommend to everybody.

As far as historical figures go, Reagan is one of the most fascinating of our age and there are many fine biographies available. However, How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life is not only biography. It is a practical attempt by the author to allow his readers to access the tremendous spirit and verve of one of the world’s noblest men. Robinson, and his own life lessons, are also integral to his work. In his chapters, he illustrates Reagan’s worldviews and then interprets them through the President’s own failures and victories. He then uses his own life to showcase the universal application of the guidelines presented.

Yes, the work’s angle is uncommon but so is the prose. Robinson’s sentences are so clear that it may not be easy to recognize his talent as a writer. It flows so quickly it’s tough to notice. The one thing the reader will definitely notice is that all 260 pages are pleasant and lively. Clarity may be just one more thing the author learned from Ronald Reagan. The label, “The Great Communicator,” was one of derision, but many forget today that Reagan was a master not only in verbal communication but also in the written word. Robinson estimates that the former President wrote nearly half a million words over the course of his life.

Reagan, via Robinson, instructs on a variety of topics. One of the sub-references presented concerned a story Reagan loved to tell. It involved a boy whose mother hoped to cure of his jubilant optimism. She took him to a psychiatrist who led him into a room piled high with manure. The trip was designed to teach the boy that life is not always happy or beautiful. The boy had a different interpretation. He climbed to the top of the pile and began digging through the manure. The psychiatrist asked him what he was doing. The boy responded, “With all this manure, there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.” The author’s message is, “when life buries you, start digging.”

Reagan kept things simple. This was true regarding all aspects of his administration’s policies whether foreign or domestic. He saw an alternative reality in our struggle with the Soviets. It was: “We win and they lose.” Saying something like that would get laughs out of every member of the Washington press corps. Yet, at the time, Reagan was right and they were wrong. Jimmy Carter wanted us to get used to the USA and democracy not being on top anymore. Reagan, instead, simply put us back where we belong. A statement like, “There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers,” could well have been more sophisticated than a building full of gossipy journalists who embraced the fallacious description of Reagan as an “amiable dunce.”

Are words only words? Robinson conveys through Reagan’s speeches that they are not: “Did Reagan’s speeches matter? Enough to change the world.” In office, he slashed the misery index, created an economic boom, defeated the Soviet Union, and restored our national pride. One of the main avenues for doing so was to take matters to the people and expose them to the realities of big government. Presenting “the big picture” is what Reagan excelled at, and it is something that many politicians fear. What we can we learn? To “speak up for your beliefs, speak with conviction, and remember that people respond to the truth.”

Even those who hate him may well recall some of Reagan’s joyous humor. He was a genuinely happy person who seemed to be never happier than when giving the rest of us a smile. Robinson proffers some fine instances of wit that I won’t recount here, but his conclusion regarding why humor is important is something to treasure: “The world contains more good than bad, more courage than cowardice, and more reason for smiles than for tears. Laughter is a profession of faith.”

Reagan also embodied the virtues of the married life. A loving relationship between man and woman remains a cornerstone of success, and Robinson finds no model for this more appealing than the marriage of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. They complemented one another perfectly. It wasn’t always obvious to those around them why their relationship “worked”, but it, like many of his decisions, did. Nancy was an eternal source of comfort to him. Robinson directly benefited from the example of the first couple: “Reagan had shown me what marriage can do for a man, enabling me to grasp that the self-absorbed existence of a bachelor might not have been the highest good after all.”

What works in politics can often work during the course of our daily lives. How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life shares with the reader universal truths that build spirit and perspective. We learn to never back down from bullies regardless of the context or what the rest of the world may say. We learn to give G-d thanks for every day on this earth and, in turn, we will soon find that earth will bring us better days. Like Reagan, our labor and achievements glorify G-d and fill us with a sense of esteem that 35 sensitivity counselors working on us around the clock could not match. We learn that we must stand up for our own opinions. The President never buried his views and neither should you.

However, his most serene truth, within this book of truths, is that there is a place in this world for a man with honor, virtue, devotion, kindness, and tolerance. We were blessed to have such a man briefly reside at the head of our nation.

Posted by Fire @ 3:46 AM

If You Think Your Co-Worker Is Crazy…

Then they probably are.

Amusing column from the Chicago Sun Times sent to me by Puppa Wuppus.

Oh, here’s my boss now:

“The Drama Queen: ‘Attractive and engaging at first, the histrionic employee can cause chaos by overreacting and constantly demanding attention,’ writes Unterberg.

She — or he — may dress seductively and “use attractiveness to achieve goals and wishes.’ Drama Queens are the happiest workers in the office — except when they’re the saddest or the angriest. Everybody is their closest confidante — except when they decide those co-workers are their worst enemies. They even speak dramatically.

Posted by Fire @ 3:44 AM

The Passion.

We’ll see more and more pieces on Mel Gibson’s Passion in the months preceding its Easter release.

Here’s one from Michael Novak.

His full-length version in the Weekly Standard was stupendous. This came out yesterday and should be of interest.

Posted by Fire @ 3:33 AM

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,

diagnosing it incorrectly, applying the wrong remedies.”

– Groucho Marx

Posted by Fire @ 6:59 PM

Feminazi Attacks Fire!

Today, I heard from one of many masturbational enemies. Her name is L-cy G-ldman C.Bt. (Certified Bitch):

“Hi. I read a few of your articles, and must thank you for posting your photo with them. Now it make perfect sense as to why you’re an idiot. Most fat guys have a lot of anger. Why don’t you try Jenny Craig, fatty

?”

Gee, who’s angry here? Fatty? Idiot? She probably got an advanced degree for such word usage by the standards of today’s university. I playfully answered her: “Well, why don’t you send me the initiation fee and I’ll consider it?”

I’m sure she won’t, however. We can see here how little feminazis believe in argumentation, diversity or their own political correctness. Afterall, as a differently bodied person she should respect my diversity, but she cannot. In their own lingo, “I am the other” but she can’t respect that. We see that radical feminists will always be fascists. They can’t think, they can’t discuss but they sure can name call. How intelligent! I’ll await her response with pizza in hand.

Posted by Fire @ 4:21 PM

G-D, Country, and Government

The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case involving the words “one nation under G-d” in the Pledge of Allegiance but has rejected the case involving rogue Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore who posted a granite sculpture of the Ten Commandments in that state’s hightest court house. What this means for Moore is that he must abide by the lower courts’ rulings that say that by displaying the sculpture, he is violating the principle that the State must not promote religion.

Moore has argued the monument properly acknowledges “God as the source of the community morality so essential to a self-governing society.” I couldn’t agree with Moore more. Partly. Most people, when asked to name the ten commandments, (besides not being able to name all ten,) incorrectly name “Thou Shall Not Murder” as the first commandment. And this is precisely where Moore’s argument breaks down.

It is true that commandments such as “Thou Shall Not Murder” and “Thou Shall Not Steal” are the source of community morality. That is precisely why EVERY civilized society on earth, regardless of religion, share those principles. After all, those commandments make perfect sense if one does want to live in civilized society.

However, not all of the Ten Commandments refer directly to community morality. The first commandment is not “Thou Shall Not Murder” but “I am the Lord your G-d, Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery.” Redemtion from slavery is evoked as a means of reminding us the power that G-d holds and that we should follow his commandments (There are over 600 in the entire Torah which of course are revealed at a later time). The Second Commandment is “You shall have no other gods but me.” Again, this is a reminder of a one and only all powerfull G-d, the founding principle of monotheism and a direct affront to idolotry. The Third and Fourth Commandments are “You shall not take the name of your Lord in vain” and “You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.” Again, these relate to man’s relation with G-d, not man’s relation to his fellow man.

In other words, the first four commandments are not telling us how we should live amongst each other but how we should live our lives in relation to G-d. And not just any G-d, but a very specific Judiac G-d, later to be adopted by Christians. It is not until the Fifth Commandment of “Honor Your Father and Mother” that we are told how to get along with one another – telling us what our communial morality should be. The next five commandments are “You shall not murder,” “You shall Not Commit Adultry,” “You Shall Not Steal,” “”You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” and “You Shall Not Covet Your Neighbor’s Goods nor Wife.” These are all telling us basic rules for living in a community and in that context, seem very wise.

The Commandments are layed out with man’s relation to G-d first and his relation to other men second, is because if man is true to his relation with G-d, then he will be true in his relation to other men.

The problem is, while a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or even an animalist, may agree with those last six commandments, they are not going to necessarily agree with the first four commandments. By Moore placing the sculpture in the Alabama Supreme Court building, he is essentially telling all those people without Judiac moral roots, that they must abide not only by the last six commandments but by the first four commandments as well and by the religious standard they set. Therefore, Moore is using government to advance one particular religious standpoint.

And that is unconstitutional. As a result, Moore appears to be promoting a theocracy. He and his supporters, who claim to be both religious and promoters of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, are neither. I suggest they brush of on their formal religious education, learn about the ten commandments and why they are ordered the way they are, and reread the Constitution’s clause about the seperation of church and state.

Posted by CommonSense @ 1:33 PM

And a Happy PC Halloween To You Too!

This Halloween past, as I wandered around Chicago’s Wicker Park neighborhood stoned and dressed like a giant bumble bee, I stopped to people watch. There just so happened to be two girls people watching in the same place, making fun at the freaks who stumbled by.

I tried striking up a conversation with them by asking why they weren’t dressed up like the people they were mocking, like me, dressed as a giant bumble bee next to them. The more attractive of the two, the one I naturally wanted to talk to, responded “I fucking hate Halloween. Do you think children in Iraq are celebrating Halloween?” she said with equal parts disgust and disdain. Wouldn’t it just be my luck to accidently start speaking to some PC freakshow who hates Halloween? I responded “That’s because the Iraqis don’t celebrate Halloween.”

Even in my stoned state I wasn’t about to bite. And even in my stoned state, I was in no mood to put up with her progressive PC bullshit. “She muttered something under her breath about me knowing that I was right but I knew what she meant and then said “I mean look at it, it’s just so fucking consumer oriented.” Well, I certainly couldn’t disagree with her. Halloween is after all, the second most “commerical” holiday after Christmas in terms of what it means to the economy. But it certainly isn’t “consumerist” in the same sense as Christmas. Halloween is about partying and blowing off a little steam. It’s as simple as that. If it was truely “consumerist” like the PCer said we would be exchanging presents and Hallmark Cards.

But we don’t. Which makes me wonder with dismay about the depth of hatred the PCers have for everything American. Other cultures certainly have their “Day of the Dead” that have turned into festivals of sorts. Those other festivals are naturally superior to ours because they are, well, not American.

I wandered off to find my friends, leaving the PC girls to wallow as Americans in their own self hatred. I wasn’t going to let a political argument ruin my Halloween. After all, that’s one of the things that makes me glad I’m not in Iraq. The progressive PCers on the other hand – well, I’m still not sure what they want other than anything that isn’t American.

Posted by CommonSense @ 12:35 PM

Clinton Writes Transvestite.

Bosso Nova, it was my pleasure meeting you last night. I found your dress sparkly and invigorating, and I loved your conversation about the gowns the stars wear at the Oscars. But I regret that I cannot continue our relationship in the future even though I find your Adam’s apple and hairy toes very appealing.

You see, I’m not officially supposed to be dating anyone…let alone a female impersonator. I remain married to Hillary; although, our relationship has been strictly Dominatrix/Slave since 1973 and we have no intimate contact with one another outside of the mace that she occasionally flails me with.

Besides, as you know, I am the greatest leader, next to Fidel Castro, of the 20th century, and it wouldn’t look Presidential for me to wake up everyday with spunk in my hair before meeting the King of Sweden.

I’m sure you understand. The bottom line is that, as far as female impersonator’s go, you’ve got it going on girl! I mean, you’ve got the flava [notice my clever use of multicultural terminology!] Besides, if you were to pass this email on to the Enquirer or that primitive band of jackasses who have stolen my correspondence and are now blogging it online–Yikes! Anyway, whatever I said, kissed, and swallowed last night I regret. I was way out of line.

I don’t know, “never” never means never to me. Maybe I’ll call sometime. Your pimp was right about me. I am truly one “Desperate M—– F——.” Love, Billy Bait.

Posted by Fire @ 5:15 AM

Charles Murray, Intelligence, and Achievement, II.

Our pal Common Sense posted the last article on Mr. Murray’s new book on Free Republic a few weeks ago and got over 80 comments.

This is a much more thorough essay so I hope you like it (I know he will).

The concept of intelligence alone is about as anti-PC as they get–which is all the more reason why we should keep discussing it.

Posted by Fire @ 5:00 AM

Homer and the Power of Men with Chests.
This one is from the NC and discusses the Ilyiad.

How many children are even vaguely aware of the ancient Greeks? When I was in school, we had an optional Greek mythology course. That was it. I went on to take History of Rome and History of Greece in college but how many do nowadays. I fear our neglect of the classics will be another burning of the tomes in Alexandria.

Posted by Fire @ 4:56 AM

The New, New Criterion is out.

Ring the bells, call your parents, hopscotch down the road and all that stuff.

Here we have Roger Kimball’s monthly piece from “Notes & Comments.”

It’s not real long and concerns the Archbishop of Canterbury, Harold Bloom, and Frederick Kagan. An oracle of wisdom and its for free.

Posted by Fire @ 4:52 AM

Mike Adams (Rules).

More fine work from UNC Professor Mike Adams. From now on, I’ll try to post all of his columns here just in case somebody misses them. It’d be a shame otherwise.

Here he offers some local feministas an “apology.”

Yeah, right. He’s as fearless as they come and I’m glad he’s with us.

I need to be more sensitive in the future because I plan to start a Men’s Resource Center at UNC-Wilmington. When I do, I intend to sponsor a play called The Penis Monologues (to be performed on D-day, of course). And, who knows, maybe some young, overzealous male student will decide to drop $.49 on a poster reading “D***s Unite at The Penis Monologues . . . Sponsored by the UNCW Men’s Resource Center.” If such a sign were placed in front of the cafeteria, I certainly wouldn’t do anything about it.

Posted by Fire @ 3:52 PM

Television’s Strategy: Sex, Sex, and Yet More Sex.

Brent Bozell informs us that the networks have gone all raunchy all the time. This is helpful for people like me who refuse to watch network television unless it’s football or hockey.

You may already know about all these shows, however.

Posted by Fire @ 3:45 PM

The Future’s so Bright, You gotta wear…

Something other than rose color glasses. There’s no need to with a 7.2% third quarter growth rate.

Boy, this is good news.

Hopefully, unemployment will begin to drift down now that the economy is cooking.

Consumer spending growth of 6.6% is the best showing since early 1988, while business spending rose at the fastest clip since the beginning of 2000. Third quarter business investment on equipment and software spiked at a 15.4% annual rate. A shrinking U.S. trade deficit also boosted growth by helping sales of American-made goods and services grow at 7.8%, the strongest increase in 25 years.

Posted by Fire @ 3:38 PM

The Lady of Shalott

[Amber posted this one on the other blog]

That painting, if anyone is interested is The Lady of Shalott, 1888, by John William Waterhouse

A guy once told me that this painting was based on a story (myth) about a woman who was locked up in a tower, forbidden to look at the world. She was only allowed to look at reflections of things in a mirror. If she did look at the world, she would die. But, one day she got a glimpse of a very beautiful man (not sure if that man has a specific name). That picture is of her, about to die, while she is chasing after him.

And, since we’re on it, you can find that painting and many others at www.artrenewal.org. I enjoy that website as well as www.cordair.com for art. Also, artrenewal.org has a really good article up which blasts postmodernism. It pretty much calls PM for what it is: nonsense that is suppressing real skill, talent, and beauty from flourishing.

Posted by Fire @ 9:22 AM

BEAUTY!

Posted by Fire @ 9:14 AM