Applied Indifference

Here’s an interesting theory, chew on it for a bit.

It’s been suggested that if we were only to leave the muslims alone, they’d work out their problems and be peaceful people.

Based upon history, I’ve got another theory. I’ve noticed that while every other major religion has gotten less violent and more peaceful through time, Islam has done precisely the opposite.

My theory? There’s a fixed amount of violence in the universe, and as other groups give it up, Islam takes up the slack. Therefore, the less violent and more peaceful we become, the more violent they become.

I hope that theory is as wrong as it is stupid.

Tags: Society by Brian Corbino
Comments Off

The dying bleat of post-modern American Feminism is at hand. It would appear that Stephanie Mencimer believes that men want children. She also believes that civilization is well-served by taking young women in their biological prime, sending them through four or five years of mindless drivel, and then having them pursue meaningless careers.

Right. What’s the life expectancy now? 80 years? Yet somehow, these feminist shrews think that a woman without an established career by 30 is somehow a failure?

With all the advances modern medicine has brought, the oldest a woman can consider having a low-risk pregnancy has not moved, at least not very much. My mom was 32 when my youngest brother was born. A friend’s wife had her first child at 38, and it was watched closely (everyone is fine, in case you happen to care). So, for women to think that they can delay attracting and securing a worthwhile mate until they are 30 years old, and then manage to get married and have kids before nature tells them “time’s up”, is pure lunacy. Which is why so many women end up with abusive asshole ex-husbands who don’t pay child support.

So, biological reality gets in the way of Stephanie’s dream of all the women competing in the world of work with men. Her solution? Mandate that men do more housework, or women shut off the baby-tap. She is, of course, quite mad. The reason that women like Maureen Dowd are unmarried and childless at forty has nothing to do with men not wanting to do housework, and even less to do with men being intimidated by successful women. It has everything to do with man not willing to put up with the bullshit heaped upon them by self-centered, shrewish bitches with a chip on their shoulder and an axe to grind.

Men, being the resourceful creatures that we are, have come up with our own solution, which really frosts the feminists. There are women all over the world that are more than happy to raise children and keep house for a man that treats them well.

And there are a great many men who do not desire children at all, and don’t need someone to keep house for them. Clothing is cheap enough that it doesn’t need repair, just toss it when it gets torn. Professional cleaning is cheap enough that the executive that actually NEEDS pressed slacks and shirts doesn’t need to take up ironing. Between microwave ovens, inexpensive gas grills, and the mega-mart, all a man needs to eat well is a meat department and the many prepared meals available. Cooking, cleaning, and laundry are all short-term tasks now.

So you tell me - who’s on the losing end of gender strife here? It certainly ain’t men. Our attitude is “Who cares if civilization fizzles. It’s not like I have kids to leave a better world to.”

(h/t Vox Popoli)

Tags: Society by Brian Corbino
Comments Off

It occurs to me that the neo-conservative agenda is not too different from the “Third Way” Democratic Leadership Council “New Democrat” schtick from the Slick Willy days.

Both support bigger government. The DLC because, well, that’s why we have a government, silly! The Neos because they believe it’s inevitable anyhow, so why waste energy fighting it. Me? I want to starve that bitch till it makes Kate Moss’s ass look fat.

Neither gives a rat’s ass for freedom or liberty - they were not shy at all about passing the BCRA, and I didn’t hear a peep from them when the Supreme Court expanded government power over citizens in the Raich and Kelo decisions. I can’t figure out how 535 people intelligent enough to get elected to office are so stupid that they cannot comprehend …Congress shall make no law…

The only place there is a fundamental difference between the DLC and the Neos is that the Neos want to bring back the golden age of imperialism. I question their motives, but I am not entirely against the idea. I suspect that they have political and economic goals at the heart of their agenda. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I have a more “Fuck them” attitude. Death to America, you say? Fuck you - eat this missile. Cheer when our buildings fall? Fuck you - cheer while we torch Saudi Arabia. My fight is ideological. Any ideology that says “believe as I tell you or die” is met with “Fuck you, the bombing begins in five minutes.”

So, that’s what I am. A “Fuck You” libertarian/conservative. Fuck the government - it’s in my way. Fuck the Middle East and their Islamist ideology that’s a piss-poor replacement for the Stalinism it hopes to exceed.

And if you don’t like me? Fuck you.

Tags: Politics by Brian Corbino
Comments Off

Pat asks: Are the neocons losing it? Keep in mind that this is a man who thinks that Hitler was simply misunderstood, and that the only good border is a sealed one.

The most amazing thing about this article - other than it was written by a goose-stepping proto-nazi, I mean - is that all the people he references to bolster his point that Bush sucks are wrong. Bill Kristol, Bill Buckley, Fukuyama, Perle, Ledeen, and even Barnes — all completely and utterly wrong.

To take on the Barnes article - if Barnes believes that Bush’s scrapping the cabinet will “shock” the media into taking him seriously, he’s smoking something. If Bush wants to embolden his enemies both at home and abroad, that’s what he should do. Fire Rumsfeld, and watch ol’ Mookie al-Sadr fall over laughing. Convince Cheney to “retire”, and watch Harry Reid wet his pants with joy. Lunacy.

Fred - you say that this has been done successfully before - by Gerald Ford in 1975. Need I remind you who was elected in 1976? His name was NOT GERALD FORD. He lost an election to a personality-free unknown! This by you is success? Hell, Carter tried the same stunt in 1979, and by your admission it FAILED MISERABLY!

Kristol, Buckley, Fukuyama, et. al. all bleating that we’ve lost and should admit it? What are you, nuts? Even if I were willing to concede that defeat was possible, it is simply not an option here. To “lose” Iraq to a few hundred Islamist thugs would be to sever the femoral artery of the Western world. Has your neo-Wilsonian streak been replaced with yellow?

There’s really only one answer possible here - Bush didn’t pursue their neo-con dreams fervently enough, and now they are all stabbing him in the back. So they hope that he will take their advice, self-destruct, and hand the Congress to Pelosi and her minions.

Fuhgeddaboudit.

Tags: Politics by Brian Corbino
Comments Off

Can’t fault MSNBC for this. They simply report what so-called “experts” say. And experts ALWAYS say “the ready availability of guns is a prime cause in the upsurge of violence”.

What’s funny about this article is that at least two of the murders were stabbings. And I don’t know how you stab someone with a gun.

But this post isn’t about guns. It isn’t about knives. And it isn’t even about violence. It’s about devolution.

What we are seeing here, in these sudden, apparently pointless, murders is simply this: the devolution of society from guilt to shame. In the “gangsta” culture, if you want to call it that, the appearance of shame or “disrespect” is untenable. And the only thing that can repair the damage done is the spilling of blood. Where a guilt culture relies on a finely-tuned sense of inner shame for behaving badly to act as a brake, a shame culture relies on the fear that at any moment anything you do or say could be taken the wrong way and get you beaten or killed.

And it has the same predictable results here as it does in the middle east. People are slaughtered for what most reasonable people consider trivialities.

No, I don’t have an answer. I don’t know how you make a culture grow up.

But I do know that the “experts” are wrong. It is not the availability of alcohol or weapons. It is not the lack of jobs. It is simply the lack of modern civilization that is the root of the problem. That the popular culture is infatuated with the “gangsta” culture is no help, either. When street thugs are celebrated as heroes, then there is no incentive to change their ways.

And that’s why Tupac gets blown away in the street. Because a shame culture has no way to forgive except with death.

Tags: Politics by Brian Corbino
Comments Off

Isn’t it clear? Since all of society’s problems seem to involve children, isn’t it the prudent thing to do? Why inflict more difficulty on adults by telling us that certain forms of expression are unacceptable? The drive to ban all smoking started out as an argument that smoke was “bad for the children”. Google is engaged in a fight with the government over search terms, which the government wants so it can prove that children can see naughty images too easily on the internet.

Janet Jackson’s tit caused a stir. Why? The children.
Grand Theft Auto - needs to be banned. Why? The children.
Carded to buy decongestants? Why? The children again.
Outlawing certain types of on-line content. Why? Those damn children again.

It has gotten to the point in our society where the rights of free citizens (read: adults) are being abridged to prevent the potential of some child doing something that may or may not harm them.

Which compels me to ask: what is in greater service to liberty? Is it better to encumber erstwhile free tax-paying, law-abiding citizens with an ever-growing litany of restrictions on adult behaviour that children ought not engage in? Or is liberty for adults better served by removing children from society?

Those of you who see these encroachments on my liberty as a good thing should consider the following things:
I have no children, nor do I plan to. The reason for this is so that my life is not encumbered by the necessary limitations on my artistic consumption and expression that raising a child entails.
By asking the government to craft legislation that puts limits on artistic expression so that you are freed from actually paying attention to your children, you are forcing me to live as though I was raising a child.
Therefore, when I discipline your misbehaving miscreant whelps, I expect you to shut up about it. By forcing me to live my life in a sanitized world, you have implicitly given me the authority to raise your children for you.

If you are uncomfortable with that idea, I suggest you keep your children from impacting my ability to live as a free adult.

Tags: Politics by Brian Corbino
Comments Off

Al Qaeda threatens to bring U.S. “to [its] knees”.

Yeah. As if.

If George Bush is half the man Ronaldus Magnus (may he rest in peace) was, here is the approximate response that he would announce tomorrow at 0800:

My fellow Americans, Al Qaeda continues to present a threat to our very existence. Just yesterday, they announced, through their proxies, their intent to attack our homeland. Although we have no concrete evidence that this threat is legitimate, we do have to take all such claims seriously. To that end, I presented specific orders to the military last night. This message is intended for Al Qaeda, and all the nations and organizations that support them and their cause. I have instructed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare multi-service retaliatory strikes against several key cities in the countries known to be supporting or harboring Al Qaeda. Without divulging any operational details, I will state that the casualty estimates given to me this morning are horrific - with an estimated 250 million dead within 72 hours of the conclusion of operations.

I say to all terrorists: do not risk the annihilation of your people. Leave the United States alone, or dire consequences will fall upon you.

Not that I have any hope of it actually happening, but, you never know.

(h/t Instapundit)

Tags: Politics by Brian Corbino
Comments Off

Protein Wisdom links another pussified man who got himself into a situation and he wants the legal equivalent of an abortion.

This isn’t rocket science. If you don’t want kids, dont fuck.

One of the commentors on that thread said something, and I’d like to expand on it a bit. Note - I am not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on TV.

Whether one agrees with abortion or not, it is presently the law of the land. It is also a “procedure” that is performed exclusively at the discretion of the woman. A man has no say in the matter.

I’ve argued against laws that make it easier for a woman to cry rape when she gets a case of the morning regrets. I believe that there is such a thing as implicit consent. Logically, if there is no such thing then everyone is a rapist at some level.

But, just as a woman grabbing my junk and saying “fuck me” will be taken as consent to do just that, by actually taking her up on her offer, I am implicitly consenting to allow her to bear my child. Furthermore, I am implicitly agreeing to take co-responsibility for that child.

Let that sink in for a moment. You delicate feminist types may need to pick yourselves up off the floor after that shock. Yes - I said “allow her to bear my child”. After all, if we’re talking about things from a consent perspective, it is reasonable to consider consensual sex in terms of not only the act itself, but also the consequences thereof.

When two persons of opposite gender agree to engage in procreative (we’re talking about the specific pieces involved, and not intent) sexual intercourse, they are also agreeing to the potentialities involved. Leaving aside such legal difficulties as ‘duty to disclose’, the most likely side-effect of sex is offspring. Therefore, a woman agreeing to sexual intercourse is by default also consenting to carry a child - whether that is her intent or not. And a man engaging in the same act is consenting to create such a child. And implicit in that consent, is the agreement to take responsiblity for the raising of same.

Shorter Applied Indifference: “Matt Dubay needs to man up and raise his kid.”

Tags: Politics by Brian Corbino
Comments Off

Mini Review Time!

Tony Hawk’s American Sk8-land for Nintendo DS. Take away all that extra crap that they added to Tony Hawk’s Underground, and get back to the roots. That’s what this game does.

It actually combines THPS 2 and 3/4 in an interesting way. There’s a “Story” mode, in which you wander around THPS4 style, doing things for people in exchange for cash. You are using this cash to rebuild a skate park. That’s all I’m sayin’. No spoilers here.

There’s also “Classic” mode, which is like THPS 2. You have 2 minutes, and there are 10 goals on each level. Finish a certain number of goals, next level opens up. You also have the gaps to find and complete, and I think there’s extra “hidden” goals, but I’m not sure. I’ll get back to you on that.

The moves are right out of 3/4, with the revert, acid drop, and flatland tricks. They got rid of that idiotic “run off” thing from THUG.

They also added online and wireless multiplayer, which I haven’t used yet. I’ll get back to you on that too.

Things I like
The controls. Just like on the Dreamcast where I first played THPS2, and later the PS2 for THPS 3/4. Response time is good, and usually when I bail it’s on account of I suck.

The specials. There’s three (I’ve only unlocked 2, but it’s pretty obvious there’s room for a third) areas on the right side of the touch screen that can be mapped for context-sensitive auto-specials. Very useful for bustin’ out a MAJOR combo.

The graphics. Cel-shaded, which means higher frame rates. I don’t care about realism when I’m doing 4 tricks in the air. The game is fast and smooth. The bottom screen being a map is actually useful.

The stat-building. Unlike 2 (use money to buy stats), or 3/4 (get stat points at random intervals to build stats), you actually increase your stats by practicing! As you do a longer manual, your manual stat goes up. Hold that lip just a little longer? Lip balance goes up. Do more grab tricks in the air? Ollie better. You get the idea.

Things I don’t like

Nothing. Seriously. Well, maybe the size of the screen, but that’s hardly Activision’s fault. There’s not a whole lot of music either, but that’s a function of cart space, isn’t it?

This game is good. Real good. I don’t know why there’s so many copies of it used at my local GameStop, but it’s a keeper in my book.

Tags: Video Games by Brian Corbino
Comments Off

Isolationism,

That’s the word for today. Add “protectionist”, “reactionary”, and even “racist” to the list. There’s only one reason this deal got scuttled. The company that is attempting to purchase the terminals in 6 U.S. ports is based in the U.A.E. In case you were not already painfully aware, the ‘A’ stands for ‘Arab’, which we all know is a synonym for Muslim, which is a synonym for terrorist. The ‘American Street’ has spoken, and they’ve said “We don’t want no stinkin’ A-rabs runnin’ our ports”. The Representatives have decided that getting re-elected trumps good economic policy. As an added bonus, the Democrats get to appear to be to the right of the President on national security.

Now I’ll be perfectly frank here, and say that I am not terribly fond of Muslims. Haven’t been since that whole 1979 ordeal in Iran. That said, I’ve known individual Muslims that seemed, on the whole, to be normal, rational human beings. But as a group, I would prefer not to deal with them.

But the only reason I could come up with for not letting this deal go through was “Well, they’re Arabs.” And that didn’t sit well with me. The way I see it, these guys - Dubai Ports World - run a good number of terminals all over the planet. It’s logically inconsistent to deny them the ability to run terminals in the U.S. when they are already running the ones on the other end of the shipping transaction. And who the hell is dumb enough to pay 8+ billion dollars to buy a foothold on American soil, only to blow it up? Hell, if they really wanted to attack the ports, they could just load a bomb on to each ship that leaves their terminals elsewhere in the world, and do a hell of a lot of damage that way - and it would be cheaper.

I was once told by someone that I had “no faith in my fellow Americans” when I said that another terrorist attack on our land would unleash a demand from the American people to utterly obliterate Islam from the world. It seems that my lack of faith has been borne out.

Tags: Politics by Brian Corbino
Comments Off