Monday, September 15, 2014

Rotherham child abuse victim confronts her alleged abuser in the street... but SHE is arrested by a van load of police | Mail Online

The most fundamental task of a civilization, no, something prior to civilization, something more fundamental, the task of a group of human beings who want to survive, is for men to protect women from males of other groups. It is the first responsibility of a society's men. The primal obligation.

That is why this story of the Rotherham abuse scandal is so perverse. At bottom it is a failure of a society, of the men in a society, to fulfill their primary obligation, to protect their women from outside men. And now the ultimate inversion of morality, the police, the men of the community, defend the outside men from their own women. This situation exposes the suicidal, dead-end nature of our cosmopolitan elite's vision of civilization, with its twin pillars of unlimited immigration and non-judgmental multiculturalism, and why the emotions that it calls up against itself are so primal. It is an act of societal suicide.

Here is a NYT's op-ed on the topic

Sunday, September 14, 2014

BLACKFIVE: Muslims Celebrated The Sep 11 Attacks


Posse Comitatus

Rare case: Case thrown out because of a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting military participation in civilian law enforcement. A Navy investigator did a search of all computers in the state of Washington and turned over evidence of child pornography to civilian authorities.

It is good to see this law is still given its force by the federal courts. 

Rice background

Here is a timeline for the Rice scandal.  Here Ann Althouse makes the point that one person should not be punished for the crime of another in relation to the Rice case, but she makes the point in the Peterson case--a player accused of employing excessive corporal punishment on his son--arguing that Peterson is only being punish so severely as a reaction against the punishments against Rice that are now seen as excessively light. 

Friday, September 12, 2014

More Ray Rice thoughts

Part of the reason that people dismiss Janay Rice as being misguided and suffering from some sort of battered women syndrome is that the only reason they can imagine she would defend her husband is that she is suffering from some sort of diminished capacity or she is a gold digger. The possibility that she loves her husband and wishes for his success, or that she does reasonably feel some responsibility for what happened, or that she has just forgiven him, or that she thinks he has been punished enough, seems not to have occurred to anyone.

I don’t know, if I hit my wife and my wife forgave me would I still be fired from my job as a professor? Would they be obligated to fire me? What if I were a shoe salesman or an auto mechanic? Would my employer be expected to fire me and, to complete analogy, see to it that no other college, shoe store or auto repair shop ever employed me? And would everyone expect as a matter of course my wife to encourage them to do so?


Has anyone noticed that this is a bunch of white men deciding how much to punish a bunch of black men?




The thing that is odd about the complaint that the commissioner should have seen the video is that the video admittedly does not add any new information? If so, what is the point? The visceral reaction of the viewers is so important? There is such a difference between knowing that someone got knocked out and seeing them get knocked out by a punch? Is there squeamishness in itself a sign of virtue, of their superior sensibility? Their physical revulsion at the sight of the act is to be taken as evidence of their moral superiority? Isn’t this precisely the sort of thing we are told should be kept from juries because it is inflammatory, shocking and sickening?

Why should he have tried harder to get the video? There were no facts in dispute. The what did he know and when did he know it angle is so habitual it is treated as the focus of controversy without even thinking about it. Did the NFL have a legal right to see the video, let alone a responsibility? I have heard people go on the radio about how the NFL could have gotten the tape because they have former law enforcement on staff and could have gone through back channels, but does that make it right, let alone obligatory? 

Ray Rice

I am very confused about the whole Ray Rice thing and it concerns me. I usually find myself taking one side or the other in a cultural conflict like this but in this case I feel as if there is no one out there taking my side, that there are a bunch of things being said out there that every one seems to agree with and to regard as so self-evident that if you don't agree with them you are some kind of monster or reprobate.

I hear men solemnly say that you must never hit a woman, period. Well, that is what I was always told. On the other hand, I am sure that women were also not supposed to spit in men's faces. I can't imagine hitting my wife, but then I can't imagine my wife spitting in my face.

I must say I have been struck by the dignity and strength of Mrs. Rice and I am really astounded at the way she is dismissed by the very people who present themselves as standing up for women and demanding that women be respected for their intelligence and ability to make their own decisions. No one seems to be concerned with respecting Mrs. Rice's decisions.

One that that has struck me is that the only voices that I have heard (and I have not been systematic at all in focusing my attention) raising the question of reciprocal violence in domestic violence situation has been from the left. I feel that the issue is so toxic and that the right feels so intimidated that they are unwilling to raise any issues that could at all be interpreted as being less than zealous true believers in the presents line, that they are anything less than fully committed members of the chorus of condemnation.

I remember my Grandmother more or less training me to open doors for ladies. I also remember some years later women rolling their eyes or forgiving me for stepping ahead of them to open doors for them. I thought that the whole reason we have an absolute prohibition on violence against women is that they are on average weaker than men. I am sure that if I came at Ray Rice and spit in his face he would hit me and I would garner no sympathy. I would no more be capable of fighting Ray Rice than his future wife was, but I am sure that he would be considered within his rights to retaliate against me or any man that came at him and spit in his face.

Is it not at least somewhat incongruous that the very people that tell us that women can do anything men can do, that any apparent differences in the abilities of men and women are solely the result of the culture indoctrination and truncated opportunities that our sexist society imposes on women? This is why we are supposed to want to have women in the military in combat roles, no? How does this fit with the absolute prohibition against violence against women regardless of the provocation? When men train with women are they not going to use violence against them? Is the 'you don't hit women, period' going to hold when the women are wearing a uniform, when they are on the other side or have a gun?

Perhaps part of the strength of the reaction against the video is the way it she looks so helpless, the way her efforts look so instantly futile, is due to the way it mocks the conceit that the differences between men and women are due solely to social construction? We have movies full of Amazon women beating up men and decking them with a single blow while cracking wise, but when we see an actual example of a fight between a man and a women these cultural delusions are exposed for the puerile fantasies that they are. And yet is the un-apologetically masculine sport of Football that is blamed for violence against women and Hollywood's fantasies which actively portray women as fully capable of holding their own against men in a fight and actively encouraging (can this be denied?) women to exercise their right to compete with men in the realms of violence are ignored?

I heard Jim Brown sermonizing (I don't think you could describe it any other way) against men telling other men that they 'throw like girls' is demeaning to women and that making such remarks makes men complicit in the wave of violence against women. But isn't the whole prohibition on using any sort of physical force against women based on the very fact which such remarks presuppose, namely, that women are not as strong or as physically capable of deploying or withstanding violence? The reason that it is 'wrong to hit women, period,' is that they are not able to defend themselves, at least typically, just as they are not able to--again, typically--defend themselves, no? Shouldn't he be saying, 'Guys, remember when you told a guy he throws like a girl? That is why you can't hit girls, because it is not fair, because they can't effectively hit back just as they can't throw,'?

Another thing that seems to have been excluded from this discussion is  the common law norm of not having a penalty imposed or invented after the fact, the visceral revulsion that one would have thought all English Speakers had to procedures that smack of ex post facto laws. Should we wait until the offense is committed and then determine the penalty? It is one thing to say that hence forward we will have a so-called 'zero tolerance' policy toward domestic violence and permanently end the career of any player found guilty of domestic violence, but what about the propriety of imposing such a penalty after the fact? If we are going to have a penalty so severe as to end a man's livelihood for the rest of his life shouldn't that be set out before hand? Shouldn't the exceptions or the lack of and explicit irrelevance of common exceptions, excuses and extenuating circumstances (which one might think mutual drinking, being assaulted and being forgiven by the victim must at the very least be considered), be spelled out before hand? Especially in the case of such a severe penalty shouldn't we expect it to be spelled out before hand?

All of the norms shaped by common law thinking seem to have been abandoned in this public discussion. The victim's discretion over whether to press charges, the prohibition on ex post facto laws or the prohibition against bills of attainder, the double jeopardy prohibition, all of this is dismissed with explanation.


Thursday, August 21, 2014

FBI director calls Islamic terror group behind journalist slaying 'savages' | Star Tribune

FBI director calls Islamic terror group behind journalist slaying 'savages' | Star Tribune: What is new is that they have done it to an American. They have been doing it to other Arabs and Muslims for decades but that was merely 'their culture' and condemning it as barbarism was, therefore, racist.


Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Nigel vs the Lunatic Mainstream :: SteynOnline

From Mark Steyn: 


Nigel vs the Lunatic Mainstream :: SteynOnline: "Occasionally, the realities of electoral politics oblige the village's denizens to dissemble to the barbarians beyond, as in David Cameron's current pledge of a referendum on EU membership sometime after his reelection, which is intended to staunch defections to UKIP by seizing the nuanced ground of pretending that he's not entirely opposed to adopting the position of conceding the prospect of admitting the possibility of potentially considering the theoretical option of exploring the hypothetical scenario of discussing in a roundabout way Britain's leaving the EU. He doesn't mean it, of course, but he has to toss a bone out there from time to time. Lord Feldman, the Tories' co-chairman and Cameron's tennis partner, rather gave the game away when he was overheard dismissing the massed ranks of his party as "mad, swivel-eyed loons." Weary of being insulted by Cameron and his Oxford chums, Conservative voters began phoning the local UKIP office for membership applications. In nothing flat, "swivel-eyed loons" became a badge of honor, and the prime minister was giving speeches to the effect that, underneath the insincere unprincipled elitist veneer, he was a swivel-eyed loon himself.

"
I like the 'swivel-eyed loons' bit. It seems to me to be a fine tradition in the politics of the English speaking world to take insults as a badge of honor. Indeed, the names of the two great parties in Great Britain are insults adopted as standards by their objects. This seems to me to be a much healthier kind of politics than the endless whining about being owed an apology that constitutes contemporary political discourse.

Nigel vs the Lunatic Mainstream :: SteynOnline

From Mark Steyn: 


Nigel vs the Lunatic Mainstream :: SteynOnline: "Occasionally, the realities of electoral politics oblige the village's denizens to dissemble to the barbarians beyond, as in David Cameron's current pledge of a referendum on EU membership sometime after his reelection, which is intended to staunch defections to UKIP by seizing the nuanced ground of pretending that he's not entirely opposed to adopting the position of conceding the prospect of admitting the possibility of potentially considering the theoretical option of exploring the hypothetical scenario of discussing in a roundabout way Britain's leaving the EU. He doesn't mean it, of course, but he has to toss a bone out there from time to time. Lord Feldman, the Tories' co-chairman and Cameron's tennis partner, rather gave the game away when he was overheard dismissing the massed ranks of his party as "mad, swivel-eyed loons." Weary of being insulted by Cameron and his Oxford chums, Conservative voters began phoning the local UKIP office for membership applications. In nothing flat, "swivel-eyed loons" became a badge of honor, and the prime minister was giving speeches to the effect that, underneath the insincere unprincipled elitist veneer, he was a swivel-eyed loon himself.

"
I like the 'swivel-eyed loons' bit. It seems to me to be a fine tradition in the politics of the English speaking world to take insults as a badge of honor. Indeed, the names of the two great parties in Great Britain are insults adopted as standards by their objects. This seems to me to be a much healthier kind of politics than the endless whining about being owed an apology that constitutes contemporary political discourse.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

35 Ways British Men Can Address Each Other, Defined

35 Ways British Men Can Address Each Other, Defined: "28 People Who Totally Kinda Had A Little Bit Of A…"



The linked piece is a list of forms of address in contemporary Britain. The interesting thing is, the more insulting the term the closer the social relation. It is pretty funny and worth a read on its own.



It reminds me of something that has often struck me: the names for political parties and movements in the English speaking world tend to have their origins in insults from the other side of the political debate. Both 'Whig' and 'Tory', for instance, started out as terms of abuse. In effect, they answer "Yes, I am, so?" I think it is an attractive and manly--if one is still allowed to use such a term--sort of custom. The contrast with our contemporary political discourse is striking. We are continually monitoring the utterances of the other side to find a word we can pounce upon and loudly demand an apology for.



I suspect that the approach represented by the older discourse is healthier. It is certainly more fun.