Two Important Upcoming Pennsylvania Bills

While I wish I was in New Hampshire, there are two positive pieces of legislation coming up in my current (and so far lifelong) home of Pennsylvania. I would urge all of my fellow Pennsylvanians to support them:


Via NRA-ILA - House Bill 40 - “Castle Doctrine”  Self-Defense Bill:

HB40, sponsored by State Representative Scott Perry (R-92), would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. Read More.

Via The False Rape Society  - Finally, a chance to reduce false rape claims:

We frequently talk here about how the crime of making a false report of rape is treated so cavalierly. Finally, as shown by the article below, some state legislators are looking to do something about it. Read more.

Winners and Losers

Now more than ever, I wish I would have written a post last year congratulating Major League Baseball's Philadelphia  Phillies for winning the World Series. I kind of wish I would have written one congratulating them when they won the National League Pennant this year, though at least this way I can't be accused of jinxing them. Anyway, while it was disappointing to see them lose this year's  Series, it was a joy to see them go two years in a row. They are still winners in my book and should hold their heads high. I will certainly miss being near them when I move to New Hampshire.


As for the "Losers" referred to in the title of this post, no, I don't mean the New York Yankees fans, as obnoxious as many of them are. This is their moment and I don't begrudge them their celebrations. Well, not too much, anyway. No, the losers I'm talking about are more along the lines of the usual suspects.

First, there are the piece of shit Bensalem cops who arrested Susan Finkelstein for allegedly trying to trade sex for World Series tickets. How did these brave modern day Sherlock Holmeses discover this dangerous criminal? From an ad she posted on Craigslist. Aside from the ridiculousness of anti-prostitution laws in general, there are dozens of ads on Craigslist that are more explicitly offering prostitution than this:

DESPERATE BLONDE NEEDS WS TIX (Philadelphia) Diehard Phillies fan--gorgeous tall buxom blonde-- in desperate need of two World Series Tickets. Price negotiable--- I'm the creative type! Maybe we can help each other!

The Barney Fife KGB wannabes who responded to this ad were obviously more concerned with getting publicity for their little department than doing anything that would actually protect the public. I guess they wanted to make it appear that they are good for something other than writing parking tickets or harassing honest, law-abiding gun owners. Maybe also they were motivated by the idea that sports are supposed to be pure and wholesome and not to be tainted by anything the sanctimonious mavens of morality arbitrarily decide is wrong. Same mentality that allows officials of all of the professional sports leagues and the NCAA to swoon from scandalized outrage at the thought of expanding legalized gambling on their sacred rituals, while never missing a crass opportunity to gouge their fans for extra bucks. Also the same mentality that causes league officials suspend and sternly scold the players catch with marijuana, while these same pompous preachers don't think twice about accepting ads for beer and boner pills  (Not that I have anything against beer or hard-on pills, I enjoy beer quite a bit and am glad that there are pills to help me get an erection should I ever need them - it's just that it is the height of hypocrisy to accept money to promote drugs which do have considerable, if worthwhile, risks while condemning users of what overwhelming evidence shows to be the safest drug humanity has ever known).


And that brings me to the other losers I have in mind, two pieces of garbage from across the pond named Alan Johnson and Neil McKeganey. I usually don't get involved in the internal affaires of other nations (though I have severely criticized Harriet Harman on Antimisandy.com this was because she tried to make a United States governor submit to her will in her desperate crusade to subjugate her fellow British citizens). Anyway, Johnson and McKeganey are two nanny state extremists who are demanding that Professor David Nutt resign his position as chairman of Britain's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) because he was brazen enough to commit the ultimate crime - telling the truth. Specifically, for saying that "alcohol and cigarettes are more harmful than cannabis," a position that no serious researcher would object to, except on ideological grounds. McKeganey, himself, even admitted “In terms of health harm there is no doubt that cigarettes and alcohol are both more harmful than many currently illegal drugs,” he added. “They are associated with many more deaths and with much wider rates of illness," but despite such an acknowledgment of common sense, he was perfectly able to adapt his authority worshiping doublethink to pretend to believe such obvious bullshit as this:

If you are the key person offering advice to the government you cannot then simultaneously, in public, criticize the government for the decisions it takes. David was going so far beyond his remit to raise fundamental questions about the direction of UK drugs policy in relation to cannabis and in relation to seeking to combine alcohol and tobacco with illegal drugs — in the process muddying the distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs.

No, God forbid someone advising the government should disagree with them. Everyone should know that "advising" the government means confirming the fact that the almighty politicians and bureaucrats are always right. And yes, how dare Nutt  [muddy] the distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs. He has no right to do that just because this distinction is based on anti-scientific, superstitious arbitrary moralism. Obviously, if drug laws were based on public health instead of manufactured prejudices alcohol would be of greater concern to authorities than cannabis, and tobacco would be of much greater concern than cocaine, heroin, or any other so-called "hard drug."

Don't get me wrong - I don't think any of them should be illegal. Even tobacco which is much deadlier than alcohol, cocaine, and heroin, to say nothing of the safer-than-aspirin drug cannabis, has been responsible for far fewer deaths than meddling authoritarian governments. But putting things into perspective, "muddying the distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs" is a logical response to the arbitrary bullshit of morally bankrupt government drug policies. Well when my friend e-mailed me this story under the subject line: "Refuse to support Nutt's sacking!‏" and beginning with the line "It looks like Johnson is supporting Nutt's sacking", I said "What a couple of Johnsons Johnson and McKeganey are. They are not fit to lick Nutt's sack." I think that pretty well sums it up.

Just When You Thought the Talk About "Privilege" Couldn't Get Any More Stupid...

Along comes this: http://www.adonismirror.com/09152009_leader_pot_whites_only.htm.

So Richard Leader thinks that taking a courageous stand against an unjust law is an act of "white male privilege":

The stunt has white-male written all over it. I should know: I’m a white male myself. You can see it in his straight-faced claim that he didn’t do it for attention. You can see it in his imagination that a simple school project made him a true actor in the political process.

Well, for one thing, I can say that Ian Barry is a hero and a patriot much like one of my long-time heroes who is of African Descent: Ed Forchion, aka N.J. Weedman.

But, maybe the author of Adonis Mirror, Leader, does have a point. After all, the white people who participated in the Montgomery Bus Boycott knew that they would not face penalties as severe as those whose rights they were demanding be respected. Same with those white folks who marched in various Civil Rights marches throughout the 60's. Or those men who dared to stand up for feminism back when it was about equal rights and not female supremacy, like today (Of course the men, would only face lesser penalties in terms of social sanctions; women then, as now and always, got treated with kid gloves by the legal system). When I, as a disabled teenager was being bullied by non-disabled, or less disabled teenagers, I would have been grateful for a non-disabled teenager to use his or her "able-bodied/able-minded" privilege to stand up for my rights. I did not think that the people who did or would have done these things were arrogant assholes rubbing everyone else's noses in their massive privilege, but then I obviously don't know as much about "oppression-privilege" politics as the all-knowing Leader (pun not intended -see comment).

I seem to remember reading somewhere that one of the obligations of privilege is to fight for the rights of those do not have it and cannot stand up for themselves. I didn't think that standing up for the rights of the less privileged was a bad thing if you did it in a non-patronizing way that showed solidarity with the oppressed. Well, thank Cthulhu that we have people like Richard Leader to tell us how wrong those notions are.

Edit: I decided to edit out the instances where I made fun of Richard Leader's name as this distracts from the seriousness of the issue. Besides, while he is an arrogant know-it-all who thinks he can tell everyone else how to run our lives, Leader did not deserve to be personally attacked. For that I apologize.

Sorry Anti-Male Bigots, Misandry Exists and You're Proof of It

Via Danny, I was introduced to "factcheckme", a man-hating feminist who ridicules the term used for hatred of men for no other reason than being men. Well not just the term but the concept itself. Her argument seems to be since the word "misandry" was coined without enough intellectual rigor to satisfy her standards, then the concept it represents must not exist. Or if it does exist who cares: "and whether misandry even exists is entirely beside the point, isnt it?" Of course, she never explains why it "is entirely beside the point", we just have to trust the fact that what she, in her superior wisdom, says must be true.

Well, whether or not the term "misandry" can pass the legitimacy test of high brow intellectuals, it is clear that anti-male bigotry is a widespread and dangerous virulent phenomenon. If Andrea Dworkin, Catherine Mackinnon, Mary Daly and their online groupies (including factcheckme) are not enough to convince you consider Valerie Solanas. Naturally, though, we can't expect most of them to act violently themselves since that might alienate the politicians, police, and bureaucrats who currently support them (through laws such as VAWA, under which domestically abused men are arrested for defending themselves, and proposed laws making rape suspects presumed guilty until proven innocent). If the men in government were to see these women as the real threat they are, the alliance that they have with them to subjugate their fellow men would be in jeopardy. So the smart ones will hold off on their wanton random acts of violence toward men until and unless they have consolidated power to the point where their male stooges are disposable.

Maybe I am overreacting. Maybe these are just a bunch of ugly hags who, despite the real or pretend lesbianism that some of them proclaim, are just bitter that they can't use their feminine wiles to seduce men and wrap them around their little fingers the way most women do, and are simply using hyperbole to vent their frustration (of course this does not include Solanas who was a violent criminal and a terrorist by any definition). Be that as it may, I would like to offer this analysis of the garbage from factcheckme's blog both before and after Danny called her on it:

In one comment factcheckme states that she doesn't hate men. However, just a few comments down she agrees with Undercover Punk that "even if Real, [misandry is] an ENTIRELY RATIONAL RESPONSE to the tragic statistics on sexual assault, generalized violence, emotional abuse, abandonment (see single motherhood), and social domination perpetrated BY men AGAINST women?" So bigotry against men doesn't exist, but if it did it would be justified to hate all men based on what a small percentage of men do. Never mind the fact that none of these things are exclusively done by men. Never mind the very likely possibility that she believes in bogus statistics like the lie that "1 in 4 women are raped", or that she ignores the statistics showing domestic abuse to be roughly equal between the sexes, or that women (including those with children) initiate most divorces. Forget all of that and just consider this what would the reaction be to someone who said, "even if real, anti-black racism is an ENTIRELY RATIONAL RESPONSE to the tragic statistics on armed robbery, murder, rioting, arson, and looting"? Or how about "even if real, anti-seitism is an ENTIRELY RATIONAL RESPONSE to frivolous lawsuits brought by Jewish lawyers, fraudulent financial dealings by Jewish bankers and investment advisers, and Israeli oppression of Palestinians (which, of course, is totally unprovoked and unconditionally supported by Jews worldwide)"? Or try this "even if real, misogyny is an ENTIRELY RATIONAL RESPONSE to false rape claims, divorce settlements where the man loses everything he has despite the woman being at fault, women demanding child support from men whom they know are not the fathers, women demanding child support for children that they don't allow fathers to see, gold digging in general, and abusing men then calling the police when they defend themselves." Draw what conclusions you will. Anyone without ideological blinders can see that these statements are equivalent to the one made by Undercover Punk.

Finally, after discovering Danny's blog, factcheckme and Undercover Punk rate it an "Epic Fail." No surprise there, but I am amused by the fact that factcheckme says "thats after correcting for my obvious bias." I am certain that she's as capable of correcting for her bias as a newspaper editor in North Korea. Undercover Punk also informs us that she is a "lesbian separatist with no interest whatsoever in playing nice with men," and that she "gave up on caring about men after approximately 20 years of being consistently treated as less-than by them." Less-than what? Most likely less than the entitled princess that she thinks she is, though I'm sure some men did try to cater to her but it was never good enough.

There's much more crap spewed by factcheckme, Undercover Punk and other members of factcheckme's echo chamber, though it mostly speaks for itself. The only things of note are Undercover Punk's reaction to the fact that -despite her overblown fear of sexual assault, which is somewhat more likely to happen to women than men- men are much more likely to be murdered and her conclusion that "this is not a joke." In the first case she says, in response to a point on Danny's post "I assume what he means here is that men prefer to murder their equals rather than to sexually assault them..." Yes because sexual assault is so much worse than murder, and men who are murdered, by other men or by women, feel better about it knowing that their murderers consider them equals. I wonder if the family members and close friends left behind by murdered men are also reassured by this respectful attitude the killers have. Finally, there is the one thing UP said that I can at least partially agree with: "If misogyny ain’t a joke, and it’s not–it’s a fucking EPEDEMIC–then this analysis of misandry ain’t a joke neither!" While I disagree that misogyny is an epidemic, it is true, this analysis of misandry is not a joke. And neither is misandry itself.

Debate on Culture continued from Ren's Place

This is the continuation from an ongoing debate at Renegade Evolution's blog.

Anthony Kennerson: Still having that racist moment, are you??

"Racist moment"? This baseless ad hom is no different than the accusations of being sexist radfems hurl at you for your defense of sex work. You can do better than that.

AK: And you didn't even bother to answer my question: how is our "Western culture" -- you know, the one who slaughtered Native Americans, enslaved Black Africans, stole Hispanic and Native American land, and dropped nuclear weapons on Asians -- any more qualified to judge anyone else on who's "superior"??

As VirtueAndVice admitted Anglo-American culture has "its faults" just as every culture throughout history has had. But if no cultures were superior to one another there would be no asylum seekers or refugees. Immigrants, yes, but not people looking to escape from the places where they were born. The greatest tragedy of at least the more extreme forms of multiculturalism is that it encourages people coming from dangerous, oppressive places to re-create the dysfunctional situations from which they came. When my ancestors came from Ireland and Italy, they brought some of their traditions with them but they did not pretend for a minute that things were better back home, or demand the right to continue traditions that would undermine the foundations of American liberty.

AK: First off, like most conservative critics of "multiculturalism', they are so desperate to take an isolated act of cruelty and make it representative of a whole culture or race or "civilization", and therefore declare their favored "Anglo-American" (read that to mean "White Western Christian civilization") to be not only superior to all but to be imposed on all others

These would be isolated acts of cruelty, except that the people engaging in them are using "culture" as an excuse. And some (not all but too many) western leftists are backing up these excuses. As for "be[ing] imposed on all others" V&V said (and I agree), "That's not to say that we should go out and bomb other countries when they don't see things our way."

AK: But I wonder, VaV...would you have gone into such histronics if the perpetrators had been fundamentalist White American Christians?? After all, it's not as if they haven't done such things themselves. Oh, wait...

Who is defending the preacher in that article? Probably not even most of his fellow Evangelicals. Certainly not any groups that have the numbers of the multi-culti defenders of similar behavior by so called victim groups.

AK: Secondly...I'm not much of a fan of the Nation of Islam for many reasons...but to compare them to the KKK is sheer madness. Not even Louis Farrakhan, for all his alleged anti-Semitic smack and belief in numerology, has ever burned a cross in a White neighborhood, or lynched a White man, or intimidated a single White person out of voting.

Farrakhan is too smart to get his own hands dirty by personally participating in acts of violence. Same with most Klan wizards (when was the last time David Duke was arrested). It doesn't mean that Farrakhan's rhetoric is any less responsible for black-on-white violence than the identical rhetoric in reverse by Klan leaders is for white-on-black violence. Similarly, as far as we know, Mary Daly has never directly committed an act of violence against a man (or a boy). It does not mean that her anti-male views are any less hateful than the Nazi's anti-Semitic views, just that she apparently has not yet had a chance to act on them.

SnowdropExplodes: The term "rape culture" has a real meaning in describing Western European cultures - so the culture isn't all that great towards women (whatever the law tries to do about it).

Rape culture is mostly a feminist invention. To the extent that it exists, it refers to a very small subset of western men. Like V&V, "I was 17 once, and 0% of the guys I knew were talking about planning violent sexual assaults."

Cassandra: VirtueandVice - I don't think you understand what multiculturalism is. It can be what you're describing in the hands of a few fools, but that is not in principle what the idea is all about, nor how it's commonly expressed.

Multiculturalism may be all sweetness and light in principle, but not in practice. All to often it is exactly as V&V described. Those fools aren't so few.

Cassandra: OK, reading VirtueandVice again further down...you're not even making a real argument, you're just a zenophobic racist. Never mind, not worth the time.

I see no evidence of racism or xenophobia on the part of V&V. If anyone is acting like a closed-minded bigot it is you. So maybe V&V's opinions (and mine) are not worth your time. Fine if you want to only associate with people who already agree with you 95% of the time. But these opinions are held by a large number of people throughout the western world - close to a majority, if not an outright majority. Furthermore, they are gaining wider acceptance in some places, particularly those - such as The Netherlands - where the damage from extreme multiculturalism has been most obvious. Given that, if you really believe we are wrong you should at least try to make a convincing argument why.

My Petition

Petition powered by ThePetitionSite.com

Just a Random Thought...

Gun rights activists often say "Better tried by twelve than carried by six." I'm not sure that's true. However, having a gun makes it more likely that if you are carried by six it will be on your own terms and if you go down fighting maybe you can take some of the scumbags with you. Or better yet, leave them with permanent injuries. Especially in the case of breaking an unjust law that is enforced with severe penalties, it may be better to fight to the death than let government hired goons cart you off to prison. I'm not saying that I would - when push comes to shove I probably wouldn't have the courage. But I'd like to think that it would at least be possible.