Irony!

Quite accidentally, I happened to notice a comment (in this thread) on 'The Other McCain' blog made by 'Wombat_socho' (who has 'moderator' authority on the blog) --

His problem is going to be going somewhere else if he keeps up this nonsense. Birthers are obnoxious no matter what party they belong to.

to explain: 'Wombat_socho' is telling someone else that he is going to ban me from commenting on that blog ... because he doesn't like me presenting arguments (to the extent that one can do such in the commbox of a blog so organized) that Ted Cruz is not a natural born US citizen.

Now, what's ironic about this is two things:
1) At this very moment, 'The Other McCain' himself has become a minor cause célèbre amongst those who consider themselves to be conservative over having been banned from Twitter for presenting rational arguments against feminism, based on quoting what feminists actually say and do;
2) A number of the regular commenters on that blog have been quite vicious in their denunciations of me and in their "refutations" (you do see me rolling my eyes, don't you?) of my arguments -- you know, acting just like leftists almost always do when they encounter ideas that they do not wish even to rationally examine -- and 'Wombat_socho' has never once said anything about *that*.

Here is the response I posted to 'Wombat_socho' --

Two points:
1) How ironic is it that you threaten to ban me for stating truths -- and presenting arguments to support those truths -- that you do no wish to hear?
2) I am not a "birther"; I am a Constitutionalist.
====
But, go ahead and ban me if that's really what you need to do to create or maintain your safe space.

In fact, I'll probably save him the trouble, because I don't have time for fools.

=========
On the bright side, I now have a free slot on my blogroll.

Making History

Smitty at The Other McCain: PowerLine Laid Out On Fainting Couch Over Ben Carson USMA Story And Small Arachnid, But Mostly Ben Carson -- quoting 'American Elephant': "So, Ben Carson is now the first black presidential candidate in history to have his college records investigated by [the] media."


Wintery Knight (drawing on Ben Shapiro): Leftist POLITICO lies in order to smear black conservative Ben Carson


By the way, this episode provided Vox Day an excellent opportunity to display his intellectual dishonesty: Your "Get-Out-of-Racism-Free" has now expired -- He quotes Politico, knowing it's Politico, treating it as honest reporting rather than as a lying smear-job, and concludes: "I'm looking forward to hearing that Carson isn't a surgeon at all, but is actually a janitor at Mercy Medical in Baltimore."

Edit: and here is Vox Day doubling-down in a pretense of blamelessness ... you know, just like "social justice warriors" always do.

Render Unto Caesar

Douglas Wilson: Children of the Rainbow -- "As Voddie Baucham put it memorably, if you render your children to Caesar, don’t be surprised when they come back Romans."

People frequently quote the verse (*), "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" without thinking about the context.

Now, for sure, the overall context is that some Pharisees (and partisans of the Herodian dynasty) were trying to set a trap for Christ: they say only two answers to the question they posed him, both of which they could spin to his condemnation. His answer was to expose the question's false premise on which rested the dilemma by which they thought to trap him..

However, *that* is not the context to which I wish to draw Gentle Reader’s attention, but rather to a sub-context of that overall context.

What did Christ ask them? He asked, “Whose image does this coin bear?” What he didn’t ask explicitly - for in the context of people who live and breathe the text (even if not quite the spirit) of Scripture - it is always implied: “Whose image do you bear?”

So, here is how they understood has answer to them: “Here is a coin; it is marked as being the property of Caesar. And here is you, who are marked as being the property of God. So, if Caesar demands what is his, give it back to him. But do not give him what is God’s.”


(*) and frequently, just the first half; I think we can expect this frequency to increase in the near future


Edit 2015/07/05:
The Other McCain: What Education Teaches

His name is 'Bruce'

Add me to the list of "haters" (and, should the leftists have their ultimate way, imprisoned or executed for it), for I will never pretend that Bruce Jenner is a 'she' nor that his name is 'Cairlyn'. He is a very mentally (and spiritually) disturbed man, but a man -- a male human being, however unmanly -- nonetheless.

The Other McCain: War on Human Nature: The Celebrity Fantasy Dress-Up With ‘Caitlyn’ Game


Isn't it odd that in Leftie World, as Ben Shapiro tweeted: "Your biological sex is completely mutable, but your sexual orientation is completely immutable." (Of course, this holds only so long as the leftists find "gays" to be useful. When "gays" are no longer collectively useful to the left, they'll be putting them in the death camps, right along with us Christians)

Also, isn't it all rather odd that the very people who like to congratulate themselves on being "the reality-based community" are so very against reality?


Edit:
Walt Heyer: "Sex Change" Surgery: What Bruce Jenner, Diane Sawyer, and You Should Know -- "Bruce Jenner and Diane Sawyer could benefit from a history lesson. I know, because I suffered through “sex change” surgery and lived as a woman for eight years. The surgery fixed nothing—it only masked and exacerbated deeper psychological problems."

She's 'hot'

*Warning, there is a crude word employed in this post; it's the one that women really, really hate*

So entrenched in our culture is the leftist anti-ethos of the so-called Sexual Revolution that even people who like to think themselves opposed to it (and to leftism in general) generally will not see its vile effects, even when directly brought to their attention ... and will, in fact, defend those vile effects (because you can't have the promised sexual "freedom" without the vile effects).

The Other McCain has a recent post called Men Cannot Be Feminists. And while his post is worth reading, what I wish to bring to Gentle Reader's attention is in the comments -- Quoting RSM, I observed:

McCain: "[By the dogmas of femiinism] ... Under no condition should “female sexuality”ever make men happy."

Ilíon: "Unfortunately, relatively normal women *also* think like this. Why do you think they chop off their hair?"

Now, as sure as the sun will rise in the morning, *any* comment by a mere man that can be taken as lacking in full-throated praise for *any* decision that *any* woman makes is going to ruffle the feathers of two groups of people: 1) women who will not abide the implication that women are sinners, just like men; and, 2) men who will not abide the implication that women are sinners, just like men.

On the particular topic of women's hair, or, to be more precise, men's preferences about women's hair, Gentle Reader may recall the reaction to Drew's post, Women's hair. So, if you've been around the block, you just know something similar is going to happen.

And, sure enough: DeadMessenger: "Hmph. Because that crap is hot all summer when it's hanging in your face and on your neck. And also sometimes you have to cut it off when it gets damaged because of chemical processing or sun.

But of course, I myself look frisky and pixie-ish when my hair is short, and exotic and mysterious when it's long, but either way, I'm smokin' hot, buddy."

First, notice that -- just as with Drew -- I didn't say that women can't have their hair short. As Drew explicitly did, I implicitly said that we men enjoy women's hair long. And I expressed the conviction that (one of the main reasons) they chop it off is to deprive us of that pleasure.

Now, isn't it odd that "that crap is hot all summer when it's hanging in your face and on your neck" doesn't seem to bother the average woman until *after* a man has committed his life to her maintenance? Apparently, when a woman is trying the *get* the attention (and commitment, let us not forget) of some poor sap of a man, the horrible discomfort seems to be a minor thing, becoming unbearable only at some ill-defined time after the nuptials.

How, oh how, did our great-grandmothers ever survive -- before air-conditioning -- when even long-married women kept their hair long?

It's almost as though someone had dis-invented putting your hair *up* -- which, incidentally, *also* gives pleasure to men, because then we can see your necks.

As for the other proffered excuse for chopping off their hair, "also sometimes you have to cut it off when it gets damaged because of chemical processing or sun" -- did *we* ask women to destroy their hair with chemicals, or to fry it in the sun (where the intense light reacts with the chemicals they've put on it?) Of course not? So, why do they do it? Because they are competing with one another in a game of their own devising to "prove" who has more "sex appeal" -- with, of course, no input allowed from the ostensible targets of the cut-throat competition. Really, it's the same Queen Bee competition they were having in junior high school.

A guy replied to 'DeadMessenger': Steve Skubinna: "Well, yeah, but he wasn't talking about you.

It's those other women. And uh, by "other women" I am not implying, er...

Okay, this is me, shutting up now." I *think* this guy is craftily pointing out the near-universal antipathy women have for any man expressing a manly opinion about the sexes.

Concerning hair, I replied to 'DeadMessenger': "A woman's long hair shouts *WOMAN* to us men. And, on some level, women do understand something of the effect their long hair has on us, how much we enjoy it. This is why when a relatively normal woman decides to start pushing her man away, one of the first things she'll do is chop off her hair."

I witnessed this with one of my nieces. She had a good (albeit not perfect) man, who had committed his life to supporting not only her and their child, but also her two older children by other men (*). But, then she got bored with domesticity and decided to destroy her marriage. I realized where she was headed when she chopped off her hair (which wasn't all that long, in any event), ostensibly to donate it to be made into wigs for children experiencing the effects of chemo-therapy.


There was a second sub-topic that arose from my initial comment, and this is really the main topic of this post. Recall, at the start of this post, I said

So entrenched in our culture is the leftist anti-ethos of the so-called Sexual Revolution that even people who like to think themselves opposed to it (and to leftism in general) generally will not see its vile effects, even when directly brought to their attention ... and will, in fact, defend those vile effects (because you can't have the promised sexual "freedom" without the vile effects).

Recall the comment from DeadMessenger: "But of course, I myself look frisky and pixie-ish when my hair is short, and exotic and mysterious when it's long, but either way, I'm smokin' hot, buddy."

I replied: "No man *ever* describes any woman he loves or respects as "hot", much less "smokin' hot"."

For witness, I call Gentle Reader's attention to this (vile) commercial for 'Hot Pockets' -- the reaction of the brother of "Hot Sister Lisa" is intelligible *only* because what I said is true: "No man *ever* describes any woman he loves or respects as "hot", much less "smokin' hot"" -- to call a woman "hot" is to say, "consider this woman as though she were merely a cunt-on-legs"

QuarterMaster replied: "The hottest woman in the world is the one who accepts your love and returns it with the same intensity."

I replied: "Sure. And the "hotter" that love, the less a man will use "hot" to describe it."

QuarterMaster replied: "Perhaps you will. Others have a different opinion."

I replied: "Do you really go around telling other men that your S.O. is "smokin' hot"? Assuming you have any, do you describe daughter or sister that way? If some guy were to say to you, concerning your daughter or sister (whom he did not know is your daughter or sister), "Man! Will you look at that "smokin' hot" babe!", are you *really* going to react as though he had not expressed great disrespect toward her?"

QuarterMaster replied: "I would then tell him "that's my wife.""

I replied: "I expect you would, as most people would, for that is the culturally accepted/expected rebuke when someone refers to a woman one loves-and-respects as "smokin' hot"."

QuarterMaster replied: "It wouldn't be a rebuke, however."

I replied: "Nowww I get it: you *will not* admit the truth on this."

And then I decided to share all this with my Reader, because I think the whole exchange is a good illustration of something I am always harping on -- conservatives will never be able to effectively oppose leftism until they free their minds of the leftist assumptions in which we are all marinated almost from birth.

QuarterMaster's hypothetical response to someone hypothetically calling his wife "hot" makes no sense except:
1) as a rebuke;
2) as a trophy-boast;
3) as a combination of both.

I turned on the TV in my hotel room the other day and briefly landed on Cedric The Entertainer's show (I think it's called 'Soul Man'). An older man (Cedric's character's father, I think) had gone to his daughter-in-law's (Cedric's character's wife, I think) beauty shop to get a hair cut (singular, that being part of the humor) because "the barber shop" had closed down. Then, a couple of his buddies from "the barber shop" came in and started chatting-up Cedric's character's wife before her father-in-law had completely introduced her. That is, he had told them her name and that she owned the shop, but he hadn't yet said, "she's my son's wife". And when he *did* say, "she's my son's wife", the meaning of it is clear to all of us: "don't talk to her, or about her, in that manner"


Edit 2015/05/18:
Consider, again, 'QuarterMaster's' claim that if some guy were to say of his wife, "Man! Will you look at that "smokin' hot" babe!", he'd reply to the guy, "That's my wife" and that it wouldn't be meant as a rebuke to the guy for talking about his wife in that manner.

Why is 'QuarterMaster' able to pretend that? He's able to pretend it for precisely the reason I gave and that 'QuarterMaster' is disputing: "... for that is the culturally accepted/expected rebuke when someone refers to a woman one loves-and-respects as "smokin' hot"."

Now, for whatever his need to dispute what I'd said and to pretend that his hypothetical response to the hypothetical comment about his wife would not be meant as a rebuke, the fact remains that the guy is going to understand the response as a rebuke. And he's going to stop talking like that about the woman (whom another man has implicitly asserted is deserving of respectful treatment), and will probably try to apologize profusely.

But, what if he doesn't? What if, like 'QuarterMaster', the guy also pretends that that response to that comment is not a rebuke? What if he keeps talking about 'QuarterMaster's' wife in that manner? Does anyone *really* think 'QuarterMaster' is going continue to pretend that that manner of talking about a woman he cares about is just harmless banter, rather than extreme disrespect?


===================
(*) By the way, loving other men's children comes easier to men than loving other women's children comes to women. Why do you think that the folk-lore "wicked step-mother" was invented (by women, let it be noted), but not the "wicked step-father"?

Here there be dragons

The Other McCain: News Flash: Liberals Hate Christianity

Death threats are only publicized to the extent they can portray the left as sympathetic victims. When the left threatens to murder political opponents, the media covers it up.

I haven't lived there in forever, but South Bend is my native town --

The Other McCain: TV Reporter’s Cheap ‘Gotcha’ Story Incites Hate Mob Against Indiana Pizza Shop

In that post, Mr McCain duplicates a tweet he'd made at some time - "Legalize sodomy, and next thing you know, it's illegal to disapprove of sodomy. How long until taxpayer-funded compulsory sodomy?" -- and that is exactly what the future holds, unless Big Gay, and Leftism in general, is smacked down and driven back into the dank places from which they slithered.

Pray for 'Tor'

The Other McCain: Bad Christianity, Worse Atheism

The #StreetHarassment Meme and #Feminism’s Kafkatrapping Tactics

The Other McCain has a very good post analyzing the recent (and fundamentally dishonest) "street harassment" video (*) -- The #StreetHarassment Meme and #Feminism’s Kafkatrapping Tactics

Also, here is a previous post on the matter -- Racism, Classism and Catcalling (or, #Feminism Is for Rich White Lesbians)

(*) you know, the one that was *supposed* to "prove" that I, being a white(ish) man, am a horrible, incorrigible "sexist" and that all the discontents of all women are *my* fault, but instead it sparked a big cannibalistic (and self-contradictory) feeding-frenzy amongst all The Right (which is to say, leftist) People out to "protect" their own favored protected class of "victims."

Here is a good comment by K T Cat -- -- "So there's a video of some chick walking past a bunch of minority dudes getting catcalls and wolf whistles. ... This has feminists in Full Freakout Mode, demanding, err, something. I'm not quite sure of what they want, probably because what they want is fundamentally contradictory with something else they want and so the whole thing is incoherent."


By the way, here's a video of a man experiencing "#StreetHarassment"