A Brief Note on Celdran's Little Media Whore Stunt

Using Rizal to defend this noxious deal with Mephistopheles that is the RH Bill is like some moron stoner using Thomas Jefferson to defend marijuana use in public.

Celdran did not strike a blow for his cause that day. All he did was drag Rizal through the dirt. For never has Rizal argued for the slow extinction of the Filipino as Lagman and his Mad Men have. 

I have long said that the demons that have haunted the West would make their way here, for we are a Western country no matter how hard we try to deny it. Now, the night is drawing near.

On a side note, the Church should just excommunicate Noynoy Aquino. Sure, the Church will be hit with both barrels by our shrill, manipulative media, but She's gonna get the shotgun treatment anyway. If you're going to go down, it is best to go down standing. The Bishops made a mistake supporting this amateur for president. They should grow some balls and rectify that mistake.

The Sexual Revolution Will Die with a Wig On

Camille Paglia, one of the most articulate cultural defenders of the Sexual Revolution that began with the concept of reproductive freedom, is seeing the the gruesome end of her labors. And the end is personified in that un-erotic mannequin this last generation has elevated to the status of "icon", Lady Gaga.

Gaga has borrowed so heavily from Madonna (as in her latest video-Alejandro) that it must be asked, at what point does homage become theft? However, the main point is that the young Madonna was on fire. She was indeed the imperious Marlene Dietrich’s true heir. For Gaga, sex is mainly decor and surface; she’s like a laminated piece of ersatz rococo furniture. Alarmingly, Generation Gaga can’t tell the difference. Is it the death of sex? Perhaps the symbolic status that sex had for a century has gone kaput; that blazing trajectory is over…

While I do not share her admiration for the fake Madonna (I have infinitely greater love and admiration for the real one), I bemusedly share her fascination with the total collapse of what the Sexual Revolution categorizes as "erotic". After years of being told that sexual freedom is...well... sexy, it is funny how plain, boring and plastic the resulting erotica is. There is only so much capital sex can put out, stored up in century upon century of mystique and mystery. Like with the financial system, the well of that capital is not inexhaustible. We've dried up in forty years what took millenia to build up.

We have learned, to our great detriment, that sex divorced from the transcendent which gave it power becomes just another routine animal activity. Dump after you pump.

At the end of this crap-colored rainbow stands Lady Gaga, possibly the ugliest, cheesiest, creepiest living thing to be ever named a sex symbol. She is the epitome of "poseur" - a rebel bankrolled by a marketing committee; a hack promoted as an artist. One thing that Ms. Paglia seems to overlook is that borrowing from fake Madonna is not like borrowing from Mozart. It is simply because fake Madonna's brilliance, borne at the vanguard of the Sexual Revolution, cannot be sustained for it contains nothing timeless. It is a thing of the moment; a stupid thing meant to die with its moment. Among Lady Gaga's litany of mediocrities is her inability to find a better source to borrow from.

Those couples with large numbers of children which horrify the champions of the Sexual Revolution likely have a greater store of the erotic than the sterile culture-makers for whom sex is but a hobby. After all, these large-brooded couples keep having sex. Those children have to come from somewhere.

I remember a scene from the first "Godfather" movie, where Al Pacino's Michael Corleone meets Simonetta Stefanelli's Apollonia Vitelli while walking in a wheat field in Sicily. Apollonia was wearing simple purple dress, long and chaste, nothing fancy. But she radiates such a glow that Michael Corleone is dumbstruck. Their courtship occurs under the watch of Apollonia's conservative relatives, but because of this, every gesture becomes loaded with sexual tension, from her hand on a necklace to the two of them walking together. The couple are wed in church, and the movie has their first kiss come before the priest and the village. The resulting "first night" scene, where Apollonia shyly takes off her simple white nightgown in front of her husband for the first time, has more eroticism packed into it than a three-hour porno.

Unfortunately for Generation Sex, all they've been served (and are serving) for the past forty-odd years are nothing more than three-hour pornos. Long, boring, and ultimately tiring. When sex becomes this rote and pointless, I wonder if Generation Sex will even manage to get off its ass long enough to beget another.  

So, this is the party at the end of the Revolution: a bunch of asexual blow-up goth dolls gyrating listlessly to "Alejandro".  

What England Was...

Theodore Dalrymple writes in an article called "The End of Virtuous Albion":

The husband of another of my patients, a man in his late seventies, described how his wife's compulsions--constant checking that the gas was turned off, for example, and repeated scrubbing of surfaces that were obviously already spotlessly clean--had sometimes made his life very difficult. His wife's compulsions had lasted fifty years, and since she never completed her checking she was often unable to leave the house.

"Why did you stay with her?" I asked, my question demonstrating that I was myself a creature of the modern age.

"I made a promise in church fifty years ago," he said. "And I meant it."

There are more such examples as Dalrymple tried to put into words his feelings about the decline of the British character. These old Englishmen, polite, unflinching, stoic, and still possessed of a remarkable sense of honor, stands in stark contrast to all those morons who make up my "UK Run by the Stupids" files.

It was for men such as the above, who would not leave a most annoying woman due to a promise given in church, or the one who did not wish to disturb his doctor except for the now-unbearable pain, these guys were the stuff England was once made of. It was for this aged generation that "There Will Always Be an England" was sung, and you could believe it with the stern strength of character possessed by many common men of that time.

Today? The UK is just waiting to be euthanized into an Islamic fiefdom. Its current generation of arrogant, Pop-glugging hooligans are ultimately spineless in the most important things. And now, Albion's time is almost up. There won't always be an England.

Flirting is Now a College Course

Potsdam University wants its IT geek swamp to reproduce, after all.

Of course, only grad students need apply.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Speaking of the Sons of the French Revolution

It looks like the country that no longer exists is having another one of those fits of multicultural love as expressed by its most multicultural activity: rioting.

You have the French Chinese rioting against the French Moslems.

And then you have the French Moslems rioting against...everybody else. 

More fun in the land of Robbespierre.

Whereas France used to be this:

Bayard, one of France's greatest knights

It is now this:

Some Moslems celebrating multiculturalism

Last Week Was Bastille Day

And to give this wretched day and the rest of the French Revolution a big middle finger, here is a look at the last letter written by the person most caricatured and villified by the murderous French revolutionaries: Marie Antionette.

The letter was written to her sister, and the letter was held and never delivered by the monster Robbespierre. Some excerpts:

Let my daughter feel that at her age she ought always to aid her brother by the advice which her greater experience and her affection may inspire her to give him. And let my son in his turn render to his sister all the care and all the services which affection can inspire. Let them, in short, both feel that, in whatever positions they may be placed, they will never be truly happy but through their union. Let them follow our example. In our own misfortunes how much comfort has our affection for one another afforded us! And, in times of happiness, we have enjoyed that doubly from being able to share it with a friend; and where can one find friends more tender and more united than in one's own family? Let my son never forget the last words of his father, which I repeat emphatically; let him never seek to avenge our deaths.

...

I die in the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion, that of my fathers, that in which I was brought up, and which I have always professed. Having no spiritual consolation to look for, not even knowing whether there are still in this place any priests of that religion (and indeed the place where I am would expose them to too much danger if they were to enter it but once), I sincerely implore pardon of God for all the faults which I may have committed during my life. I trust that, in His goodness, He will mercifully accept my last prayers, as well as those which I have for a long time addressed to Him, to receive my soul into His mercy. I beg pardon of all whom I know, and especially of you, my sister, for all the vexations which, without intending it, I may have caused you. I pardon all my enemies the evils that they have done me.

Far from being the cartoon villain of "let them eat cake" infamy (a quote falsely atrributed to her), she was an intelligent and spiritual woman whose strength and willfulness both made her an important partner for her kingly husband and an easy target for her husband's enemies. (Being Austrian, and therefore foreign, made things even easier.)

In the end, she conducted herself with such grace during her trial that her prosecutors came off looking like the vultures they were. Months after her own execution, the beasts started eating each other.

Not Quite Unforseen

Apparently, married women who grow sullen without Edward Cullen tend to make mince meat of their marriages. One more reason to hack off Stephanie Meyer's writing (typing) hand(s).

These two are supposed to be lovers. Yes, Meyer's fans are that creepy.

I guess sparkly vampires really can suck the life out of something, even if its the marriage of some malcontent with a vagina.

The article does get one thing wrong, though. Or rather, one of the quoted "scientists" is wrong. I've never met a man who would turn down sex with his wife over the performance of his favorite sports team. So that analogy is a wash.

The End of Men?

I guess, like with Mother's Day this year, I was premature with Father's Day by a week. However, I'd like to reiterate how important it is to show good fathers your appreciation this Father's Day, for they are under attack now more than they have ever been in any point in history.

As a case in point, here is how a prominent American "news" magazine is presenting its issue release on Father's Day:



The main article is "The End of Men", written by Hannah Rosin. If you go to the online version of the article, you will not only be treated to some asinine writing, you also get a cutesy little video wherein Hannah and her daughter debate her husband and son over who is better, boys or girls. Her husband, being a liberal ponce (editor at Slate), says nothing in the midst of his emasculation, with only his young son offering a defense of masculinity typical of young boys. (Boys can kick girls in the shins, that kind of thing.) Its quite sad when the seven year-old boy has more balls than his eunuch of a father.

Hannah proves to be the typical shallow thinker of the age when she spews crap like:

Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed.

What in the world does she mean by "dominant"? That in a hunter-gatherer society, men were hunters and that hunting was "dominant"? Or that when men go farther afield, taking on the physical abuse of toil so their wives can raise their children, taking on toil is being dominant? I get the feeling that her definition of "dominant" is but 50 years old, spawned in that cesspool of the generations: the 60's.

I guess I can make some sexist statement about the intellectual capacity of female journalists, but I digress.

Here's more from the article:

“Women are knocking on the door of leadership at the very moment when their talents are especially well matched with the requirements of the day,” writes David Gergen in the introduction to Enlightened Power: How Women Are Transforming the Practice of Leadership. What are these talents? Once it was thought that leaders should be aggressive and competitive, and that men are naturally more of both. But psychological research has complicated this picture. In lab studies that simulate negotiations, men and women are just about equally assertive and competitive, with slight variations. Men tend to assert themselves in a controlling manner, while women tend to take into account the rights of others, but both styles are equally effective, write the psychologists Alice Eagly and Linda Carli, in their 2007 book, Through the Labyrinth.

This is the research Rosin presents as proof that we are obsolete, at least in business.

First off, who in the world would believe that you can "simulate negotiations" in a damn laboratory? Oh, yeah, Ivory Tower academics who know about as much as the real world as your average World of Warcraft basement dweller. Negotiating requires an assessment of position and the use of leverage. How did they simulate that in a lab?

And those "slight variations" are massive. Men take a more controlling and dominating approach, which is in a different league from women's taking "into account the rights of others". Guess what, when negotiating in business there is no "rights of others". There are interests. The more you can outmanoeuvre and dominate your partners and opposition, the more of your interest you can assert. Just ask Steve Jobs. Heck, the female CEO who was the poster child of feminine ascent to corporate power, HP's Carly Fiorina, is so patently unfeminine she shaves her head and takes pride in being a "ball buster". Why was she let go? Being a parody of masculinity, she often went too far and abused her authority over her colleagues.

Besides all that, how do you account for the fact that even female employees prefer having male bosses?

Then, there's this:

Researchers have started looking into the relationship between testosterone and excessive risk, and wondering if groups of men, in some basic hormonal way, spur each other to make reckless decisions.

Sure, with the current state of the economy, "reckless decisions" are being blamed as a cause. There is good reason for this. However, these people forget that it was also "reckless decision-making" that shaped world history and brought us civilization. The very first "reckless decision" by men (back then as hunters) was to look skyward and question his place in existence. This was followed by that reckless decision to abandon hunting, which they have known for so long, and to risk cultivating crops in a hostile environment. Go down a few more historical roads, and you have that reckless decision by Leonidas to oppose Xerxes, the reckless decision of Alexander to conquer the known world, and that reckless decision by Julius Caesar to cross the Rubicon. "Reckless" decisions, without the feminine hemming and hawing and consensus-building, are not useless.

Furthermore, there is this:

The same Columbia-Maryland study ranked America’s industries by the proportion of firms that employed female executives, and the bottom of the list reads like the ghosts of the economy past: shipbuilding, real estate, coal, steelworks, machinery.

So yes, the modern post-industrial economy somewhat favors women. Considering the dominance of service industries and the glut of corporations that service feminine consumption (and therefore must be led by women), this is to be expected in the United States. (And, coming to a third world country near you.) But before you pronounce the end of men in the post-industrial economy, do make note that economies go about in cycles. The current infrastructure is supported by wealth generated by those "ghosts of economy past", and considering the rapid deconstruction of the post-industrial economy we are seeing unfold before our very eyes (hello, Greece!), I do not find it convincing that economies dominated by marketing firms, non-manufacturing companies, government spending and the service sector are going to be sticking around forever. Furthermore, industries like steelworks, construction and real estate, while reduced, will never go away. Go ahead; try hiring a credit firm to build your house. And have a drink every time some female employee complains that sanding boards is "dirty work".

All of this brings us back to Hannah Rosin's weak-kneed husband, who may be what Pamela Paul had in mind when she wrote a piece called "Are Fathers Necessary?" for the same issue of The Atlantic.

The thrust of her article is simple. Fathers are "non-essential".

The bad news for Dad is that despite common perception, there’s nothing objectively essential about his contribution. The good news is, we’ve gotten used to him.

What led this woman to believe that there is nothing "objectively essential" about his contribution? First, she goes on about how the kids of single moms do "better" than the kids of single dads. Big whoop. Since child-rearing has always been the mother's forte, this is no surprise. If any, its an argument to stick together, because kids with both mom and dad do better than those of single parents, single mom or dad.

However, peel away the layers of her yammering, her proof boils down to two paragraphs:

The quality of parenting, Biblarz and Stacey say, is what really matters, not gender. But the real challenge to our notion of the “essential” father might well be the lesbian mom. On average, lesbian parents spend more time with their children than fathers do. They rate disputes with their children as less frequent than do hetero couples, and describe co-parenting more compatibly and with greater satisfaction. Their kids perceive their parents to be more available and dependable than do the children of heteros. They also discuss more emotional issues with their parents. They have fewer behavioral problems, and show more interest in and try harder at school.

According to Stacey and Biblarz, “Two women who chose to become parents together seemed to provide a double dose of a middle-class ‘feminine’ approach to parenting.” And, they conclude, “based strictly on the published science, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a man, or at least than a woman and man with a traditional division of family labor.”

Ah, "one could argue". One can also argue that aliens live in Roswell. How good is the proof of the "published science"?

Well, here's the problem with some of the "published science".

The first problem is that many of the researchers are activists before they are researchers, and are sponsored by activist organizations. Hence, this places the rigor of such studies in question. After all, are we to make credible research from Camel and Marlborough that cigarette-smoking is not all that bad?

The second problem stems from the first: these researchers not only have very small sample sizes, the sample sizes for the lesbian group are cherry-picked from economically well-off white lesbians, as compared to a more economically and racially diverse control group of regular parents. Cherry-picking skews results.

To further cast light on the dubiousness of the "science", in these research methodologies, the lesbians self-report the state of their children. So, you're basing scientific conclusions on the guarantee of your subjects?

Going beyond the research, you also have to take into consideration the fact that lesbians tend to rigorously screen the sperm donors they use to conceive. (Hey, who produces sperm? Fairies?) Hence, they can tailor their children to higher performance, much like you can tailor your dog to win dog shows through breeding.

So, the "science" used to render the contribution of fathers "non-essential" is a whole lot of junk.

Now, one can ask some counter questions of Pamela Paul. If fathers are so "non-essential", where is the civilization built on matriarchy? After all, if fathers were optional, then we should see the rise of some civilization that is wholly matriarchal. Matriarchies have existed in the past after all. But why did all of them end up absorbed into patriarchal societies?

A second question; how come most children who were conceived via anonymous sperm donor end up wanting to find their real fathers?  

We may end up paraphrasing the question. With fatherhood under constant attack from an ignorant media and a complacent population, in line with the blitzkrieg on anything masculine, it is no surprise that we are seeing a decline in male achievement and participation in family life. After all, since men are resilient, if they can survive for themselves then they're good. What incentive do men have to cater to the needs of a society that scorns the very essence of their being? And so the fathers go into anonymity.

Needless to say, this bodes badly for Western civilization, a civilization built by the hands of fathers. And if Western civilization collapses, then we will truly enter another Dark Age. No offense to my fellow Asians, but if we are going to be led by a country that considers murdering children an essential part of its economic well-being, we are well and truly fucked.

So, show some love to those good men who decide to stick around for their children. And pray that your children's children will get to do so as well.

These People are Scientists?

I was watching this show called "Sports Science", and one segment was supposed to "debunk" the "myth" that hitting a baseball pitch is the hardest thing to do in professional sports. They brought on some pretty blond softball player who says she begs to differ. (I can smell the PC grrl power BS from here, but let's check the methodology.) 

So, this is how this bunch of scientists decide to "disprove" the myth.

1. The more force a pitch generates, the harder it is to hit, so they compare the impact force of some college dude's baseball pitch and blondie's softball pitch. The 95 mph baseball pitch, thrown from 63 feet with a single forward step motion, generates 2,400 lbs of force. The 70 mph "bowling motion" softball pitch (accompanied by a short hop forward) thrown from 40 feet away shatters the plate. Therefore, softball pitch harder to hit.

2. A baseball prospect who usually hits .310 had a harder time hitting the softball pitch than he did the baseball pitch.

3. They confirmed the finding of the second step by studying the motions of either pitcher. A baseball pitcher throws high to low from a further distance, so the baseball hitter's eye is able to adjust. The baseball hitter had a harder time adjusting to the rising trajectory of a softball pitch.

Ergo, softball pitches are harder to hit than pitches of pro baseball pitchers.

Any amateur philosopher can see the holes in the argument put forth by the "scientists".

First, the force impact of a pitch is not the most important aspect in making a pitch hittable. If that were true, then every pitch would be a fastball and all you'll need is a strong arm. No, it is unpredictability that makes a pitch hard to hit, which eplains the need for the pitcher to throw a variety of pitches in a game. In fact, a pitch that generates greater impact is easier to hit out of the ball park if hit solidly. So, the first method cannot contribute to proving the thesis. All it proves is that an object travelling at 70 mph covering a shorter distance will generate more impact force than an object travelling further at 95 mph. The conclusion does not prove the thesis.

Second, the baseball hitter had a hard time hitting the softball pitch precisely because it was unpredictable for him. A baseball hitter is used to hitting baseball pitches, which is why he adjusts better from high to low than low to high and has a reaction time geared towards the length of time it takes a baseball pitch to cross the plate. The premise of the question is that hitting a baseball pitch is the hardest thing to do in pro-sports. It assumes that the baseball hitter's job is the hardest in all of sports, and his job is to hit baseball pitches By using a baseball hitter to hit a softball pitch, you skew the experiment because you have a baseball hitter not doing his job, which is to hit baseball pitches. This point is proven inadvertedly by these scientists by their display of how different a softball pitch is to a baseball pitch. It's like asking a tennis player to hit a cricket throw, or asking a bowler to hit a three-pointer. By using an experiment design that is tantamount to comparing an apple with an orange, the experiment's results are useless to the thesis. The science has been used to prove,,,nothing.

A more sensible experiment design would have been to have a person with no eperience hitting a baseball or a softball and having him try to hit either pitch.

After the segment, these amateur hour clowns have the gall to say that "science" proved their point, where nothing they did could even remotely be tantamount to well-thought science. (Don't get me started on their stupid experiment design for debunking the "myth" that athletes shouldn't have sex before a competition.) One of the most important aspects of science is determining the means by which a hypothesis could be derived and tested, and for this, the scientist needs some philosophy. I find it sad seeing the philosophical dunderheads of "Sports Science" wield science like four year old swinging a wiffle bat.

Next time, leave the science to actual scientists. 

Stop the Noise! Ahhhh!!!

Watching the World Cup on TV is more difficult than it should be. Its because of that incessant wasp drone of those fucking vuvuzela trumpets. If those South Africans had any sense of hospitality or sensitivity for the welfare of the great number of peoples who have come to their doorstep or are watching on TV, they'd ban those tuneless, noisy trumpets.

When I watch soccer, I want to hear the crowd. I want cheers, groans and offensive chants. But with those damn noise-makers, I can barely hear the color guy calling the match.

Speaking of Affronts to Patriarchy

The European Union, in between bouts of financial insanity, has recently found time to indulge in its other favorite past-time: egalitarian social engineering.

Last month, the European Union decided that it ought to be illegal for a father to give away his daughter on her wedding day, saying that such a practice is an affront to equality and treats daughters as chattels.

So, a time-honored practice that has its roots in the primordial participation of the human father in life of his family is equated with the barbarism of slavery simply because it is old and it revolts against some modern notions of "equality" spread by a democratic bureaucracy with the historical memory of a scholarly goldfish. It is but one more assault on the beauty of the ages by a bunch of chronological snobs hell-bent on making man in their image.

When the day comes that the EU collapses in a heap of its own piss and tears, I'll be among the ruins applauding. For the sake of Europeans, that monstrosity of an organization cannot die fast enough.

I do find the Princess of Sweden's defiance of the matter quite heartening. One of the advantages of a monarchy is that it is more prone to fits of sanity when it comes to the defense of what is good in its traditions. I find it sad that I am no longer surprised that democracies, which can only thrive on the virtue of the population, are more likely to toss virtue aside at a whim. At least, when a king does it, it is but one man's flaw writ large. It is far more disturbing when a collpasing society does so on the aggregate of its people's flaws.

Happy Father's Day

Long live the Patriarchy, without which no civilization would arise.

Long live the patriarchs, without which no civilization is possible.

And a pox on those who would shame your names!

More Egg on Al Gore's Face

Al Gore claimed in "The Inconvenient Truth" that man-made "global warming" will result in the oceans swallowing up several tiny Pacific nations. One of the "poster nations" of this claim was  a tiny atoll nation called Tuvalu.

Unfortunately for Mr. Gore (and fortunately for Tuvalu), the island is nowhere near vanishing beneath the waves of capitalistic greed. In fact, the island is rising further up from the sea.

Gore: Why is that thing still there? Maybe its because of... Man-Bear-Pig!!!

Where is Ash's Dad?

Stumbled on this short series of Pokemon webcomic strips.



I find it particularly interesting that somebody, somewhere managed to take notice of the fact that a TV character is actually missing a parent. Too many people take the "single TV parent" model for granted. Also gratifying is the exploration of what that character feels about the lack of the other parent, something that is rarely ever shown in shows.

Plus, the strip is pretty well-written too.

Yeah, It's Our Fault Women Don't Cook Anymore

Feminist nuttiness is a deep well indeed.

New York Times food critic Michael Pollan approvingly notes that one of the authors he is reviewing has criticized feminists for the denigrated eating habits that have become the norm across the United States. On the third page:

In a challenge to second-wave feminists who urged women to get out of the kitchen, Flammang suggests that by denigrating “foodwork”—everything involved in putting meals on the family table—we have unthinkingly wrecked one of the nurseries of democracy: the family meal. It is at “the temporary democracy of the table” that children learn the art of conversation and acquire the habits of civility—sharing, listening, taking turns, navigating differences, arguing without offending—and it is these habits that are lost when we eat alone and on the run. “Civility is not needed when one is by oneself.”

This, of course, did not sit well with the sisterhood. One particular harpy bares her fangs:

Blaming feminism for luring women out of the kitchen, stealing the ritual of the family meal, and thereby diminishing "one of the nurseries of democracy" is both simplistic and ridiculous. It's true that shared meals are powerful spaces for building relationships and "the habits of civility." But if we're going to talk about who's to blame for our current culture of processed food, why not blame untold generations of men for not getting into the kitchen, especially given Pollan's characterization of the family meal as having a meaningful role in cultivating democracy? If it's so important, why is their absence excusable?

Yeah, the fall of the family kitchen is the man's fault because he didn't cook. Why, I'm sure that they can magically conjure up food items at will, just like the 50's housewife....

Once more, the feminists destroy something and blame it on men. Fucking retards.

The answer to Ms. Clark's question is that it was the men who busted their asses to provide the food that the wife will make for the family. They are absent because somebody has to shoot the hog, or harvest the crops, or go through the industrial grind, in order to bring home something to prepare in the kitchen. That was their role. It only so happened that one day, they delivered the goods and there was nobody there to recieve them. That is not the man's fault.

While the feminists tricked women into upending the division of labor and going after men's jobs, men are not going to just roll over and give up what they've spent millenia doing. Furthermore, men have not picked up the slack in house chores because, seriously, a man can be quite happy in a pig sty. The feminists may have tricked women into wanting to become men, but the trick doesn't work the other way around.

So, welcome to processed blah eaten in front of the TV, feminists. That is your handiwork. 

Aging Like Fine (Boxed) Wine

The older he gets, the more David Wong proves he is the best writer on Cracked's staff.

His latest article on the immaturity of the self-professed gamer is the sort of mature mind candy (and it is still, as with all things Cracked, candy, with dong jokes and all) that no other Cracked writer can come up with without first undergoing a brain aneurism.

This is probably because he is the only guy on the staff with a wife and his own property. Nothing like growing up to make a man an adult.

Diagnosing the West's Generation 50's

In contrast to the screaming harpy in my previous post, here is a woman who defies Eve Ensler's silly progressive typecasting by proving capable of having an intellectual conversation.

Her musings were prompted by an American high school student asking what the American 50's must have been like for women. What follows is a powerful insight into the growing malaise that brought about the radicalism of the decade that followed. Her conclusion was particularly haunting:

The fifties housewife was doomed, as was the “dad who knows best.” The housewife’s life wasn’t really about linoleum floors, casseroles or new toasters and refrigerators. People like to say it was but it wasn’t. Her world was held together by non-materialistic values and once those were thoroughly assaulted, she could not defend it. She could no more explain what she did or why she deferred to men in many areas of life than a prayer or a poem could say, “This is what I am.” When people accused her of materialism or vacuity, of weakness, she did not know what to say to counter the complete falsity of this charge. The sacred was no longer defensible. For that reason – not because of economic and technological change  - the things she valued most were about to disappear.

What brought about the beginnings of the radicalized 60's were not extraneous circumstances, but a metaphysical black hole that could not be fulfilled because they had done away with metaphysical things. This sort of thinking is dangerous to the materialistic historian who grounds the very fiber of history on physical circumstance. I personally find this sort of thinking a refreshing breeze.

The way she describes the collapse of the American family reminds me of Tolkien's dying Minas Tirith, where there were more tombs than grand houses, and the children are scarce. I fear that we in this country are at that same stage of history as the US in the 50's. After all, we just elected to the presidency with an astounding mandate a man-child who cannot articulate anything about our common values beyond vague platitudes. This, after all, is a man-child who thinks our families are disposable where economically inconvenient.

With this trajectory in mind, I shudder at our prospects for the next decade.

Would It Be Better as "Iron Person"?

A feminist professor on Ms. Magazine, further (unintentionally) proving Eve Ensler's theory that women are not cut out for intellectual work, goes on an estrogen-tinged rampage against the Iron Man franchise.

You know you're doing something right when the hysterical feminist establishment unleashes the harpies on you.

Politically incorrect and loving it!

The pseudo-academic gossip gaggle about "weaponizing the male body" is funny enough (brought to you by the same people who interpreted Frodo's stabbing Shelob as "Patriarchy!!!"), but the best part is right up there on the first sentence:

It’s right there in the title: Iron MAN, not meaning “human” but male.

Before spewing her ignorance on things Iron Man, she decides to be fair and presents herself as a blubbering moron right off the bat. At least, that's sort of courteous.

Personally, I pity her 13 year old son. By the looks of it, he'll be growing up with an insane parent who wished he had a vagina.

And yes, Tony Stark is right, the liberal agenda is boring as hell.

Maybe I should go watch the movie a third time.

Taking a Shot at the Zeitgeist

A Missouri state rep who is a mother to seven children decides to fire a salvo out of nowhere upon a pillar of the prevailing Western Zeitgeist: no-fault divorce.

This woman has balls taking on such a Cyclops: no-fault divorce may prove to be one of the most difficult pacts of cultural suicide to turn back. Harder than abortion even.

Naturally, there has been a massive reaction against the bill. I find the delusion-making funny though. Here's the Missouri Bar Association (pdf warning):

At their meeting on January 21, 2010, the Executive Committee reviewed House Bill 1234,
which changes laws regarding marriage license fees and dissolution of marriage. The Executive Committee found provisions in the bill that reinstate the requirement of a finding of fault in dissolution proceedings and affect judicial administration to be within the legislative scope of The Missouri Bar. Strict "fault divorce" was abandoned in Missouri many years ago because it was found to promote animosity between the parties, have a damaging effect on children of the marriage and increase legal costs of dissolution. The bill's provision requiring court clerks to return the entire filing fee upon withdrawal of a petition for dissolution or legal separation within one year imposes an undue burden on an already financially stressed judicial system. For these reasons, The Missouri Bar opposes House Bill 1234.

I find this absolutely funny because it seems that the Missouri Bar Association lives in the Land of Unicorns, where no-fault divorce results in friendlier divorce parties and absolutely issue-free children.

Personally, I would find increasing the "legal costs of dissolution" to be a wonderful disincentive to leaving your spouse.

So Much for a "Classy" Aguilera

I once thought that, unlike Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera had matured with marriage and motherhood.

Yeah....



So much for that. The sad part is that when her son is hit by the "I slept with your mama" jokes when he grows up, he'll have good cause to pause and wonder if it isn't, in fact, true. His mom's a slut. Again.

Or at the very least, a very warmed-over 80's Madonna. Blech.