I’m looking for a Gmail account. If anyone has an extra they’d like to share, please let me know.

Tagged | 12 Comments

Muslims are Nazis, kind of. Let’s declare war on them.

Total lack of historical knowledge, anyone?

Radical Islam, sometimes accurately called Islamo-fascism, has all the “advantages” the Nazis had in Germany in the 1930s. The Islamo-fascists find a Muslim population adrift, confused and humiliated by the dominance of foreign nations and cultures. They find a large, youthful population increasingly disdainful of their parents’ passive habits.

Just as the Nazis reached back to German mythology and the supposed Aryan origins of the German people, the radical Islamists reach back to the founding ideas and myths of their religious culture. And just like the Nazis, they claim to speak for authentic traditions while actually advancing expedient and radical innovations.

Now, wait a minute — weren’t the Nazis appealing to a sense of supposed tradition and rightful ownership of Germany, that Jewish and other non-Aryans couldn’t possibly have had? As far as I know, Nazis weren’t an immigrant group, they were quite the opposite. So… wouldn’t it follow that an immigrant group couldn’t really pull that card outside of their own country?

Well, we’ll just ignore that little problem and move right along, because, Nazis or not, these Muslims are really becoming an issue. Luckily, Tony Blankley has a solution : That’s right, it’s another WWII!

World War II was good, despite the millions of deaths, the limitations on daily lives, the encroachment on peacetime liberties and the arduousness of wartime life. The war was good because the sacrifice was for a noble cause, for the perpetuation of America and the American way of life.

The struggle against Islamist terrorism is an equally good war — and for the same reasons. We have just as great a responsibility to win our struggle against insurgent Islamist aggression as our parents and grandparents had to win World War II.

Continue reading

Posted in Race & Ethnicity, Religion, War | Tagged | 19 Comments

Hypocrites at the U.N.

Kristof is right: The leaders of the most developed nations in the world are not doing enough to help the poor. A few points:

-The world’s richest 500 people have the same income as the world’s poorest 416 million.

-If the U.S. and other wealthy nations spent $7 billion every year for the next decade to provide 2.6 billion people with clean drinking water, 4,000 lives a day would be saved. Americans spend more than that on cosmetic surgery.

-Annual world spending to fight AIDS, which kills three million people a year, equals military expenditures for three days.

-In India, girls between the ages of 1 and 5 are 50 percent more likely to die than boys — that’s 130,000 girls a year who, as Kristof says, “are discriminated to death.”

-“the gap between the current trendline on child mortality and the one the [U.N.] leaders committed themselves to amounts to 41 million children dying before their fifth birthday over the next decade.”

University of Ottawa professor Amir Attan has more.

Posted in Health, Politics | Comments Off on Hypocrites at the U.N.

Women: Ruining the World

Because Judeo-Christian values are apparently experiencing a major devaluation, women suddenly have power — and now they’ve gone off and ruined everything. Oh, and Christianity’s oppression of women is reason #22 why it’s really fantastic.

Who lets these nutjobs publish this shit?

Judeo-Christian values do not conflate equality with sameness. But the Left rejects any suggestion of innate sexual differences. That is why the president of Harvard University nearly lost his job for merely suggesting that one reason there are fewer women in engineering and science faculties is that the female and male brains differ in their capacities in these areas. A secular liberal who advocates affirmative action based on sex, Harvard’s president nevertheless also has — or had, until his humiliation at the hands of his faculty — a belief in seeking truth.

And the truth is that men and women are profoundly different.

One of these differences is that women generally have a more difficult time transcending their emotions than men. There are, of course, millions of individual women — such as Margaret Thatcher — who are far more rational than many men; but that only makes these women’s achievements all the more admirable. It hardly invalidates the proposition.

Women (except for Margaret Thatcher) are crying emotional wrecks who should not be allowed to handle anything that requires “rationality.”

To say that the human race needs masculine and feminine characteristics is to state the obvious. But each sex comes with prices. Men can too easily lack compassion, reduce sex to animal behavior and become violent. And women’s emotionality, when unchecked, can wreak havoc on those closest to these women and on society as a whole — when emotions and compassion dominate in making public policy.

Why do women’s emotionalities go unchecked? My best guess is because men aren’t doing their part (animal behavior, violence, etc). And as a sidenote, who would you rather have in charge: A crazed animalistic brute, or a compassionate but overly-sensitive person? Hmmm.

The latter is what is happening in America. The Left has been successful in supplanting masculine virtues with feminine ones. That is why “compassion” is probably the most frequently cited value. That is why the further left you go, the greater the antipathy to those who make war. Indeed, universities, the embodiment of feminist emotionality and anti-Judeo-Christian values, ban military recruiters and oppose war-themed names for their sports teams.

Here’s where I’m confused: Since when is “feminist” the same as “feminine”? I thought we feminists were all combat-boot-wearing baby-hating bull-dykes? We don’t have “compassion”! We just want to wage war on men!

In the micro realm, the feminine virtues are invaluable — for example, women hear infants’ cries far more readily than men do. But as a basis for governance of society, the feminization of public policy is suicidal.

Ah yes. That mystical feminine gift of being able to hear. I’m so glad that God made the sexes inherently equal by giving men all the power, and granting me the ability to know if a baby is screaming. This sure makes me proud to be a Christian.

Pandagon has more.

Posted in Feminism, Gender, Religion | 39 Comments

NYC Women Have The Sex, Use Protection

From Ryan at Liberal Serving comes this odd little story, that New York City women have 23% more sex than women elsewhere in the country, and 93% use protection during their first time with a new person (and the other times?). This information was gathered by the condom company Trojan using a super-extra-scientific web survey.

As Ryan sez:

So apparently, wrapping condoms in pastel colors and soft, flowing shapes (and anorexic figures – take a look) will get them to buy more condoms. Well, can’t get too down on promoting condom use, even if it is through the inefficient filter of weird marketing. Sex ed would be a nice start. Maybe calming the hoards of condom-haters debating failure rates would help. Empowering individual women to take control of their sexual lives… well, I’m the last to know how to do that, though lesbian erotica is a gift of choice for me (giving – to others!). Regardless of the intent, pro-sex, pro-condom messages are good – even if creepy, and I’m anxious to see how this will all pan out.

Unfortunately I can’t see the article at the NYPost, so we’ll just have to take his word for it. Anyone who thinks Midwestern girls aren’t having enough sex to make the baby Jesus cry needs to come for a visit.

No pun intended, I swear.

Posted in Business, Health, Reproductive Rights, Sex | Tagged | 6 Comments

Blogger Sightings and Stuff

Whoever keeps searching for me by first and last name: Hello. Just email me already. And if I don’t like you, fucking quit it.

The other night I took a long walk trying to alleviate some of the tension I am feeling over student teaching. I took my usual walk to campus with my headphones and inappropriate shoes and hit up a coffee shop for some lemon tea. I got indoors and, as usual, started sweating my ass off as soon as my skin felt air conditioning.

Over to my left I heard, “Is *whisper whisper* girl *whisper whisper* blog? Hurry!”

I glanced over and saw three or four people sitting on some couches with a laptop, looking at me and looking at the laptop. One of them had craned his head around to stare.

Yes, the non-LiveJournal community in this town is that small. Additionally, I believe I and this blog are being used as an example in the English department by certain people who shall not be named.

I sneered back at them. Who said too much time on the internet makes one antisocial?

Posted in Blogging, Vanity | Tagged | 16 Comments

Precedence and Abortion

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion was “settled as a precedent of the court” as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

“It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” the concept that long-settled decisions should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee…

“There’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis,” Roberts said.

Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by a decision” and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.

Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited various amendments of the Constitution that he said protect those rights, and said, “I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.”

Specter, a moderate Republican who supports abortion rights, asked if the Roe v. Wade decision was a “super-duper precedent” in light of efforts to overturn it.

Roberts noted that the Supreme Court itself upheld the basics of Roe v. Wade in a 1992 case, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

“That, I think, is the decision that any judge in this area would begin with,” Roberts said.

Still not buying it, judge-for-life.

Posted in Politics, Reproductive Rights | Tagged , , , , | 12 Comments

Against the Odds

A great post at Abortion Clinic Days documents one woman’s choice. She’s 17 years old, and already a parent to a special-needs child.

It’s a definite must-read; just ignore all the ridiculous anti-choice comments.

Posted in Reproductive Rights | Tagged | 25 Comments

Trying to get it…

A post over at Dawn Eden’s anti-choice-to-the-extreme blog has generated a lot of interesting comments — and helped me to further understand the complete disconnect between the anti-choice/anti-sex crowd and the pro-choice/sex-positive group.

Contracepting couples are denying the life-giving aspect of themselves, rendering their copulation as sterile as masturbation. Oh, heck, it feels good, and it’s a bonding experience, but it is not the total selfless giving of a totally open conjugal union.

So if you don’t want to get pregnant, you’re using your partner as a vibrator. This is doubly insulting, since we all know that masturbation is evil.

My question is, wouldn’t this logic make sex-for-baby-making equally bad? Because if you’re only doing it for the purpose of getting pregnant because you want a child, you’re not exactly being totally selfless, are you?

The avoidance of death does not justify immoral actions when there are other ways of getting around it. IF a woman gets pregnant, her life MIGHT be in peril, ASSUMING there is nothing surgery can do to save her. I suppose continence would be irresponsible. It IS irresponsible for a man to get a vasectomy even here, because his wife might die for just about any reason at any time. Vasectomy might save a man from an infection, but I have no idea how it’s supposed to keep someone else from dying. He might want to re-marry, especially if they had young children, and he and his new wife might want to have children.

I don’t think it’s wonderful for a man to have a vasectomy and reverse it all in honor of a woman. I think it’s sick, and it reminds me of the practice of wives jumping on the husband’s funeral pyre. In a way the very notion of a marriage vow shows you love something more than husband or wife, or what would you be swearing by? Even marital love has definite limitations, and some which people might actually not want.

Limitations of marriage: using contraceptives or getting a vastectomy to prevent your wife’s death from pregnancy complications. Because, hey, she might die anyway! And then you might have to get your vastectomy reversed so that you can impregnate your new wife, who you will certainly need to marry ASAP if you have young children from Dead Wife 1 (it’s not like you can be expected to care for them). And doing things to save your wife’s life may be construed as actually “honoring” her, and that’s just sick.

My point, however badly stated, was that if a woman is likely to die from sexual intercourse, she should not engage in it. Vasectomies and contraception are not necessary because it is not necessary that even married people have sex.

To clarify, this guy is responding to a woman who said that she would likely die from another pregnancy, and so her husband had a vastecomy. They are both, apparently, selfish heathens who should just give up sex entirely.

Posted in Reproductive Rights | Tagged | 25 Comments


I just wrote a huge post and lost it. I give up.

Posted in Blogging | 16 Comments

Too Much Reverence

There is way too much reverence in Blog World today. Because we all need a bit of irreverence sometimes, an old punk song:

Detention – Dead Rock n’ Rollers

For some reason, the lines about Jim Carroll and John Lennon are especially satisfying.

For more generally palatable listening, see David Pajo who is very clearly channeling the ghost of Elliott Smith:

Pajo – Icicles
Pajo – War is Dead
Pajo – Let Me Bleed

Posted in Music | Comments Off on Too Much Reverence

Nope, Can’t Be Racism

Last week, Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA) of Baton Rouge was overheard telling lobbyists:

“We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did.”

Backtracking, Baker later said “he didn’t intend flippancy but has long wanted to improve low-income housing.”

Again, what the hell are they going to do with New Orleans?

Posted in Race & Ethnicity | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments