If you purchase our product, you cannot sue us for providing a bad product!
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/19
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/19
The lying Leftist octogenarian Perry Hood of Lewes Delaware, if he were honest, would be publicly cheerleading this effort.
Originally posted on askmarion:
By Matt Barber – WND: They were always deadly serious about criminalizing Christianity and killing free speech, but now the American left has stopped pretending otherwise. In a recent column titled, “Why Are They Called ‘Homofascists’? Here’s Why,” I wrote that “progressive,” “Christian-hating fascists” – but I repeat myself – are “hell-bent on criminalizing Christianity and pushing to the fringes anyone who publicly acknowledges natural human sexuality and the age-old, immutable institution of legitimate marriage as created by God.”
I was referring specifically to the left’s well-organized and highly disturbing character assassination of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for his private support of natural marriage. I was also addressing the larger goal of the American left to completely shut down free speech and freedom of religion, and to severely punish anyone who maintains both biblically and biologically correct views on human sexuality.
I closed with this:
“They smell blood…
View original 763 more words
Posted by DNW on 2014/03/25
The assault on classical liberal values by the postmodern values nihilists, that is to say by those who make up that political sub-population of solidarity pimps whom we generally identify as collectivist, takes various forms.
Just the other day we witnessed a judge in Michigan frantically sawing at his We-Are-The-World violin as he endorsed the idea of saddling society (that’s all of you) with the responsibility of recognizing (legally as jurors) and implicitly affirming (socially) what is essentially an exercise in nonsense.
At least judge Friedman felt some necessity of providing himself with constitutional cover, or at least constitutional allusions and “bases”, which would seem plausible enough to the morons most likely to take his Kumbayist exercise in Talmudic constitutional subterfuge seriously. He could not be too blatant. After all he was purportedly talking about “the law” even though he was pretty much making it up to suit as he went along on the one hand, while striking down actual exercises in popular self-government, on the other.
In the case of AOL however, we witness a different kind of approach entirely. This method expresses itself as a completely unapologetic take over of a system in a way that is much more open. It pretends to no real justification other than an expression of progressive will or taste; i.e. a raw assertion that it will be “the way we want it to be because that is the way we want it to be”
In the latter AOL case, it resolves much more clearly and immediately to a mere matter of competing tastes and wills. And those who own AOL feel free, and in fact legally are free, to impose their wills and tastes on their site as normative; no matter how objectively repugnant those views and “values” may be to non-nihilists.
It therefore boils down to a simple matter of those who do not like the ideological and cultural line AOL is nowadays peddling, being invited to shut up or go elsewhere; as the Huff-Po’s recent news story commentary rules make plain. It’s “Vote yes here, or vote yes there.” or be damned. And as the service costs nothing to users, I suppose it is fully worth what is paid by them.
Fair enough then it seems. It is a private enterprise.
Well almost fair enough, since it does not seem to be the belief of so-called progressives in general that the reciprocal of a contrary policy in some other venue would be equally “fair”, be that venue private or not.
Progressives, in their intolerance, almost appear to be assuming that certain objective and universal standards do in fact exist, and ought to be in universal operation because they are right in some cosmic sense. But by now we all know better than that, and that to imagine so would be to mistake the sound of progressive polling booth rhetoric for the reality of progressive aims, progressive world-shaping efforts and progressive schemes of programmatic domination.
As Richard Rorty admitted, what they want is, in the final analysis, just an expression of what they want and “value”; and as such they feel no obligation to grant to those whom they do not respect, who do not fit, or refuse to fit, as part of their progressive social circle of taste and urges, the same rights of political free speech, debate, and presumptive intellectual respect which were granted to them; and which thereby allowed them in the first place to work their way into the positions of social and political influence they presently enjoy.
Again, as political progressive and “ironist” philosopher Richard Rorty stated:
“The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire “American liberal establishment” is engaged in a conspiracy. Had they read Habermas, these people would say that the typical communication situation in American college classrooms is no more herrschaftsfrei [domination free] than that in the Hitler Youth camps.
These parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students….When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual ….The racist or fundamentalist parents of our students say that in a truly democratic society the students should not be forced to read books by such people—black people, Jewish people, homosexual people. They will protest that these books are being jammed down their children’s throats. I cannot see how to reply to this charge without saying something like “There are credentials for admission to our democratic society, credentials which we liberals have been making more stringent by doing our best to excommunicate racists, male chauvinists, homophobes, and the like. You have to be educated in order to be a citizen of our society, a participant in our conversation, someone with whom we can envisage merging our horizons. So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours.” Emphasis added(Hadn’t fully realized this quote was available on Edward Feser’s website even though I have become a semi-regular reader in the last two years. The Internet cite I previously used in earlier references to this quote has since disappeared from the Rorty’s Wikipedia entry, )
This then is what progressivism is about, and why progressives must seek to ever narrow the realm of the private. For the views and ideas they wish to eradicate, the metaphysical questions they wish to rule out of bounds or obsolete, the troublesome concepts of objective truth and reality they wish to eliminate, they wish to eradicate not just from public institutions but from “society” at large.
Just as “democracy” in communism comes to stand for “economic democracy”, which breaks down to the common ownership of all means of production; so too “democratic society” in progressive-speak comes to mean the complete progressive domination of all intellectual activity: Progressive totalitarianism; the social solidarity state, that is to say progressive fascism.
Now this posting probably constitutes at least the third time I have quoted this son-of-a-bitch Rorty on this passage, on this site. I have done so repeatedly because he, and it, epitomize what the traditional American who falls within the classical liberal tradition, is facing when he confronts the modern liberal organism, aka the politically progressive solidarity pimp. More Americans than ever before do of course recognize the fascist and totalitarian core to the progressive sociopolitical project.
Nonetheless, Rorty’s quote should probably be permanently emblazoned as a warning over every site where people who have some interest in genuine human political freedom gather.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/03/16
When someone says “I just realized something,” it’s invariably an intro to say something nobody is particularly interested in hearing.
“Just thought you’d like to know.”
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/03/02
How much more Conservative would Congress become?
Something to think about.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/02/28
It was 2006 and I finally got to say to myself “Self, you’re officially middle class.” 2007 and 2008 were incrementally better. Then Jan 2009 and I was practically destitute, surviving on food that family and neighbors delivered to my door. 2009-2011, I was non-working poor. 2012, I was working poor. 2013, I returned to trucking and, for the most part, quit working. (“If you love what you do, you’ll never have to work a day in your life.”) Early this week, I got a call from an accountant who works for the accounting firm I contract with. Among other things, he told me I had 7,500 dollars in my tax escrow account. Do you know how much revenue it takes to build that kind of tax escrow? Enough to put me back firmly into middle class. Barack Obama didn’t do that. Dingy Harry Reid didn’t do that. Richard Trumka didn’t do that. I did that. And you can, too. All it takes is a clean record, no DUIs in your past, and a desire to learn and put forth the effort. Basic stuff that was the norm just a few years ago.
I recently spoke to Dana over the phone and told him I will have spent 9 months with this truck as of today, and during that time I will have averaged over 20,000 miles per month. It will actually be a bit over 21,250 miles per month for the 9 month period.
A work ethic is all it takes. Not handouts from government (read stolen money from taxpayers who earned their money).
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/02/22
In case some of you missed it, I’ve returned to trucking for a career. Not only that, but I’m an Independent Contractor, having my own LLC and the first tractor in what I plan to be a fleet of tractors. I’m also a trainer. I take students who just got their CDLs and no experience and I teach them on the job, giving them a modicum of experience before they eventually head out on their own. To borrow a truism from the movies, training is like a box of chocolates: you never know what sort of student you’re going to get. Hoo boy, did I get a doozy recently. An out-and-out flaming Leftist. She didn’t last a week on my truck, but not because she was a Leftist, rather because– well, maybe it was because she was a Leftist. You’ll see soon.
So, as is my practice (to maximize my revenues and profits), I dropped off a student and picked one up immediately afterward. (Sometimes, one is trying to get his or her luggage into my truck while the other is still packing to leave.) This new student, let’s call her Sheila, enters my truck with – I kid you not – at least 250 pounds of luggage for a 30-day stay. I can roll with that because new drivers don’t know what they need. But I called her around 2PM to tell her I’d pick her up around 2AM, so she went out to Wal-Mart and rented a movie! She got on my truck telling me we had to stop at a Wal-Mart later that new day so she could drop the movie off. That’s what her boss had to do, my student demanded of me. I told her I knew of a few Wal-Marts I can take a truck to, but none on this route, besides which, the job was more important than a trip to Wallyworld.
After a couple hours driving, I pulled off and we both slept a while. Then was her turn to drive while I tried to teach her how to shift(!), how to pull out of an easy parking space without hitting anything, and whatever else a CDL-A holder should already know before getting on a real, working truck for the first time. Then her 11-hour shift ended and my abbreviated shift began (I had been awake her entire shift after getting 4 hours sleep). After about 3 or 4 hours of my driving, she declared she thought we were going to stop at Wallyworld so she could return her movie. I explained to her that I hadn’t said anything of the sort, but had rather strongly suggested the opposite. But to Sheila’s entitled little 50-year-old teen-aged mind, I had to stop because she demanded she needed to. Didn’t happen. What a shame the job came before her desires.
Then came a doozy. Sheila turned to me and said “Now don’t take this personally or as an attack, but you know how smokers never smoke in their homes? Well, I thought smokers never smoked in their trucks.” Smokers never smoke in their homes? Really? The vast majority of smokers do smoke in their homes. And why would the school give students a choice of smoker or non-smoker for a trainer if smokers didn’t smoke in their trucks? Not thinking logically, this Sheila, this wacko Leftist. She spent the next 4 days trying to get me to smoke e-cigarettes. Repeatedly. Continuously. Incessantly. She even went the relationship route in her attempts. Yeah, like that would ever fly. “You know we could be a couple if… I know you like your quiet. If you could just smoke e-cigarettes…” And I immediately cut her off. I declared “Never going to happen.” And that quiet thing? Heh. She never stopped talking. To herself, to me, to her toothbrush, to her glasses, to the truck, in her sleep, when I’m trying to get a 1-hour nap. Never stopped talking.
Then came the Loves card and the Pilot card, which give you points for every gallon of fuel purchased. Those points can be used like cash. Each point will reduce the cost of whatever you buy by a penny. They also give shower credits when enough fuel is purchased. And you can get a team shower, which is 2 people, 2 showers, 1 shower credit used. Sheila got mad because I wouldn’t let her use her cards to pump fuel into my truck and get points for herself. When I told her I paid for all the fuel going into my truck, and that those points were earned using my money, she was still mad. She was mad that the company charged my company for the fuel my truck ran (how unfair!) when she drove my truck and she was mad she still couldn’t get the points for spending my money.
We stopped at a Pilot and I handed her my Pilot card so she could get a shower (I was too tired after having too little sleep, then being awake for her driving shift and mine both.) and she came back from her shower declaring she would need my card again so she could get free internet! I told her it didn’t work that way since the truckstops have to pay for the internet. They only provide internet as a way of making a profit, not as a charity to people who work and earn a decent living. Sheila’s teen-aged 50-year-old entitled little mind couldn’t comprehend such a thing. It wasn’t fair.
We were parked and we had a little disagreement. I don’t remember what it was about. Job related, truck related, or my personal property related, one of the three. She told me, her boss and trainer, “Don’t worry about it!” to which I responded “Don’t tell me what not to worry about!” Under her breath, but forcefully, she declared “worrying is a sin.” And bathing in the blood of 55 million dead babies by voting for abortion advocates, including an infanticide advocate (Barack Obama) over Pro-Life supporters every time isn’t a sin? Constantly expecting/demanding freebies at someone else’s expense — and feeling entitled to them — isn’t a sin? Constantly violating Providence’s Tenth Commandment in thought, attitude, and deed isn’t a sin? (The rich pay less in taxes than the middle class. Upon seeing a country house in PA with more than one garage, demanding “how many garages do you need?”. And much more.)
She asked me a 7-word question and I almost immediately forgot what she asked because she spent the next 20 minutes (I kid you not) why it was not meant to offend, attack, accuse me of anything and it wasn’t personal. It was second nature for her to spend an inordinate amount of time proving she wasn’t trying to offend someone, most likely as I suggested and she admitted, because all her Leftist friends get offended at the drop of a hat. She would have gone longer in protesting her innocence had I not cut her off. And I don’t know what the question was.
It was a day or two after the shower brouhaha that I tried to explain how the shower credits work, and that I normally have to work the showers into my driving schedule since I normally don’t have all that free time. I explained all the free time was due to my need to sleep while the truck was stopped instead of my normal sleeping while the truck was moving. She needed my help more than my other students did. Sheila, like her Leftist friends, immediately took it personally and immediately commenced defending herself from a perceived attack. I tried explaining to her it was my job and I expect some of that from time to time. I tried explaining to her that I was only explaining how we had so much of that “my free time” as she called it instead of having to work showers into a tight schedule. But she couldn’t hear what I was saying. She was too busy defending herself for having taken a shower on “my free time, not your time”.
After 3 days, she had had enough. She called the training placement coordinator and explained she didn’t know smokers smoke where smokers smoke. We would be routed to the nearest school so she could wait in line for a new, non-smoking trainer. Sheila told me she wouldn’t let my Dispatch Manager know until after we got where we were going, thinking she was saving me some face or some rot. But I immediately messaged my DM about the plans and contacted another placement coordinator so I could line up a new student. Guess what Sheila thought? That’s right. She said “you’re in that much of a hurry to get rid of me? You’re that happy to see me off your truck?” Always personal with those Leftist types. Never once did it occur to her that my revenues and profits are maximized with students on my truck.
On the 4th day in the truck, she left. But not without more Leftist stupidity. Once again, Sheila fueled my truck. And once again, Sheila declared how unfair it was that she couldn’t get the points on her card for spending my money on my truck. She drove to Indianapolis, and around the outer belt. She saw a sign that said:
and declared “The world said I would never go to Fort Wayne, but here I am!” (Honey, there are 7,000,000,000 people in this world, and 6,999,999,000 of them don’t even know you exist. The other thousand? They don’t care enough to attack you like that, and with that nonsense.) I told her we weren’t in Ft Wayne and she said “Who’s raining on my parade? This guy!” What? Then she declared we were only 1 mile away, and I had to explain that, being in Indianapolis, we weren’t even close. The sign said I-69 going to Ft Wayne was 1 mile away. “Who’s raining on my parade? This guy!” Again, what?
As we approached the place where she’d be leaving my truck, she declared she wanted to take my cooler with her. I told her she could go to a truckstop and buy her own for 100 dollars. No, she declared, she didn’t want to buy her own. She wanted mine. Never going to happen. But she kept arguing the case, until I got fed up and raised my voice at her. Then she told me that was her way of saying she appreciated my letting her use it. By demanding that she get another freebie at someone else’s expense!?
So it could’ve been her flaming Leftism that made her leave my truck, but it was none of my doing. All on her.
Posted by DNW on 2014/02/18
“Make sure your first time is with Obama” girl, Lena Dunham, has been taking flack according to various news reports – which we have unsuccessfully tried to avoid – for a series of photographs appearing in some magazine or other, and which some people have claimed were adjusted in order to make her look … well, less like herself.
Now, it’s probably a fair point to say that none of us here have ever seen Ms Dunham in action anywhere other than in that contemptible Obama endorsement.
Nonetheless, most news readers do probably more or less know who she is; i.e., “That neurotic Democrat chick who parlayed a persona built on a facade of studied vulnerability overlying an innate obnoxiousness, into a career.”
Anyway, we won’t settle that issue now.
We merely reproduce here an image capture, so that readers may draw their own conclusions concerning the Photoshopping controversy.
Liberal Democrat female trying to look attractive? Photoshopped or not?
Posted by Yorkshire on 2014/01/01
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Posted by DNW on 2013/12/12
I’ve not thoroughly investigated this for the back story, but rather stumbled across it while dealing with another matter.
The proximate source for this was the always provocative Michael Voris of the Catholic site “Church Militant TV”, though it’s been floating around the Internet for almost a month now.
I first came across Voris himself when a militant atheist troll dedicated to disrupting philosopher Professor Edward Feser’s moderate realist oriented blog (Feser is himself a Catholic) , mockingly inserted a link to a Voris polemic as an example of a “Real Catholic”.
The mockery might have backfired on him since although no one could call me a “Catholic in Good Standing” I found Voris’ observations and plain spoken manner of argumentation almost always entertaining, and quite often acute.
Voris’ point was that the people in what he calls the Catholic “Church of Nice” consistently underestimate the vehemence of the anti-Christians.
And I must say, that this event certainly comes as a shock to me. I cannot imagine how it did not break out into violence. Someone spray paint into my face and I would probably kill them in instant retaliation. But then these young men, praying the rosary around the church they were protecting, come from both a different culture, a different religion, and a different spiritual sensibility, than I do.
I’m mortified at what they have endured, but for some reason not contemptuous of them as I would be for those who otherwise passively submit to assault, when they need not endure it.
I don’t know what is going on here. But I have never seen anything like it before.
Posted by DNW on 2013/11/21
It looks as though Vox Day is not the only one who finally had enough of neurotics waging their war for unconditional acceptance and compliance through means other than overt violence.
The “editor” of First Street Journal, a blog which has replaced a previously troll-destroyed blogging project of his known as “Common Sense Political Thought”, has finally pulled the plug on that emotionally disturbed New Zealand librarian and Internet provocation specialist who widely appears in comment boxes as “Phoenician in a Time of Romans”.
You know, this very troubled guy who described himself on his own blog in the following terms :
Congratulations, “Editor”. May your blog prosper and your readership increase. And may Phoenician in a Time of Romans find the psychiatric help he needs, and something more constructive to do with his time than wallowing in, and expecting others to tolerate and affirm the “value” of his obnoxious nihilism
Posted by DNW on 2013/10/17
Name this interesting, well-made, amazingly scenic, but thematically rough, and very adult movie.
The winner gets another Monica Vitti photo.
No, not really.
You don’t win anything. I just thought I’d post a couple of images of one of the more interesting movies I’ve seen in a while, thanks to DVD.
The movie is the black comedy, “In Bruges”.
And in Bruges, it’s set.
So, Yorkshire whose guess landed the next country over, would in fact get one point if this were horseshoes. But it’s not. So he doesn’t.
The plot centers on developments which take place as two hit men from England (one apparently Irish in origin) are sent to Bruges by their boss for reasons that are unclear to them. Are they there laying low after killing a priest back in England as part of their last job? Being rewarded with a touristy rest? Are they there, awaiting orders for a new job on the Continent?
The man they work for is the as yet unseen Harry Waters, a gangster boss, who despite his viciousness, is gradually revealed as having a kind of primitive honor-based moral code of his own, along with clear aspirations to bourgeois respectability.
We’ve seen that particular plot theme before of course: a ruthless mobster who attempts to live up to what few rules he does recognize.
In this movie it stands as a kind of intertwining but critical subplot, as the mobster in question, Harry Waters, is not the “focus on” protagonist, but rather constitutes for much of the film an off-screen presence of gradually increasing menace. He might make a classical antagonist if the true antagonist in this film were not of another kind entirely.
Remember your high school English classes? Man against man … man against nature, … and man against …
The gangster boss role of Harry Waters is particularly well inhabited by Ralph Fiennes, who when he does appear visually, imparts a personality and depth to the character (as do all the actors in this movie) which only adds to the emotional impact of events as they unfold. Despite yourself, you begin to care a bit about the fate of these characters.
Having watched the bonus tracks, this humanizing portrayal of people acting absurdly and even brutishly, was almost certainly intended by the director to produce just such an effect on the viewer. The actors in their “bonus material” interviews seemed to think so. And they repeatedly remark on what they perceive as the rare quality and sensibility of the script, when judged against other materials they’ve been offered.
This is not a film for everyone. As immune as I am to offhand vulgarity, this movie is notably filled to brimming with the kind of casually obscene blasphemy employed by morally lost characters, which can cause almost any listener to cringe.
The devout and sensitive might have a difficult time bracketing the verbal offenses as part of a necessary characterization process. The film makers themselves acknowledge the over-the-top nature of this aspect of the film, with an ironically intended bonus track of nothing but staccato cuts of verbal obscenity.
Speaking of bonus materials, because In Bruges was shot on location in Bruges, what you see on screen is for the most part where they really were, and what is actually there; the interior top of a certain bell tower, excepted.
There was apparently enough coverage of an early canal tourism scene for the director, or someone , to put together an oddly fascinating – almost mesmerizing – video trip along the canals for which the city is so famous.
The movie stars Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell, and Ralph Fiennes, and features Thekla Reuten as the tourist hotel owner and manager. [It was Reuten's picture in another role that I linked to in Dana's, First Street Journal blog entry on women with guns. That image was taken from George Clooney's movie about an American hit man working in Europe.]
One of the more amusing exchanges in the movie occurs when a mot juste obsessed Russian gun dealer offers Harry Waters some hollow point rounds for his gun.
“Would you like some dumdums? You know this word ‘dumdums’? The bullets that make the head explode?”
Waters’ response is, “Well I know I shouldn’t, but … ” as if he is being offered some tempting chocolate covered cherries.
Picking out a few at first, he ends up taking the box.