This Week In Being No One

Hey all!

Been a crazy week in the blogosphere, hasn’t it?

The creepy-crawlies have squirmed out of the woodwork for a while, and as the boat continues to sink . . . they will continue to swarm into the light.

I’ll write more on this Friday, the inaugural “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day.”

Meanwhile, I am still living the happy-go-lucky life of the not-yet-hunted-nor-harrassed conservative blogger.  I’ve even finally begun to try out this wild thing they call The Twitter.

Wee!  Twitter is kinda fun.  Older Son recently chose the movie “Not Evil Just Wrong” for his afternoon educational viewing.  When he ranted, with eyes aglow, about environmental politics at the dinner table, I joyfully tweeted about it, throwing in the movie creator’s twitter name.

And then?

I ended up in a little twitter convo with Phelim McAleer himself!

Cool.

I heartily recommend The Twitter to anyone else that is not yet tweeting.  I’m a reluctant convert, but a convert nevertheless.  A special “thanks” goes to His Royal Shamus for holding my hand as I wade into the scary, shark-infested Twitter waters.  You are a kind man.

On to the last topic of the week.  Short Timer has been kind enough to elaborate on the issue of women in combat.  His wisdom needs repeating, for this reason:

Even dyed-in-the-wool, military-loving conservatives often don’t understand what the big deal is about letting women try their hand at Ranger School or Marine Infantry School.  We’re all feminists now, in today’s culture, you know?  If you haven’t had the military experience, it’s hard to understand the real problems involved.

Short Timer thoroughly explains the problems here.  Should you be pressed for time, here are the cliffnotes:

“If the standards are kept as high, women won’t pass.  If there’s a 75% pass rate for men, and a 10% pass rate for women, the bureaucrat social-engineer leftist political[ly]-correct hack who came up with this idea will, as always, refuse to accept that men and women are different.  And the test will be changed.  . . .  The instructors will be viewed as sexist . . . good ol’ boys and face retribution at the hands of the social engineers.  The loss will be to the country, to security (one of the few legitimate functions of government), to the Marines and Rangers, to the men who pass, and to the women who actually could pass without the standard being lowered.”

“No one wants to teach a class of students that starts making EEO complaints.  . . .  It disrupts the class, and means the instructor has to walk on eggshells.  A good instructor won’t want to be there – he can’t make the course difficult enough to prepare the candidates for their careers as Rangers or Marine combat arms MOSes.  He can’t ask for the same level of performance when someone can’t give it – and washing someone out who has a (as a horribly politically incorrect coworker once said) “career enhancement device” – isn’t much of an option without facing retribution from higher-ups, bureaucrats, EEO, and harassment charges.  There are plenty of people when faced with difficulty who will take the easy way out, and claiming harassment or unfair treatment is an easy way to pass.  It’s hell for the instructors and dissuades good instructors from ever signing on.  The knowledge base there is lost.”

Please do read the whole thing.  To anyone who questions whether instructors might keep their mouths shut rather than breaching the Code of Political Correctness in order to criticize a female candidate, I give you Exhibit A:

Well, that’s all the news from this ’lil nowhere section of the blogosphere.  Normally, I might say “Happy Blogging” to all you folks, but tonight I say, “Safe Blogging!  Night-night!  Don’t let the leftist bugs bite!”

Vintage Culture

Offend A Feminist week has sent me off to find vintage ads, because searching the ‘net is way easier than writing.  Here’s the best I’ve found:

I can’t help but chuckle at the use of “B.O.” as an acronym for something other than “Barack Obama,” which is no less odious as far as I’m concerned.

I also found this beautiful shot, which I’m assuming is sexist because women aren’t allowed to be on a pedestal anymore, are they?

Me, I’d be happy to be on that pedestal, looking all pretty. What is she wearing, anyway?  Daywear, sleepwear, evening wear?  I can’t even tell, frumpy ol’ me.

Then, I found this gorgeous image of a manly man.  Check out the fedora on this one:

Fedoras, of course, make me think of Da Tech Guy, who recently enjoyed a well-earned laugh over leftist anxiety about size . . .

Size of the crowd, that is.

Hah.  I remember fussing about the size of my crowd, too.

Da Tech Guy concludes his post:  “God these guys must hate the internet.”

Um, yeah.  They must.

Want to see what it was like when the left wasn’t threatened by the internet?  Check out this vintage news footage:

“Engineers now predict, the day will come when we get all our newspapers and magazines by computer, but that’s a few years off.  For the moment at least, this fellow (a newspaper seller is depicted) isn’t worried about being out of a job.”

A local station news babe continues, “Now, it takes over two hours to receive the entire text of a newspaper by phone, and with an hourly use charge of 5 dollars, the new tele-paper won’t be much competition for the twenty-cent street addition.”

Nope.  No competition at all, my pretty.

Offending Feminists Through Music

Participating in Stacy McCain’s fourth annual Offend A Feminist Week is both an honor and a pleasure.  I know, I know:  some folks will not find this exercise “helpful,” but let me explain why they are wrong.

Actually, let me allow Mr. McCain to explain, since he’s a man and therefore much smarter than me:

“The empowering message of feminism is that all women are victims.  Victimhood is synonymous with power. To deny women their victimhood is therefore to re-victimize and disempower them.”

Thanks so much for clearing my mind on this issue, Mr. McCain.  I was starting to wonder:  why in the world is making fun of my own gender so much fun?

It’s fun because, unlike the typical feminist of today, I’m not empowered by victimhood.  I am empowered by throwing off the shackles of political correctness.  To reject political correctness is to liberate one’s mind.  Even if it’s a feeble female mind.

Snort.

I participated last year with a post still worth a click if you didn’t back then.  Dunno if I’ll be able to wax as profoundly poetic this year, what with all the homeskooling, cooking, and house cleaning I have to do.

Sometimes, it’s hard to be a woman.

Which leads me to the musical portion of my post.  There’s something here for everyone, young and old, so just scroll down ’til you find your style.

Country?

Or good old-fashioned?  How about Andy Williams, singing a Bacharach tune to warn us ladies:

“Don’t think because there’s a ring on your finger you needn’t try anymore.  For wives should always be lovers, too.  Run to his arms the moment he comes home to you, I’m warning you . . .

Day after day, there are girls at the office, and men will always be men.  Don’t send him off with your hair still in curlers.  You may not see him again . . . .”

Speaking of classic, there is always Elvis:

If 60′s were your decade, scroll no further.  Mick Jagger will offend you now:

It’s down to me
The way she talks when she’s spoken to
Down to me, the change has come,
She’s under my thumb
Ah, take it easy babe

(Ain’t the women screaming with rapture an extra kick in the feminist pants?)

And check out this more obscure 60′s song, Be A Caveman:

Were you a teen in the ’80′s, like me?  If so, you might appreciate a little B-Boys.  This one’s dedicated to MCA:

And finally, I just heard this song on the radio yesterday, and I right like it.  Language warning, however.  Apparently, it’s a bluegrass-style cover of a rap song:

Happy Offending, everyone!

P.S.  Which song was your favorite?  Do you have one that should be added?

(Hat Tip:  I found several of these songs at drownedinsound.com.)

Cross-posted at Disrupt The Narrative

Does That Blow Your Mind?

As a former student of law, it sure blows mine.

What, you ask?

President Obama’s claim that if the United States Supreme Court judicially strikes down Obamacare, this would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step.”

Since 1803, the United States Supreme Court’s main job is to strike down unconstitutional laws.

Oh, but this case would be unprecedented and extraordinary.  /please read italicized words in the most sarcastic manner possible/

This is what happens when we keep ceding public opinion to the so-called experts.

How about a second opinion?  How about another expert’s opinion?

Judge Jerry E. Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Dana Lydia Kaersvang (DOJ Attorney): Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Smith: I’m referring to statements by the President in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed – he was referring, of course, to Obamacare – what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.

That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

Hoo, boy, that just happened.

If the typical uninformed voter doesn’t understand why Obamacare is unconstitutional, we can understand why.  The Constitution has been creatively interpreted to accommodate federal programs for a very long time, after all.

But that’s what makes the President’s statements so shameful.  As a former student of law, he should know better than to stretch beyond the bounds of judicial interpretation.

If he does know better, then he is not upholding the document he swore to uphold.  Do you know what that means?  “Under the laws of a state it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.”

Just sayin’.

Is That The Sound of Croaking Frogs I Hear?

So . . . with a hot mic, the President accidentally proves how comfortable he is with the idea of telling the voters he’ll do one thing, when he really intends to do something else.

Yeah.

In a sane world, this revelation would create more of an uproar than that Casey Anthony acquittal did.

Alas, we don’t live in a sane world.  Outside the conservative blogosphere, mostly we just hear crickets chirping and frogs croaking.

Speaking of frogs, I recently checked out a collection of Aesop fables.  One of the fables is called The Frogs Who Desired A King.  Are you familiar with that one?

Here is Caxton’s original translation, circa 1484.  It’s my favorite version, but man oh man that’s some crazy Olde Englishe.  Let me rephrase:

There were once some frogs who lived in liberty, but they wanted a king.  They asked Jupiter to give them a king.  They asked in one voice–no dissent, so it was all democratic and everything.   Now, Jupiter knew these frogs weren’t the smartest bunch.  So to placate them, he sent a piece of wood which splashed loudly in the pond.

This commotion scared the frogs at first.  They approached their king cautiously, to make obeisance to him.  When they realized their new ruler was just an ineffective lump of wood, they weren’t happy.  They went back to Jupiter and asked for a better king.  Jupiter was like, fine.  And he sent a Heron to be their king.

The Heron flew down and began to eat the frogs, one after another.  The frogs began to cry, and they begged Jupiter to deliver them from the throat of this tyrant.  Jupiter replied, tough.  The king which you demanded shall be your master.

Today, I was over at Disrupt the Narrative, watching footage of demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court building.  A group of folks were chanting “We . . . love . . . Obamacare” to the beat of a tambourine, and boy.  They sure sounded like Aesop’s frogs.  I just hope that Jupiter does not give them what they are asking for.

Caxton’s version is my favorite because of the way he phrased the moral of the story.  I don’t think the Olde Englishe needs much updating to be understood:

For when men have that which men oughte to have, they ought to be joyeful and glad. And he that hath lyberte ought to kepe it well.  For nothyng is better than lyberte.  For lyberte should not be well sold for alle the gold and sylver of all the world.

The Big Voice Goes Silent

Vicarious grief is not my thing.  Grief is very personal, and reserved for those you knew, loved, and lost.

And I didn’t know Andrew Breitbart.

Still, though, I have fought tears all day.  He was one of my heroes.  I don’t have many.  I’m late to this whole conservative blogosphere party, but I understand and appreciate the fact that this “party” would not exist without certain key outliers.  Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, Matt Drudge, Glenn Reynolds, and Andrew Breitbart are prime examples.

Breitbart.

The “Big” voice.

I dunno if you’ve noticed, but my tagline is “just one voice from the rabble.”

This tagline is meant to emphasize the smallness of my voice.  Insignificant.  No one of any import.

Well.  As a typical average nobody, can I just say?  It’s awesome when a bigger voice speaks for you.  And that’s what Andrew Breitbart did.  When nobody-ol’-me attended the Code Red anti-Obamacare rally, and promptly got accused of terrible racism, what good would my little tiny voice have done?

Not much.  Enter Andrew Breitbart, who offered $100,000 to anyone who could provide evidence of this supposed outburst of racism.  Of course, no such evidence existed.  Because it was a lie.

Andrew Breitbart helped us to feel comfortable with calling out the lie.  Most of us have a hard time even believing that folks want to lie about our beliefs and motives.  Many of us want to help “The Left” to understand us.  We want to assume the best from people.  Maybe they misheard.  Maybe they misunderstood.

Andrew Breitbart helped us to remember that many people don’t mishear or misunderstand.  They hate us.  They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.  They do not deserve respect.

So yeah.  Go ahead and point out the fact that Andrew Breitbart disrespected the memory of Ted Kennedy.  Cry me a river.  But don’t expect me to swim in it.  Ted Kennedy was a bad actor, and the best one can say is that he was reckless, not premeditated in the death of Mary Jo.

Does Andrew Breitbart have a Chappaquiddick in his past?  Duh, no.

He does, however, leave a grieving widow and four children behind.  I pray that they find comfort and healing in the upcoming days, months, and years of grieving.

Not that grief ever goes away.

I’m glad that I was willing to defend Andrew Breitbart in the past.  I’m glad that he inspired so many of us.  I intend to embody his spirit in the future.  The Happy Warrior lives on, if we happily fight his battles.  A lot like the Smiling Soldier.

The YouTubz Are Not Down With EBT

So my boys think the EBT song is funny, and asked to hear it again today.  Remember I posted about it, but made folks click over to Disrupt the Narrative to view it?

Lo and behold, YouTube has disabled it.

What the what?

A Google search provides this info:

“YouTube has found itself at the center of a heated debate concerning free speech, a dysfunctional welfare system and the power of the conservative blogosphere.”

An interview of Mr. EBT is here.  He says that he intended the video to be a parody of  EBT abuse.  This explanation sounds plausible enough, and so I laud his effective spotlighting of a very important issue.

He played a convincing role in this parody, so much that most of us didn’t pick up on the fact that he was in on the joke.

Anyway, what do you reckon is the real reason that YouTube removed this viral video?

PS:  You can still watch it here.

An Introduction to TSA Complaints and Abuses

In two days, me and the boys are flying the friendly skies to visit my Mom and Dad.  This flight is our first since the Invasion of the Body Scanners.  The hour is already late, so I’ll not rehash concerns over TSA policies.  I previously posted on TSA issues here, here, and here if you are interested.

I want to make a comprehensive list of known TSA abuses, but that will have to wait.  Too many links need compiling.  This post will serve as an introduction.

Problems at the security checkpoints are unlikely, but one must prepare for eventualities.  Fortunately, this guy has done the work already, creating a TSA regulation cheat sheet.  Important facts include:  1) TSA agents cannot detain you; they must call local authorities for detention.  2) TSA must inform you how you’ll be touched before they touch you.  3) Touching is restricted to the minimum necessary to detect weapons or explosives.

Did you know that TSA has its own blog on Blogger?  Yep.  It’s so homey and nice; it almost feels like everyday people run the site.  Their latest post is about a new program that uses “Automated Target Recognition” to turn naughty nakey images into crude outlines.  Very private . . . unless the automated program ends up creating false positives that necessitate more of those invasive pat downs.

Me and the boys will go through the body scanners rather than “opt out.”  So, the only way we’ll run into trouble:  if we need patting down in addition to the body scanner, and that pat down includes areas within my sons’ underwear.

I won’t consent to that.  I’ll have to forgo my flight and drive instead.  A very unlikely scenario, that.

Still, I prefer to mentally draw a line before being confronted with the situation.

Anyway, I hope to post a comprehensive list of complaints against TSA soon.  Of course, this list will be limited by what I find on the internet.  According to this article, when the ACLU solicited complaints last November, they received over 900 in the course of one month.   Snippets from these complaints can be read here.  More recent TSA problems include the unreasonable pat down of a six-year-old, as well as the arrest of a mother for having a stern tone and bad attitude.

Hmm.  I have a six-year-old.  My “stern tone” could rival a Gunny’s.  And bad attitude?

Maybe I should be nervous after all.

While scanning TSA search results, I got to thinking:  has anyone made a FOIA request for official complaints against TSA?

Ding ding ding, the answer is yes.  Judicial Watch has indeed made a FOIA request for all records of complaints about TSA’s new pat down process.

The TSA response was rather cheeky:  define complaint.

Because you know, it all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

An Opinion On All The Casey Anthony Opinions

I have neither interest nor opinion on the Casey Anthony acquittal. 

No offense to those who followed the trial.  It is interesting.  We all love a “truth-is-stranger-than-fiction” tale.  (My weaknesses are natural disasters and survival stories.)

I do have an opinion on the reaction to the acquittal, though.  The word that best describes this reaction:  visceral.  On Facebook, folks are lamenting how stupid we Americans are, or at least twelve particular Americans, and how broken our system is, and how really terribly awfully difficult it was to watch that terrible awful woman’s reaction to the verdict that frees her.

I’m thinking:  why are you watching then?  Why does her reaction matter to you?  Who can judge a human’s reaction to the announcement of her fate?  Even hubs got into a wee bit of a familial Facebook debate on the topic.

It should be no surprise, then, that I avoid these publicized trials like the plague.  What is this need to pick a side?  What is the point of picking a side in a situation where you have no control nor firsthand knowledge?

How do folks so easily assume they know better than the twelve who sat and watched the trial, weighed the credibility of witnesses, took the judge’s instructions, and pored over the evidence?

Suddenly, I’m reminded why lynch mobs are a bad thing.

You’ll find no debate over facts of the case here.  You’ll find a lively discussion at Stacy McCain’s Big Dog Blog, as usual.  The best “pro-acquittal” comment is here, and the best “anti-acquittal” here.

In that comment string, reasonable minds are definitely differing as to the merits of the prosecution’s case.  The jurors probably had differing opinions, too.  Trouble is, they all have to agree in the end.

Trouble is, the system is set up to err on the side of letting the guilty free.  “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a stiff standard.  Is that gal guilty?  Let’s see . . . the victim was two years old, she’s the victim’s mom, and she’s a lying eejit.  So yes, she is likely guilty.  More likely than not.

Oops.  “More likely than not” is the standard in a civil trial, not a criminal one.

I know, I know, the CSI effect.  Supposedly, folks aren’t willing to convict unless the case is wrapped up with Christmas bows, as tidy as the TV shows.

To those who blame the CSI effect, I ask:  did it prevent Lizzie Borden’s conviction?

That’s right, Lizzie Borden, circa 1893.  We all know her as the chick that axe-murdered her parents.  She was acquitted, notwithstanding boatloads of circumstantial evidence.

I repeat, the system is set up to err on the side of letting the guilty free.  It stinks, sometimes.  The murderer gets away with it, sometimes.

That fact is proof that the system is still working.

We should be more alarmed about an unchecked prosecuting government than an unhinged partying woman who may have killed her own child.

Cold?  Maybe.  But it’s cold comfort for the innocent whom the state still managed to wrongfully convict, even under the “reasonable doubt” standard.

Which is worse?  The guilty going free, or the innocent getting convicted?  As a liberty lover with a healthy suspicion of state power, I say:  the innocent getting convicted. 

Moreover, should I ever serve on a jury, I expect folks to respect my decision.  That means I have to respect their decisions, too, doesn’t it?

A shorter Linda:  Da Tech Guy.

Oh dear:  She’s pregnant?  Let’s hope not, for safety’s sake.

An interesting theory.

An even more interesting argument:  it’s just a late-term abortion.

Instalanche!  Thank you, Glenn Reynolds.  Especially for the “read the whole thing.”  Wow, I’m smiling.

More Loose Ends Need Tying

Various and sundry items have stayed in my mind this week, and they seem related.  I’m going to try tying them together.

First item up is over a week old.  Remember that federal worker at Obama’s town hall?

“I am seven months pregnant in a high-risk pregnancy, my first pregnancy.  My husband and I are in the middle of building a house. We’re not sure if we’re gonna be completely approved. I’m not exactly in a position to waltz right in and do great on interviews, based on my timing with the birth.  And so, I’m stressed, I’m worried.  I’m scared about what my future holds. I definitely need a job. And, I just wonder what would you do, if you were me?”

Of course, expressing anything other than sympathy is Bad Form.  Serious life challenges are confronting this woman.  Saying anything critical about any pregnant lady is highly inadvisable, truth be told.

Let the Bad Form ensue.

She asked what the President would do?  Seriously? 

WWOD? 

Whether her question was genuine or purely theater doesn’t matter.  Either way, folks are expecting our reaction to be sympathetic. 

They are not expecting us to wince at the very idea of a grown woman asking the President for advice on navigating life’s hurdles. 

Therein lies the truly disturbing question:  how many putatively competent adults did not wince at the inappropriateness of this exchange?

Second up is my favorite shiny ‘Bot’s conversation with a young college student.  She responded to one of his posts for a class assignment.  Her response is even-tempered and sincere.  I commend her for having interest in political issues.  Still, the unwitting espousal of collectivist training is jarring:

 ”. . . I will probably be old one day too and I hope that when that day comes the programs I am entitled to are there to help me after I have paid into them my entire life.”

You probably picked up on that key phrase, “I am entitled.”  How many otherwise capable young adults feel entitled to government care once they reach a certain age?

Third up comes a video over at By Design.  It’s a great find; go watch the whole thing.  In the meantime, here is the basic point:  leftist-trained college folks will sign anything “anti-Beck” or “anti-Rush,” and they will not question the wisdom of it.

The responses in that video are disturbingly reflexive.  No critical thinking, just automatic approval of something that comports with what they’ve been taught.

How many of those petition signers would support a law banning “right-wing” speech?

Okay.  What ties these three things together?  They are all examples of the entitlement mentality that now pervades American culture:

I should be entitled to my federal job because life is stressful enough.

I am entitled to government care when I reach retirement age.

I am entitled to get rid of political opinions that I do not like.

Anybody who thinks that “the gimmies” is a condition confined to the welfare class is profoundly mistaken.  We’ve all got the gimmies now.  We don’t even know what liberty is anymore, because we reject the fact that insecurity is part and parcel of it.

We can’t have both liberty and complete security.  Every demand for security will necessarily detract from our freedoms to some degree.  Sure, most of us are comfortable losing some freedom in the form of taxation, in order to provide the public with a basic level of security against privation.

But we’ve moved so far beyond that baseline.  We’ve moved into a territory where we can look to our rulers whenever life gets difficult and ask them: what do I do?

What a vicious cycle.  The more we look to government to solve all our problems, the more we drain our ability to solve them ourselves.  The guy that started Home Depot would not have done so if he had been faced with today’s regulatory landscape.  Home Depot employs 300,000 people today.

This is the hidden but very real price of all our extra regulations and additional job security.  How many future Home Depots have been snuffed out before they even began?

For how long can a nation continue to hamper its own growth, before it collapses on itself?

We were once a nation of people willing to risk failure, even without a safety net.  I agree with Jim Gourdie:  this aspect of the American Spirit has diminished greatly.

How do we rekindle this spirit?

One person at a time, one conversation at a time, and one election at a time.

There’s a saying about this.  Something about how you should eat a whale.

I just hope we have time to finish the meal.