Just say no to Ls

This interview encapsulates so, so many reasons why I will never vote Libertarian.

He has no self awareness whatsoever. He talks about all the people who vote R/D in the hopes that the elected politician will be their savior but his entire platform is “Vote for me and I’ll save you”!

Pro tip: the President of the United States does not have the power to disband the federal government. In order to do that, the Libertarians would need to wield enough political power to call a Constitutional Convention and then implement the changes they want, while blocking any other political coalition’s attempt to subvert the Convention.

A “localist” running for President like this guy is nothing more than a hypocrite dreaming of being a dictator. But hey, he doesn’t pay taxes and gets to go on exciting international speaking tours, so bully for him, I guess.

Advertisements

Feminism’s Deal with the Devil

The Other McCain has been making a point that the current hysteria over inappropriate sexual behavior is due to Hillary’s failure to win the Presidential election – all that feminist rage had to be vented, and since Trump is the “Teflon Don” they turned on whatever target they could. I think that’s right on the money.

With the Clinton political machine crippled and the Democrat Party in chaos, while the mainstream media loses its gatekeeper status to alternative and social media, there are a lot of men who no longer have the “systemic power” they once had.

And more than that, Hillary Clinton is the living avatar of feminism’s deal with the devil: feminists throw vulnerable girls under the bus and into the arms of predators like Harvey Weinstein, in exchange for those powerful men backing their political ambitions and donating generously to feminist causes (like Planned Parenthood). But the era of “Presidential kneepads” is OVER, thank God. Hillary’s defeat is a potent symbol that feminists selling their sisters to the “patriarchal system of oppression” embodied in leftist institutions filled with male feminists is not the path to power that they anticipated!

Funny how that works out, ain’t it?

And in the case of the feminists witch-hunting men, I’m a firm believer of applying each side’s standards to themselves. Is a leftist accused? Then we MUST believe the woman! No other evidence required! That’s their own standard, after all. Is a right-winger accused? Well, on the right, the standard is “innocent until proven guilty,” so absent compelling evidence other than mere #metoo accusation, he’s presumed innocent.

Let the leftists be measured by their own standards!

Surrogacy – is it moral?

The first question I’d like to get out of the way is this: do people have a right to reproduce? A few moments’ thought is sufficient to come to the conclusion that no, there is no natural right to reproduce, since doing so requires the cooperation of another human being. Therefore, it is equally apparent that although the desire for children is common and often intensely strong, the mere existence of the desire is not sufficient to justify any means of going about fulfilling it. These means must be evaluated on their own merits.

Many approach surrogacy from a libertarian perspective of contract law and the right of the surrogate to do what she pleases with her own body, but this is putting the cart before the horse, because there is a person involved who cannot consent to the contract, a person whose rights must, as a matter of moral priority, be placed above the rights of every other party in the situation.

That person is the child. No child asks to be conceived, and once conceived, has no power to either defend or waive his rights; therefore there are stern and solemn duties laid upon adults – in every time and place on earth – having to do with reproduction and the rights of children. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international treaty overseen by the United Nations and signed by nearly every government on Earth, states: “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and.[sic] as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” OHCHR

This is the natural right of all children: the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. This right is founded in the very physical nature of human beings themselves; and decades of sociological research shows that disrespecting this right very often leads to widespread, lifelong suffering. This is the primary right in question then; since no one has a right to reproduce, and the child has a right to his parents, is surrogacy a moral means of obtaining a child?

It is often the case that surrogacy is used in conjunction with anonymous sperm or egg donors. In such a case, the surrogacy itself is beside the point – the right of the child produced by anonymous IVF has already been deliberately violated. But surrogacy, in extremely limited circumstances, could indeed be done without violating the child’s right. If a couple is able to conceive, but tragically unable to bring a pregnancy to term, then using a surrogate to carry their child to term does not violate the child’s right to his or her parents.

In that very limited case, I would say that it is not inherently immoral to use surrogacy to produce a child. However, not every action must be immoral to be unwise. Whether the trauma to the child – who cannot tell the difference between surrogacy and mother death or abandonment – is justified by the desire of the biological parents for a child is a matter for legitimate debate.

There is a perception in modern Western society that possessing a desire confers upon one the right to fulfill that desire, so long as one refrains from fraud or coercion. However, when it comes to children, the rights of the child must be prioritized above the desires of the adult. No child is capable of waiving his rights, nor is it moral for a prospective parent to waive their future child’s rights for the fulfillment of their own desires, no matter how intensely strong those desires are. This is a painful lesson of adulthood: one may desire a good thing, and yet be unable to morally gain that thing.

Devoured by books

I’ve found my next gifts to my younger brothers – once the series is published in hardcopy, that is! I received the first novel as a gift for Christmas, and upon finishing, immediately bought the second. Then when I had finished the second, I immediately bought the third!

I’m glad I waited to start reading until the whole trilogy was completed, because having to wait for the next to be published would have been a trial of patience indeed.

I’ll be shelving this in my personal library as well – next to Narnia, the Hobbit, and the Dark is Rising. Kindle’s all well and good but some things deserve to be backed up on dead tree once it’s available. 😉

Swan Knight’s Son

Thoughts on Tulsa

So I heard about the Tulsa shooting through social media, and I’m afraid that at this point every time I see a black person sharing a news story headlining some innocent black person getting shot, my reaction is “Let’s wait and see how many lies the media is telling you about that ‘innocent’ black person. If this was a real innocent they wouldn’t be telling you about it.”

Because the media are Satan’s whores, and their agenda is to get cops and blacks to kill each other by maliciously spewing deliberate falsehoods. That’s the only conclusion I can reasonably reach, given their behavior over the last few years.

Not that I disagree with those who say that police behave badly toward black people. I’m perfectly willing to accept testimony from blacks that holds that institutions in Democrat-controlled areas are cesspits of racism, corruption, and rampant abuse of power. And I’m perfectly willing to believe black people suffer a lot of power-tripping abuse from cops. Getting upset over abuse of power is entirely reasonable.

On the other hand, cops have a tough job, caught between the idealism of “serve and protect,” facing the dregs of criminal evil every day, and being conscripted to be the jackbooted tax collectors of the administrative state, local edition.

And on each side you’ve got the bad apples – the blacks who are bigoted against cops, and the cops who are actually racist (or just total thugs to everybody).

You know, both the cop community and the black community have the same problem here. Failure to police their own.

Sure, sure, Not All X Are Like That. Trouble is, while there are probably some fairly non-corrupt police departments and there are plenty of noncriminal blacks, the people speaking out and trying to hold their own accountable don’t have enough power or influence to stamp out the widespread and rampant malfeasance. So the entire community suffers. Particularly black communities that face double victimization – from their own criminals and from their corrupt local government. (The solution to your problems is NEVER “vote Democrat.” It observably doesn’t work.)

There’s a lot of things police need to do to clean up their act, and more sensitivity training courses about diversity are not going to help. Not with the media and various other leftwing organizations attempting to start a low-grade civil war between black people and cops. But I don’t see a solution while both sides are closing ranks around their own bad actors and insisting the blame lies entirely with the Other.

 

Sporadic posting schedule will continue

Currently my life is divided between baby’s naptime and Boob O’Clock. This routine cycles roughly every two hours, and since my natural sleep cycle is three hours long, has rather predictably resulted in my Not Caring about much outside the walls of the house. I have barely enough functional brainpower to play Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes on my cellphone, commentary on current events is pretty much out completely.

Other than the whole Islamic terror thing, I will say this, if Obama really were the second coming of FDR, every Muslim in this country would be in an internment camp. Seriously, this is how you get camps. Do people want camps? Because deportation is far more humane than that, and “living together in peace” is observably not an option on the table.

Thoughts on Orlando

The leftist narrative is that of course this latest terror attack is due to insufficient gun control – facts, reason, and American rights be damned.

A few thoughts, based on the information that’s been promulgated so far.

“Where there’s a will, there’s a way” applies just as much to evil goals as it does to virtuous ones. Focusing on the tool used to do evil is ignoring the evil. There are many ways to commit mass murder, and making it more difficult to obtain one tool will simply cause terrorists to use another tool instead. It’s far harder for people to defend themselves from explosives or a vehicle driven with intent to kill. And the Orlando terrorist was a fan of the Boston Marathon bombers, so it’s not like he would have given up if he couldn’t obtain guns.

 

Laws don’t help if they’re not used. Testimony from the Orlando terrorist’s ex-wife indicates that he was a violent person who’d already committed assault. Why was he never brought up on charges for domestic abuse so extreme that his wife’s parents felt the need to essentially kidnap her to save her life? The authorities cannot deal with violent criminals if their victims don’t come forward.

 

A coworker testified that the terrorist was homophobic, racist, and harassed him, and yet when he reported this to their employer, nothing was done. Because the terrorist was a Muslim “POC” his atrocious behavior was ignored. This is exactly how political correctness enables violent crime, by covering up and making excuses for the inexcusable. Fort Hood and San Bernardino were enabled the same way – people refused to confront evil because they were afraid of being called “racist” or “Islamophobic”, and so evil got to operate with impunity.

The terrorist should never have been able to keep his job as a security guard – after abusing his wife and harassing a coworker, he definitely shouldn’t have been licensed to legally obtain or carry any kind of firearm. If there had been an official record of his previous violent behavior, would the FBI investigators have kept a closer watch on him as a high risk individual, as hindsight shows he was?

 

Side note – a nightclub is an extremely poor environment for self-defense. Witnesses testified that at first they couldn’t distinguish gunfire from the music! And a large crowd of people who can’t legally arm themselves in that environment was defended by only a single armed guard. In the wake of many other terrorist attacks around the world – many of which involved multiple attackers – a single armed guard is not enough. Probable jihadi targets need to take terrorist claims seriously and increase their security. How many lives could have been saved if there’d been more than one armed defender on the scene as soon as the terrorist arrived? How many injured people bled out as they waited those long hours for the hostage situation to be resolved by the police?

I guess people don’t want to take responsibility for their own safety in part because contemplating how vulnerable you are to someone who means to do you harm is, quite frankly, terrifying. You have to be on guard always, but the predators only have to get lucky once. People want to ignore the reality of evil and their own vulnerability, instead clinging to talismans like the police or gun control (or even owning a gun but having no training) to give them the illusion of security. And for the majority of Americans, this actually works out fine most of the time. However, the terrorists also know this and take advantage of it. There should never be a place in America where 300 people depend on one armed guard to protect them. Especially not 300 people who are high-value targets for Islamic terror.

Self-defense provides herd immunity against violence, and America is in desperate need of a booster shot.