Showing posts with label Accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Accountability. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Ed Henry Has Been Fired



Ed Henry was considered a "rising star" at Fox News which translates, loosely, into "a human being with hair who does not drool all over himself when lying to the audience." He has now been fired for sexual misconduct:

Fox News said Wednesday that Ed Henry, one of its top news anchors, has been fired after an investigation into an allegation was leveled by a former employee.

"On Thursday, June 25, we received a complaint about Ed Henry from a former employee's attorney involving willful sexual misconduct in the workplace years ago," Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and president Jay Wallace wrote in an internal memo.

The executives said that an outside law firm was immediately brought in to investigate the claims.
"‪Ed was suspended the same day and removed from his on-air responsibilities pending investigation," they said. "Based on investigative findings, Ed has been terminated."‬

Until last week, Henry was a rising star at Fox, responsible for co-anchoring three hours of morning news coverage on the network.
Henry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Fox News is probably budgeting thirty or forty million dollars in sexual harassment payouts per year right now, so this is proactive and defensive in nature.

How bad of a human being do you have to be to get fired by Fox News AFTER they cleaned house and fired a bunch of creeps in the aftermath of the whole Roger Ailes debacle? Henry had to have done something not just shocking but deviant in nature as well. Holy crap.

And yes, it is news when someone gets fired after working at an organization that was forced to pay out an untold amount of serious money because it tolerated a culture of rampant sexual misconduct. You would think that Henry would have dialed it back a bit but, no. Once an abuser, always an abuser.

The good news for Henry is that he can now join the Trump regime or its campaign and continue to do God's work on behalf of the conservative movement.

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Danny Masterson



Daniel Masterson was charged on Wednesday by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office with raping three women.

The alleged separate incidents occurred between 2001 and 2003, according to authorities.

The That '70s Show star was charged with three counts of rape by force or fear. The case was filed for warrant Tuesday, according to the district attorney's office. Masterson was arrested Wednesday at 11:30 a.m., according to jail records. His bond was set at $3.3 million. He bonded out at 2:44 p.m., according to jail records.

Masterson is accused of raping a 23-year-old woman between January and December 2001. The actor is alleged to have raped a 28-year-old woman in April 2003. And, sometime between October and December of 2003, according to authorities, the actor is accused of raping a 23-year-old woman who he had invited to his Hollywood Hills home.

The district attorney's office noted it declined to file sexual assault charges against Masterson in two other investigations, one due to insufficient evidence and the other based on the statute of limitations for the crime alleged.

In a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, Masterson's lawyer said his client was innocent.

“We’re confident that he will be exonerated when all the evidence finally comes to light and witnesses have the opportunity to testify," Tom Mesereau said. “Obviously, Mr. Masterson and his wife are in complete shock considering that these nearly 20-year old allegations are suddenly resulting in charges being filed, but they and their family are comforted knowing that ultimately the truth will come out. The people who know Mr. Masterson know his character and know the allegations to be false.”

Los Angeles police began investigating Masterson over sexual-assault claims in 2017.

There shouldn't even be a statute of limitations for rape, let alone a delay of this many years in getting to the truth. Masterson could have raped countless women in the time it took to get us from 2001 to today.

There was a lawsuit filed in 2019 and Masterson was accused of raping incapacitated or drugged women as well as repeatedly raping and abusing a former girlfriend. What stands out in this particular incident is that Masterson has been accused of being helped in his defense by the Church of Scientology.

Tuesday, March 3, 2020

A Reckoning for Timothy Hutton


Every horrible thing that has been done eventually comes back around and hits you in the face.

Hutton took off his clothes, got on top of her, Johnston said, and thrust himself inside her. She started to beg: “Please, don’t do this. I can’t do it. I can’t.” Johnston said Hutton told her that she would like it — and that his friend was going to watch. 
“It hurt like hell,” Johnston said. “I mean, it was very painful. God. Yeah, it was extremely painful. Horrible, horrible, absolutely horrible.” At one point, she said, Hutton went to get Vaseline as a lubricant. 
She said Hutton’s friend, who was standing next to the bed, put his erect penis into her mouth. 
“He got it in a couple of times,” Johnston said. “And I said, ‘You have to tell him that he can’t!’” Her mouth was full of train-track braces and rubber bands, she said. She started to cry. 
Johnston said Hutton told his friend, “‘She doesn’t like that,’ or whatever. Meanwhile, he finished raping me.” 
I don't know how any person could read that and not be horrified.

Yes, we do need to treat each and every one of these cases with a degree of skepticism but I don't think that leads us to a place where we should not believe women when they tell these stories. There should be a way to ensure that something like this can't keep happening.
One way to accomplish this would be for cops to actually make it so women can report being raped without being made to feel like criminals. If we're talking the entertainment industry, underage performers, and everything else, there should be a system that allows them to be protected and never exploited like this. So, separate from what happened here, we still need to make reforms and address the fact that women are often ignored or intimidated into silence.
In the years since that night, Johnston told BuzzFeed, that what happened “has colored every area of my life.”
Besides Hutton’s statement, his camp also released a statement from his defamation counsel, Tom Clare, who said he has sent BuzzFeed a legal retraction demand. He claimed that BuzzFeed, “facing serious financial struggles and pressure to attract readers, has shamefully disregarded the facts and allowed itself to be used by Ms. Johnston,” and also said the site “ignored hard evidence that Ms. Johnston lied about participating in extortion attempts and turned a blind eye to critical inconsistencies in Ms. Johnston’s story. 
“We will be sending BuzzFeed a legal retraction demand. If BuzzFeed wrongfully refuses to retract the article, Tim is prepared to take any and all necessary steps, including the filing of a defamation lawsuit, to clear his name and to hold BuzzFeed and Ms. Johnston accountable for their reckless and self-serving efforts to destroy Tim’s reputation and career.”

A spokesperson for BuzzFeed said the outlet stands by the piece: “BuzzFeed News’ reporting on the alleged rape of a 14 year-old girl by Timothy Hutton is based on interviews with the alleged victim, the account of a woman who was with her that evening, and five separate people who were told of the assault at the time. BuzzFeed News stands unequivocally by our reporting.”
God, what a mess. Now, what you need to watch for is for anyone else to come forward with a similar story. If a pattern emerges, what should be done?

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Lori Loughlin Has Figured Out How to Get Away With It


If you give someone enough time to wriggle out of trouble, that's exactly what they're going to do:
Lori Loughlin and her husband, Mossimo Giannulli, might have caught a big break in their college admissions bribery case. The two were first implicated when the scandal broke last year, alongside Felicity Huffman, and have been accused of bribing the University of Southern California with $500,000 to secure their daughters’ admission. (They pleaded not guilty.) But the couple’s defense claims that notes from the scam’s mastermind proves they believed the money they’d handed over was a legitimate donation.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Loughlin’s defense team said in a legal filing that the prosecution had provided notes from college admissions consultant Rick Singer, who pleaded guilty last March to orchestrating the scheme.

“Singer’s notes indicate that FBI agents yelled at him and instructed him to lie by saying that he told his clients who participated in the alleged ‘side door’ scheme that their payments were bribes, rather than legitimate donations that went to the schools,” the filing says, per People.
The filing also quotes Singer writing, “They continue to ask me to tell a fib and not restate what I told my clients as to where there [sic] money was going—to the program not the coach and that it was a donation and they want it to be a payment.”
You have to give Loughlin, her husband, and their legal team props for figuring out how to escape accountability. Their peers are going to prison, their own freedom is in jeopardy, and they knew that all they needed was time.

Monday, February 24, 2020

The Horror of This Man's Actions


I hope Harvey Weinstein is held accountable for every single heinous thing he ever did.
Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of rape and a felony sex crime Monday, marking a climactic end to a high-profile case that in some ways serves as vindication of the #MeToo movement.
Those two counts were connected to individual allegations made by Mimi Haley, a former Weinstein Co. production assistant, and Jessica Mann, a once-aspiring actress. Weinstein was acquitted on the two most serious charges of predatory sexual assault, which each carried a potential life sentence.

Weinstein, 69, appeared to be staring ahead while a half-dozen court officers surrounded him just after the verdict was delivered. The movie producer struggled to get up from his seat as he was handcuffed and escorted out of the courtroom.

Judge James Burke ordered Weinstein to be held in custody until his sentencing March 11.
It is a good thing that he is not free to live at home and continue out and about in public. As recently as October he was heckled at a comedy club. Now that he has had his due process, he should not be allowed in polite society ever again.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Susan Sarandon Cannot Admit She Was Wrong




At some point, the delusions kick in and a person doubles down on their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are about something:

A year after the presidential election that put Donald Trump in the Oval Office, Susan Sarandon said she is still harangued by the left for not supporting Hillary Clinton, whom she continues to call “very, very dangerous.”

Sarandon told The Guardian that although she hasn’t “exactly” said that Clinton is more dangerous in the long-run than Trump, she does believe that the former Secretary of State would have the country at war if she had won the election.

“I did think she was very, very dangerous,” Sarandon said. “We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much smoother.”

Sarandon will probably keep getting acting jobs, but this notion that she is some sort of "hero" to the left is over and done with. There is a fringe out there, and they will never vote for a Democrat, no matter what. Stop catering to them. They're crazy. They're never going to do the right thing and they're never going to admit they were wrong about something.
















Monday, March 7, 2016

Too Nasty For Newt Gingrich




The man who practically ushered in the era of the politics of personal destruction says that Mitt Romney is too much for him to stomach:

Newt Gingrich on Monday blasted Mitt Romney's speech denouncing Donald Trump as "vitriolic and nasty," calling it a sure indicator that the 2012 Republican nominee would never be accepted as a consensus party choice at a hypothetical contested convention this summer in Cleveland.


“I think if Mitt had really wanted to maneuver for the nomination, he wouldn’t have given the speech he gave last week," the former speaker of the House told "Fox and Friends." "Because that speech was so harsh and so intense that it virtually guaranteed that I think both for the Trump people but also for a lot of the Cruz people, that Romney would just plain be unacceptable."


The speech "may have been courageous on his part — it’s certainly what he, I think, believes," said Gingrich, who has made a series of recent complimentary remarks (and tweets) about Trump. "But it was such a vitriolic and nasty speech that it guaranteed that they guy who currently has the most votes and most momentum would never accept Romney as sort of the draft at the convention.”

Gingrich is operating under the assumption that he would be a good Vice President under Donald Trump. That's the job Chris Christie wants, too. Gingrich, however, is too poor--too much of a loser--to get the nod. Trump's pick for Vice President will be the only Republican who hasn't savaged him so far. That Republican's name is Senator Jeff Sessions.


(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Emasculation and Failure




This made me think of the really terrible place the Republicans are in right now:

Donald Trump responded to Mitt Romney’s speech Thursday during a rally in Maine, hitting the former Republican nominee by saying he would have gotten on his knees for the Trump endorsement back in 2012. “I am not a fan of Barack Obama and that was a race that I backed Mitt Romney, I backed him, you can see how loyal he is,” Trump said. “He was begging for my endorsement. I could have said, Mitt, drop to your knees, he would have dropped to his knees, he was begging. He was begging me.” At another point, he railed against Romney as a “choke artist” and said “chickened out” of running again in 2016.

There is no natural leader of the Republican Party anymore. Reagan is dead. Everyone else is a "loser" in that they have not successfully held the presidency and left things better than they found it. The legacy of both Bush presidents is that the first Bush was thrown out of office and the second Bush left things in horrible shape. This means they are not "winners" who could shout down Donald Trump's nonsense.

What? We're going to hear from Bob Dole? Dan Quayle? We've heard from Sarah Palin and she has endorsed Trump because to incur his wrath would shatter what little fundraising she is still able to carry out. That leaves Paul Ryan and Dick Cheney--who would listen to them?

In fact, Dick Cheney's silence speaks volumes. He has never been shy about criticizing President Obama. And yet, he has largely remained outside of the current race, unable to say anything because, well, when you leave office with everything in ruins, you can't very well claim you are a winner.

Trump is blossoming in this environment. He has already slain John McCain. Now he can take Mitt Romney to task for being a loser. And there's no one left to shout him down because they are all "losers."

This line of attack will appear again. Trump has handed politicians in both parties vast sums of money. This makes it easy for him to label them and denigrate them. He will not hesitate to emasculate any male politician who has taken his money; he will not hesitate to berate Hillary Clinton when she takes the gloves off.



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Barking at the Moon






North Korea put inoperative junk in the skies above us and started celebrating like there is no tomorrow:

Yoon Dong Hyun, vice director of the Ministry of the People's Armed Forces, struck a defiant note in a speech at the celebrations, vowing the country would continue developing its aerospace technology in the face of international sanctions. Efforts by other countries to block such an advance were "nothing more than a puppy barking towards the moon," he said.

Sanctions will have no effect. Perhaps someone could figure out a way to stop them from launching dangerous pieces of trash into space? Perhaps someone could deliver a fairly serious warning to stop this nonsense? I suspect the answer is, no. We will tolerate this infantile behavior and go back to ignoring the whims of this regime.



//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});


//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Nothing Sexist About This Remark, Is There?




Oh, heavens. A woman forgot to stop and think about how offended John Podhoretz would feel if she spoke in public like she cared about this country. I'm surprised he doesn't have a quick backhand ready for such times as these.

Add this to the pile. Podhoretz is a high-ranking nutcase. Maybe he doesn't write his own headlines. But he sure looks like the kind of fellow who isn't going to put up with lady talk he doesn't agree with.


//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Friday, January 8, 2016

Allen West Just Threatened the President of the United States




Read it for yourself:

We the American people have no other recourse than to resort to civil disobedience. We have no representatives in Washington DC who will stand and the Supreme Court has failed us as well.


You have embraced violent protest movements in America such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. We are not lowering ourselves to that despicable progressive socialist “rules for radicals” model.


We, the people, are just telling you “No.” We will now be sending you emails and social media posts as well as calling OUR White House to say one word, “No.”
And if you persist and take the same course of action as Xerxes, we will give you a two-word response, Molon Labe.


This is your final year as president of the United States so let us come to an agreement: you leave us alone and we, the American people, will let you stay and finish your term.

That's a clear threat. It's impossible to miss the implied threat contained in that statement. And while it is typical of the overheated rhetoric around guns and gun control, it's amazing to read such things from a man who served in the United States Congress. This is not just some nut with a website. This is a man collecting a pension from military service and his term in office. He's as far on the teat as you can get and he still says such things? Wow.

I think the Army should call him back to active duty and review these statements. West should be subjected to UCMJ action. And, as if this needs to be said, he is mentally ill if this is what he truly believes. I suspect that, once questioned, West would plead innocence and claim it was all being done in order to raise funds or something along those lines.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

You Should be Able to Refinance Your Student Loan Debt




It took me a while to figure this out, so bear with me. Megan McArdle tries to pooh-pooh a very good question asked by Bernie Sanders:

The day after Christmas, Bernie Sanders asked a question on Twitter: “You have families out there paying 6, 8, 10 percent on student debt but you can refinance your homes at 3 percent. What sense is that?”


Finance types may snicker. But I’ve seen this question asked fairly often, and it seems worth answering, respectfully, for people whose expertise and interest lie outside the realm of economics.


The short answer is: “Loans are not priced in real life the way they are in Sunday School stories.” In a Sunday School story, the cheapest loans would go to the nicest people with the noblest use for the money: single mothers who need money to buy their kids a Christmas present, say.

That’s splendid for the recipient. But what about the lender? Let’s say you had $150 that you really needed to have at the end of the month, say to pay your rent. Would you want to lend it to the single mother whose income is stretched so tight that she needs to borrow money for Christmas presents, or would you want to lend it to some heartless leech of a securities litigator with an 800 credit rating who happens to have left his wallet at home? C’mon. You know the answer; you just don’t want to say it. If you really need the money -- if you cannot afford to turn your loan into a gift -- then you lend it to the better credit risk with the higher income, not the person who may find themselves too short to pay you when the loan comes due.


In aggregate, most of the money in your savings account is loaned out using this cold calculus, and unless you could afford to have that contents of that account suddenly vanish, you want it to be. That’s why poor people, on top of all the other unfairness heaped upon them, pay higher interest rates. And that is why secured loans, like mortgages, get lower interest rates than unsecured loans, like credit card balances and student loans.


Student loans are two-for-one in terms of risk: They are frequently made to people with no income, no credit history, and somewhat imperfect prospects; and they carry no guarantee of payment other than the borrower’s signature. If someone fails to pay their auto loan, you can take their car away. This ensures repayment in two ways: first, you can auction the car and recover some of the money that you lent out; and second, people need their car, and will scrimp on other things in order to keep it from losing it. The immediate personal costs of failing to pay your student loans, on the other hand, are pretty minimal, and people are going to take that into account when they decide whether to pay you or the auto finance company. That’s why the government has to guarantee these loans; the low-fixed-rate, take-any-course-of-study-you-want-at-any-accredited-institution, interest-deferred-in-school is probably not a financial product that would exist in the wild.


Secured loans have thus always carried lower interest rates than unsecured loans, and will do so until the heat death of the universe renders moot such questions.

And so on, and so forth. McArdle tries to demonstrate competence and knowledge here, but let's go back to the question that kicked off this discussion:

Bernie Sanders asked a question on Twitter: “You have families out there paying 6, 8, 10 percent on student debt but you can refinance your homes at 3 percent. What sense is that?”


Let's ignore McArdle and really answer the question. Let's say a family, who refinances their home, takes a look at their student debt and makes an honest effort to refinance that debt. They can't! And that's why the question needs to be answered from the viewpoint of a family with student loan debt as opposed to a recently graduated student with student loan debt.





McArdle is basically right about why a student who just gets out of college is charged a higher interest rate--they're a riskier proposition. But the family, with their home as an asset, is a much lower risk. Why wouldn't you allow them to use their home as collateral so that they could refinance their existing student loan debt?





That's the part that makes no sense. You have two people who are married and, if they're at a point where they own a home and refinance it, let's say they're also ten years into the thirty year process of paying back their student loans. They've been making ten years of payments on that debt at 7 or 8 percent while their home is financed at 3 percent. You could say that the only reason why they own their own home is because of the degrees they earned. 





As a condition of refinancing their student loan debt, you could minimize the risk and reduce the interest rate on their student loan debt by using the equity in their home as collateral. You're telling me that someone who has paid off a third of their mortgage is the same risk as a kid just out of college? Hell, no. They're a damned good risk and they deserve an interest rate cut. That would mean huge savings for the family and bring them greater financial stability in the long run, making it more likely that not only would they pay back their mortgage but that they would pay back their student loan debt.





And wouldn't that help bring down interest rates? Or am I being an idiot on purpose?





These are the kinds of scenarios that Sanders is really pushing--common sense changes to how we do things so that Americans can get out from under crushing levels of debt. And no one currently self-identifying as a Republican would even dream of such a thing--it runs against the economic self-interest of their primary voters as well as their donors.

Tell the Libtards that Obama Still Sucks




Jobs? What jobs?

Look, here's how the modern American economy works. If a Republican is in office, the deficit doesn't matter.

If a Democrat is in office, the deficit is the ONLY thing that matters.

Here's proof, via Paul Krugman, that Obama has been a far better president than we're being told.





It's hard to argue with the proof at hand, but that's all they have--an argument. The fact that it doesn't hold water is a feature, not a bug.

Friday, November 6, 2015

Ben Carson Can't Defend the Book He Wrote




Ben Carson wrote about things in his book that no one can verify or prove:

Ben Carson slammed CNN's reporting into his past as a "bunch of lies" in a combative interview on Friday, strengthening his defense of his violent past that the media have thus far been unable to corroborate.


"This is a bunch of lies, that is what it is," Carson said on CNN's "New Day" when Alisyn Camerota asked about the report by Scott Glover and Maeve Reston in which they spoke to people Carson grew up with. "This is a bunch of lies attempting to say I'm lying about my history, I think it's pathetic, and basically what the media does is they try to get you distracted."


Camerota pushed back on Carson's argument that the reporters on the story did not talk to people who knew him earlier than high school, but Carson rejected that and launched into an aggressive attack on the media. He also accused the media of not doing the same with Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama.


"The vetting that you all did with President Obama doesn't even come close, doesn't even come close to what you guys are trying to do in my case, and you're just going to keep going back, 'He said this 12 years ago' -- it is just garbage," Carson said. "Give me a break."

 Basically, Carson believes that anyone who tries to corroborate anything he's ever written is a liar. That's a pretty good indication that virtually anyone can now run for President and any attempt to perform a perfunctory background check on them will elicit howls of outrage.

They didn't write the lies. He did. And it's their fault for catching him. Unbelievable.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Racism is Insane







I like what Paul Krugman is getting at here:






“It has been disheartening to see some commentators still writing as if poverty were simply a matter of values, as if the poor just mysteriously make bad choices and all would be well if they adopted middle-class values. Maybe, just maybe, that was a sustainable argument four decades ago, but at this point it should be obvious that middle-class values only flourish in an economy that offers middle-class jobs.”

— The New York Times, Paul Krugman





It's nearly impossible for anyone to end up in a middle-class lifestyle when the city in which they live has been systematically dismantled in favor of tourism and suburban expansion. And that is what defines Baltimore--there's plenty to do downtown, but don't even think about living inside of the Baltimore beltway. 


For me, it comes down to tolerating a level of racism that isn't going to be sustainable anymore. There are plenty of poor whites in Baltimore, as well as a host of other ethnic groups. Their plight--and the plight of the African-American community--can be laid at the door of the idea that Baltimore can function as a downtown tourist trap with a great retail and eating district by the waterfront and nothing else. It's a city with tremendous potential that made terrible choices decades ago. 


For me, it begins with the idea that we should stop thinking poor people are the problem. They're the result of bad policies and not values or choices.


Couple all that with the crippling war on drugs and the dismantling of the police department, and you have what you have today--a dysfunctional city with enormous potential. Someone has to run the city in the right direction. Someone has to find a way to police the city without terrorizing the people being served. Someone has to run towards building middle-class jobs in areas that are falling apart. Some measure of political compromise and pragmatism is needed, but how are you going to convince people to stop feeding off of the enormous carcass that is the spoils system?


How do you get people to abandon the insanity of racism and embrace doing the right thing for the greater good? How do you reconcile deal making with solving problems for everyone?


Someone legitimate to the governing of Baltimore--and that means someone who isn't walking around with a billion dollars or a host of bought-and-paid-for lackeys--has to step up. There's a real moment here where people who haven't been hitting it out of the park have to find the strength to go long. It doesn't matter what they look like. But someone has to step up and do the job of fixing the city without ramming cash into their pants.


The media will try to destroy them of course. After all, that makes for a better story.


Thursday, April 2, 2015

Nice Try, Asshole


Note the title of Kevin Williamson's attempt to defend the bigotry laws of Indiana. And, also note that he gets everything wrong right away:

There are three problems with rewarding those who use accusations of bigotry as a political cudgel. First, those who seek to protect religious liberties are not bigots, and going along with false accusations that they are makes one a party to a lie. Second, it is an excellent way to lose political contests, since there is almost nothing — up to and including requiring algebra classes — that the Left will not denounce as bigotry. Third, and related, it encourages those who cynically deploy accusations of bigotry for their own political ends.

So, the left uses bigotry, correct? Well, why do Republicans use national security in exactly the same manner to bludgeon their opponents into submission?

No one declared war on the private mind or the private beliefs of the people of Indiana. War was declared on the very public and commercial use of denying basic services to people based on their sexual orientation. This became an issue because Indiana law attempted to deny basic services to people based on sexual orientation in exactly the same manner as was done to people of color forty years ago (which the National Review defended as a matter of course in the 1960s).

No one is telling people what to think. They are being politely reminded that discrimination is anti-American and against the American way of life.

Can someone tell me what the fuck is he on about with regards to algebra? I am afraid the poor man is shivering in his own cloak of ignorance, afraid of his own shadow, and desperately hoping old William F. Buckley will show up and denounce that queer Gore Vidal.

You see, it's against the law to discriminate against people. Case closed, motherfuckers. Case closed.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Archived Strictly for Satirical Purposes




Unsexed males possess no self awareness. This HAS to be satire. There is no other explanation.


Until recently, I had never read any of the original “gamers are dead” articles, assuming they would contain nothing but the standard leftist drivel to which we’ve become accustomed. The only likely outcome of reading them would be an increase in my blood pressure. Then, while watching a video about GamerGate, I clicked on a link to an archive of one of the original articles, “A Guide To Ending Gamers” by Devin Wilson at Gamasutra.


Full disclosure: I am far from a hardcore gamer. I play Magic The Gathering and Minecraft, and am a recovering WoW addict. As a kid, I played Wolfenstein, Doom, and Mario Brothers. In college it was Duke Nukem and Unreal Tournament. I’m a casual gamer who occasionally goes nuts with a particular game, but I don’t spend a lot of time thinking or reading about games. So I hadn’t even heard of Kotaku or Gamasutra before August 2014.


I happened to be on Reddit on the day of the original Quinn event and saw the threads full of deleted comments. As I learned more about what was happening, I began to nurture the hope that what I’d been waiting for was finally happening: the men of my generation were waking up. My interest in and support of GamerGate comes primarily from two sources:


  • My absolute disdain for all things Politically Correct

  • My rejection of the gradual, deliberate process of feminization Western society has been undergoing since the second half of the 20th century.



I want to protect gaming because of what it represents as because of the entertainment value I get out of it.


Games Are Fun



In any case, I was scrolling down through the article’s list of strategies for eliminating gamers, trying to keep an open mind, and actually thinking there were one or two somewhat valid points. Then I got to item #11:



We stop upholding “fun” as the universal, ultimate criterion for a game’s relevance. It’s a meaningless ideal at best and a poisonous priority at worst. Fun is a neurological trick. Plenty of categorically unhealthy things are “fun”. Let’s try for something more. Many of the alternatives will have similarly fuzzy definitions, but let’s aspire to qualities like “edifying”, “healing”, “pro-social”, or even “enlightening”. I encourage you to decide upon your own alternatives to “fun” in games (while avoiding terms like “cool” and “awesome” and any other word that simply caters to existing, unexamined biases).



That paragraph represents everything that is wrong with social justice thinking in less than 100 words.


Madness Is Real



What this person is saying is that “fun” is not an essential element of a “game”. Not only is it not necessary, it’s either a “meaningless ideal” or a “poisonous priority”. Poisonous, one assumes, because of the unfortunate fact that focusing development effort on creating a fun experience takes away from time spent making it “edifying”.


There are two likely explanations for how an otherwise intelligent, educated person could reach a conclusion so off-base, so fundamentally lacking in anything resembling validity, that it’s difficult to even describe it as wrong:


The Charitable Explanation: Operating almost entirely in a world of abstractions, as academics often do, it’s easy to get so removed from the reality on the ground that you overlook critical details. This is the “absent-minded professor” image, and it offers the benefit of the doubt insofar as it assumes an absence of negative intent.


The Ideological Explanation: For the fanatic, the goals of the revolution are all that matter. The end justifies the means; the importance of making the vision a reality warps the decision-making process and critical thinking faculties of even the most brilliant minds. Essential details are overlooked because they are obscured by emotions, desires, and rote imperatives. This yields the phenomenon we know of as “doublethink” or “cognitive dissonance”.


I don’t know what was going on in the mind of Mr. Wilson; I know which explanation I think is the most likely, but to be honest, in many ways it doesn’t matter. Either leftists like Devin are living in a dream world that causes them to ignore reality, or they ignore reality in order to bring their dream world into being.


Boys Will Be Boys



The most obvious flaw, alluded to earlier, in this reasoning is that video games will no longer exist as a medium in which to promote social good if they are not fun: no matter how well-designed for this purpose, their “healing” powers will go to waste because no one will play them. Leftists appear not to grasp this basic truth because they believe, or behave exactly as though they believed, that people can be programmed like a computer, with each program operating unaffected by the others. They start from a snapshot of current activity in aggregate, try to stamp out elements they object to, and assume there will be no unintended consequences.


As we saw last century with the Soviet Union, this model, while based on shallow truths, has no durability in the real world. People can be convinced to keep working, fighting, and trading for a time if totalitarian authority is maintained through fear, information control, and other forms of manipulation. But there are always unintended consequences of social engineering and central planning that ignores local realities.


By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, it was littered with things like factories producing farm equipment that was worth less than its component parts, because not only did the end product not work, but the cost of salvaging the components was too high to be economical. This will be the result if we allow feminists and other peddlers of academic sanctimony to continue to interfere with the video game marketplace and turn it into a PC haven.


I believe this effect is intentional, and that the feminist campaign to destroy gaming is just one piece of a larger strategy to eliminate or co-opt masculinity in all its forms. Video games are one of the few media that cater more to male than female entertainment preferences: they are dominated by games involving sports, war, and fighting, and often contain images of the female body that appeal to male sexuality. A lot of young men and boys play video games, and they can be coarse, vulgar, and unwelcoming to outsiders.


I say: So what? “Boys will be boys” is now treated as something akin to a Satanic incantation, but it has the inconvenient and feminist-galling audacity of being true. Boys and girls compared to men and women are different—we have different tastes, needs, proclivities, and comfort zones. Video games manifest this basic truth, and are not, as leftists would like us to believe, based on arbitrary, socially constructed gender distinctions designed to give one half of the population advantages over the other half.


Man The Battlements



If you imagine the world of entertainment or leisure generally as a map, video games are one of the few geographic regions where boys are still allowed to be boys, and this is simply not tolerable to feminists. They look at that territory and see a dark black stain on the pink-tinted expanse of modern culture. Feminine sensibilities and political correctness dominate the traditional media, Hollywood, academia, and publishing, while video games serve a niche market that, though large in absolute numbers, impacts a far smaller percentage of the population than other media. In other words, they have us surrounded.


But what they—and most men—don’t appear to understand is that the only reason things have gotten this far is that we haven’t been fighting back. Men have spent 50 years meekly retreating, conceding cultural territory, and even defecting to the other side. It has taken a blatant, undisguised assault on some of the least-threatening members of the male population, people who mostly just want to enjoy their hobby in peace.


This is a test, and the answer is not to become an MRA so you can try to fight the feminists on their own well-fortified ground. The answer is to become a man in the traditional sense: self-sufficient, productive, ambitious, knowledgeable about the world you live in, and resistant to female emotional manipulation. Women who understand the benefits they get from living in a masculine environment will do what the majority of women do best: follow and support you, or get out of your way. The rest, alone, bitter, and without any offspring to indoctrinate as future feminists, will join their ideological fellow-travelers in the dustbin of history.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

America Will Never Be Rid of the Palins




When things like this happen, all you can do is wish the best for the lucky couple and imagine what the next few years are like, what with the death of irony and the elimination of self-respect from American political discourse.

The Palins are forever and you're just living in their world.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Leave People Alone


I know I am a jackass for saying this, but the best thing that a policeman can do is leave people alone.

If you're not breaking the law, you expect to be left alone. That moment of uncertainty when a policeman stops you or approaches you is stressful enough. There are times when you don't want to inadvertently scare people by introducing authority figures into their daily routine.

Really, free stuff is just not worth the aggravation. Leaving people alone is a priceless practice in modern American society.

Monday, March 2, 2015

Pat Robertson is Still Saying Weird Things


Did a day go by?

Check.

Did Pat Robertson get on television again by appearing on the network that he owns?

Check.

Did he say something designed to make liberals crazy that someone wrote for him because they are part of a massive conservative movement to troll everyone through the method of sticking nutty things in an old man's mouth because he can make them plausible enough to scare old ladies into sending him checks?

Check.

It's March 2, 2015. Korean War hero Pat Robertson is still bugfuck crazy and on the television network that he owns.