Category: Opinion

  • Dean Obeidallah Is An Insufferable Prick

    Dean Obeidallah is an insufferable prick.

    Itbah al-Yahud!

    On Monday, CNN published a strident op-ed by the failed lawyer, turned failed stand-up comic, turned C-list media pundit condemning Bill Maher for having Milo Yiannopoulos as a guest on his  HBO show. Now, I wholeheartedly agree with libertarian sex goddess Lucy Steigerwald that Milo Yiannopoulous merely is a stupid man’s version of Christopher Hitchens, but the mendaciousness on display when Obeidallah lists the litany of supposed sins committed by Yiannopoulos is breathtaking and warrants comment.

    In Obeidallah’s spit-flecked and stentorian denunciation, he charges Maher with failing to “ask [Yiannopoulous] about his anti-Semitic comment that ‘Jews run the media,’ … [ask] why Yiannopoulos wore a Nazi Iron Cross when he was younger … [and inquire about] his demonization of transgender people as, in essence, sexual predators?” Never mind the fact that the first and third charge are merely Obeidallah presenting intentionally provocative statements intended as shock humor out of context, is he not cognizant of the fact that labeling every instance of a symbol that has represented Germany since 1813, (as well as having been appropriated as a fairly innocuous symbol in surfer culture) as “Neo-Nazi” is equivalent to labeling all people wearing fashion keffiyeh as radical Islamist Hamas sympathizers?

    Ironically, only a day later, CNN would include the following graphic accompanying its latest attempt to foment a moral panic:

    Surf Nazis Must Die! (Source: CNN.com)

    Context is key, indeed!

    Obeidallah’s sanctimonious posturing is particularly galling considering the fact that in December of 2013, while a guest on Melissa Harris-Perry’s MSNBC show, he cracked a series of tasteless jokes mocking the fact that Mitt Romeny’s adoptive grandson, Kieran Romney, is ethnically African-American. When challenged over the racially-charged humor, while Harris-Perry delivered what appeared to be a sincere and heartfelt apology, all Obeidallah could muster up was a self-defensive non-apology, in which he managed to portray himself as the victim of false outrage by conservative “wing-nuts” who, in not having the super-secret decoder ring issued to all progressives, failed to realize that humor stemming from an observation that Kieran was essentially and forever different from the rest of his adoptive family due to his race was in fact a wry political statement as to the “lack of racial diversity we see at the Republican National Convention.” Which is why, of course, he referred the child as a “prop” in a mock apology to Kieran for comments made during the broadcast.

    You know who else made jokes about white women with black children? (Source:@MittRomney)

    As I mentioned earlier, Dean Obeidallah is an insufferable prick.

    In further evidence of his martyrdom at the feet of humorless conservative scolds, in his 2013 article for the Daily Beast, Obeidallah wrote:

    Here’s the thing: As a comedian, I always try to be funny. It doesn’t always work and I have told jokes that offended people. And I can assure you that in the future I will offend even more people even though that was not my intention.  Not only is comedy subjective, but so are sensibilities about when a comedian has “crossed the line.”
    In fact, being attacked by right-wing publications for my jokes is nothing new to me. I even wrote an article about that just a few months ago for The Daily Beast titled “The Tea Party’s War on Comedy” about right-wing media outlets lashing out a joke I tweeted. But here’s the reality: We can expect to see even more of this outrage by both the left and the right going forward.  Our collective self-righteous anger keeps escalating. Perhaps it’s because of the hyper-partisan times we live in.  Or maybe it’s due to social media or the media’s desperate need for content.  Perhaps it’s just payback by each side for the last time one of their own was attacked. Regardless of the reason, in time, it will only get worse.

    Pictured: Dean Obeidallah – Live at the Improv

    Despite Obeidallah’s 2013 attempt at ‘a pox on both your houses’ appeal to ethos, in 2017, we see no such attempt at nuance, no such reminders of the inherent subjectivity of comedy when Yiannopolous appeared, along with another comedian (Larry Wilmore), on an intentionally comedic political talk-show hosted by a comedian (Maher). Instead, Obeidallah waxed stentorian when he proclaimed:

    [S]tunningly, at the end of the interview, Maher seemed to be doing his best to make Yiannopoulos’ hateful views more acceptable. Maher concluded the interview by reading “provocative” jokes the late comedian Joan Rivers had made and saying she was still considered a “national treasure.”

    His point appeared to be that if some people gave another comedian a pass, then why shouldn’t we do the same with Yiannopoulos? Well, the reasons are obvious: Rivers was actually a comedian, while Yiannopoulos is a political pundit who writes for Bretitbart.com

    Did you get that? Obeidallah and Rivers have permission to be provocative, as they are card-carrying comedians, but humorist and raconteur Yiannopoulos doesn’t as he is a mere “political pundit” for Badthink.com.

    Are you fucking kidding me, you insufferable prick?

    The amount of cognitive dissonance possessed by Obeidallah to claim that only comedians who meet certain unnamed criteria can make jokes about sensitive topics but Yiannopoulus cannot as he writes op-eds for Brietbart surpasses Graham’s Number in magnitude. One has to marvel that the fact that Obeidallah’s sneer as he wrote the term “political pundit” is so evident that, like the the Greenhouses of Almería, it can be seen from space. When typing out those sentences, did Obeidallah forget that his day job is working the cable TV news circuit as a token progressive Muslim talking-head? Did Obeidallah forget that he was writing an op-ed for CNN? Did Obeidallah forget that he has his own political talk radio show on SiriusXM? The hypocrisy astounds. Yet, there is a simple explanation for it. It is the same reason that Yiannopoulus is currently being castigated for saying the same things that Allen Ginsberg said decades ago:

    GINSBERG: Well, then you must excuse me if I don’t adopt the submissive attitude you wish. I got on the air and said that when I was young I was approached by an older man and I don’t think it did me any harm. And that I like younger boys and I think that probably almost everybody has an inclination that is erotic toward younger people, including younger boys.

    LOFTON: How young were the boys?

    GINSBERG: In my case, I’d say fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen.

    LOFTON: That you had sex with?

    GINSBERG: No, unfortunately I haven’t had the chance. [laughs] No, I’m talking about my desires. I’m being frank and candid. And I’m also saying that if anyone was frank and candid, you’d probably find that in anybody’s breast. (Harpers, “When Worlds Collide” Jan, 1990)

    Four years after this interview, Ginsberg wrote an essay explaining that he became a card-carrying member of the pedophile advocacy group NAMBLA, “in defense of free speech.” An agitator acting and speaking outrageously “in defense of free speech” sounds familiar, doesn’t it? But the simple fact remains that Yiannopoulus was recently forced to fall upon his own sword whereas Ginsberg remains in the American imagination as a Puckish merry trickster whose poems (“I saw the best minds of my generation … who bit detectives in the neck and shrieked with delight in policecars for committing no crime but their own wild cooking pederasty and intoxication”) are treated with reverence by the academy is because Ginsberg was a communist sympathizer cum progressive leftist and Yiannopoulus isn’t. In the minds of individuals like Obeidallah, it’s a very simple calculus: his progressive compatriots are to be forgiven all failings as their intentions are righteous and pure, whereas, conservatives, libertarians, etc. are always assumed to be acting and speaking in bad faith as their intentions are evil and corrupt. One wonders how Obeidallah rationalizes Joan Rivers’ interview of Reza Farahan, full of frank humor about race, religion, and homosexuality, where Melissa Rivers described her mother as a “fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican.” In what way does Rivers’ status as a comedian allow Obeidallah to forgive her jokes like “[I’m a Republican] because I work very hard for my money and I don’t care if you’ve got 19 children – use condoms! I’ll pay for your first four children, that’s it!”? In Obeidallah’s Manichean worldview, didn’t Rivers play for the same “team” that Yiannopoulus represents? At the end of his 2013 article, despite spilling some token digital ink bemoaning the negative effect these “hyper-partisan times we live in” have upon humor, Obeidallah ended with this utterly obnoxious cri de coeur:

    And let me also be clear to the self-appointed right-wing pundits: I will never stop calling out the wrongs and hypocrisy of the right.  Be it citing Jesus’ name to justify slashing programs that help the less fortunate, demonizing Muslims or gays for political gain, or trying to disenfranchise minority voters with voter ID laws. And for those jokes and comments, I can assure you, I will never apologize.

    Remember, this came only 2 paragraphs after he wrote “We can expect to see even more of this outrage by both the left and the right going forward.  Our collective self-righteous anger keeps escalating.  Perhaps it’s because of the hyper-partisan times we live in.” How dull one must be to not grasp the conflict between these two sentiments! Indeed, taking into account all of Obeidallah’s self-contradictory statements, one is forced to conclude that either he suffers from early dementia or that he is utterly without any sort of intellectual honesty or moral scruples.

    Milo Cross
    Neo-Nazi or just a shitty accessory appealing to Milo’s notoriously gaudy taste?

    So we are left with the spectacle of Yiannopoulus being pilloried for the same sins of both Ginsburg and Obeidallah. It’s not even the blatant double-standard of how Yiannopoulus has been treated so poorly due to his perceived political views that rankles so much; it’s the complete and all-consuming self-righteousness of progressives like Obeidallah and his ilk as they bemoan their treatment at the hands of “humorless” conservatives, yet still deign to deliver angry philipics when someone who is not a progressive leftist attempts to do as they did. You see, in Obeidallah’s worldview, only people with the proper views can be certified comedians, and thus, given license to poke at sacred cows. Thus, Yiannopoulus is a filthy pedophile, whereas, George Takei merely has wickedly mischevious sense of humor. In Obediallah’s worldview, Felix “PewDiePie” Kjellberg is a vicious anti-Semite, but Trevor Noah merely makes wry observations on “Zionism.”  In Obediallah’s worldview, taking style tips from an anti-Semitic mass murderer and pedophile is merely fashion, but wearing a surfer’s necklace is irrefutable evidence that Yiannopoulus hold allegiance to an ideology that would see him placed in a death camp with both a pink and yellow triangle sewn to his blue and white striped prisoner’s pyjamas.

    Dean, if you do perchance come across this article, I recommend that after reading it you enter your bathroom. I would ask that you take the time to look at yourself in the mirror. Really look at yourself. After marveling over your close resemblance to Casey Kasem, I want you to look yourself in the eyes and come to the acceptance that you are the reason Donald J. Trump is President of the United States. I want you to know, deep down in your bones, that it is an incontrovertible truth that it was the sublime hypocrisy displayed by you and your fellow progressive hatchet-men in the media that drove this nation to elect an amoral demagogue. I want you to see your face as the realization creeps across it that the current political situation is a result of the utter contempt that you have expressed towards those whom you’ve deemed as evil merely because they do not subscribe to your economic and societal views. I want you to see your eyes mist and your brow furrow in anguish as it dawns upon you that the zealous self-righteousness of you and your fellow progressives, in which you believe it acceptable to slander a perceived ideological enemy through hyperbolic sound-bites disseminated through a compliant, yet mercurial, media, has produced an equal and opposite reaction to which you now find your most beloved shibboleths tossed on the trash-heap. And, finally, when you accept that the state of affairs is over in which one could be excused of even the most vile behavior if they were your ideological kinsmen, while even the most milquetoast of peccadilloes of others were excoriated with a fury that rivaled anything found in Johnathan Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, if you have even a modicum of self-dignity, you will reach for your medicine cabinet, take your DOVO, pause for a moment as the cold steel is pressed against the flesh of your neck, and slide the blade from left to right.

    And you’ll have no one to blame but yourself, you insufferable prick.

  • Journeys Of Entrepreneurship

    Back in 2010 I took a massive left turn at Albuquerque looking for Pismo beach and instead started a business completely out of my area of expertise.

    Up to that point, it had been a strange journey, but ever since I was a young lad I wanted to be in ‘business’ just like my pappy. Entrepreneurship was perfect for me for two reasons: the autonomy it accorded, and for a guy with ADHD and (other non-specified issues as my wife likes to remind me) that was gold. I forget the other reason.

    Oh yeah, I hated answering to people.

    Anyway.

    Alas, with with a newborn attaching its parasitical self to my hip the pressure was on to settle on something.

    Growing up, my father always tried to steer us away from business. He just felt that the aggravation and stress of dealing with debt, the public and employees was too much. Immigrants preferred telling their kids to go work for a company and get secured pension benefits. Hoping for stability was only natural given the amount of uncertainty they lived through. They wanted to keep their children shielded from such stress.

    However, and most of all, dealing with the government was a job onto itself. He always said don’t ever think you can outsmart the government. They will always win in the end so shut up and pay your taxes. Save yourself a headache down the road.

    Sound advice that we most definitely adhere to.

    We didn’t see all the ups and downs he was referring to – often in quite dramatic and crusty delivery.  It made for interesting dinner table one-way talk. You haven’t lived until you witnessed a man deliver an anti-government soliloquy over a plate of veal scaloppine alla Marsala, Sambuca black and cigarettes, while my mother oblivious to everything kept asking if we wanted more whatever endless stream of food she made for the night. My mother was Kitchen Caligula.

    All we saw was a man who provided, through his trade as a tailor, a nice upper-middle class living in the suburbs, thus allowing me the latitude to, well, use Roosevelt Franklin as my avatar. Like most immigrants (those dirty sons of bitches), he came from nothing with scant knowledge of English or French.

    So I wanted that; or something close to it anyway.

    All this to say, I ended up in private daycare by pure luck. I figured what the heck? Get the right people in place and up, up and away!

    And so I thought.

    This is where my real exploration into the nether-world of government regulations, business debt and entrepreneurial acumen began.

    Early on, I got in over my head and had to pull a Duddy Kravitz my way into making sure I had sufficient capital. When I applied for my permit I had to go meet two bureaucrats to make sure I was worthy. All I kept thinking, as they inundated me with paper work, was how useless it all was. One of the woman, probably noticing my irritation, decided to tell me in a more intimate moment in French, ‘I know it’s a lot. But it has to be done. You look at places like Africa…’

    I could scarcely believe my ears. In fact, given I have poor hearing, I didn’t want to believe what she said but the person I was with (a Filipino consultant. I know this story is writing itself) confirmed it.

    The bureaucracy, ladies and gentleman, is the only line of civilization dividing us from Somalia.

    Apparently.

    Alas, I had to go through the motions, sign on the dotted lines and keep my eye on the prize. The stress was through the roof. I talked to quite a few people willing to lend their insights. One person said something that was interesting:

    “People only see the end result and judge you on that. They don’t see the journey it took to get there. If you get there, it’ll be all the more gratifying.” Just like we couldn’t understand (and let’s face it, some people probably don’t even care) what my father went through. We just saw the result.

    Seeing it in this way skews a person’s perception about successful people. Hence, the ‘the owner does nothing all day! He’d be out of business if not for me!”

    I think his comment couldn’t have been truer. Which is why, I think, it’s easy for people to demand the government view businesses with skepticism if not as a source for cash to pay for ‘social needs’. What do they care, right? It’s not their business – don’t excuse the pun.

    I’ve always felt schools should teach business or entrepreneurship, if anything to enlighten students on what business owners face; that they won’t fall prey to superficial cliches and empty slogans about ‘paying your fair share’ and ‘you’re not a good business if you can’t afford to pay your workers a living wage’. In other words, not to be finance and business illiterates.

    It’s not fool-proof, since people do weird things. Case in point, the province of Alberta – Oil Country – voted for the NDP; the very party that views oil and gas with suspicion. Or the weird case of small business owners who sometimes vote for the NDP or Liberals. Or doctors who support universal health care which effectively leaves their labor in the hands of bureaucrats. It’s a head scratcher for sure.

    Small business owners are going to tire of being demonized in North America. The former leader of a provincial party here asserted ‘public daycare offers better services than private ones’ which is simply not the case and was a rather irresponsible declaration to make in public. But how to respond instead of the usual letter-to-the-editor or calling a political representative’s office?

    Here in Canada, through the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, business owners finally have a voice and fighting chance to question or challenge onerous government regulations and taxes.

    As a whole, I like to think the fire and brimstone pseudo-populist rhetoric from the likes of Sanders, Warren and Obama will backfire because they’re a stale and stagnant remnant of a dying progressive moment.

    They’re part of an unproductive class looking to rape the productive to further their progressive agenda.

    Despite what they might think, saying ‘you didn’t build that’ is not a an act of encouragement signalling people go out and build their own dreams. You’re coyly implying through such poppycock rhetoric, people serve the state. It’s thanks to the benevolent state we have the opportunity to be able to start and succeed at business.

    It takes a village and all that.

    Yet, while they ludicrously take indirect credit for your success because ‘roads’, they weren’t there when businesses struggled to make payroll or rent.

    All they know is to drive some sort of class warfare wedge waving fists claiming to ‘fight for the people’. Whomever fits the definition of ‘people’ because it sure isn’t me and others like me they’re ‘fighting’ for.

    It’s the reality of things. That person I spoke to was right. No one gives a shit about the process and they prove it in the way they talk about you.

    And that’s that.

    I don’t know. The calculation always seem pretty straightforward to me. No entrepreneurship, no cash flow to pay for ‘free shit’.

    Such is the reality.

    It may not be Pismo Beach, but it’ll do.

     

     

     

     

  • To Be Sure, Freedom of Association is Fundamental, But

    Roger Pilon at the Foundation for Economic Freedom discusses the Washington State case against florists.

    Make the Bouquet… Or Else!

     

  • Meanwhile In Canada, Motion 103 Induces Nausea

    In the aftermath of the massacre of six Muslims in Quebec City, Mississauga-Erin Mills Liberal MP Iqra Khalid tabled Motion 103 calling on the government to condemn Islamophobia. Now keep in mind, this is just a motion, not a bill. It’s just an MP using the democratic process to express an opinion. Nevertheless, it has become a leitmotif where debate about free speech is concerned in Canada. It’s worth questioning its tenets as well as the Prime Minister’s subsequent comments. If anything, it highlights why it’s rarely a good idea to formulate laws after a tragedy when emotions run higher than reason leaving itself vulnerable to unintended consequences and that protecting free speech demands eternal vigilance.

    Following her motion, Khalid unfortunately received her fair share of hate mail that would seem to confirm her position. However, if anything, it only highlights the need to protect free speech, not curb it. The messages still don’t rise for the need of such a proposal, in my view.

    Specifically the motion stipulates:

    -Recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.
    -Request the heritage committee study how the government could develop a government-wide approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia.
    -Collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities and present findings within 240 calendar days.

    It would be helpful if she’d clarify a couple of things. For example, how does she define ‘climate of hate and fear’?  Who will be charged with doing all this ‘contextualizing’? What’s ‘Islamophobia’ exactly? Who will guard the contextualizers?

    If the premise leading this motion into a potential Bill is clunky, what the heck does one think will happen once it’s law?

    As if this problematic (if not silly) proposal isn’t enough to send shivers down our spines, Justin Trudeau offered these illuminating words exposing his awesome dedication to free speech. CBC reports:

    “In a seven-minute response, Trudeau said fundamental rights and freedoms are enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that individual rights must be balanced with others in our society. Determining the parameters is an ongoing discussion in a dynamic, successful society like ours, he said.

    Trudeau said the motion aims to address the fact there is a community that is “particularly vulnerable these days to intolerance and discrimination.”

    “You’re not allowed to call ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie theatre and call that free speech,” Trudeau said.

    “That endangers our community. And as we saw 10 days ago in Quebec City, there are other things that can endanger our communities. And we need to stand strongly and firmly against that.”

    A little precautionary principle here, a little “save free speech from itself” there, and a dab of “protecting the vulnerable” here, and presto! Civil Nirvana!

    I’m no longer surprised – numb perhaps but not shocked – that this pretty much summarizes the general Canadian outlook on free speech. Canadians weren’t basted in notions of the First Amendment as their American cousins were in school or even afterward. If free speech is regarded as ‘quaint,’ imagine the perception of the Second Amendment.

    It just doesn’t compute. Hence, flippant musings on free speech passed off as progressive enlightened perspectives; there’s a general misguided belief we can “balance” free speech without any opportunity costs. ‘Hey, man! I didn’t mean my speech! I meant HIS speech!”

    It’s even more so with Trudeau, given his father wasn’t exactly a card carrying classical liberal. This sort of sophomoric approach to free speech, when exposed on a bigger stage than Canada, can really look, erm, second-rate at best.

    What Canadians don’t fundamentally understand is that free speech is a virtue and not a vice.

    You remove it or try to tinker with it and you’re left with the loss of individual sovereignty. Nothing more. Shutting down speech to any degree presupposes we have the answers; it suppresses self-doubt and increases misplaced self-esteem.

    It leads to assertions of it all being ‘settled’ – to borrow a flatulent term from the system, ahem, climate change crowd – so to speak. There is not a better example of a movement that has foregone tolerance and patience in the interest and spirit of debate. Does it make sense to you to hand over all your inquisitive impulses and skeptical empiricism to…Bill Nye? Are we not free to debate anything however vacuous so long as it doesn’t infringe on the civil liberty of another? It takes patience and tolerance because it’s humbling if someone challenges a prevailing world view

    It is completely alien to me how anyone would consent to allowing the government the kind of power to ‘watch over’ free speech. It’s also lazy. Rather than confront a person’s opinion by the power of argument, we ask the government merely shut down the parts we can’t be bothered to argue. After all, if the starting point is  ‘we know the truth,’ there’s no need to confront and debate. Lazy.

    What is overlooked is that being exposed to bad arguments or ideas actually enhances and strengthens our critical thinking prowess and intellectualism.

    Shutting down opinion under the threat of imprisonment, in short, isn’t liberal.

    It’s illiberal.

    It’s reactionary.

    Moving on to the specifics of his comments: there’s little evidence Muslims are facing a significant backlash – despite the tragic outlier incident witnessed in Quebec City, the hate mail received by Khalid and a recent uptick in attacks usually coming after an Islamic terrorist attack- to justify such draconian actions. Call me when things reach a ‘pogrom’ level. In fact, Jews indeed continue to be the most targeted group.

    Second, the idea that free speech can be balanced by curtailing it is an act of deception, if not outright hubris. To think we can ‘balance’ something as immeasurable as speech is just that: arrogance. Either free speech exists or it doesn’t. It should give pause that the Prime Minster basically said, ‘the feelings of a victim group comes before individual civil liberties no matter what the Charter says.’

    So why have a Charter if you plan to wipe your ass with it, I wonder?

    Does Canada have principles or not? Will it stand for freedom of expression at all cost or not? If it chooses the route (and quite frankly, it already has by the back door through the Human Rights Commission and Quebec’s language laws), then it abandons all pretences of being a nation that values freedom of speech and expression. Welcome to Canada where we cherish free speech but…

    It would be foolish, furthermore, to think this is not an example of a slippery slope. There are plenty of examples (just go to Campus Reform) to see the hideousness of what can happen if free speech isn’t vigorously defended. The natural default position of man, after all, is tyranny. Next thing you know, comedians in Germany and Canada are taken to court. Such progress we’ve made!

    It’s not like we haven’t seen how grotesque it is to take someone to court over an opinion as the cases involving Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn reveal.

    The process, as we know, is enough punishment and I can’t but think about the poor sucker who doesn’t have the kind of pull Steyn or Levant may have will see their life upended because of it.

    Count me in as one of those ‘extremists’ who doesn’t feel it’s legally, intellectually or even morally justified to destroy a person’s life for proclaiming, say, ‘Keep ’em fucken Mooslims outta m’backyird! That is, the government should not be in the business of criminalizing people for their opinions through onerous and obscene censorship laws.

    It’s bad enough that Levant – here have a look for yourself at what 1984 in 2017 looks like –  has to beg before an unelected ‘contextualizer‘ at the HRC, right? Now imagine where this can go with Motion 103 becoming law.

    And given the zeitgeist we’re experiencing in North America (if not the West as a whole), the last thing we should be doing is enabling or giving people incentives to snitch and/or lob lawsuits against one another for words.

    Next up, thought control.

    Finally, Trudeau is misinformed about not being able to yell Fire! in a theatre. In a nutshell, it’s not illegal to do so in the United States. The history of this famous analogy drawn by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is not what people think it is. In fact, the case whence it was born had nothing to do with fires; but it did have something to do with freedom of speech and expression.

    Though not binding, the courts got it wrong and it was eventually overturned 40 years ago but not before this trivial tripe has become a calcified Top 10 ‘go-to’ favorite tattooed into the progressive mindset. Ultimately manifesting itself along the lines of ‘You can’t yell fire in a theatre ergo you can’t make fun of Mohammed! Duh.’

    But. Bashing whites and Christians and causing property damage and violence for stuff they disagree with in general is fair game in their distorted civil order.

    Put more eloquently in The Atlantic:

    “Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

    Sounds like you’d get just as far singing the song Fire in a theatre.

    In any event, would it have been too much to ask if Trudeau be at least up to speed on American law and legal history? It displays a rather unbecoming shallow grasp of American history if you ask me. I mean, if you can’t SJW like its the current year with up to date vapid slogans, why bother? Have some pride in your intellectual acumen, man!

    Kill Motion 103. Nothing good can come of it.

    A war on speech is doomed – condemned – to end up like the war on poverty and drugs where the families and communities are fractured to the point of dysfunction. A war on speech will eliminate good ideas and elevate bad ones leaving it exclusively in power. A war on speech is a free ticket to ‘Pass Go’ and straight into a Dark Age where the meek and weak intellectuals prevail.

    All this to bring me back to Ms. Khalid’s motion. The moment more hate speech is introduced, the more you drive it underground. Is it not better to monitor it above board? Free speech, I argue, is the best ally any person or group will ever have.

    My sister met Justin Trudeau a few years back. In a conversation over dinner she said, ‘He really is a nice person. You can tell he means well’.

    That’s the problem.

    In Justin Trudeau what we have is a walking ‘the road to hell is paved…’

    I forget the rest.

     

     

     

  • We Can’t Help You

    Although we’d like to.

    If your desire for privacy is so strong that you skip your email through five proxy servers, three fake email accounts and a final one-time-use email address, we’re going to have a tough time helping you when you need a password re-set or for us to look into whether or not your registration went through.

    If our emails to you bounce after you’ve requested our help, you’re SOL. Sorry, but if we can’t reach you, we can’t help you.

    You might want to consider creating an email account just for this site. And then, you know, use it when you need our help.

    In any case, we aren’t peeking through that keyhole. Because, really, your life is just not that interesting.

  • Don’t Look For The Union Label

    And perhaps a hint about why so much scorn is directed at the soi-disant “mainstream media.” In union elections yesterday, Boeing workers in South Carolina rejected union representation, and not by a small margin, either. Now, for me, I’d want to know what really happened, what were the actual issues and motivations. This apparently is not to be had. Reading the New York Times, there’s barely a clue. One might infer from hints buried deep in the article that there was some resentment that the union had opposed their plant in the first place for the benefit of workers in the high-wage (and this higher union dues rake-off) area of Seattle, but that’s hard to divine.

    Worse yet is the coverage at ABC, who attribute the loss to dumb hick Southerners.

    But this most recent test of Southern acceptance of collective bargaining movements was an uphill battle for the union and its backers… Southern states for decades have recruited manufacturers by promising freedom from the influences of labor unions, which except for some textile mills have been historically rejected by workers as collective action culturally foreign to a South built around family farms, said Jeffrey Hirsch, a law professor who specializes in labor relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Translation: These rubes are just too dumb to know what’s best for them.

    So what was really the thing which caused the union to be soundly rejected, which is only possible when the State declines to interfere with free transactions of labor and management? Well, I guess we’ll never know.

  • Rectification of Names

    子路曰、衛君待子而為政、子將奚先。子曰、必也、正名乎。子路曰、有是哉、子之迂也、奚其正。子曰、野哉、由也、君子於其所不知、蓋闕如也。名不正、則言不順、言不順、則事不成。事不成、則禮樂不興、禮樂不興、則刑罰不中、刑罰不中、則民無所措手足。故君子名之必可言也、言之必可行也、君子於其言、無所茍而已矣。

    Zi-lu said, “The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you to help him administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?”

    Confucius replied, “What is necessary is to rectify names.”

    “So, indeed!” said Zi-lu. “You are wide off the mark! Why must there be such rectification?”

    Confucius said, “How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires, is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.”

    Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3

    As Confucius taught, the rectification of names is the beginning of wisdom. What this means is that in order to effect change, one must have an understanding of the true nature of things; an understanding of the true nature of things comes from using the correct names for things. For example, you are a serf.

    Now, at this point, I imagine that you have straightened your shoulders, puffed out your chest and said something to the effect of “Nonsense! I am a sovereign citizen of this republic and a free man. I own me.” If this were true, then why is it required of you to notify your lord’s magistrates when traveling outside the boundaries of his manor? And if you are granted permission to travel outside of your lord’s manor and desire to return with a buxom peasant wench to wife, while we live in such enlightened times that our masters no longer exercise droit de jambage, you still must petition your lord for the privilege of cohabitation within your cottage.

    Pravo gospodina by Vasiliy Polenov, 1874.

    Why do you take umbrage at the employment of such terminology? Does it not adequately describe the state of affairs (de facto)? I suspect that some of you reading this are now protesting “we just can’t have serfs traveling between manors without oversight! How do we know that some don’t mean us harm?” Well, isn’t the entire point of the feudal contract that the serfs work their liege-lord’s land in exchange for his protection from all threats?

    Ok, ok! I see that my rectification of names has rankled. The present example hits too close to current fears and anxieties, and this perhaps obscures the point. So let’s turn to another feudal duty, tallage. Imagine that your lord has levied tallage upon your cottage and has sent you a notice for payment. Regardless of how well or not you have rectified names, you are aware of the consequences of not paying the tallage. First, the lord’s magistrates will send more notices for payment, and with each notice the tallage will be higher. If you still refuse to pay the tallage, the shire reeve (i.e., sheriff) will visit your cottage to demand payment. The shire reeve and his men have been deputized by their lord to take you away from your cottage and seize your property if you still refuse to pay the tallage. If you display even a modicum of resistance, the shire reeve is entitled to use as much force as necessary, up to and including deadly force, to subdue you.

    Egyptian peasants seized for non-payment of taxes (Wells, 1920).

    Now, you might not see anything wrong with this situation. After all, as a serf, you are well-fed and well-taken care of. All that I ask is that things are called by their true names.

  • The SJW Went Down To Georgia

    Here’s an interesting article by noted American musician Charlie Daniels which is warning of the possibility for a second Civil War, over the protesting & rioting we’ve seen in recent weeks.

    I find this an interesting thing to ponder. There certainly seems to be more civil unrest than there has been in my lifetime (I’m 34 years old, to give that statement some context). That’s obviously alarming, particularly with the emergence of the SJW contingent on college campuses, the bizarre radicalization of the BLM movement into some sort of neo-marxist drivel, and the recent wave of leftists who openly make the argument that freedom cannot be afforded to those who disagree with them.

    On the other hand, things have been much worse in this country before, without a total societal breakdown of the type which Mr. Daniels is alluding to. In the late 60s and early 70s, a number of American cities burned. There were actual full-on race riots, anti-Vietnam War riots, anti-hippie riots, leftist bombings, all of which dwarfed the recent Berkeley fiasco. And yet, no civil war.

    So my question to you, intrepid readers, is this: are we really headed towards an abyss, or is this a product of recency bias? Were the 80s & 90s actually so good, so stable, so peaceful, and so generally awesome (outside of a few well-known events, such as Waco & the Oklahoma City bombing) that it lulled us into a false sense of complacency, where any street level unrest looks far more alarming than it actually should be, given the historical context?

     

    Related image

  • A Tribute On Valentine’s Day

    One of the privileges of having this site is my ability to pervert it for my own selfish ends. And I’m now taking that opportunity. This is a tribute to my Valentine, Mrs. OMWC aka SP, the person who has done all the heavy lifting to put this site together and keep our little group of friends from breaking it.

    This a perfect libertarian woman. She can cook like a pro, code like two pros, and can like a pioneer farmer. She can save a life and do professional art and photography (her work has been exhibited world-wide). She can play three different musical instruments and sing. She can read Feynman, Searle, and Dennett, and thereby falsifies CP Snow. She can run spreadsheets and organizations. She loves my friends, even the difficult and complicated ones we’ve met through my commenting on Reason, and the techno-nerds whom I’ve surrounded myself with throughout my life. She’s charmed world-famous musicians into playing in our living room, and kept others from strangling me. She is an amazingly accurate shooter, just in case. She has that knack of getting people to open up to her while always leaving them with the impression that she’s on their side.

    Awesome does not begin to describe her.

  • Prepping & Survivalism

    So I read a book recommended to me by a nice dealer at the Lewisville Gun Show a few weekends back: Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse, by James Wesley Rawles. I’ll give a brief review, then I thought it might be interesting to open up the comments to ideas on prepping and survivalism, since these are recurrent themes in a lot of the circles that radical constitutionalists and libertarians run in.

    I am sorry to say the book disappoints. The writing is didactic in the extreme. People regularly refer to their gear by both the brand and model number, and their weapons by brand, model, and caliber. In casual conversation. I don’t think at any point during my time in the Army National Guard did I ever refer to my equipment by anything more than it’s most generic name, i.e., “Hey hand me my LBE”. The names of specific companies where supplies were purchased are given, and even the names of the clerks at the companies that the protagonists deal with, only to never be used throughout the rest of the story. The author goes into agonizing detail on how to weld steel shutters over your windows, set up traps, etc. Frankly it reads more like the author wanted to write a how-to manual on setting up your own Cwazy Compund, but decided to do it through the medium of a novel.

    There are, of course, the usual fringe-right fever dreams. The villains are cardboard cutouts: the UN, lead by nefarious Europeans, wants to conquer America because they simultaneously hate/envy us because we’re free, and two traveling communists are found to be literally eating children. Only religious people can be moral, and one of the most important things you ask refugees when you first meet them is if they’re Christian. It’s formulaic: everyone who has a Bible or mentions going to Bible study is found to be a good-guy, and the ones who don’t, well…see the second sentence of this paragraph. There is a Jew who is one of the main protagonists, though he several times reminds the group that they worship the same God. Their Christianity is repeatedly invoked as being the reason they don’t go around raping and pillaging. The main protagonist is leery of leaving two young people alone at his compound, because he won’t tolerate “fornication”, but his wife assures him that as Good Christians they can be trusted to be celibate until they are married. And the Waco and Ruby Ridge killings by the government are described as specifically being the massacre of Christians who just want to be left alone. Would those incidents have been less tragic if they were Buddhists?

    There is a happy ending – a Libertarian gets elected president! Hooray! But aside from that, I’m afraid it doesn’t resonate with a person like myself, who is taking sensible precautions for a several week disruption of supplies and services (accompanied by potential looters or attempts at street violence by bolsheviks), but doesn’t have the time or money needed to create your own private Fortress of Solitude in rural Idaho. Even if it sounds like a fun project, I have no doubt that a divorce would be in my near future should I attempt the thing!

    That brought me the idea for the post: if you’re reading this, presumably you, too, are of a libertarian-ish bent. That means that it is likely that you have thought about prepping in some form or other. Personally, I have several weeks worth of water and non-perishable food stored, a bug-out bag with the usual contents, and a variety of weapons in several common calibers, with a few hundred spare rounds for each.

    So I’ll open it up to the comments: do you consider yourself a “prepper”? What thought, if any, have you given it? What preparations have you made? What’s in your bug-out bag? What’s your main plan (bug-out, bug-in, etc.)? Perhaps we can have future articles on BOB prep, good fall-back locations, tips & tricks on making do without utility service, etc.

     

    Image result for doge meme