December 21, 2008

This Site is Not the Ace of Spades Site
— Ace

This is actually just a work-in-progress site.  It's half-done.  Right now it's not used, except as an emergency back-up when the main site goes down.

The actual site is at, or, which will redirect there.

If you're not seeing pictures on this site, it's because it's not really working yet.

If you've posted comments and no one seems to respond -- that's because most users can't see them.  Comments from the real site get posted here, but comments from here don't show up on the real site.

Basically, you should come to the real site.  It looks a little crappy right now and it breaks down a lot, but this one isn't quite ready yet.

Sorry.. should have put up this notice long ago.

Note from Pixy: Posts and comments automatically sync from the old site to this new site within 60 seconds, but some authors aren't set up on the new site, and will show up as Open Blogger.  We'll get those sorted out soon.

Posted by: Ace at 01:01 AM | Comments (1411)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

April 24, 2014

Overnight Open Thread (4-24-2014)
— Maetenloch

McCain: It's a Stain on America's Honor That We Haven't Passed Amnesty Yet

So foreign citizens snuck into America and live here in violation of our current immigration laws instead of becoming residents through legal channels like all previous immigrants have done and this is all somehow a stain on our honor?

What the fuck, McCain? It's one thing to disagree on an issue but now you're making it personal. And making me okay with the prospect of a future Democrat senator from Arizona who won't gratuitously insult me.


Cliven Bundy Loses the PR War

Well he never had a legal leg to stand on so his position as an sympathetic public emblem of the government bullying of ranchers was really all he had. But now after his racist rant he's PR poison.

Now of course just saying racist things doesn't invalidate your legal claims but then Bundy has already lost in court multiple times. And his claims of longtime family rights to the BLM land don't hold up to scrutiny. And now the left is warming up to him for his pro-amnesty views. Time to move on from this one folks. 

George Clooney Will Not Stand For the Mocking of Mikhail Gorbachev

Or the dissing of his 'personal friend' Barrack Obama.

But he told the paper that Clooney first got upset at the dinner when one of the CAA execs told a joke about former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

Clooney threw "a hissy fit" about that, Wynn told the paper, then started talking about the ACA, or Obamacare. When Wynn, a frequent critic of Obamacare, spoke up, Clooney got mad about that, too, Wynn said.
"He called the president an (expletive deleted) ... that is a fact ..." Clooney said in a statement issued by his publicist. "I said the president was my longtime friend and then he said 'your friend is an (expletive deleted).' ... At that point I told Steve that HE was an (expletive deleted) and I wasn't going to sit at his table while he was being such a jackass."



Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:40 PM | Comments (703)
Post contains 809 words, total size 11 kb.

Take A Chill Pill Open Thread - [Niedermeyer's Dead Horse]
— Open Blogger

It's been a long day and the sun is setting. It's time to kick back and exhale.

While Sara Smile is my favorite song and this is perhaps my favorite version, the video below doesn't suck.


Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:48 PM | Comments (407)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Boehner Mocks Republican Congressmen on Immigration Reform
— Ace

Ah, so. Yes.

MADISON TOWNSHIP House Speaker John Boehner theatrically mocked his fellow Republican Congressmen for being afraid to reform immigration policy when he spoke Thursday before the Middletown Rotary Club in his home district.

"Here's the attitude. Ohhhh. Don't make me do this. Ohhhh. This is too hard," Boehner whined before a luncheon crowd at Brown's Run County Club in Madison Township.

"We get elected to make choices. We get elected to solve problems and it's remarkable to me how many of my colleagues just don't want to ... They'll take the path of least resistance."

Boehner said he's been working for 16 or 17 months trying to push Congress to deal with immigration reform.

"I've had every brick and bat and arrow shot at me over this issue just because I wanted to deal with it. I didn't say it was going to be easy," he said.

There is a line that separates one species from another. Inside that line, you're part of the same species. Different variety, sure, but same species.

Outside of it, and you're a different species and can't interbreed.

I think in politics we might say that that line which divides one political species from another is disparagement.

Disagreement makes you another variety of the same species. But sneering dismissal? That puts you in the category of a different species.

This is especially a problem as politicians, well, evolve as they say (continuing my taxonomic/biological analogy), to the left, because the Left is really quite terribly good at labeling people to the right as being beneath contempt and beyond the parameters of polite debate.

Thus, as someone takes more leftward positions, he hears the applause from the Leftist Chattering Classes, and begins to play to the home crowd, and that home crowd is now more and more made up of leftist agitators and other members of the media, and begins to hate his opponents, and evolves even faster.

The end point of this evolution is of course John McCain.

Posted by: Ace at 02:48 PM | Comments (281)
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

Now Here's Some Stupid Girl Saying What I Just Said
— Ace

I did not know -- swearsies -- that Mollie Hemingway had covered this earlier, contrasting the problems faced by the upper-middle-class American white girls who make up the ranks of the Post-Feminist left with the problems faced by girls in other, harder parts of the world.

I seem to notice the Post-Feminists promote the sillier sorts of stories and not only don't discuss the harsher, more important stories, but take active steps to suppress discussion of them.

Posted by: Ace at 01:02 PM | Comments (434)
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Western Feminists Life Safe, Soft Decadent Lives, and Focus on the Trivial at the Expense of the Profoundly Important
— Ace

My words, not hers, but that's her point.

"The white man is held to a moral standard that, in the West, men [who have immigrated] from other cultures are not held to," she told the Herald. ''If a white man sold his daughter into marriage, most people would be appalled and there'd be an outrage in any national context in any country in the West. But when it's a man from Pakistan or Somalia or Yemen or India, then what you see is this: 'Oh yes, but …'"


Hirsi Ali, who lives in the US, believes women in developed countries are distracted by issues like work-life balance when they should focus on big-picture issues, such as women's safety. She says it is the responsibility of Western feminists to push these issues onto the public agenda - but only if the movement returns to its original values.

This is a several-weeks-old story, but I'm revisiting it on my way to discussing a newer story.

The letter demanding that Hirsi Ali be dis-invited from speaking at Brandeis was, get this, largely signed by women in the Women and Gender Studies program, and more-or-less-explicitly stated that Ali's focus on genuine repression of women took the focus off the trivial microagressions they prefer to gab about.

The Brandeis professors who demanded that Ayaan Hirsi Ali be "immediately" dis-invited wrote that "we are filled with shame at the suggestion that (Hirsi Ali's) above-quoted sentiments express Brandeis's values." The professors also castigated Hirsi Ali for her "core belief of the cultural backwardness of non-western peoples" and for her suggestion that "violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam." The professors note that such a view "obscure(s) such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus."

Well, they're not practicing forced clitorectomies at Brandeis, nor are they practicing forced marriage (which is essentially family-arranged rape for life), so I take their complaint to mean this:

Hirsi Ali's own story of genuine oppression, and her agitation about important, fundamental rights of, and dignities owed, to women, makes our own neurotic prattlings seem rather silly and fluffy by comparison.

One of the most important ideas in Post-Feminist philosophy (it's post-feminist now; this is just a degenerate, decadent, silly thing) is the concept of "rape culture."

"Rape culture" is crucial because it is the means by which the trivial is transmogrified into the profound. The fact that a man might commit a "microaggression" against a woman by opening the door for her is, in a series of logical steps, rapidly connected to something serious -- rape -- and thus invested with seriousness itself.

Even though it is by no means serious itself.

But the quick silly skipping "logical" steps go like this:

1. A man commits a "microaggression" against a woman by holding a door open for her, "Otherizing" her and suggesting she is infantile and unable to accomplish small tasks on her own.

2. This is a microaggressive power play which reifies the assumptions of the Patriarchy, about woman's role in society as essentially that of Object or Ornament even Trade Good.

3. This dehumanization of women -- the conscious microaggressive stripping of dignity, agency, and autonomy from women -- makes it more easy for a member of the Patriarchy to treat them as inhuman things.

4. This increases the likelihood of rape and in fact reinforces a "rape culture."

That's the reasoning, such as it is, and this reasoning is assumed (rarely spelled out for the listener) whenever a Post-Feminist attempts to invest some absolutely trivial, bubble-headed cultural complaint (such as Tina Fey's character on 30 Rock not being a real feminist) with some imaginary weightiness.

No one can argue that rape isn't a crime of great weight, and so whenever a Post-Feminist senses she's saying something so absurd and trivial it may make her look absurd and trivial, she knows to go through the "Rape Culture" Algorithm to insist that what she's saying isn't absurd and trivial at all, but Very, Very Important.

But of course I can play the same game with any subject and connect it to rape, murder, or Hitler, as you like.

I can connect, if I wanted, a movie I didn't like to Hitler in four steps or fewer; that would not make my whining about The Hobbit 2 any less trivial or any more "political." (But seriously, it was the worst movie I've seen in years. I literally said aloud, "I hate this f***ing movie" about halfway through. I think it might be worst than the Holocaust, but I'm not sure.)

This is a silly game, indulged by silly people.

Hirsi Ali's story is a threat to this version of Post-Feminist trivial pursuits, as that letter readily admits. Hirsi Ali is speaking of real rape -- not "rape culture" -- and real, physical aggressions, clitorectomies, daylight murders, all of which have the inevitable effect of making the pet obsessions of the Brandeis Women and Gender Studies Department seem rather more ridiculous than they already might appear.

Charles C.W. Cooke discussed this some weeks back:

Prepossessed as he was with the all-encompassing wars of his era, George Orwell complained that political language was “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Unlike Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the culture warriors of America’s pampered campuses are unlikely to be dealing in murder or in warfare or, for that matter, in anything of much consequence at all. Nevertheless, they enjoy playing assassin, painting glowing targets onto the backs of any idea that threatens their power and, one by one, seeking the bullseyes.

So, here's my point. Slate is a magazine much-devoted to the trivial and silly -- until recently, they were the proud (?) publisher of the mindthoughts of Matt Yglesias, now of -- and never is Slate more trivial and silly than its embarrassing, woman-shaming "XX Factor" column, aka "Politicz for Grrls."

And so here's he latest masterpiece from the XX Factor brain trust.

It comes -- appropriately enough -- from a junior in high school.

This is what Post-Feminists would rather talk about than Ayaan Hirsi Ali's first-hand encounters with real-world oppression of women.

McDonald's Gave Me the “Girl's Toy” With My Happy Meal. So I Went to the CEO.

By Antonia Ayres-Brown

We found that 92.9 percent of the time, the store simply gave each child the toy that McDonald’s had designated for that child’s gender.

In the fall of 2008, when I was 11 years old, I wrote to the CEO of McDonald’s and asked him to change the way his stores sold Happy Meals. I expressed my frustration that McDonald’s always asked if my family preferred a “girl toy” or a “boy toy” when we ordered a Happy Meal at the drive-through. My letter asked if it would be legal for McDonald’s “to ask at a job interview whether someone wanted a man’s job or a woman’s job?”

A few weeks later, I received a short response from a McDonald’s customer satisfaction representative claiming that McDonald’s doesn’t train their employees to ask whether Happy Meal customers want boys’ or girls’ toys, and my experiences were not the norm.

This response was unsatisfying, so I began visiting more than a dozen local McDonald’s locations with my father to collect data. Ultimately, we brought a complaint to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities against McDonald’s for discriminating on the basis of sex. Despite our evidence showing that, in our test, McDonald’s employees described the toys in gendered terms more than 79 percent of the time, the commission dismissed our allegations as “absurd” and solely for the purposes of “titilation [sic] and sociological experimentation.”All in all, this was a pretty humiliating defeat.

When a Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities tells you you're being absurd, you're probably doing something wrong.

But I still couldn’t let it go.... So this past summer, we decided to test this assertion.

In a series of 30 visits, we sent boys and girls, ages 7-11, into 15 McDonald’s stores to independently order a Happy Meal at the counter. We found that 92.9 percent of the time, the store, without asking, simply gave each child the toy that McDonald’s had designated for that child’s gender...

In the most egregious instance, a McDonald’s employee asked a girl, “Would you like the girl's toy?” The girl responded, “No, could I have the boy's toy?” When the girl opened the container a moment later, she learned that notwithstanding her explicit request, a McDonald’s employee had given her the girl’s toy. This girl went back to the counter with the unopened toy and requested, “May I have a boy's toy, please?” The same McDonald’s employee replied, “There are only girl's toys.” We then sent an adult male into the store who immediately was given a boy’s toy.

"The most egregious incident" involving cisnormative distribution of Happy Meal toys, she means. I suppose, within that particular set, this might indeed be "the most egregious incident."

Oh by the way, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not permitted to discuss her own experiences of genital mutilation and attempted forced marriage because that might "distract" from the important agenda items being pushed by Post-Feminists.

I will say one thing for this Junior Member of the Women and Gender Studies Social Justice Committee -- she is a more lucid writer than Matt Yglesias, and her piece actually contains information.

Not important information, but still, better than Yglesias.

By the way...

The precocious inquiry yielded a series of communications between Ayres-Brown and the fast-food chain. It also led to some serious data collecting by the girl and her dad Ian Ayres — who is, unsurprisingly, a heavy-hitting Yale law professor and economist who has previously collaborated with his daughter on research — about McDonald’s employees and the Happy Meal gender bias.

Sounds like maybe someone is acting Paternalistically in helping someone get their Ivy League application essay together.

Yay feminism, I guess...?

Posted by: Ace at 12:10 PM | Comments (336)
Post contains 1710 words, total size 11 kb.

Incredible: Group Objects to Mentioning "Islam" or "Jihad" in Film Explaining 9/11 To Be Shown at the 9/11 Museum
— Ace

The future belongs to those who control the past.

AllahPundit doesn't think this group will win out in its Outrage Trolling Initiative. Too many leftists in good standing would have to own up to their own Politically Incorrect mentions of Islam and Jihad in connection to 9/11 were this to become the New Stupid Standard of Socially-Approved Ignorance.

In fact, Brian Williams, face of the Democratic Communications Unit called "NBC Nightly News," narrates the film and speaks the Forbidden Words himself.

I think this is more serious than he does, maybe.

The other day I was talking about the claim often made about Social Censorship -- that it's only "censorship" if the government does it.

Well, that's not true. It's true that the First Amendment only restrains the government, but the spirit of the First Amendment could and should restrain everyone.

Whenever someone wants to use social or economic coercion to shut someone up -- defeating them not with better ideas, but better political mobilization and better utilization of levers of coercion -- they should ask if they're acting as friends or enemies of free expression.

But that wasn't my point. My point is that politics is just downstream of culture.

And if the culture supports punishing people like Brendan Eich for committing a Thoughtcrime, then it will not be terribly long until our government does as well.

If the public demands censorship by mob justice, the government -- which is not a principled institution, but a favor-for-favor system of legal quid pro quos -- will eventually see the benefit of censorship by mob as well.

Which is why I find this current folly more worrisome than AllahPundit. He may be right that this attempt at rewriting history For Social Justice will fail, as it's simply too ludicrous to win the day.

But even if it doesn't win the day, it is apparently now a proposition that People Must Take Seriously.

People are not expected, I guess, to seriously entertain the proposition that the government should rewrite history in response to a particular pressure-constituency's demands that history be rewritten.

Perhaps history won't be rewritten here.

But how scary is it that we'll take a vote on it, and that vote will probably be pretty close?

A people gets the government they deserve. And as the American people become stupider, more juvenile, more mob-like, and more hostile to not just free thought but virtually any sort of thought at all, we will, ultimately, get just the sort of government a Majority of Imbeciles and Lunatics demand.


I don't see how Muslims could have pulled off a controlled demolition like that in addition to controlling the video feeds news services were using to make it appear the targets were hit by planes.

Sounds like the museum is in the wrong here.

Dr. Spank is available to speak at college graduation ceremonies and also lunatic asylum orientation days.

Indeed: Copybook Wabblings Redux says--

Unfortunately, fire really can’t burn stupid.

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (423)
Post contains 535 words, total size 3 kb.

Man Reveals Secret of Success: Do Nothing But Drink, Party, and Bicep Curls, Then Get Into a Pointless Barfight Where You're Conked on the Head From Behind, and You Too May Become a Mathematical Intuitive Genius
— Ace

So, supposedly, this guy is one of only 40 -- forty! -- people in the entire world with "acquired savant syndrome," in which one suddenly gains a savant-like effortless, innate skill at art, math, or science after an brain injury or brain disease.

He became a mathematical savant -- after previously showing no talent or interest in any higher-thinking pursuit -- after suffering a "profound concussion" in a barfight.

“If it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone," he says in his new book, thus promising readers a surefire pathway to success -- careless living and drunken brawls.

So guys, go out there, get a load on, start throwing elbows and ethnic slurs, and maybe change the world.

And bring your protractor and compass -- you might need them later.

Padgett’s world is bursting with mathematical patterns. He is one of a few people in the world who can draw approximations of fractals, the repeating geometric patterns that are building blocks of everything in the known universe, by hand. Tree leaves outside his window are evidence of Pythagoras’ theorem. The arc that light makes when it bounces off his car proves the power of pi.

He sees the parts that make up the whole. And his world is never boring, never without amazement. Even his dreams are made up of geometry.


Flash back 12 years: Padgett had dropped out of Tacoma (Wash.) Community College, and was a self-described “goof” with zero interest in academics, let alone math. The only time he dealt in numbers was to track the hours until his shift ended at his father’s furniture store, tally up his bar tab, or count bicep curls at the gym.
With his mullet, leather vest open to a bare chest, and skintight pants, he was more like a high-school student stuck in the 1980s — even though it was 2002, and he was a 31-year-old with a daughter.

He would race his buddies in a freshly painted red Camaro. His life was one adrenaline rush after another: cliff-jumping, sky-diving, bar-hopping. He was the “life of the party.” The guy who would funnel a beer before going out and would slip a bottle of Southern Comfort in his jacket pocket to avoid paying $6 for mixed drinks.


Party time came to end the night of Friday, Sept. 13, 2002, at a karaoke bar near his home. There, two men attacked him from behind, punching him in the back of the head, knocking him unconscious.


The next morning, while running the water in the bathroom, he noticed “lines emanating out perpendicularly from the flow. At first, I was startled, and worried for myself, but it was so beautiful that I just stood in my slippers and stared.”


Days went by, but the visuals remained.


During one of his meditations, he came to the conclusion that “circles don’t exist.”

“It was like a bomb went off in my mind. In a matter of minutes, I was no longer just a receiver of geometric imagery or a researcher; I was a theorist,” he writes.

It's pretty neat, and while I've excerpted quite a bit, there's more of his story -- essentially a superhero story, when you think about it, as he acquires Strange New Powers without any satisfying rational explanation for it -- at the link.

You should know that he wasn't entirely unprepared for sudden genius. He had always scored high on IQ tests, though he never had any interest in academics or doing much besides getting his liquor on and getting his weenie squeezed.

So, you know: A hero for us all.

When they make the movie, "Circles don't exist, baby," will be his pick-up line.


Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (430)
Post contains 693 words, total size 4 kb.

Ride-Along News and the Drive-By Media
— Ace

Here's the insidious thing about the "Girls Make Less in Allowance Than Boys, #WarOnWomen" story and others like it.

When the media has decided something is Big News, they do a series of related (or barely-related) stories about it. The Media has obviously decided that the #WarOnWomen #FightPayInequality hashtags are Big News (because Obama told them they were).

I'll call these sorts of stories "Ride-Along News." These stories would not be reported, except that they are riding along with a bigger story.

In most cases they're either not stories at all, or they are microstories.

The purpose of these Ride-Along Stories is simply to keep the Big Story, vaguely, in the news, by frequently mentioning the basic theme of it in other contexts. You can't report on the #WarOnWomen #FightPayInequality hashtags when there's no new news; these sorts of Ride-Along micro-stories allow the media to indulge its biases and continue hitting the same themes and pushing the same political line without the effort of actually doing any new reporting on the actual story itself.

And of course which stories get selected for this Ride-Along coverage is shot through with ideological bias and, increasingly, simple partisan bias. The Democrats have decided the #WarOnWomen is one of the few cards they can play this election cycle; the media eagerly snaps to attention, understanding that Orders Have Been Given, and begins looking around for micro-stories to reinforce and propagate the Democrats' fall campaign themes.

Obviously, the media could choose to do Ride-Along reportage of stories that the Republicans are pushing. They could report on the continuing grim state of the economy; they could report on the economy as they would were it the responsibility of a Republican president, offering up heartbreaking slice-of-life stories about individual victims of the Great Recession.

Given that Clive Bundy is in the news, they could do a series of reports on federal land management, and how much land is under federal control, and the tensions this creates with locals, and so on.

Given that GM, while under the ownership of the Obama White House, pumped out a series of defective cars and concealed these defects from the public, the media could have done a series of Ride-Along stories about previous "government-private" partnerships -- like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Solyndra -- and reported on how all of those worked out for the taxpaying citizen.

But they don't, of course.

The media's idea of "neutrality" is to cover both parties' stated lines, briefly (though with Democrats' lines getting the majority of coverage).

And then they fill up the news with Ride-Along stories reinforcing the Democrats' favored campaign themes, with no coverage at all -- no oxygen, no human interest, no Weird and Wacky stories -- for Republican themes.

Matt Lauer and Natalie Morales will swear on a stack of Bibles that it Just So Happens that this #WarOnGirlsAllowances just happened to become news at the same moment the president was pushing his #WarOnWomensPay campaign theme.

Of course, that's a lie. They chose the story -- a micro-story which isn't even a story; it's a poll by someone we never heard of before ("Junior Achievement"?), typed up by the leftwing Think Progress blog -- because it reinforces their political agenda.

Natalie Morales confesses exactly that in the piece linked below: "So basically, girls are doing more for less. This sounds kind of familiar right?""

Note if they were just casting about for any story on #WarOnWomen, whether it reinforced Democrat campaign themes or undermined them, they could have discussed that much-more rigorous and serious news that even in Pay-Equity-Crazy Sweden, women still work fewer hours, and still work more frequently in part-time jobs, and still favor the occupations imposed on women by the Oppressive Male Patriarchy, the so-called "caring" professions.

That's also an important data point in this alleged American #WarOnWomen, no? That's almost as important on this single poll by "Junior Achievement" on children's allowances, no?

But of course they didn't do that. No, they chose the silly, Buzzfeed-y non-story that not only kept the #WarOnWomen meme in the public consciousness, but also furthered the Democrats' preferred political line on the #WarOnWomen.

That story didn't agree with their Democratic worldview. (Not liberal ideologically, mind you, but straight-up partisan Democratic.)

I guess it's not true that the media will never do Ride Along stories on Republican attack lines. If a Republican attack line becomes powerful, they will of course begin doing Ride-Along stories to undermine it, check it, and refute it.

I trust everyone remembers the gangbusters business the media did in the "Everyone Lies, At Least Sometimes" stories when it became obvious that Bill Clinton had perjured himself under oath and then directly wagged his finger at the American public.

I ask again rhetorically: For how much longer does the childish media insist on maintaining this risible fiction that they are not Democratic propagandists?

And how can it be that an institution allegedly concerned with "reporting the truth" places such a critical importance on an official corporate position requiring lying about their political agenda?

From the Junior Achievement Website:

This survey was conducted online within the United States by Harris Poll on behalf of Junior Achievement USA from February 12-24, 2014 among 1,234 youths ages 8-18. This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

So it's not really a poll.

Gee, I guess Think Progress just forgot to report that, and NBC forgot to look into it.

But this story achieved its purpose: It got the #WarOnWomen story into the mainstream media another day.

It got into the mindspace of a few thousand low-information voters. This factoid will persist in their minds and influence their voting behavior.

That was Think Progress' goal, and that was NBC's goal.

Mission Accomplished.

thanks to @tsrblke.

Update: Commenters are telling me that Junior Achievement is an organization that sends corporate higher-ups to classrooms to, I guess, sell them on the idea of going into business, or excelling in whatever field they choose.

They say it's not partisan at all.

That may be true. And maybe they just did this non-poll as a fun-fact sort of thing.

But the Left has its paid professional meme generators at Think Progress, and they of course promoted the poll, and then NBC -- with apparently no fact-checking whatsoever -- put the Ride-Along News-Like Substitute on the airwaves a single day later.

The transmission from hard-left-wing/paid professional partisan propaganda outfit to the "mainstream" NBC took exactly 24 hours.

As Natalie Morales might say: "That sounds kind of familiar, right?"

Posted by: Ace at 08:23 AM | Comments (292)
Post contains 1116 words, total size 7 kb.

#WarOnWomen: NBC Now Claims That "Pay Gap" Even Extends to Girls' Allowances
— Ace

Shockingly enough, this microaggression started out on the leftwing blog Think Progress and made it to NBC's airwaves in nothing flat.

A day after the liberal website Think Progress wrote a piece complaining “There’s Even A Gender Gap In Children’s Allowances” the folks over at NBC rushed to tie the issue to the “pay gap” between men and women.

On Thursday, April 24, Today show co-host Matt Lauer hyped “We all know about a pay gap that exists for adult men and women in the work world, but there are surprising new numbers this morning revealing that that gap actually begins during childhood with the allowances we pay our kids. In a new survey, 70% of boys say they get an allowance. That’s compared to just 60% of girls.”

Co-host Natalie Morales expressed shock at the so-called “pay gap” exists among children and complained “It’s true. Even though another study finds that girls spend more time doing chores. So basically, girls are doing more for less. This sounds kind of familiar right?"

This is based on a single survey by a group called "Junior Achievement."

By the way, NBC can't accurately report the numbers of this silly single poll. 59% of girls say they get an allowance, and 67% of boys. The differential (according to this silly poll) is 8%, not 10%, as they claim.

Shouldn't they sort of get simple numbers right?

Meanwhile, not only has socialist Sweden joined the #WarOnWomen, but they've been fighting it for years.

Consider Sweden, a country where the goal of gender parity is close to a national religion...

The results are not what anyone could call revolutionary.... [T]he difference in labor force participation is not dramatic, and in most respects, Swedish women behave much as sisters do in the U.S.

Like Americans, Swedish women work substantially fewer hours than men; they are 2 times as likely to be part timers. They are the vast majority of social workers, teachers, and child care workers and a small minority of scientists (PDF) and CEO’s (PDF). In fact, Sweden’s labor market is among the most sex segregated (PDF) in the world and their wage gap shows it. Mothers take in only about 20% as men, much the same as in the United States.

The results in other countries committed to gender role busting are much the same. Iceland has been crowned the most gender equal country in the world by the World Economic Forum (PDF) every year since 2009. They provide many of the same supports as Sweden. So does Norway, third on the WEF list and famous as the first country to institute a 40% female quota in corporate boardrooms. Women in both countries are well represented in parliament—about 40%. Yet the ladies still work fewer hours than their male counterparts and they are two times as likely to be part timers. They remain segregated in more traditionally “female” occupations. Their mommy wage gap? About the same as Sweden and the U.S.

Posted by: Ace at 07:37 AM | Comments (317)
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.

We Are All In The "Let It Burn" Camp
— DrewM

We got an interesting question for the mailbag this week that I'm going to steal for this post. I'm not entirely sure it's theft since it was directed to me and I may not make this week's recording so I'll give it a go here.

For Drew: When are you going to go join Red State w/ the let-it-burn crowd?-Jumble

First, thanks for writing in Jumble.

Second, there's no need to leave for Red State or anywhere else to join the "Let-it-burn crowd" because it's everywhere.

Note the actual phrase begins with "let". It's a passive word. No one is saying "Start a fire and burn it down". It is burning already.

Out of control entitlement spending, zero political will to control discretionary spending and an unchecked debt is the fuel that is feeding this fire.

You want to know who is actively fanning the flames of this fire? Mainstream Republican candidates and office holders, not tea party fanatics or people who simply have lost interest in trying to stop the conflagration.

In fact, it's these "grown ups" who are so darn "electable" that are actively doing something....putting more fuel on the fire.

The Budget Control Act which led to the sequester was imperfect to say the least but it actually worked to cut spending. Who forced the Republicans to give that up and hike spending again? It wasn't the so-called "let it burn crowd". Nope, it was the mainstream of the Republican party.

Was it the so-called "let it burn crowd" that forced the GOP to cut a deal with Maxine Waters to give back modest but real reforms and cuts to the national flood insurance program? Nope. That was the House GOP leadership going around conservatives.

Was it the so-called "let it burn crowd" who resorting to anti-democratic means on the floor of the House to increase Medicare spending? Again, no.

Obviously I could go on and on with examples of this but I think we all agree we're in a mess that predates the "tea party" or "let it burn".

I know there are people who think if you vote for enough Republicans things will get better because, um, er, the Democrats are worse! A vote for more "mainstream" Republicans isn't a vote against the "let it burn crowd" it's a vote to control how much faster you want it to burn.

Until people realize that with the GOP as presently constituted stopping the increase in the rate of burning, let alone putting the fire out isn't on the menu and nothing will change.

So don't look at those of us who have washed our hands of this mess as the ones unwilling to stop the burning. We tried and were told to shut up. You guys who insist on voting for the GOP which will add more fuel to the fire are the ones who are grunting "fire good!", not us.

Added: An enlightening but wrong view from a commenter. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:02 AM | Comments (480)
Post contains 677 words, total size 4 kb.

Top Headline Comments (4-24-2014)
— andy

Gasp! We'll have no grabass in the ready room, gentlemen.

A former commanding officer of the famed Blue Angels aerial demonstration team was relieved of duty amid allegations of "lewd speech, inappropriate comments, and sexually explicit humor" and pornography, the Navy said Wednesday.


McWherter allowed "and in some cases encouraged" the sexually inappropriate misconduct in the workplace, according to Wednesday's statement.

I, for one, am shocked to find such conduct in the Navy.

In similarly shocking news, the New York Yankees cheat.

AoSHQ Weekly Podcast rss.png itunes_modern.png | Stream | Download | Ask The Blog | Archives

Posted by: andy at 02:27 AM | Comments (264)
Post contains 104 words, total size 2 kb.

April 23, 2014

Overnight Open Thread (4-23-2014)
— Maetenloch

Because I'm kinda tired and sick tonight. And because sometimes words suck.

140423140220-02-mark-shand-camilla-2010-horizontal-gallery 042314_sr_hof_640

article-2610251-1D3C181D00000578-857_634x356 3552644_G

 randpauluofc hillary-clinton-opens-the-social-good-summit-video--7431a17dfe

mh370s622x350 1398268840_eric-hill-lg

140423-astronaut-selfie-jms-1900_c317f8f1c9403be6618a017f1136b671.nbcnews-ux-1360-900 article-2611292-1D4BDDF400000578-505_634x328

avril-lavigne-hello-kitty-600x337 edible_marijuana


Posted by: Maetenloch at 04:50 PM | Comments (844)
Post contains 58 words, total size 11 kb.

Elizabeth Warren's New Book Rehashes Her Past Vague Claims About Her Alleged Native American Ethnicity, But Fails to Address Any of the Important Questions Asked of Her
— Ace

Good recap at US News & World report.

First, what’s perhaps most notable about Warren’s book is that she even includes a section called “Native American,” in which she reportedly writes, “Everyone on our mother’s side — aunts, uncles, and grandparents — talked openly about their Native American ancestry. My brothers and I grew up on stories about our grandfather building one-room schoolhouses and about our grandparents’ courtship and their early lives together in Indian Territory.”

This is ironic because, until the Boston Herald first broke the news in April 2012 that Harvard Law School had repeatedly promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, Warren never once mentioned these stories of her upbringing in a single press interview, speech, class lecture or testimony at any point, ever, in her decades-long career. What's more, Warren was not listed as a minority on her transcript from George Washington University where she began her undergraduate education, nor did she list herself as a minority when applying to Rutgers University Law School in 1973.

In fact, it was not until she was in her 30s and focused on climbing the highly competitive ladder of law school academia that Warren apparently rediscovered her Native American heritage. It’s important to note that entrance and advancement in the law school profession is governed by the Association of American Law Schools, which requires registrants interested in teaching at law schools to fill out a questionnaire detailing their education, experience, bar passage and, yes, ethnicity. This information is then disseminated to law schools around the country that, as Warren surely knew, are always on the lookout to add to the diversity of their faculty.

A copy of Warren's questionnaire currently resides in the Association of American Law Schools archives at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. However, only Warren herself has the authority to release the complete copy of her questionnaire and to date, she has refused to do so.

Her opposition to such transparency can perhaps be understood in the documented fact that in the years thereafter, starting in 1986, Warren began self-reporting herself as a "minority professor" in the Association of American Law Schools staff directory that lists all law school professors around the country. As the former association chairman told the Boston Herald, the directory once served a tip sheet for law school administrators, in the pre-Internet days, who were looking to identify and recruit minority professors.

Remarkably, Warren's explanation to the Boston Herald was that she listed herself as a minority in the hopes that she would be invited to a luncheon so she could meet "people who are like I am" and she stopped checking the box when that didn't happen. Perhaps it "didn't happen" because at no point, at any of the schools she attended or worked at, is there any evidence that Warren ever joined any Native American organizations on campus or in any way interacted with anyone in the Native American community.

The left's claims on this are, as usual, atrocious. They defend Warren (to the extent they'll even address the issue) by claiming that Warren honestly thought she was 1/64th (or was it 1/128th?) Cherokee.

But our "diversity" regime was not set up simply to act as a racial spoils system. The idea behind it is that minorities had themselves likely been harmed in some way by their race in the past -- whether victims of actual racism or not having many advantages in life due to, for example, one's great-great-grandparents being slaves and therefore having started out with almost no money whatsoever and sharply limited earning capacity.

For Elizabeth Warren to Play Indian when it suited her purposes is disgustingly self-serving. She is obviously one of two things:

100% White,

or, by her claim, merely 99.2% white.

Either way, she is White, and her parents were White, and her grandparents were White, and even her great-grandparents were White. I think you have to go to her great-great-grandparents before you find the one (1!) nonwhite contributor to her racial legacy.

In no way has Elizabeth Warren ever suffered the sting of racial animus from White People due her race (which is White), nor have missed out on job opportunities due to her race (which is White), nor does her family start out in a Racial Ditch due to discrimination against its race (which, in case I didn't mention this, is White).

Elizabeth Warren took advantage of racial set-aside employment opportunities for disadvantaged minorities despite never for one second in her entire life being disadvantaged by her race (which is White).

Has she ever been a victim of racism? How would a racist even know to discriminate against her, unless she busted out her "family lore" and showed pictures of her grandmother with her "high cheekbones" and convinced the skeptical racist that she was anything other than a White Person In Good Standing?

Her one "story" (I love how all of this is about "stories" and "feelings" and "narratives") of discrimination is her claim that her great-great-great-grandparents had to elope due to the extreme racial hostility her distant ancestor once allegedly experienced.

And yet those same great-great-great-grandparents had their wedding party right in their home town.

I guess somehow the town got over its extreme hatred of mixed Indian marriages in the few hours between the ceremony and the party.

She could disprove that she took advantages of programs designed to help minorities who are identifiable as such -- you know, people you could actually discriminate against based on appearance because they're, unlike Elizabeth Warren, not Completely, Blindingly, Albino's-Ass-in-Winter White -- but of course she refuses to release her "personal records."

No, she won't release the facts to you.

But she will keep offering up her "stories."

Posted by: Ace at 02:51 PM | Comments (509)
Post contains 1011 words, total size 7 kb.

Jeb Bush Says He's Thinking About Running for President
— Ace

I haven't seen this much buzz and hype about a product America had no particular desire for since Cop Rock.

But, as Steve Jobs said, how does the customer even know what he wants? I guess that's the theory of a Jeb Bush bid.

From Politico, via @drewmtips:

Jeb Bush on Wednesday was the most vocal he’s been about considering a run for the White House in 2016.

The Republican told a crowd of about 200 people at a Catholic Charities fundraiser in New York that he is “thinking about running for president,” according to an attendee.

The response came to one of the first questions posed to Bush at the Union League luncheon. After his answer, the room went wild, and then someone [who I will speculate is Jen Rubin-- ace] said they hoped he would take the step.

I don't get this, I just don't. Larry Kudlow was ecstatic.

Bush was praised by Kudlow for his focus on immigration reform and urged not to back down.

“Why would I back down from it? It’s the right thing to do…we’ve got to be an inclusive party,” Bush said, according to the attendee.

On his support of Common Core educational standards, Bush noted, “I’m getting hit from both sides on this one.”

I dunno. Jeb seems to be one of those politicians who has a set of ideas he's not willing to compromise with the base on, nor is he willing to make basic efforts at persuading him of his ideas. "Act of Love" isn't persuasion. It's a very weak effort at emotional shaming, which is (rightly) perceived as a hostile form of communication.

So this is what the Establishment has cooking, huh?

Meanwhile, Rand Paul states the obvious -- the law on abortion won't be changed until the public's consensus opinion on abortion has changed -- but that sort of concession probably won't be well-received by those for whom the pro-life cause is of paramount importance.

This sort of "Pro-Choice in my heart but not as a practical governing platform" may read as centrist to some, and will gain some votes and lose others.

AllahPundit notes Paul has similarly made centrist noises on gay marriage...

[Q:] Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

[A:] I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.

This may be a good thing, and this may be a bad thing: But the Republican Party is currently so divided on so many things I'm not really sure what the Republican Party is any more.

That isn't necessarily bad. Maybe it's a sign of openness and adaptability.

But all of my instincts are in favor of someone that "unites the base," and I'm not sure who the hell can even do that any longer.

Is such a thing possible?

Maybe my basic notion that we need a candidate who "unites the base" (and hence papers over deep philosophical differences) is just wrong, and such a thing is impossible, and we actually cannot avoid an actual intramural war to decide what this party actually is. Maybe we will have to have Losers and Winners.

Posted by: Ace at 01:59 PM | Comments (323)
Post contains 595 words, total size 4 kb.

Stephen Colbert Appears On Letterman Promising To Continue Doing the Same Show Letterman Did, Awkward and Unfunny
— Ace

Yeah, guys, I dunno.

Is there any way we can get him to do a new "character" where he plays someone who's comfortable on camera and occasionally funny?

By the way, I can't help but see the Corporate Messaging Strategy here. Colbert talks a lot about his family (and Dave obligingly asks about it), which is probably all with the design of "humanizing" the new expensive hire and making him palatable to viewers.

At 10:10, he reads the top ten list he and his writing partner submitted when they applied to be writers on the show 17 years ago.

Yeah, it's not good. When he realizes it's bombing, he says "17 years ago," to remind people it's dated comedy, as if America has made quantum leaps since then in the technology of the Top Ten List.


Posted by: Ace at 12:28 PM | Comments (296)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

What Does the Allegedly Neutral and/or "Moderate" Media's Embrace of the Hard-Left Marxist Theories of Pinketty Tell Us About Their True Politics?
— Ace

I see a lot of hands shooting up quickly.

Yeah, I know, it's kind of obvious.

As I write this, Thomas Piketty’s book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” is #1 on Amazon....

The book, as you probably know, has also sparked nonstop conversation in political and media circles. Though it’s best to let economists debunk Piketty’s methodology and data, it is worth pointing out that liberal pundits and writers have not only enthusiastically and unconditionally embraced a book on economics, or even a run-of-the-mill leftist polemic, but a hard-left manifesto.

Now, I realize we’re all supposed to accept the fact that conservatives are alone in embracing fringe economic ideas. But how does a book that evokes Marx and talks about tweaking the Soviet experiment find so much love from people who consider themselves rational, evidence-driven moderates?


Piketty also advocates for a 60-percent tax rate on those making $200,000 and an additional worldwide tax on wealth...

Fact is, the tax hikes offered by even the most progressive elected Democrats wouldn’t alter the dynamics of “fairness” in a society with a $16 trillion GDP. To put it into perspective, ending Bush-era cuts may net the treasury $80 billion yearly. If Piketty’s clairvoyance is to be trusted, and I’m assured it can — we will need to transfer trillions of dollars from one class to another just save our society from disaster. And none of this, according to the author, will destroy economic growth.


[P]iketty’s utopian notions and authoritarian inclinations — ones that I’m pretty sure most Americans (and probably most Democrats) would still find off-putting — do not seem to rattle the left-wing press one bit....

So if his popularity tells us anything, it’s that many liberal “thought leaders” have taken a far more radical position on economic policy than we’re giving them credit for.

"We're not Marxists, and it is paranoid (and perhaps prosecutable) for you to call us Marxists," said the Marxist, then he went back to masturbating righteously over his Marxist manifesto.

Our politics is corrupted and retarded at every step by lies the dominant class requires us to tell.

And the Middle Class. Well, the Middle Class won't be helped by any of these schemes, of course.

Neither will the poor, for the matter.

I am not disputing that something unhappy is going on in the global economy. Nor am I disputing that this unhappiness is unequally distributed. But the proportion of this unhappiness due to income inequality is actually relatively small -- and moreover, concentrated not among the poor, but among the upper middle class, which competes with the very rich for status goods and elite opportunities.

If we look at the middle three quintiles, very few of their worst problems come from the gap between their income and the incomes of some random Facebook squillionaire. Here, in a nutshell, are their biggest problems:

Finding a job that allows them to work at least 40 hours a week on a relatively consistent schedule and will not abruptly terminate them.

Finding a partner who is also able to work at least 40 hours a week on a relatively consistent schedule and will not be abruptly terminated.

Maintaining a satisfying relationship with that partner over a period of years.

Having children who are able to enjoy more stuff and economic security than they have.

Finding a community of friends, family and activities that will provide enjoyment and support over the decades.

This is where things are breaking down -- where things have actually, and fairly indisputably, gotten worse since the 1970s. Crime is better, lifespans are longer, our material conditions have greatly improved -- yes, even among the lower middle class. What hasn’t improved is the sense that you can plan for a decent life filled with love and joy and friendship, then send your children on to a life at least as secure and well-provisioned as your own.


I suspect that Piketty’s plan would actually work best for the pretty well off. It would knock the consumption of the ultrawealthy down to the consumption of a professional near the top of his field, who earns a large income but has comparatively little wealth. Because those people are being priced out of top schools and delightful real estate by people who can afford to have a nice apartment in five different world cities, they would strongly benefit from this plan.

This is an interesting idea I've written about before: That the "solutions" proposed by wealthy-but-not-actually-rich "mindworkers" of the upper-middle to middle-upper classes are not for the benefit of the lower classes, but for themselves.

We talked about this on the podcast with Matthew Continetti -- there is a class struggle going on here, to be sure, but the class struggle is between the upper-middle-to-middle-upper income levels against the upper-upper income levels.

Those in the mere middle-upper-to-upper-middle income ranges feel a bit down because they're being outpaced by their competitors -- the upper-uppers -- and so propose laws to take away the upper-uppers' income advantage.

Someone observed -- wryly but accurately --that the media/academic class thinks the highest income one should be able to earn just so happens to coincide with their maximum yearly salary at their job, in their industry.

If they could earn $300,000 per year, why then $300,001 per year constitutes the threshhold at which we must begin confiscating estates.

Tom Brokaw probably earned, who knows, $2 million per year. So what's his idea of the ultra-rich, the filthy rich the grand rentiers? Why $2 million and one dollars per year.

This is a squabble between the Marxist members of one pampered class which looks longingly at all the Stuff possessed by a somewhat more pampered class.

Posted by: Ace at 11:12 AM | Comments (426)
Post contains 997 words, total size 6 kb.

Supreme Court Hears Case on Government Asserting Power to Decide What the Political Truth Is, and There's Nothing At All Scary About That
— Ace

Maybe one of the most important cases in a long time.

Rep. Steve Driehaus voted for Obamacare. The Susan B. Anthony List wanted to put up billboards that said, “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion," and ran a similar radio campaign.

The billboard was never put up, because Dreihaus had threatened to sue -- not the SBA List, but the company managing the billboard.

Dreihaus claimed the message was false, and Ohio forbids "false" claims about a politicians' voting record.

The Ohio Elections Commission found, in a preliminary vote, that the message was indeed "false," but ultimately a full prosecution never went forward, because Dreihaus was defeated for reelection and the point became moot.

Note that Dreihaus claims that this message was "false" because he claimed refuge in Obama's completely-fake claim that Obamacare would not mandate abortion coverage by employers who were conscious objectors to the practice.

We now know that Dreihaus' claim was in fact the false one -- Obama's alleged guarantee on this score was worth as much as his claim that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

And yet here was -- is -- a government organization purporting to declare the truth to be false and a falsehood to be true, chilling citizens' right to speak the truth.

A federal judge dismissed the case in such a way that made it impossible, essentially, to challenge Ohio's law in advance of an actual prosecution. Apparently they didn't consider that threats of prosecution have a chilling effect, and that the factual record in this case includes, in fact, a real case of a citizen censoring himself for fear of prosecuction.

Consider, for a moment, how dangerous this is. In this case, you have Dreihaus making a claim which is supported by the government -- a claim which is false. And you have citizens making a claim which is disfavored by the government -- their claim being true.

Dreihaus wished to rely on the president's promise that Obamacare would never be interpreted this way; SBA List looked at these same facts and came to a contrary conclusion -- that Dreihaus was, no matter what he or Obama claimed, actually voting for the proposition that the government should mandate that employers provide birth control coverage to employees (and some of those can be characterized as abortifacients) and even coverage for abortion, no matter what the employers' honestly-felt religious or philosophical beliefs on the matter.

Dreihaus had the whole of the government on his side, and surely, a majority of the government bureaucracy, which we are lately discovering to our chagrin has its own political agenda and is not shy about promoting that agenda in their day-jobs.

But government wishes the power to say what is true and what is false -- even on hotly disputed points, where people are arguing, basically, whether a promise will be observed in the future. Something that can't actually be determined in the present.

And, as events would have it, it turned out the SBA was right.

But the fact that the SBA was right shouldn't control the issue here. Rather, it should illustrate how dangerous it is to have agents of the government deciding what is True and what is False on behalf of citizens, with prosecutions and other legal consequences flowing from their decisions.

George Will discusses the case here.

Driehaus says insurance companies must collect a “separate payment” from enrollees and segregate this money from federal funds. The SBA List says money is fungible, so this accounting sleight-of-hand changes nothing.

Yes, and they're right.


The Ohio Elections Commission has pondered the truth or falsity of saying that a school board “turned control of the district over to the union,” and that a city councilor had “a habit of telling voters one thing, then doing another.” Fortunately, the Supreme Court, citing George Orwell’s 1984, has held that even false statements receive First Amendment protection: “Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.”

This case, which comes from Cincinnati, where the regional IRS office was especially active in suppressing the political speech of conservative groups, involves the intersection of two ominous developments. One is the inevitable, and inevitably abrasive, government intrusions into sensitive moral issues that come with government’s comprehensive and minute regulation of health care with taxes, mandates, and other coercions. The Supreme Court will soon rule on one such controversy, the ACA requirement that employer-provided health-care plans must cover the cost of abortifacients. The other development is government’s growing attempts to regulate political speech, as illustrated by the Obama administration’s unapologetic politicization of the IRS to target conservative groups.

These developments are not coincidental. Government’s increasing reach and pretensions necessarily become increasingly indiscriminate.

There's a politico-economic theory with a very anodyne name that greatly undersells the theory itself: Public choice theory.

The standard way of thinking about political outcomes before public choice theory was to imagine the government as a disinterested referee, a neutral judge, hearing this or that claim from this or that constituency.

Public Choice Theory posits instead that the government itself -- its bureaucrats, its politicians -- is in fact an interested party with its own economic and political agenda for the country, and makes decisions on that basis, just like anyone else.

This is certainly the correct theory of government behavior.

What the hell is the government doing claiming to have the power to use force and deprivation of liberty in deciding political disputes in which the government itself has an unacknowledged selfish interest ?

It's critical that this ugly law be voided as unconstitutional. Otherwise, the progressives have their foot in the door for deciding what is True on behalf of the country, with prosecutors and cops and wardens as their enforcement agents.

Posted by: Ace at 09:28 AM | Comments (384)
Post contains 1015 words, total size 7 kb.

Camille Paglia: Get Rid of the National Drinking Age
— Ace

I guess so.

This is one of those things that a lot of people oppose -- whether because of the affront to federalism, or the juvenilzation of adults, or on basic liberty grounds -- but such people suspect there is too strong a lobby for the other side, or, maybe, too much inertia about it, and so while people may agree this is kinda bullshit, they won't actually take any action to change it.

Paglia makes most of her case on culture -- that drinking is part of it.

Learning how to drink responsibly is a basic lesson in growing up — as it is in wine-drinking France or in Germany, with its family-oriented beer gardens and festivals. Wine was built into my own Italian-American upbringing, where children were given sips of my grandfather’s home-made wine. This civilized practice descends from antiquity. Beer was a nourishing food in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and wine was identified with the life force in Greece and Rome: In vino veritas (in wine, truth). Wine as a sacred symbol of unity and regeneration remains in the Christian Communion service. Virginia Woolf wrote that wine with a fine meal lights a “subtle and subterranean glow, which is the rich yellow flame of rational intercourse.”

What this cruel 1984 law did is deprive young people of safe spaces where they could happily drink cheap beer, socialize, chat, and flirt in a free but controlled public environment. Hence in the 1980s we immediately got the scourge of crude binge drinking at campus fraternity keg parties, cut off from the adult world. Women in that boorish free-for-all were suddenly fighting off date rape. Club drugs — Ecstasy, methamphetamine, ketamine (a veterinary tranquilizer) — surged at raves for teenagers and on the gay male circuit scene.


As a libertarian, I support the decriminalization of marijuana, but there are many problems with pot. From my observation, pot may be great for jazz musicians and Beat poets, but it saps energy and will-power and can produce physiological feminization in men.

I like her point that there are limits to the degree can actually control what it deems "Bad Behavior." Forbid 18 year olds from drinking, and they'll turn to more easily portable, more easily concealable mind-altering substances like pot, pills, or worse.

Posted by: Ace at 08:44 AM | Comments (324)
Post contains 399 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 >>
155kb generated in CPU 0.23, elapsed 1.0236 seconds.
45 queries taking 0.9236 seconds, 230 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.