Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for October, 2013

Liberals and rape, and the integrity of the person

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/29

Before I forget: Another reference to a conversation with the mail lady.

Make sure you use the Post office!

Make sure you use the Post office!



Concerning liberals, and rape,  and what they – or some of them – really believe about the integrity and inviolability of the human person.

I might have mentioned before that we have this rather outspoken mail carrier. She’s generally cheerful, very left-liberal, not shy about saying so,  and armed with all the usual talking points you would expect from someone for whom progressive media sources constitute the information gold standard.

Though it escapes me at the moment how the topic of the exploitation of women came up, it did. Or rather she brought it up.

Probably something about the abuse and physical exploitation which females are commonly acknowledged to suffer in the so-called third world.

I agreed with her by and large. I said so. In fact I went further. I said that rape should be absolutely intolerable. I said that it constituted a crime beyond the pale. “Yes!” she exclaimed.

“You have an absolute and inviolable moral right to your physical integrity,” I said.

“Absolutely! ” she said. “And,” she added, ” many people expect these women to bear the child of a man who has beaten and degraded them! You can’t expect a woman to allow that monster’s offspring to grow in her womb, can you?”

“You have an absolute right to your own body then? We agree on that?” I asked.


“I’m glad you feel that way” I said. “Would you agree that rape should be a capital crime?”

“Oh, our justice system …” she began.

“Well hypothetically then, in a case where there was a brutal physical attack, a forcible act, …”

“There’s always doubt” she said “look at the cases where …”

“Ok, let’s limit ourselves to the question as to whether you believe that you would have the moral right to kill – a justification – in order to stop an ongoing act of violent rape being perpetrated on yourself, if: a, it was the only way to stop it, and b, you had the means, to assuredly do so.”

“If my kids were …”, she started.

“I’m not talking about your kids.”

“Well, do you mean, later?”

“Stop!” I said.  “Forget any scenario involving the legal system and mistaken identities. Forget about after the fact self-help acted out in cold blood, if that is what is also disturbing you.  “I’m asking you, you personally, as a “progressive female” if you would use lethal force on a brutalizing rapist in process, if that was the only way to get him to cease, and if you were sure to be successful in doing so. Hell, and assume it’s lawful to do so, if that helps you to come up with an answer”

“Uh, well, uh …  wellllll, uh I have to think about that. I’ll get back with you later.” she said as she sidled out the door.

Virtually identical to the words she used the last time we had this kind of a conversation. That now makes two of those “I’ll get back with you later”s she’s never gotten back with me on.

Leftists, do have different interpersonal boundaries. And for all their shrillness and squawking about domination and violation and exploitation, they, some of them, seem to think that the last thing they should be required to do, is to take an absolute stand on the only absolute locus of self which they have.

What integrity then, is it that they are trying to preserve, if they will not preserve their own?

And if they will not preserve their own if they can, why should anyone else take the care and trouble to do so for them?



Credit: The image of the two postal workers is from Ilana Cohn’s “thefunclub” parody of a USPS public service announcement featuring Tonya and CiCi, found on Cohn’s YouTube channel. It’s a bit rough for a family style blog, so I won’t link directly. Depending on your sensibilities, it might be said to be hilarious.

Posted in Character, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility | 6 Comments »

ObamaCare: But … I didn’t think it would be like this

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/28

Come my Children.

You who are weary of the burden of the self. You who would be free of the burdens of striving and worry.

I demand only one thing.

And that is everything.

Health Care for All

Health Care for All

“But how come I can’t keep my old insurance like you promised!???”

Tiberius as often as he left the Senate-House used to exclaim in Greek, “How ready these men are to be slaves.” Clearly, even he, with his dislike of public freedom, was disgusted at the abject abasement of his creatures …

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Constitution Shredded, Health Care, Humor - For Some, Personal Responsibility, Socialists, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Will Obama Do a Wag the Dog WMD?

Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/10/23

This question hit me last night during Leno’s Monologue. With ObamaCare sinking faster than Whale Shit in the Mariannas Trench will BO do a Wag The Dog WMD. That is will he set off a WEAPON OF MASS DISTRACTION to divert our attention? We know he’s done it before, but the bigger mess needs a BIGGER DISCTRACTION. It’s just a question that nagged me all night! Inquiring minds want to know. (The old banner for the National Inquirer)

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE | Comments Off on Will Obama Do a Wag the Dog WMD?

Name this movie

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.



Yeah, yeah, "nooks and crannies" this might be better ...

Yeah, yeah, “nooks and crannies” this might be better …

Eric means no harm Mr. Waters. He's on your side.

Eric means no harm Mr. Waters. He’s on your side.

I didn't ask you to be his psychologist

I didn’t ask you to be his psychologist

It's about your friend

It’s about your friend


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.

Posted in Entertainment, Humor - For Some, Movie Reviews, Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

We don’t talk to each other!

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/16

No need to go into the details. The hand wringers of the mainstream left accuse conservatives of not reading or communicating with them.

How would they know?

You access a “mainstream” Internet news site. You read some article published on, say, the Huff Post or Yahoo.

Comments are invited.

The article or opinion is the usual lefty crap. You think you might very politely let them know where they have fallen into error.

Leave comment . OK

Send. OK

Sign in first please. Huh? OK.

Register first please. Ah … well, OK

Then: Sorry, administrative trouble, try back later.

In the meantime the string of self-congratulating liberal pseudo-intellectuals grows ever longer.

“I’m not interested in this dog and pony show” you tell yourself.

“There is no point in even bothering” you say.

“But someone ought to set them straight on a certain matter of fact.”

Against your better judgement you persist. Register. Sign in. Write. Send. Oops! You encounter this:

It's not like we want to monitor and record everything

It’s not like we want to monitor and record everything

And the left complains about the chilling of communication and  “free speech” … [This is where you say “Har dee har har!” in your best braying snort]

That’s why blogs like this exist; in part because the left just isn’t worth the trouble it takes to even try and talk with them.


Commenter AOTC annoyed at the activities of the shameless Alan Grayson, has observed that she imagines that he might look like a notorious and casual liar whose commenting privileges we had to suspend and whose person we had to ban from this site.

This is probably something many wonder about or would comment on: whether the fact that X looks like Y possibly means anything in moral terms. We would cite Chris Matthews as a prime instance of this line of thinking.

Though, I would say, Matthews went a  bit over the top with his remarks regarding conservatives rallying around those menacing ultra-male politicians with the “black Irish” kinds of looks which Chrissy finds so alarming in Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz.

The late of comment and now unlamented non-presence Perry Hood, seems to think in the same vein. He wants to hang Joe McCarthy around Ted Cruz’ neck on the basis of a supposed  physical resemblance.

But then, as with so much else involving the old Gap Bridger’s work, it’s difficult to sort out what might be the fellow traveler’s own ideas and work from what it is that he has just received in his email  in box “for immediate publication” from Kos Central.

Wherever it is that this Matthews-Hood guilt by phenotype meme actually originates, I don’t necessarily buy into it; and I certainly would not morally indict anyone on the basis of their looks.

But if following Matthew’s lead for fun I were to look for resemblances among morally suspect persons, and Grayson were the standard of comparison, then, as far as looks go, I find the following comparisons as or more likely than Cruz/McCarthy.


Alan Grayson, propagandist

Alan Grayson, propagandist

With this, for example …

Martin Borman

Martin Borman


Not, we should make clear, that their both sharing piggish features means that they also share exactly the same totalitarian/collectivist ideologies.

One, Martin Borman was a notorious national socialist from Germany, while the other, now of Florida is apparently a different sub-type of left-fascist.  As grounds for this latter characterization, I think that we can confidently cite Grayson’s support of the individual mandate as clearly defining his ideological stance when it comes to “bundled” responsibility.  A Sozialstaat man, obviously; and he looks it.



Here’s another fellow of their stripe for comparison’s sake …
























Hmm. Does give you some pause to wonder, doesn’t it …

Posted in Humor - For Some, politics, stereotype, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Perry Hood From Lewes Delaware Still Banned

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/10/15

in all his sock-puppets from TBD, as he has been banned from here for more than 2 years. Other authors may permit the lying dirtball to comment if they so choose to temporarily waive the ban for their particular articles if they so desire.

But that doesn’t change the fact he is liefully using a sock to get around the banning software.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Road Report

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/12

Most will have noticed that the founder and owner of this blog has been absent for awhile now, and that a couple of us, his blog associates that is, have filled in with a posting here or there.

Not with the deeply researched, time consuming, political data point blogging that he tended to engage in, but with somewhat more abstract or even frivolous posts.

I’m pleased to say that in some cases our new postings have generated almost half the interest his old postings on “clouds” still clock up.

Ahem, well …

But, like a number of conservatives I know, his long-term personal unselfishness was getting in the way of his realizing his own ambitions.

That’s a challenge of course, which liberals seldom face. Their trick is to have others labor to do good, while skimming the proceeds as directors, thus fattening their wallets while simultaneously lightening their pseudo-consciences.

The reason for his recent absence is that our conservative friend decided that it was long overdue for him to grant himself some well justified “me time” in a serious economic sense.

He decided to return to the trucking business for awhile. This is a project which in order for him to reach his goals would obviously require a single-mindedness and dedication which would leave little time for blogging efforts; especially in the manner he was operating.

Moving ahead

Moving ahead

The upshot is that John has now reported back that he’s been a busy entrepreneur these last several months, taking names and kicking … uh tires … and making real progress in building up his trucking business. He and his trainees, have logged an astonishing number of miles, and it seems as though he’s not far from making some additional capital expenditures which will expand his once fledgling enterprise significantly.

We might soon have a gen-u-wine tycoon on our hands.

Detail Update

” John Hitchcock
Tuesday, 15 October 2013 at 17:22

By the way, this past week was a banner week for my company …

Congratulations John, and keep up the good work. Success and economic power in others is the one thing, unfortunately, that grasping liberals respect; or better said, FEAR.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Personal Responsibility | 6 Comments »

This is not a laughing matter

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/11

Or a deliberate joke.

The image immediately below, despite what you may think, is not a Photoshop prank. At least as far as I can determine.

It’s been on many news sites, and I don’t think news organizations would deliberately do artificially, what it appears nature has done on its own, just in order to mock a conscienceless criminal.


It's just that my body is outsized not that my brain is so little

It’s just that my body is outsized not that my brain is so little


That image, now displayed above, is a seemingly authentic photo of the felon who was running a criminal conspiracy in the city of Detroit; frantically pillaging it as it sank further into ruin with his vaunted “Pay to Play” city contract program.  That person would be his gargantuousness, the ex and self-styled “Hip Hop” and “anointed by God” Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Whateverhismiddlenameis Kilpatrick.


Now, this is an obvious Photoshop style joke of one of Kwame’s friends and admirers.

Do you like my haircut?

Do you like my haircut?



While this image below, is an obvious cartoon, and merely reminiscent of the real image at the top.


A cartoon pinhead

A cartoon pinhead


This isn’t to say that his Hip Hopness was without friends in high places.

Just friends, lovers no more ...

Just friends, lovers no more …


“I want uh, I want to first of all acknowledge your great mayor Kwame Kilpatrick; who has been on the front lines …[applause] … has been on the front lines doing an outstanding job uh .. gathering together the leadership at every level in Detroit uh to bring about the kind of renaissance that all of us anticipate .. uh .. for this great city and uh he is a leader not just here in Detroit, not just in Michigan, but all across the country people look to him. Uh we know that he is going to be doing astounding things for many years to come … uh it’s … I’m grateful to call him a friend and a colleague, and uh I’m looking forward to a lengthy collaboration in terms of making sure Detroit does well in the future …” The Prez.


Mr. Kilpatrick got a prison sentence of 28 years for his latest conviction.

Many are already taking bets as to when Obama will pardon him.

Got a guess?


Oh here is another image of a politically active lefty.

Since I did a double-take at  one guy’s head, and another guy’s hair, you might expect I’d mock this guy’s looks too.

But that would be too cruel. After all, we have standards on this blog which are extended, and prevent unnecessary cruelty, even to morally deconstructed appetite entities like modern liberals. Well, at least the Christians writing on this blog do. I have not yet decided whether I am going to join them, or not.

Hi. My Name is Frank. I'm a Liberal.

Hi. My Name is Frank. I’m a Liberal.


And quit staring at his nose.

It’s rude, and has nothing to do with why he became a liberal.

Posted in Character, Liberal, media, Obama, politics, We Won't Miss You | 1 Comment »

Mr. Pico wrote:…

Posted by Foxfier on 2013/10/11

Mr. Pico wrote:
this is just stupid, how can you be legally dead when you’re not. really awful.

in the former times, when people were still idiots and believed in witches and god they wouldn’t even have done this.

i’m just glad most people who react here are really not very intelligent.

can someone please repeat this comment for me:
“he can still vote democrat” hahaha
“he doesn’t have to pay for Obamacare” hahaha, lucky him. he can just die in the street without insurance. the american way!

Friday, October 11, 2013 7:58:48 AM

You’re still legally dead, judge tells Fostoria man – Tuesday, October 08, 2013 | Courier Electronic Edition – Findlay, Ohio: LOCAL NEWS

Story (via Legal Insurrection and Aliens in This World, whose title sums it up much more accurately) is pretty basic, but the “oh, where shall we start?” aspect of Mr. (probably not Dana) Pico’s comment crystallizes why I so dislike Wikipedia and such; there’s so many folks willing to work to share their ignorance and bigotry. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Mr. Pico wrote:…

The Sandlot Bully

Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/10/10

I think this explains well BO mentality of being a Bully, being detached, pictures with his nose in the air, his giving his opponents the finger while appearing to be in thought, his petty attitude and all the other immature ways he acts. I think his maturity level is stuck in his teens. He acts like the sandlot bully kicking sand in people’s faces and taking his toys home. Is he close to being unhinged??????

Is Obama locked in a victim mentality?
By Dr. Keith Ablow

Published October 10, 2013

President Obama’s rhetoric is finally coming closer to what appears to be his psychological truth: Because America victimized him and countless millions of others, any person or party or movement that opposes his views and does not yield to him is not just his adversary, but abusive, predatory and even threatening.

Again and again, President Obama has described members of Congress who insist on fiscal responsibility as having taken “hostages,” “demanding a ransom,” using “extortion,” and threatening to “blow up” the government.

On Tuesday, in fact, the president used these exact words when speaking to the press, “What you haven’t seen before, I think from the vantage point of a lot of world leaders, is the notion that one party in Congress might blow the whole thing up if they don’t get their way,” he said. Later he added, “you do not hold people hostage or engage in ransom taking to get 100 percent of your way.”

It is exceedingly difficult to come to terms with a person who sees you as his oppressor, his kidnapper, and someone terrorizing him who might well destroy him. You aren’t likely to consider whether your assailant and jailer and would-be killer has a few good ideas, after all.

Seeing Barack Obama as someone who has a victim mentality would explain a lot. That mentality relies on believing one has been harmed, that one was not responsible for the injuries that occurred, that one could not have prevented what happened and that the person’s suffering makes that person morally right and deserving of sympathy.

Read more here – It explains BO Perfectly

Posted in 1st Amendment, ABJECT FAILURE | 7 Comments »

A Troll has demanded an explanation

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/07

A Troll has demanded an explanation.

Just try and keep me out

Just try and keep me out

We all know what trolls are. They generally speaking are attention seeking, manipulative neurotics, sometimes ideologically committed, and presumably found on the Internet.

But they actually existed before the advent of the Internet, and one still runs into them in real as opposed to “virtual” life.

Out in the real world they are usually given labels such as, interfering users, jealous schemers, spiteful meddlers, annoying crackpots, social nuisances, or the like.

On rare occasions, their relentless emotional needs and the drive to satisfy them, lead the Troll into positions of considerable political power or social influence. Once there, their amoral-ism and boundary-less will-to-power-over-others, is likely to wreak more havoc and human damage than they ever could hope to achieve while their noxious influence was confined to some local neighborhood.

Trolls, whether encountered in real life or in a virtual, all share a number of what are by now familiar ploys or gambits which they use in the hope these manipulation techniques will bring them what they want.

This includes the presumption of a right of affiliation, as the context for delivering their casual insults; charges of hypocrisy, or double standards (unfair discrimination) when they are called out; displays of indignation; feigned victim-hood; attempts to intimidate those who resist; and the very common Troll technique of leveraging the moral generosity of the principled man back against him.

Verbally, they engage in equivocation, deceit, constant redirection, and/or any other behavior which will protract and obscure rather than clarify and resolve a specific question.

Clearing the question away, is not their intention.

Their focus is always on maintaining contact with the other as “provider”.

For what they seek is not the freedom to access the material world in order to extract what they want from it, but the social privilege of accessing other persons – made compliant one way or another – in order satisfy their urges.

The difference the Internet makes in their game is that it constitutes an electronic barrier between the Troll Personality and the targets of their attention. Blogs don’t serve liquor, they are private, open to limited participation by invitation – generally by default at first – only, and not subject to government regulation. At least not yet.

Your club is my club

Your club is my club

Nonetheless, a view of Internet practices makes clear that the Internet troll and the modern liberal, (read collectivist) in their insatiable hunger for a piece of the lives of others are essentially one and the same. The Internet troll and the Modern Liberal being merely two manifestations of the same general species, observed while operating in different environments.

What individual trolls sometimes achieved in their neighborhoods, and what the Troll Party has now managed in politics through insinuating itself into the administration of our Federal Government, the Troll Horde now wish to complete by ensuring that they may intrude themselves into every human interchange or transaction that piques their interest or excites their avarice: And to do so on their own terms, and in a way that gives them appropriatve control, be the realm virtual or real, social or political.

This is not to say that a Troll might not be telling the truth about its own views. That is to say it, or they, may be accurately describing their own states of mind when they say that it is wrong to cut them out of your intellectual life, because, say for instance the First Amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Government of the United States, prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”.

They may in fact be so mentally twisted by their needs and their lack of inhibitions in satisfying them, that the techniques I described above have become their unconscious nature. Practice of deceit and manipulation became second nature, second nature became first nature. Eventually nothing is left but a Troll nature where a man’s nature once stood.

Let’s take the specific example of a complaint over the stifling of “free speech”, as our illustrative paradigm.

In a recent accusation over his expulsion from this blog, Mr. Perry Hood has written:

“Regarding free speech, must I remind you that blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control? Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand.  Have anything I’ve written constitute a personal threat made to any of you?  Of course not.  So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me?  I would really like to know.And then, again, there is DNW, who by virtue of his hidden identity, forthrightly reveals mine.  Don’t lecture me about values, DNW!”

Let’s look at some of the elements above.

Mr. Hood says, “ Regarding free speech … blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control.”

We notice here that:

1. He now entirely sidesteps the Constitutional issue upon which he had been generally hanging his claims. He must abandon it, since there is no issue of Congress making a law abridging his freedom of speech, when someone in the neighborhood kicks him off their front porch.

2. He attempts to redraw his accusation in terms of control of the Internet.

3. But no one is trying to control his access to the Internet.

4. He introduces the idea of ownership, (of the Internet) in order to refute it.

5. But no one has claimed private ownership of the Internet.

6. He attempts to stake a public claim to blogs which are private, by saying that they are found on the Internet which is not privately owned.

7. But by this il-logic he might as well argue that he may ride in your car because you drive it on the highway, or live in your house because it is on a public street, or molest your children because they attend a public school.

Mr Hood then goes on to say, “Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand.”, speciously implying as I mentioned earlier regarding the Troll mind-set, a “ presumption of a right of affiliation as the context for delivering the casual insult”. In other words, his Constitutional gambit bankrupt, his Internet framing proven irrelevant, he must now “presume” a right of affiliation and access where none is in evidence.

Mr. Hood goes on to ask, “ Have anything I’ve written constitute [sic] a personal threat made to any of you?”; while assuming that the obvious answer is, as he tells it, “ Of course not.”

However, because we have had long experiences with Mr. Hood on the Common Sense Political Thought blog, as well as on the First Street Journal blog, we immediately notice that what he says is not true. Which is why he was on thin ice before he was ever granted an exemption and allowed to make any comments here in the first place.

Mr. Hood has, as we all know, had his privilege of participation on the blogs above mentioned and numerous other blogs repeatedly suspended or banned for just that kind of behavior: personal threats.

What apparently grieves Mr. Hood, is that after calling us traitors, and refusing to intellectually justify the supposed moral claims he lays against others as a pretext for calling them treasonous, he was not afforded the 20 or so warnings and advisories, and “second chances”, which he usually gets.

He was given two. Which was two more than the number to which he was entitled.

But when a man labels you as treasonous for resisting his attempts to appropriate the lives of yourself and your family, and then doubles down when called on it, what point is there in further talk?

The Internet is wide open to Mr. Hood. Let him build himself a cozy fire with the means already given to him by someone else, and attract who he can with the wafting aroma of his roasting cant, envy, and malice.

If any do drop by, he is welcome to their company, and to their intellectual and emotional companionship.

Oh, I almost forgot. The Troll asks, “So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me?  I would really like to know”

The answer to the question, though revulsion rather than fear is the right idea, involves having any portion of your life repeatedly wasted on a project which you know from long experience is pointless and foolish before you embark upon it: that is to say, the project of repeatedly attempting to reason with an entity which has deconstructed itself into a sometimes wheedling, sometimes demanding, sometimes threatening appetite, but never right-reasoning man.

Does that answer the question?

Perry, you called your own shots. You made yourself into what you now are. You showed us what you are through demonstration, and told us through affirmation.

What is there that is left to say?

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Culture, Liberal | 28 Comments »

In the matter of Fascist Democrats, and Treason, and Free Speech

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/05

The title of the blog essay in question is, as a glance will tell: Fascist Democrats … Or is it Stalinist?”

The blog entry had been prompted by news reports recording prominent progressive politicians as having  labeled various conservatives who were standing on constitutional principles, and operating according to long-standing parliamentary rules, as traitors.

Which brings us to the matter of Mr. Perry Hood, a sometime blogger, and self described liberal activist.

Mr. Hood, although neither prominent nor a politician, has himself gone so far as to call on his blog for a mob to be gotten up in order to “literally” eject Ted Cruz, both a citizen and an elected Senator from Texas, from the United States.

I thought that this malevolent bit of hysteria was remarkable, even on progressive terms; since most of us had probably assumed, until relatively recently at least, that the homicidal rhetoric of the left was not quite matched by a literal, or at least immanent, intent.

Mr. Hood however, seems determined to prove otherwise.

Mr. Hood does not stop with calling for the  unlawful ejection of Senator Cruz from the United States.

But, in one of the most remarkably nonchalant examples of Orwellian doublethink I have ever witnessed out of a supposed American, Hood goes on to label anyone actively opposed to his own and the Democrat Party’s efforts to direct every aspect of our lives, as themselves totalitarian.

This remarkable accusation, as readers of the old Common Sense Political Thought blog will recall, comes from someone who has explicitly admitted that as far as he was concerned, there were in fact no legitimate moral or practical limits to the depth and extent of a government’s control of the lives of the “citizen”.

Yet, those who seek to maintain the opposing tradition, that of constitutional limits on government power and sway, and who do so while operating both within the public law and by parliamentary rules, are labeled as “totalitarian”, and as treasonous.

I commented on Mr. Hood’s remarkable attitude.

Mr. Hood, had the opportunity while visiting here to discuss or clarify his call for the illegal ejection of Mr. Cruz from the country, or to modify his accusation of treason.

Hood chose instead to repeat the treason theme, and to broaden his targeting.

Mr. Hood was admonished to address the issue or to lose his commenting privileges here, as he had already lost them on so many other forums.

Now, Mr. Hood, apparently uninterested in actually discussing the “limitless government” predicate which he assumes, finds himself frustrated, and claims that his ability to engage in “free speech” – primarily through the deposition of invective and accusation – is not being honored.

Of course, and looking at it from Mr. Hood’s likely perspective, he may believe, as his remarks have given us reason to suspect in the past, that some portions of the American population are simply behaviorally incompatible with the society he has planned, because their genetic constitutions render them less collective minded, self-sacrificing, and compliant to centralized direction, than he would permit.

If that is the case, and every time Mr. Hood opens his mouth he seems to confirm that it is, then it is little wonder that he merely wishes to use the web sites of more constitutionally minded others as a kind of perch, wherein he may eject his accumulating bile and vitriol on the heads of those who would frustrate his aims if they could.

Ahhhh ... I feel so much better now

Ahhhh … I feel so much better now

If he cannot argue his so-called principles, but only declare them, then it is no wonder that his comments, like those of so many other values nihilists, quickly degenerate into ad hominem.

In any event, there is little reason to give his malevolent and bitter gibbering an additional platform.

One of the other men he regularly reviles, is already giving him one, and a rather exclusive one, at that.

That Mr. Hood when at that home, winds up shouting to an empty room, is the fault of no one but himself.

Posted in 1st Amendment, Blogging Matters, Character, Law, Liberal, politics, Socialists | 12 Comments »

Just because …

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/01

From a picture floating around the Internet. Very “60’s”

No particular reason for re-posting it. I just think that the image has a certain atmosphere, and even beauty. In fact I find it almost mesmerizing.

Our friend Ropelight likes boats, maybe he can do something with this.

A calm sea

A calm sea

UPDATE: I deliberately withheld any reference to the subject matter from the title of this posting because although I was fascinated by the image I didn’t want to attract attention to it on the usual grounds of prurience.

I figured it would just appear as part of the “home page” series.

Nonetheless it’s received an unusual number of individual page clicks. A sophisticated readership this one, unless there are lots of people using search engines to look up the phrase “Just because”, and winding up here.

FYI then, the lady is/was a model and actress in Italian new wave type films.

Regardless of her looks, she’s as you might expect, also Italian by nationality.

The photo is probably, I would guess, from the late 1950’s to possibly the mid 60’s.

I came across her while wracking my mind for alternative movies my folks might be interested in watching, rather than the brainless and unamusing crap they pay for in their monthly satellite bill.

If anyone can “guess” her name, I’ll post an image of a combustion turbine as your reward …

I’ll throw in an image of a copy milling machine too, if you can name one of her movies.

Second update: A PRIZEWINNER!

The contest only lasted a few hours and is well over. Yet commenter out-of-the-blue Tom Hamilton comes in late and wins a prize nonetheless, because: a, he used the word “existential” in his comment, and b, I had a couple of pictures left over.

Therefore, as an anodyne for government shutdown boredom, or in order to more fully celebrate it,  let’s review 1960’s female style, Italian style

A sixties look

A sixties look

Call the cigarette police

Call the cigarette police





Posted in Culture, Entertainment, history, Photography, Politically Incorrect, Science in the news, Travel, Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: