'Guess the party affiliation'

'Guess the party affiliation' is an ongoing game at Bob Parks' Blank & Right. The most recent entry is here. What kind of sick puppy hides a camera in the women's restroom? I mean, really! there is nothing at all sexy about watching someone take a dump, no matter who she is. This is only one or two notches above that the guy who hid himself *inside* the collection chamber of a Port-a-Pot, the better to see where the shit in which he was swimming originated.

She is *such* a card

Kathy Shaidle -- click the link to see her joke (*) ... unless you suffer from PCitis, in which case you're advised to not, lest you have a heart attack.

I am so glad my ancestors didn't end up on one of those socialistic hell-holes where Indians are warehoused. Or kept as pets, same diff.

(*) It's specifically about Canadian politics, but it does translate to American politics, too.

'Unauthorized access to your account'

In my Hotmail junkmail folder, I happened to notice something purporting to be from PayPal, with the subject "Unauthorized access to your account". I, of course, didn't open it, Gentle Reader.

But, the thought occurs: this alleged attempted access was so 'unauthorized' that the unauthorized person must have had to create an account for me before he could even try to access it without my authorization!

I told you he's a fool

William Vallicella: Sudduth, Simplicity, and the Plotinian One -- "... And a little Christian charity can't be a bad idea either, especially towards such 'apostates' as Michael Sudduth."

Michael Sudduth isn't a scare-quote 'apostate', he *is* an apostate.

Why doesn't Vallicella take his own advice and extend "a little Christian charity" toward the Christians who are criticizing the now-apostate Sudduth, rather than blogging on and on about what meanies they are?

ps. The reason for the 'atheism' tag is that paganism amongst moderns is just 'spiritual' atheism.

Well, D'uh!

Lawrence Auster: "A reader says, not unreasonably, that he was treated somewhat unfairly in the "Gingrich vs. Romney" thread ..."

Dude, the concatenation of human nature, your own personal nature, and your "gatekeeper" approach to blogging makes it inevitable that you are going to treat unfairly at least some who send responses to you.

Even without bothering to looking at 'Reader's' statement and Auster's response, I can state with honest conviction that the only shocker here is that Auster openly says that the reader's claim is "not unreasonable".

Sometimes ... (again)

Previously, I had linked to a quotation of G.K.Chesterton, of which I said: "For all his brilliance, sometimes G.K. Chesterton could be outright childish, in the negative sense, which is an intellectual failure, or even damned foolish, which is a moral failure."

For balance, I offer Genter Reader another glimpse of Chesterton, in which his unalloyed brilliance shines: "The truth is, that all genuine appreciation rests on a certain mystery of humility and almost of darkness. The man who said, ‘Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed,’ put the eulogy quite inadequately and even falsely. The truth [is] ‘Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall be gloriously surprised.’ The man who expects nothing sees redder roses than common men can see, and greener grass, and a more startling sun. Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall possess the cities and the mountains; blessed is the meek, for he shall inherit the earth. Until we realize that things might not be we cannot realize that things are. Until we see the background of darkness we cannot admire the light as a single and created thing. As soon as we have seen that darkness, all light is lightening, sudden, blinding, and divine. Until we picture nonentity we underrate the victory of God, and can realize none of the trophies of His ancient war. It is one of the million wild jests of truth that we know nothing until we know nothing."

As is frequently the case with human beings, in which our virtues and vices are often two sides of the same coin, both the first quoted silliness (or even foolishness) and this profound insight are rooted in Chesterton's affinity for 'paradoxen' ;)

So, in summary, we get recessions because capitalism works.

James Hannam: Why Recessions Happen -- "... So, in summary, we get recessions because capitalism works. Capitalism generates economic growth. When things are good, human beings have a natural tendency to avert their eyes from future problems. But eventually we just have to roll up our sleeves up and carry out the necessary spring cleaning. The very worst thing we can do is pile up more debt, bring out new rules, raise taxes even higher and erect trade barriers."

More difficult that it needs to be

William Vallicella addresses a (pseudo-)paradox: The Paradox of the Preface and the Law of Non-Contradiction, and I believe he misses the point, which is that the "paradox" arises from not merely an equivocation, but from an elision.

The conclusion to which the pseudo-paradox is intended to lead us is “that we need to give up the claim that it is always irrational to believe statements that are mutually inconsistent”. In other words, this pseudo-paradox is intended to get us to believe that the Law of Non-Contradiction is itself irrational. Or, to put it more bluntly, that reason and logic are themselves irrational.

===
Here is my simpler solution of the paradox:

Points 2) and 3) which define the "paradox" are misstated. It is not that "some statement in his book is not true", but rather that "some statement in his book [may be] not true".

Properly stated, there is no paradox, and one is left with the utterly unremarkable, and totally non-contradictory, observation that the author believes that every statement he has made is true, but nonetheless realizes that he may have made a mistake, somewhere.

---
For, after all, there is no contradiction at all between (and thus no paradox in) believing that one has made no mistake while simultaneously believing that one may be wrong in that belief. Why, even I once thought I had been wrong about something, but, as it turned out, I was mistaken.

'This is what a feminist looks like'

Vox Day: You've come a long way, baby

One needn't fail to feel genuine sympathy for the victims of a stupid showboating Italian cruiseship captain to nevertheless be amused at the complaints from women who suddenly find they aren't so keen on that all-important equality when push comes to shove:
...
This was not so much predictable as predicted. Women have methodically attacked the concept of male duty and honor through every possible means for the past ninety years, and now they are whining that they don't get special treatment simply because a ship happens to be sinking. ...

Those big, burly crewmen shoving aside women as they prioritized their own escape should have been wearing t-shirts that said "this is what a feminist looks like". Enjoy the crash.

Every choice has a price. As VD says, (Western, and especially Anglo-American) women have consistently and constantly scorned and hated and belittled men and masculinity since early in the 20th century. This is an example of the price.

I'd bet that under normal circumstances the vast majority of those "big, burly crewmen shoving aside women as they prioritized their own escape" are indeed 'feminists'; that is, that they would be among the first of persons to viciously attack a traditional man, such as myself, as a "knuckle-dragging troglodyte".

I rarely bother with even trying to read the comments on VD' blog, but here are two comments I'd like to share with Gentle Reader (emphasis added):

alexamenos: ...
b) A very common theme in the Mail article comments is that it's perfectly fine that the men didn't help those oh so able and independent women, but those men were quite deplorable in not sacrificing themselves for the elderly and, of course, the cheeeeldren.

This is an understandable view, but I think it misses the bigger picture: You can't change a man's role in society without....

....wait for it....

...changing a man's role in society.

A society can tell it's men that 'we appreciate, respect, and reward your strength and ability to respect and provide for women and children', or it can chose to tell it's men, 'it's all you're goddamned fault, stop acting like men.' Whichever message it is that a society delivers, the society shouldn't be surprised to learn that it can't pick and choose the behaviors it desires at its whim.

Alternatively stated, blaming these men for not helping the children and elderly is a bit like blaming an insurance company for not paying on a claim when you never paid the premium in the first place. If you want men to be prepared to sacrifice [themselves for the good of others, strangers no less], you better pay up front.


Stickwick: You reap what you sow.

The really crappy thing for some of us women is that we get the same treatment even though we respect and honor men and desire the traditional roles. I think I'll punch a feminist in the nose today.

Sometimes ...

For all his brilliance, sometimes G.K. Chesterton could be outright childish, in the negative sense, which is an intellectual failure, or even damned foolish, which is a moral failure. The blogger 'Codgitator' approvingly supplies a quote of Chesterton being -- at best -- outright childish, in the negative sense: Or rather a second ...

"Communism is that form of Capitalism in which all workers have an equal wage. Capitalism is that form of Communism in which the organising officials have a very large salary. … Both presuppose property not personal, but Worked from a centre and distributed as wages. There is a third ideal; or rather a second. It is that individuals should own and be free. … The right and essential thing [is] that as many people as possible should have the natural, original forms of sustenance as their own property.

The division of labour has become the division of mind; and means in a new and sinister sense that the right hand does not know what the left hand doeth. In the age of universal education, nobody knows where anything comes from. The process of production has become so indirect, so multitudinous and so anonymous, that to trace anything to its origin is to enter upon a sort of detective story, or the exploration of a concealed crime."