The Low

I find my blood pressure spikes every time I read stories of people like Shawn Glans, the bully thug in a police uniform who assaulted & battered a citizen unaware he was being recorded.

Official United States Bully, Shawn Glans

You can imagine how I felt reading yet another similar story, this time from Alabama. A Police Department Training officer named Eric Parker and his trainee came across a supposedly suspicious person whose crime started and ended there. I have yet to see where it is a crime to be a suspicious person in any ordinance or edict in any city or state.

"Found guilty of being a suspicious person, Abraham Lincoln of Springfield Illinois was today sentenced to two months' jail time. He was rigorously reprimanded & the accused promised never to be suspicious in the future."

Eric Parker will end up costing the citizens of his city millions of dollars, but worse, he will solidify the visceral hatred of the police that ordinary citizens continue to harbor. The chief of police stated that Parker did not exhibit the "high standards" of that city's police department. Sure, chief, that's why he's a training officer.

How dare you be a suspicious person!

If you don't know, (now ex-) Officer Eric Parker accosted an Indian grandfather who had been reported as suspicious. The law requires that a crime be currently & actively investigated before an officer may detain a citizen and in this case, that crime was being suspicious, you see. Alas, the frail Indian gentleman did not understand he was committing this crime, and after he added on the veritably hateful inability to speak English, paid for it by having his neck broken in a takedown befitting the felony crime of being suspicious.

As bad as that is, there's something far, far worse at play here, and is the reason these two jerks acted the way they did. I've already touched on this topic in my other post, In Mala Fide. It is characterized by the following statement: someone somewhere once did X therefore everyone is guilty of X until they prove otherwise.

These officers are trained to ensure that every interaction with the citizenry holds within the potential for violence. Because of this, it conditions these simpletons--and I use this term advisedly, because for too many police officers it is unfortunately true--to act as if the citizen is already guilty of the crime of executing a police officer and it is their job today, right now, to stop their own murder from commencing.

They deal with citizens in bad faith, assigning the worst intentions to every person until that guilt person has proven otherwise. This is the same thing the TSA does: everyone is guilty of trying to blow up airliners until they've proved they won't. Someone once tried to blow up an airliner by smuggling a bomb in their shoe therefore everyone thenceforth is guilty of trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb and must prove they won't by taking off their shoes for inspection.

Once you think of it like that, everything snaps into focus. The Newtown board set up to Do Something about the shooting there just came out with even more restrictions to be placed on the sale & transfer of not only firearms but cartridges as well. None of this would have prevented Newtown from happening, as even a laudatory ("courageous!") newspaper editorial points out. Nevertheless, proceed full speed ahead, guilty citizens one and all.

Seen through the filter of bad faith, it makes sense why these simpletons would call for further restrictions on erstwhile law-abiding citizens. Let's see how it fits into our bad faith template: Adam Lanza committed a crime with guns therefore every citizen in his state is now guilty of committing a crime with guns and must prove they (i) have not (ii) are not now (iii) will never commit a crime with guns. The burden of proof lies with them.

Aside from the fact that it is in a 180-degree direction from how our system was designed to operate--the presumption of innocence, in case you missed it--it is actually a completely worthless approach to law enforcement & safety. This is likely the reason why our Founders designed the system in that way! Who would've thought. While it is straightforward to prove I have not committed a particular crime, it is quite difficult to prove that I am not currently committing said crime and further, just about impossible to prove I will never commit that crime.

We treat each other with the basest of assumptions, assigning the worst possible to our intent, locking us away in virtual jail cells until we have each proven to one another that we are not guilty. If you want to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you are guilty of trying to murder someone. So you must prove you haven't and aren't currently by undergoing a background check. If not that bad, then you are certainly guilty of negligence. You will leave your weapon unattended and someone will get hurt. You will kill your wife and children with that weapon. You will shoot up the local elementary school.

Some other examples, in passing: men who sit with their legs open in subway cars are guilty of patriarchal oppression and must be shamed & punished. A mother brings in a child to the ER who hurt itself falling off a high chair; she's guilty of Munchausen-by-Proxy until she proves she isn't. That guy who made a joke about Asians is guilty of racism and must be prove to our collective sense of justice that he is not a racist; until then he is to be punished. Eric Eich once gave money to a cause therefore he is guilty of hating homosexuals and must prove his innocence; until then he is punished.

Someone suspicious once walked the streets casing houses for later burglary. Therefore the frail Indian gentleman is guilty of both being suspicious and casing houses therefore he must prove to Officer Parker's finely honed sense of justice that he is not guilty of that crime, but in the meantime, will be handled like a guilty criminal until such time as he has proven he's no threat.

Do you see how nefarious this is? Low-trust societies do not survive long yet this is exactly what we're positively encouraging each other to do. It is brutal if you're the person caught in the headlights of the oncoming Guilty Train for the simple reason that it is very difficult if not sometimes impossible to prove a negative, to prove something isn't there. Asking me to prove there are no black swans requires an extraordinary amount of work on my part because I must search every corner of the earth for a negative, as you sit there actively punishing me.

Guilty of rara avis!

Bad faith.

Base Assumptions

Ran into this execrable pile of shit this morning and "felt led" to opine. I'll quote it here and tell you what I think following:

Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield’s HB260 bill permitting concealed guns without a permit is irresponsibly dangerous. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues of arms.”

As a licensed clinical social worker, I counsel men in relational disputes. Jacqueline C. Campbell, Ph.D., an internationally recognized domestic violence expert, has research suggesting the risk of a man killing a woman is highest where he is unemployed and possesses a weapon. Such men would often not be deemed mentally ill at the time of purchase of a weapon prior to relational disputes occurring.

Rep. Oda’s bill is irresponsible and would increase the likelihood that more women will be seriously injured or murdered than save people from criminals. Now is the time when government has a responsibility to protect its people and not promote freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people’s lives. Our freedoms on[sic] not unlimited, says the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tab L. Uno, LCSW, MPA

The open assertion is interesting, but there it is in all its sordid glory, the theme of his letter. Pity he follows up with a quote from a Supreme Court case that does not contribute in any way to his conclusion that a permitless concealed carry is "irresponsibly dangerous." Perhaps there's more following.

The second paragraph continues with an appeal to authority that because he's a licensed social worker--leftist alert!--what follows should be accepted without argument. What does he follow up with, a quote from yet another expert that suggests that a "man killing a woman is highest when he is unemployed and possesses a weapon."

Let's look at his base assumptions here: as a licensed clinical (no less) social worker, he's telling you to accept the "research" which "suggests" (though not actually proves) that there is a increase in the risk of men killing women when they're (a) unemployed and (b) in possession of a weapon. Keep it at the front of your mind his thematic conclusion: that permitless concealed carry is "irresponsibly dangerous" then ask yourself what connection permitless concealed carry has with research from some unknown authority figure named Jackie--whom he asserts is an internationally recognized expert--produced which show unemployed men who own guns are at risk of killing women.

Think of his assumptions here, based even though they are on this purported "research": he's assuming that men will have to be both unemployed and simply own a firearm to raise the risk of them killing women. That alone is debatable but it betrays a vicious mindset, a generalization that slanders men. Though strangely this curtails his argument, such as it is, since all I would have to do to destroy it is to say that employed male gun owners exist in much larger numbers.

Continuing: since the risk is "raised" that unemployed men are at risk of killing women (women in general or just ones they run into on the street?), we should not pass a law permitting concealed carry without a license. Okay, that makes all the sense in the world!

Unemployed male gun owners are at risk of killing women therefore do not pass a bill that would allow permitless concealed weapons carriage. Do you see the meandering illogic of this? The pure emotionality of it all? Women will die! The only thing that would round out this perfect dunghill of an argument is if he can somehow work in minorities, preferably gay minorities--into the whole stewpot.

His final paragraph seals the tomb: this bill will increase the likelihood that women will be murdered. H'm. Doesn't that require his two ingredients of male unemployment and simple gun ownership? Alas, he doesn't say. He just wildly asserts. His premises don't support his conclusions, but I wager he doesn't care, women will die! The fantastic rat's nest of assumptions that draws a connection between unemployed males killing women with their guns is a work of a very disturbed mind. That this person is "counselling men" is only just this side of frightening.

Secure in the fact that he has indeed made the connection between unemployed, gun-owning males, the women they kill, and permitless concealed weapons carry, he proceeds:

Now is the time when government has a responsibility to protect its people and not promote freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people’s lives.

Does that statement make any sense to you? I've read it a few times and each time, I get more confused. "Now is the time [as opposed to when other time?] when government has a responsibility to protect its people and [here comes the super bizarre part] not promote freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people's lives [Huhhuhwhat? Is there a freedom fit to be promoted by the government to "handle anger"? Seriously, what the fuck does this mean?]

By passing a permitless concealed weapons carry law, this is government "promoting freedom to handle anger and frustration to the detriment of people's lives"? How about permitted concealed weapons carry, which is legal now? How is the permitting process supposed to weed out unemployed men who will kill women? What standard ought the government use here? Will there need to be a question in the form for concealed carry that asks whether you're employed if you're male and which will deny you the right to keep and bear arms since it raises the risk of you bad male person you killing women?

Our freedoms are not unlimited, says the Supreme Court. I have so many questions: what does this have to do with permitless concealed weapons carry? Does the Supreme Court get to decide what those limitations on our freedoms are, or just the right to keep and bear arms? What will a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms mean with respect to unemployed male gun owners killing women?

This letter gives you an insight into the disjointed mind of a leftist who speaks only in buzzwords. Men kill women. Buzz! Guns are bad. Buzz! I am a clinical social worker. Buzz! Freedoms are not unlimited. Buzz! Supposition based on emotion riding on the rails of base assumptions with a touch of just pure crazy.

Ew, Christians

Douthat is right;

Palmer’s secular and scientistic worldview, of course, is not the worldview of the classical world, which was far more inegalitarian and cruel than the still-Christian-influenced secular humanism of our own era.

Read the rest, then with that in mind, read Palmer's loathsome article for Slate.

Horrible, Horrible

The news today from Connecticut  is sickening. I cannot even begin to imagine what the families of those killed are feeling and I am truly heartbroken for them.

Humanity is deeply flawed and too many people are evil, sick or psychologically broken. I'm afraid that regardless of what we do, laws we pass, whatever: things like this will continue to happen.

I pray God provide those directly affected comfort and for Him to take pity on us all.

Victims

I'm always interested—and almost always disgusted, but that's another post—by who is identified as a victim by society and the media. The Petraeus Affair, which could have been the title of a smashing Sherlock Holmes story, is the latest example.

According to everything I've seen written and seen, Mrs. Petraeus is the victim of the whole sordid mess, forgetting Dr. (Mrs) Broadwell is one as well by any definition of the term. Am I being led to believe that husbands who are cheated on are not as important a victim category as long-suffering dowdy wives?

It seems so.

Guns Be Bad

I was just listening to Adam Carolla’s podcast from July 22, 2012. The Aurora, Colorado shooting had just happened and libtard “news girl” Alison Rosen reported it.

Carolla proceeds to wax on about his idea to employ plainclothes “Air Marshals” to patrol “venues” around the US, paid for by the public through additional taxation. By his thinking, only certain places and events will need protection from these plainclothes Super Beings: sorry, Montana, you’re too small and insignificant. Los Angeles, filled with important people, number one on his list. Doing this, says the self-admitted dimwit, will stop incidents such as Aurora.

Normally, Carolla’s voice is the soul of cold pragmatism, but in this case he’s not only way off base, he ain’t even playing Baseball. First of all, we the public already pay for these special “Air Marshals” to patrol venues, only they’re not called “Air Marshals”; they’re called the “Police”. Second, no matter how many Police you employ, to completely prevent these kinds of incidents, you’d have to arm and train one policeman or woman to protect each person. That’s taking things to absurdity yes, but it’s to prove a point.

In an earlier podcast, Adam had come out in grudging support of concealed weapons licensees, but in this podcast it seemed he’d forgotten about his earlier support and was instead pushing for those things he’s normally and vehemently against: more government intrusion, more taxation. After judging Adam’s “Air Marshal-But-On-The-Ground” idea, Rosen, reliably liberal as usual, opines in response to some tweets re a concealed weapons carrier could have stopped the Colorado rampage: “No they couldn’t have. The guy was wearing body armor!” and smugly, as liberals are wont, relaxes into the pillow of stupidity every one of them carries around.

So let me get this straight: concealed weapons carriers couldn’t have stopped the shooter in Aurora because he was wearing armor, but plain-clothes “Air Marshals” armed in the same manner, by some dint of superhuman effort unlike those of the armed civilians could have.

Idiots, one and all.

In the words of the asshole politician in the White House, let me be clear (only, I’ll actually be clear): you’re not going to get rid of guns in America. For starters, it’s in the fucking Bill of Rights. So then, follow the designs of the Founders and license people to carry firearms, a trend I’m ever so glad to notice is sweeping the nation. You cannot have a policeperson on every corner, but what you do have are citizens. Long live the Republic.

Andrew Breitbart

No, it can’t be true. Not a 43-year-old man, and certainly not Andrew Breitbart!

I remember with glee the few times I saw him wade fearless into the madding crowds of “astro-turfed” union “protesters” as they hurled a barrage of invectives at him when he asked who they were and what they were protesting. As it turned out, no one had the answer, sheep that they were. They were bussed in, you see, chattel to carry signs of protest, metaphorical beasts of liberal burden.

Breitbart delighted in ripping apart the curtain of secrecy, ignorance, naïveté, and hubris  that cloaks the nefarious goings-on attending too many liberal movements. Furious at the temerity of this man to point out the wildly gesticulating little men behind those curtains, these cockroaches showed their own sense of equity by calling him a homosexual and most assuredly not as a compliment. How urbane.

I feel deep regret to know I will no longer feel that glee to see Andrew literally and figuratively parting the Red Sea of liberal pseudo-intellectual blathering.

Rest in peace, good knight. May your memory never wane in our minds, liberal and conservative alike.

Conserving Change

Too many people make the mistake of thinking Conservatives are anti-change at worst or at least certainly change-phobic. As one of the Conservative ilk, I can assure the two or three of you reading this that I am not afraid of or anti-change. I couldn’t work managing Microsoft systems if I did.
Let’s take a closer look at the word. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, there are a few definitions, but here’s the first one in the list, one most germane:

conservative, a. and n.
(kənˈsɜːvətɪv)
[a. F. conservatif, -ive (= Pr. conservatiu, It. conservativo (Florio), prob. med.L. conservātīvus), f. L. conservāt-, ppl. stem of conservāre to conserve: see -ive.]
A. adj.
1.a Characterized by a tendency to preserve or keep intact or unchanged; preservative.

Tendency is exactly the correct term. There have to be good, necessary, true, and justified reasons for change. In my worldview, change for its own sake is ill-advised. Frost’s “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know why it was up” is the Conservative’s referential quote. What has worked has a tendency to continue working. The Bible says there’s nothing new under the sun and I think that’s quite true and just for giggles, here’s a French aphorism in the same vein, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”
None of this implies that if there’s a good reason for tearing down Frost’s fence that we shouldn’t. Conservation does not equal stasis. Biologists, in their quest to conserve, even destroy life while seeking to conserve it. There are many more aspects to conservation than the simplistic “afraid of change” meme.
There’s always the allegation that while conceding the point of fact that Conservatives aren’t change-averse, we respond so slowly as to guarantee change is impossible. This may be true, but it is to a point and a practical one at that: no one staves off change forever and extinction is the reward for those who ignore it. The only constant is change goes the old saw. We change, sometimes for the good (and here’s the point), sometimes for the bad. We Conservatives want change for the betterment of society as much as we can control it, building up from the basic constants taught us by long history and convention to achieve higher, loftier aims.
For example, slavery has been one of humanity’s default institutions for most of its history. American Conservatives, in seeking its destruction, drew upon an even older—and decidedly unintuitive—idea of universal human equality, based on what they thought of as the unchanging principles for living codified in the Bible and other canons of Western Civilization. Even then, such a change was deemed so drastic, it required taking steps that although ended with Emancipation, sometimes resulted in quizzical artifacts such as the oft-maligned idea that Blacks were three-fifths of a human being. The intelligent questioner should ask why that was necessary and in so doing uncover the kernel of truth hidden from free view by the old dust pile of history.
I suppose it would’ve been possible to ram through a change that immediately manumitted black Americans within the year, but the United States would not be recognizable in any form and certainly not in the form we know and enjoy today. Change, for change’s sake, must be looked at with a jaundiced eye. Considering both short- and long-term consequences and allowing for the fact that while there may be unseen consequences, they wouldn’t be too damaging or immense as to have escaped consideration. We are human after all.
So you get it, Conservatives aren’t change-averse (or at least grant me the point for arguments’ sake). Why is Fred going on about this? Well, it seems today is National Coming Out Day and my twitter feed had some references to it this morning, including this one:

Now, I like Louis C.K. He’s profane, but very funny. However, I can substantively say he’s no Conservative and, it seems, he’s no philosopher either.
The “argument” he’s making here can be illustrated as follows:

1. Two men in love wanting to get married is not a social issue.
2. Two men in love wanting to get married does not concern anyone else.
3. Two men in love wanting to get married cannot do so because you (the Conservative, I take it) don’t want them to do so.
4. Two men in love wanting to get married cannot do so because you (the Conservative) don’t want them to do so because you (the Conservative) don’t want to have to explain to your kid the fact two men in love want to get married.

Number 4 is really rather silly, because he answers the “why” of number 3 in an inane manner. If there are people who don’t want men in love to get married to each other because they don’t want to have to explain to a child the intricacies of the situation, they’re truly misguided. Parents have been unable to explain to their children the intricacies of all sorts of issues from time immemorial (hence: “Because I said so!”) The other day, I overhead a dad try to explain why the sky was blue to their five-year-old. Hilarious.
What are we to draw from this? That the sky is or isn’t blue because the parent can’t or won’t explain why it is? I think I’ll chalk up number 4 to a joke; after all, C. K. is a comedian first and foremost.
Numbers 1 and 2 are really one and the same: Two men in love wanting to get married is not a social issue and as a result, concerns no one else.
Patently false. Marriage, of any sort, is a social issue as the existence of marriage licenses attest in every country on Earth. The question is why is it a social issue? What business is it of the state’s (read: people, society, etc.) that it “controls” marriage? I have answered this question elsewhere on the blog so I won’t repeat it here. Suffice it to say there are good reasons for why society has “evolved” to grant marriage whatever legal protections and special status it currently has, and like any true Conservative, I tend towards its preservation.
Number 3 is the crux of the issue. Initially, I enclosed the word ‘argument’ in quotes because C.K. doesn’t actually make one. There are no explicit conclusions but there is a hidden one: he thinks society (i.e. people) should allow two men in love to get married. Which is strange because one of his premises is that it is none of society’s (i.e. people) business who gets married to whom!
So it comes to this: why, in spite of his earlier assertion, should society allow two men in love to get married in contravention of societal norms and mores for a very long time? Why the change, and why now? Does it benefit society? If so, does it benefit all of society or just a subset? How small or large is this subset? What are the consequences of enacting this change? On what basis does this change stand?
The reason C.K.’s given for (the Conservative) to reject gay marriage is ludicrous, of course, but here’s the thing: I reject the idea we (i.e. society) should grant marriage licenses to homosexuals, however much they’re in love. (For starters, society cares not a whit about “love” or indeed any kind of emotion. Except for the small area of criminal law when the penalties are different based on mens rea, but IANAL.)
The reason I do so is simple: we do not yet understand the ramifications of tearing down those fences. We have not even started to answer the questions little old me has posed above. The push to forever alter the modus operandi is carried along on a tidal wave of rising emotion, along with burning altruism, sweeping aside centuries of tradition because it feels like it’s the right thing.
There is no such thing as an “I don’t care” worldview, unaffecting everyone but those who choose to be affected. Every cause has an effect, and every effect its cause. To implement such far-reaching changes to society without giving a moment’s thought beyond it feeling like it’s the right thing to do is anathema to the Conservative.

“Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts and approves the practice, it implicitly commits itself to the worldview that supports it—all the more so if the practice is enshrined in law.” Nancy Pearcey

Imagine, if you will, a Catholic priest refusing to marry two women when it is legal to do so? That priest is now in contravention of a legally binding statute backed by the immense force of the State which can compel individuals to go along or face penalties. Is this the road we want to go down? The image of priests in handcuffs getting carted off to jail because they refuse to  marry gay men to each other rouses a wonderful feeling of peace in your mind, does it?
As a matter of pragmatics, I do not reject out of hand the idea of homosexual marriage. If evidence points to its beneficence, surely what’s the harm indeed? Have at it and let the chips fall where they may. I have to follow the unadulterated evidence, but so far, it seems no one has been willing to even look at it.

Men’s Plagiarist

Men’s Health magazine is one to which I used to subscribe until they started down the liberal road when, out of the blue, articles criticizing George Bush (not that there wasn’t a ton of things to criticize! I don’t like George Bush myself either) and slobbering all over The Annointed One in 2008.

Anyway, I stopped reading them for the most part, preferring to pilfer a free read at the bookstore instead because I believed them unscrupulous. Well, it turns out the managing editor David Zinczenko likes to steal his writers’ articles and pass them off as his own.

Pfft.

Abomination

The news out of Philadelphia, PA is of a man—I refuse to call him a doctor—Kermit Gosnell who over 30 years performed as many illegal, late-term abortions as he could while making millions. He has been charged with eight counts of murder: the death of a patient and seven babies born alive then killed by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cords!

My God!!

I don’t care what camp you fall into about abortion, this is an abhorrence. A despicable, atrocious act that warrants the death penalty.

It is almost too much for me to read this news story, but I’ll leave you with this quote from the DA Seth Williams:

"There were bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses scattered throughout the building," Williams said. "There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose."

[Link]

Islam And The Left

Politics does make for curious bedfellows!

I don’t understand how liberals get into bed with Islamists. Just doesn’t make sense.

I speak specifically of the Leftist support for the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. On the surface, I can understand how they’d march lock-in-step with Muslims: the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that stuff and nonsense. OK, but what about the long-term consequences, the endgame if you will, of lending support to a movement which exists to violently resist, and extirpate the ideology, philosophy, and lifestyles of the Leftists? I keep wanting to scream: “Homosexuals get killed in Islamic societies, folks!” There’s no “Eve has two mummies” in Iran. One is forced to believe in a God at gunpoint, people! Your cherished separation of church and state? Piffle!

Not that I’m one to accuse the Left of understanding such common sense phenomena as long-term consequences or endgames, but even they can see this surely? The only fallback here for me is that these folks so despise the Judeo-Christian religiosity of mommy and daddy, they rebel right into the hands of those with cleverly-hidden knives in the robes. Once the Christians are gone, guess whose neck is on the cutting block?

If you bristle at the thought—unreal as it is--of Christians putting the kybosh on your lifestyle, you ain’t see nothing yet, and attempting to force a moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam (or for that matter, any other religion and Islam) simply because it angers your Christian neighbor is just pushing your head deeper in the sand.

They say they’re feminists, yet they support the Mosque. They say they cherish Homosexuals’ right to marriage, yet they support the Mosque. They say they support the separation of Church and State, yet they support the Mosque. They say they like freedom of speech, yet they support the Mosque.

Like I said, it just doesn’t make sense.

The World Cup

I am disappointed. Very.

The 2010 World Cup, the 19th, is now over with Spain as the victor. The tone of the Cup is exemplified by the fact that its ultimate winner got to the finals by scoring exactly 8 goals in 7 games. Ho hum.

To be fair, the better team won (in the second half of Extra Time no less) but that’s not saying much. The Dutch played like bruisers: they knew they couldn’t win so they came out swinging, ending up with almost 10 yellow cards and one red. The Beautiful Game, this was not. In fact, it bore all the calumny heaped on Soccer (by Americans) as boring, pointless, banal.

I’m not sure exactly what happened this year: Brazil played woefully lackluster football, France was a disgrace, past World Cup champions Italy were a no-show. Argentina showed some life but were quickly snuffed out and Germany burst out with some impressive scores only to limp out with a whimper. Things Fall Apart indeed.

And don’t get me started about the African teams.

Regardless, congratulations to Espana. Hold your first World Cup close, fondle it for the next four years when hopefully a better champion once again holds it shamelessly aloft.

Dumb PRKs

How many times must Free Market Capitalism be proven, one wonders: North Korea’s capitulation.

Dutch Marines

Pretty impressive display:

Rough translation -
The marine boarding team received orders to liberate the fifteen crewmen of the merchant Taipan, which was hijacked by ten pirates. The captain and crew of the German flagged Taipan had locked themselves in their safe room, from where they called for assistance.
The sensor-operator deploys the fast rope line while the team-leader provides covering fire with the MAG GPMG.
Note the 'landing zone' of the marines; enough cover to prevent hostile fire, yet not too much to obstruct cover fire. In that respect they were lucky that it was a containership, and not some bulk-cargo carrier.
Approaching the bridge, they detained six pirates hiding at the lower deck. The marines ordered the pirates to climb through the shot window. Two more pirates were found hiding at the aft deck, and subsequently arrested. A ninth was found on the deck above, and summoned to come down.
A three-man team secured the bridge, and from there they went through the rest of the ship. The marine team-leader further comments on the ravage the pirates caused in their search for valuables, which included shooting up doors and cabinets which were locked.
The weapons the pirates used ranged from handguns, AK-47s, and RPG-7s.
Once the ship was secured the Taipan’s crew came out and retook the ship.
The Somali pirates are now in Germany awaiting trial.

Chilling

“ … I am a Jew.  The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally.  For it or against it?

Muslim Students Association member: “For it.”

This exchange brought chills to my spine.

The Plan

“ … it would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president's entire national security strategy didn't depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger's crotch.

But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!

If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.”

Yep, pretty much.

Limping Elephant

Politically, I am no fan of Airbus Industries. There are so many things I don’t agree about the way this conglomeration of government-sponsored companies is run that I simply don’t have the time and space to devote for expansion. Suffice it to say Airbus sucks.

As a pilot, I don’t like Airbuses. I don’t like their design, their avionics, their control systems. Heck, I don’t even like the design of the side stick controller. I especially don’t like the Airbus A380. It’s a waddling oaf of an aircraft that looks like it was designed by a committee of European art school drop-outs—my smarminess doesn’t rule out the fact it probably was designed by European art school drop-outs. Next to the Boeing 747—known as the Queen of the Skies—the Airbus A380 is an arthritic elephant. It’s quite positively f-ugly!

Economically, Airbus have got a problem: no one’s buying this thing. And the few airlines that do have them in their fleets have reported some “problems,” to put it euphemistically. When the A380 first came into the news, I remember someone at Boeing dismissing it—as they naturally would—with the rather prophetic statement that Boeing had tried and failed to find an economically feasible super-jumbo even though they’d designed and built one in the past.

Now it seems Airbus is trying to dig itself out of this jumbo hole in which they’ve dug themselves.

DiCaprio’s C&C

Seems I’m not the only buster on the block with a penchant for chess and cigars:

The man’s stepped up a few rungs in my worthless estimation.

More pics. (Hat tip: The Grandmaster)

Vasily Smyslov

 

World chess champion, Vasily Smyslov, has gone to play chess with The Big Guy above. He was the seventh world champion, reigning from 1957-1958.

RIP.

Modern Parenting

Sounds like the name of an 80s band, doesn’t it?
In looking around the symbolic room, I have watched parents attempt to deconstruct millennia of parenting philosophy only to be shockingly reminded that, as the Bible says, there’s nothing new under the sun.
There is a proper way to raise children and now, capital ‘S’ Science seems to be providing some support for that ideology: NurtureShock is a book—reviewed by George Will—that debunks modern parenting’s unsavory love affair with ‘self-esteem,’ among others.
There are the Massachusetts school students who jump rope with no rope because, you laggard, how dare you damage their self-esteem when they trip on the jump rope!?!
It’s been proven over and again that self-esteem and accomplishment are not necessarily linked. A ready example is found in the so-called African American “community” where the swaggering young men are filled to the brim with bravado and self-esteem yet couldn’t spell bravado. Perhaps this is a bad example—some would argue the inability to spell bravado is a measure of how bad the “Man” keeps the black community down—but it’s not far off the mark, I wager.