The publication of a special “Stop Trump” issue of National Review was heralded in a blaze of publicity. Editor Rich Lowry appeared on Fox News and was interviewed by Trump nemesis Megyn Kelly, where he proceeded to denounce The Donald as a threat to the intellectual integrity of the conservative movement. A “symposium” of anti-Trump conservatives was published featuring such luminaries as Thomas Sowell, Bill Kristol, Michael Medved, and a score of others likening the flamboyant real estate mogul turned GOP presidential frontrunner to Hitler, Mussolini, Juan Peron, and Andrew Dice Clay (!).
These polemics are accompanied by a furious editorial, which attacks Trump as “a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.” Furthermore, the editors instructed their readers that “he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries.” Sneering that Trump is a “huckster,” they end their polemic with a fiery rhetorical flourish worthy of Smaug:
“Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.”
The icing on the cake is the cover of the print issue, which is emblazoned with the battle cry “Against Trump,” decorated with a Roman-esque curlicue that one assumes is supposed to give the contents the look if not the weight of a Papal interdict.
All well and good: there are plenty of reasons for principled conservatives (and libertarians) to oppose Trump. However, there’s one big problem with this well-publicized blast at The Donald.
In March of last year, Politicoreported that National Review was becoming a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, which would enable it to solicit tax-deductible donations: “Since its launch, the magazine has operated as a not-for-profit business, even as it came to rely on more and more donations in recent years. Starting next month, it will become a nonprofit organization, which will make it exempt from federal taxes. National Review also plans to merge with the nonprofit National Review Institute, its sister organization, according to a source with knowledge of the plans.”
Rich Lowry averred that the shift would be good for the magazine, which was fighting a costly lawsuit and had never been profitable anyway. “We're a mission and a cause, not a profit-making business,” he told Politico. “The advantage of the move is that all the generous people who give us their support every year will now be able to give tax-deductible contributions, and that we will be able to do more fundraising, in keeping with our goal to keep growing in the years ahead.’”
This anti-Trump issue of National Review is, in effect, a campaign pamphlet directed against a political candidate—indeed, the cover proclaims “Against Trump”—and, as such, is in clear violation of IRS statutes regulating nonprofit organizations.
The regulations are quite explicit that nonprofit organizations must “not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
The IRS web site informs us that “The regulations further provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.”
Lest there be any confusion on anyone’s part, we are given no less than twenty-one examples of specific situations where the question of endangering the organization’s nonprofit status might arise. We are told that the leaders of a nonprofit are free to endorse or campaign against candidates as individuals: therefore, say, the minister of a church may call a press conference and announce his support for—or opposition to—a candidate for office. Since he is speaking only for himself, and not the church, and is not utilizing church resources, this is perfectly legitimate under the law as written. However, the IRS goes on to cite another example that fits the anti-Trump issue of National Review to a tee:
“President B is the president of University K, a section 501(c)(3) organization. University K publishes a monthly alumni newsletter that is distributed to all alumni of the university. In each issue, President B has a column titled ‘My Views.’ The month before the election, President B states in the “My Views” column, ‘It is my personal opinion that Candidate U should be reelected.’ For that one issue, President B pays from his personal funds the portion of the cost of the newsletter attributable to the “My Views” column. Even though he paid part of the cost of the newsletter, the newsletter is an official publication of the university. Because the endorsement appeared in an official publication of University K, it constitutes campaign intervention by University K.”
National Review, as a nonprofit entity under section 501(c)3 of the IRS code is clearly analogous to “University K.” The magazine is the publication of the tax-exempt National Review Institute, whose editors are urging their readers to oppose Trump. In spite of the fact that the collected polemics in this issue are presented as a “Symposium,” there is no debate, there are no dissenting voices. The verdict is unanimous: Don’t vote for Trump!
Posted inNational Review|Comments Off on Was The National Review In Clear Violation Of The Law?
Comment: “Justin Raimondo reports that Marco Rubio was arrested in 1990 in a Miami Park after hours that was a notorious gay cruising area….And it gets weirder. The guy Rubio was arrested with in 1990 was sued by Miami in 2007 for running a gay pornography studio out of one of his properties.”
* “Maybe it’s a Miami thing or a Cuban thing or the lisp, but Marco does ping the gaydar kind of hard when you think about it that way.”
A few friends and I at Donald Trump fansite Atlas After Dark have done some digging into the Washington Post story released earlier this week about Marco Rubio’s youthful indiscretions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rubios-summer-of-90-an-arrest-then-newfound-purpose/2016/01/21/3582a72e-c04d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html). As a quick summary: we know that the man Rubio was arrested with in 1990 was sued by Miami in 2007 for running a gay pornography studio out of one of his properties. We believe the totality of the evidence strongly implies that Rubio was engaged in sexual relations with that man in 1990, and that’s why they were arrested. Why the Washington Post reporters did not look more fully into this story, we don’t know. Full story below.
The story, published on January 21st, notes that Rubio was with his friend, Angel Barrios, and another unnamed young man, when they were stopped by the police in Alice C. Wainwright Park at about 10 PM on May 23, 1990. Unfortunately, the article does not give very much information about Mr. Barrios, other than the fact that he owns several coin-operated laundries in the Miami area. So I decided to try and find out who this guy is. His LinkedIn page was easy to find: https://www.linkedin.com/in/angel-barrios-19387360. Further searches revealed a case filed by the City of Miami against an Angel Barrios in 2007, seeking to enjoin him from allowing the use of his residential property for business purposes (http://www.miamigov.com/cityattorney/docs/litigation/Litigation-Report-Dec-2011.pdf). What were these business purposes? The production of pornography for distribution over the internet, by a company named Flava Works. What kind of pornography? Gay pornography: http://flavaworks.com (warning NSFW).
Okay, but maybe “Angel Barrios” is a common name. Maybe they’re totally different Angels! But one of the co-defendants in the City of Miami’s suit was “Barrios Investment Group.” And according to Mr. Barrios’ LinkedIn profile, linked above, what company did he own from 1995-2007? Barrios Investment Group. Angel Barrios the coin-operated-laundromat-owning childhood friend of Marco Rubio is assuredly Angel Barrios, the man sued by Miami in 2007 for running a gay pornography studio out of one of his residential properties.
Now, the story itself notes that this park was notorious at the time for deviant, illegal activity: “Gang warfare, gunfire, prostitution (straight and gay), drug dealing and muggings.” A police officer quoted in the story notes that people went there to drink, do drugs and have sex. So the story itself notes, twice, that this park was frequently used for public sex, both gay and straight. For cruising. A quick google search for “wrainwright park cruising” confirms this, with reviews of the park including: “Wander through and see what you can find. Afternoons are sometimes busy with business men looking for a quickie over lunch. Crowd: Young guys looking for a blow job. Local latinos with loving to share” (http://www.cruisinggays.com/Miami/areas/2416-Alice-Wainwright-Park/). Nonetheless, the article seems to ignore the possibility that young Rubio may have been stopped and arrested for having public sex in that parked car.
Of course, you say, that’s a mighty big leap, to assume he was having sex. Angel Barrios, quoted frequently in the article, notes that they were just “hanging out.” But the information offered by and about Mr. Barrios in the article is deeply suspicious. He seems to be fraught with guilt about that night (“We never even used to go to that area,” he said. “That might have been the first time I went there.”); he says he does not remember key facts about the night (“I don’t think we got handcuffed and taken to jail”); Rubio apparently dedicated an intimate senior yearbook quote to Mr. Barrios; and the two shared a townhouse together after graduating from high school.
So, in 1990, Marco Rubio was found by the police “hanging out” in a parked car, in a dark and secluded park with a reputation as a gay cruising spot, with another young man who he was very very close to, who he lived with after high school, who went on to run a gay pornography studio out of one of his properties. Obviously, nothing is definitive here; unfortunately there is no photo of Angel and Marco caught naked together. But all the facts added together, along with the fact that Rubio has been dogged with rumors about his sexuality for his entire career, do seem to be awfully, awfully suspicious.
* Apparently Rubio was arrested when he was young late in the night at a park notorious for still in the closet gay sex among latino men. This reminds me of posts sailer and unz have made about the powers behind the scenes wanting politicians with baggage so they can control them. Mccain being a rat for the NVA, Hastert being a pedo, Bill Clinton being a rapist, etc.
No wonder the elites are pushing Rubio! And no wonder why he started pushing amnesty even though he ran against it.
Freddie Rodriguez is discouraged. He has just come from his afternoon’s activity of trying to stop men from having unprotected sex in Miami’s Alice Wainwright Park, a popular gay cruising spot. Rodriguez, 29, is a slim, handsome Cuban-American with a pale, worried face who works for Health Crisis Network. “I take a bag of condoms to the park with me and I try talking to people before they duck in the bushes and have sex,” he explains. “I tell them how dangerous it is. Sometimes I beg them to use a condom. Sometimes they listen to me. Today, no one was interested.” Most of the men, he says, are Latinos and range in age from 16 to 60. Many are married and would never describe themselves as gay. “Discrimination is not really the issue here. Most Latinos do not identify themselves as gay, so they’re not discriminated against,” he says, his voice drifting off. “Ours is a culture of denial.”
To understand why the second wave of aids is hitting Latinos particularly hard, one would do well to start in Miami. Once a mecca for retirees, South Beach today is a frenzy of dance and sex clubs, for hetero- and homosexual alike. “We have the highest rate of heterosexual transmission in the country, the second-highest number of babies born with aids and we are number one nationwide for teen HIV cases,” says Randi Jenson, reeling off a litany that clearly exhausts him. Jenson supervises the Miami Beach hiv/aids Project and sits on the board of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Community Center. “And we have the highest rate of bisexuality in the country.” When I ask how he knows this, he says, “Trust me on this one, we know…. The numbers to watch for in the future will be Hispanic women–the wives and girlfriends.”
Already, aids is the leading cause of death in Miami and Fort Lauderdale for women ages 25 to 44, four times greater than the national average. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc), aids cases among Hispanics have been steadily rising. But any foray into the Latino subculture shows that the numbers do not tell the whole story, and may not even tell half. CDC literature notes that “it is believed that aids-related cases and deaths for Latinos are understated by at least 30 percent. Many Hispanics do not and cannot access HIV testing and health care.” Abetted by widespread shame about homosexuality, a fear of governmental and medical institutions (particularly among undocumented immigrants) and cultural denial as deep as Havana Harbor, aids is moving silently and insistently through Hispanic America. It is the stealth virus.
“No one knows how many Latino HIV cases are out there,” Damian Pardo, an affable Cuban-American, who is president of the board of Health Crisis Network, tells me over lunch in Coral Gables. “All we know is that the numbers are not accurate–that the actual cases are far higher. Everyone in the community lies about HIV.” Everyone, according to Pardo, means the families, the lovers, the priests, the doctors and the patients. “The Hispanic community in South Florida is far more affluent than blacks. More often than not, people see their own family doctor who simply signs a falsified death certificate. It’s a conspiracy of silence and everyone is complicitous.”
Freddie Rodriguez–smart, affluent, urbane–didn’t learn that Luis, his Nicaraguan lover, was HIV-positive until it was too late to do anything about it. “He was my first boyfriend. He would get sick at times but he refused to take a blood test. He said that it was impossible for him to be HIV-positive. I believed him. One day, he disappeared. Didn’t come home, didn’t go to work– just disappeared.” Frantic, Rodriguez called the police and started phoning hospitals. Finally, Luis turned up at Jackson Memorial Hospital. He had been discovered unconscious and rushed to intensive care. When Rodriguez arrived at the hospital, he learned that his lover was in the aids wing. Even then, Luis insisted it was a mistake. Two weeks later, he was dead. “I had to tell Luis’s family that he was gay,” Rodriguez says, “that I was his boyfriend and that he had died of aids. They knew nothing. He lived a completely secret life.”
Although Rodriguez was enraged by his lover’s cowardice, he understood his dilemma all too well. He remembered how hard it was to tell his own family. ” When I was 22, I finally told my parents that I was gay. My mother screamed and ran out of the room. My father raised his hands in front of his eyes and told me, Freddie do you see what’s in front of me? It’s a big, white cloud. I do not hear anything, see anything and I cannot remember anything because it is all in this big white cloud.’ And then he left the room.” One of Rodriguez’s later boyfriends, this one Peruvian, was also HIV-positive, but far more duplicitous. “He flat out lied to me when I asked him. He knew, but he only told me after we broke up, after we had unsafe sex,” says Rodriguez, who remains HIV-negative. “Part of the machismo ethic,” Rodriguez explains, ” is not wearing a condom.”
Miami’s Body Positive, which provides psychological and non-clinical services to aids patients, is housed in a pink concrete bubble off Miami’s Biscayne Boulevard. The building and much of its funding are provided by founder Doris Feinberg, who lost both her sons to aids during the late 1980s. The gay Cuban-American star of MTV’s “The Real World,” Pedro Zamora, worked here for the last five years of his life and started its P.O.P. program–Peer Outreach for Persons Who Are Positive. Ernie Lopez, a 26-year-old Nicaraguan who has been Body Positive’s director for the last five years, estimates that 40 percent of the center’s clients are Latino, in a Miami population that is 70 percent Hispanic. On the day I visit, I see mostly black men at the facility. Lopez warns me not to be fooled. “The Latino numbers are as high as the blacks, but they are not registered,” he says. “Latinos want anonymity. They come in very late–when they are desperate and their disease is very progressed. Often it’s too late to help them.”
Posted inAIDS, America|Comments Off on Marco Rubio Was Arrested In 1990 In A Gay Cruising Area
Dennis Prager writes: I have never surfed. I am not a rabbi and I am not a Chassidic Jew. So why am I writing a foreword to Surfing Rabbi? Because Rabbi Nachum Shifren is doing wonderful work on behalf of Judaism and all God-based religion. For too long religious life has been identified with asceticism, and Rabbi Shifren has decided to help undo that unfortunate association. The very fact that “surfing rabbi” strikes virtually all of us as almost an oxymoron shows how necessary such a rabbi is. Jews in particular identify religious Judaism with a lack of joy and with a retreat from worldly pursuits. This lack of identification of religious Judaism with the world and with earthly pleasure has been, unfortunately, often legitimate. Orthodox Judaism is a law-filled religion governing almost all of one’s behaviors. Add to that the amount of suffering in Jewish history and you have a recipe for a rather somber religious life. Then in the eighteenth century, along came Chassidism with an emphasis on “worshiping God through joy/happiness.” The most noted practitioners of this joyful Judaism are the Chassidim known as Chabad. Rabbi Nachum Shifren is a Chabad chassid who exemplifies this joy-filled Judaism. His vehicle is love of the oceans and surfing. Accomplished surfer and devout Jew that he is, Rabbi Shifren touches people who would most probably never encounter a rabbi, let alone an Orthodox one. By exuding a love of life and joy in the natural world as God’s creation, the Surfing Rabbi becomes a living ode to God the Creator. This is his story. It is a good and inspiring one.
Posted inDennis Prager|Comments Off on The Surfing Rabbi
Comment: “Poor Dennis Prager…he’s a smart guy but still spouts neo-con drivel that nobody is buying anymore…flush the show and don’t forget to jiggle the handle!”
Dennis: “We have terrific people [running for the Republican nomination] and all this attention is being given to a man who has no Republican background, no conservative principles, and somehow has sucked out all the wind out of the Republican process. It’s mind-boggling and very depressing. A very powerful piece on this by John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary, one of the leading Conservative magazines.”
No sense pretending: Donald Trump is the only news of the 2016 race, and this fact says something very troubling about the Republican party, the conservative electorate, the mass media culture, and the United States in general. Sounds like an exaggeration, but it’s not. Really it’s not.
Ted Cruz goes to war with the GOP Senate leadership; Hillary Clinton proposes the highest tax rates in 70 years; Marco Rubio goes after John Kerry on the Iran deal in a Senate hearing. Well, big deal. Phffft. They’ve all been crowded out by the Trump noise. There will be the first Republican debate in ten days. It’s the most important political event of the year thus far. And it will be all about Trump. He will see to that; the reporters will see to that, and the minor candidates looking to move up will see to it by trying to pick fights with him and best him.
It’s not enough to say that there are matters of deathly serious to be discussed, from Iran to ISIS to the possible collapse of the Euro and the Chinese economy to the harvesting of fetal organs, because there are always serious matters to be discussed as elections approach. The issue with Trump is that his approach can only be called “the politics of unseriousness.” He engages with no issue, merely offers a hostile and pithy soundbite bromide about it. He yammers. He describes how wonderful things will be when he acts against something or other without explaining how he will act, what he will do, or how it will work.
The Trump view, boiled down: They’re all idiots and I’m very rich and I know how to do things and if you say Word One against me I will say something incredibly nasty about you and who cares about how the Senate works or the House works or international alliances work or how treaties work or how anything works. That stuff is for sissies and losers and disasters. I know how to do it I me me me I me me I I me. And me. And I.
Politics and megalomania go hand in hand — otherwise, why would the ancient emperors have had someone whispering “Caesar, thou art mortal” in their ears as they paraded triumphantly through Rome to remind them they were not gods? To take one random example, Ed Koch, a very good politician indeed and one who did very good things, spent the last 20 years of his life literally incapable of speaking a sentence that was not in the first person. When I made a close study of the presidency of George H. W. Bush for my first book, Hell of a Ride, I discovered to my amazement that his speeches too were remarkably self-referential and his policies often came down to a kind of “what should a person like me in this situation do” rather than representing a serious grappling with the issues at play. In that book, I called Bush’s time in the White House a “solipsistic presidency,” and the charge still stands.
Trump is something different. He is not a politician whose success has turned him into a megalomaniac, but a megalomaniac who has decided to play politician for a while the way he played being a reality television star for a while. He’s free to do this, of course.
The problem is not with him. The problem has to do with his reception. He is garnering support that may actually be real, and may actually change the course of the 2016 election — and, therefore, American history — through nothing more than blowhardism.
Efforts to figure out how to coopt him and his issues on the part of other Republicans are doomed to failure because it’s not the message that people are attracted to; it’s the messenger. Or, if it is the message, it is a message that cannot be coopted because it is little more than a vile expression of open hatred toward Mexicans in a country where people of Mexican descent make up 11 percent of the electorate. For those who want Trump because of it, anything less than his defamation will strike them as the castrated bleating of what they have started to call a “cuckservative.”
Dennis: “Yeah. That’s all correct.”
On another show in July of 2015, Dennis says: “Let’s talk about Donald Trump here. I think I understand what is happening here. I have listened to and read his comments on John McCain. Some of the people I most respect in the world support Donald Trump’s alarm-sounding about illegal immigration.”
“Does [Trump] know anything about John McCain’s story? If John McCain is not a hero, the word should be removed from the English language. He could have left. He was tortured. He revealed nothing and wouldn’t allow himself to be released until all his fellow prisoners were and then Donald Trump has the moronic audacity to say that this man is not a hero because he was captured. Is he out of his mind? It’s disgusting what he said.”
“He is unworthy of being president. If you are not angry by what he said about John McCain, I’m disgusted.”
“If you defend Donald Trump, it’s Republican-first over morality, over decency. Some things have to elicit anger or it’s over. Oh, it doesn’t matter that he have this disgusting dismissal of a man who was tortured for years and this buffoon has the audacity not to apologize for it. And people laugh? McCain is entirely right that he owes an apology to the family of every POW. Is this the bushido ethic? Is that the Donald Trump ethic?”
On August 6, 2015, Dennis Prager tweeted: “Donald Trump’s unwillingness to pledge not to run as an independent should immediately disqualify him in every Republican’s eyes.”
In August, after the first Republican debate, Dennis said: “I wonder if Trump has ever been booed by a room full of people before?”
“It’s clear that support for Trump is emotional. Virtually every call has taken issue with me on Donald Trump.”
“The left is enamored of Donald Trump because the more Donald Trump is in the headlines, the more people who might vote Republican are turned off. The New York Times story is a lie. Donald Trump did not steal the show, but the New York Times wants to promote him.”
“Supporting Trump feels good. It doesn’t do good. The New York Times is on your side if you support Trump.”
“If you want to be intellectually honest, Cruz is your man if you are a Trump supporter.”
“I love Rick Perry. He’d be a great president. Of that crew, I thought Carly Fiorina and Bobby Jindahl did best. Santorum did fine.”
“Ronald Reagan didn’t speak the way Donald Trump does.”
“What is [Trump] saying that Ted Cruz is not saying? Where are his novel insights? I don’t know that he is a conservative. He has taken a position on almost every issue that is the opposite of what he now has.”
“There isn’t Donald Trump thinking. There is Donald Trump emoting.”
Caller: “Who would you rather have for president? A loony left-winger or Donald Trump?”
Dennis: “Donald Trump.”
Caller: “If he gets the nod, will you contact him and offer him your help?”
Dennis: “Yes.”
“Democrats are so damaging to this country that even Donald Trump would be better.”
Dec. 15, 2015, Dennis tweeted: “Thus far, if I were a Democrat, I would most fear Marco Rubio.”
Americans are fat of waist and fat on feels. Commenter Tark Marg at Sailer’s coins a perfect term for the psychopathology afflicting a sizable number of WEIRDO (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic, and outbred) Whites.
Unless the causative factors behind this PC lunacy are clearly explained, it’ll be impossible to effectively counter it. Here is my attempt to do so.
As I see it, the West is suffering from a condition I’ll call empathobesity.
For a long time, an egalitarian, empathetic impulse was an asset in the West as it created an ever expanding educated and productive class of citizens by expanding political franchise from monarchs to lords to wealthy commoners to middle class men to all men to all adults, followed by welfare and universal healthcare etc.
To illustrate using the example of England, starting with the Magna Carta in 1215, we have the English civil war in 1642, the glorious revolution in 1688, Habeas Corpus, the reform acts of the 19th century, the representation of the people acts of the early 20th, feminism, Welfare, the sexual revolution, mass migration, gay rights, animal rights, transgender rights and so on.
Initially these steps have had a positive payoff as they expanded the class of educated people able to undertake scientific and industrial progress. This is why the scientific and industrial revolutions occurred in England where also we see the first diffusion of political power with the Magna Carta in 1215.
Over time, this empathetic, egalitarianist impulse has calcified into a dogma. Probably in the early to mid 20th century, this dogma has run into diminishing and even negative returns.
Thus, the extension of empathy to adherents of a hostile religion is likely to be a major drag, not gain, a point well proven by this incident. The mass importation of low skilled illegal immigrants will not enhance the economic welfare of the recipient nation.
The feminist movement initially increased the pool of educated workers, but by eschewing reproduction, have condemned the West to declining human and financial resources just as the mass of poorly educated and integrated aliens, especially in Europe, starts to spike.
Yet, like an obese person compelled by instinct to eat in excess, the West cannot shake off its pathological empathy (hence empathobesity).
I’ve made this argument in more detail at tarkmarg.blogspot.com. Please have a look and see if you find it convincing.
As portmanteaus go, empathobesity is a term of art. The concept isn’t all that new; the idea of NW European White altruism being hijacked (“hacked”) by less empathic races rendering the condition pathological to Whites has been discussed all over the alt-right, as well as at your ‘umbly appointed Chateau. Empathobesity could help explain why the Equalist Elite are sounding more extremist about their pet causes, like Open Borders.
The intellectual diagnosis is necessary, but revolutions need slogans, banners, and rhetorical shivs. The next time a shitlib acts up in the usual shitlibby manner, tell it that it suffers from empathobesity. Advise therapy or medical intervention to fix their problem.
How ironic that the fortuitous evolution of mind which propelled NW European Whites to the heights of art, science, and civilization is the same unique endowment that may be the White race’s undoing.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on The Epidemic Of Empathobesity
Some people think it’s cute when people lay in bed with their loved ones, holding each other in their arms. This act is commonly referred to as “spooning.”
Other people—enlightened people—realize that spooning is a deeply problematic way that power structures propagate themselves. Fortunately, such enlightened people are dominant in the media and can explain to us how we should be Good:
The more I reflect on spooning during my sojourn, the more I have come to see it as a terrible idea, one that’s fraught both physically and ideologically.
Yes, thank you! I’m glad someone is finally addressing this.
Big spoons are manly and will take care of you (provided you let them use you to take care of themselves); little spoons are fragile, passive creatures that need to be held and kept safe. This, of course, is fundamentally a sexist arrangement, one that casts the big spoon as “the man” and the little spoon as “the woman.”
wow really makes you think
To say that this power imbalance is built into all acts of spooning—whichever the sexes engaged—is not, I think, an overstatement.
Not only is it not an overstatement, it’s the truest thing I’ve ever read. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that the government should probably step in and begin educating our children about the ideologically unsound nature of spooning. Is it really too much to ask for a chapter in sex ed books on this topic?
I give the transgression of sleeping next to your loved one in an ideologically fraught way three problematics.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on The Problem With Spooning
Steve, have you ever investigated/considered that one utilitarian element of Obamacare was to hurry the exit of old white guys who vote republican?
My father is 85, Catholic, former Marine, and general grumpy conservative old guy. He had a stroke two weeks ago, and the family is amazed at how many insurance firewalls we’ve bumped up against that were not there ten years ago when my 92 year old grandmother required similar care.
It being the election year that is is, it occurred to me that yes, the left would certainly like my dad to be gone by election day.
* Sarah Palin, whatever else you think about her, was right about the Death Panels.
Rationing care, especially for the about to die old folks, is the only way to control health care costs.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Is One Purpose Of Obamacare Killing Off Old White Guys?
* Steve, the NYT noticesRacial Identity, and Its Hostilities, Are on the Rise in American Politics.
I’m not sure if I’m imagining a tone to the article but I get a sense of disapproval inherent in the reporting regarding the failure of white Americans to transform into the New Soviet Man, as seen by the NYT elite. This likely arises from the unexamined positions incorporated into the writing. Here’s an example.
Such voters are nostalgic for the country they lived in 50 years ago, when non-Hispanic whites made up more than 83 percent of the population. Today, their share has shrunk to 62 percent as demographic change has transformed the United States into a nation where others have a shot at political power.
Well, how did that happen? Was it like a hurrican hitting the coast or did this demographic transformation come about because of policy choices?
Their fear is understandable. In general, the concerns of Hispanic and black American voters are often different from those of white voters. But the reaction of whites who are struggling economically raises the specter of an outright political war along racial and ethnic lines over the distribution of resources and opportunities.
Why do blacks and Hispanics like Big Government? Because Big Government is the enforcer in the racial spoils game, where wealth and opportunity are taken from whites and trasnferred to NAMS. That’s not a problem for the NYT so long as whites are willing to be tax farmed but once they resist, then we’re heading into a racial war. I suppose that when the Nazis rolled into Norway and didn’t face Norwegians in a house to house war that there was actually no war taking place, never mind the Nazi war on Norway, so long as Norway wasn’t taking the fight to Germany there was no war. Or something.
The article does a good job of documenting how diversity destroys communities but the writer leaves a lot of points out of the article such that the current regime cannot be scrutinized, why is “Diversity our strength” when the points he cites demonstrate otherwise? One thing is clear though, whites are the culprits for supporting Trump.
* When the UK law criminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults was repealed in 1967, the speeches in favour of the bill were basically “These are sad people who can’t help their inclinations, it’s cruel to lock them up if no one’s harmed“. Opponents warned in apocalyptic terms that homosexuals wouldn’t be content with legality but would in time demand full cultural equality – and those in favour said “don’t be ridiculous – that’ll never happen“.
But not even the most fervent speaker on either side could have imagined that less than 50 years later a Tory MP (and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee) would make a speech in the house about how he regularly liked to inhale a chemical (which relaxes the anal sphincter), and how banning said chemical was “fantastically stupid“.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on NYT: Racial Identity, and Its Hostilities, Are on the Rise in American Politics
* Hollywood is a $36.5 billion worldwide box office business. While it only breaks down race for the US the MPAA (google: MPAA Theatrical Market statistics) does list countries and geographic regions. A crude approximation of their box office by race/ethnicity is thus able to be calculated and I have come up with the following:
Blacks – $2 billion (more than half in the US)
Whites – $15 billion (roughly 1/3rd in the US)
Hispanics – $6 billion (roughly 40% in the US)
East Asians – $10 billion (roughly 10% in the US)
Indian subcontinent – $2 billion
Middle East and rest of Asia – $1.5 billion
If anybody should be complaining its the Chinese/Japanese/Koreans that comprise 25% of Hollywood’s box office gross.
I might also point out from a racial breakdown US movie goers are 25% Hispanic, 55% white, 10% black, 10% Asian and other. So if there is a group that is really getting shafted in America its the Hispanics that are punching well above their weight in movie theater ticket purchases.
I might also point out that the Oscars themselves are a production to be sold, and while I haven’t gone out and dug up the numbers, I bet that the demographic there overly skews white female and should therefore put forward the people they want to see the most.
* It could be that just as Jewish overrepresentation and white Christian/gentile underrepresentation within white and overall representation are unnoticed and or considered irrelevant, black overrepresentation and Asian and Hispanic underrepresentation within the diversity or non-white and overall representation are unnoticed and or considered irrelevant.
Posted inBlacks, Hollywood|Comments Off on Hollywood Demographics
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
