Category Archives: Morality

Megyn Kelly: You’re So Vain (And Other Girl Talk)

Aesthetics, Gender, Media, Morality

Your new hair is magnificent, Megyn Kelly. You’re a pretty girl. But boy!, are you vain and a tad vacuous. The way you always bring the Kelly File show back to … yourself. Does that take skill or just all consuming narcissism?

Today we learned from motormouth herself that because she’s so cute (presumably), she was given a stripper name by her sources when investigating a story about a stripper who cried rape.

When she first burst on to the Fox News scene, years ago, Kelly announced in an interview that she was beautiful inside and out. She might have meant to say boastful.

After the much needed dressing-down and time-out forced by her snarling attack on Donald Trump, Kelly was a little more demure. She has since rebounded, rushing to make hay on the Charlie Rose show, where she was utterly charming, as she always is.

Yet the constant onslaught of Kelly charisma has become off-putting.

With Rose, Kelly slipped up again by bringing it back to herself: She told the interviewer and his viewers how Fox News boss Roger Aisles had liked “the package: the smarts, the looks, the voice.”

Her words about herself.

In the same interview, I noticed her glowing (and sweet) references to her kids, but nothing for her husband, whom she often allows into the studio when he has a book to flog (the nepotistic school of journalism is big with bimbo journos). Is all still well on that front? Or, has Kelly been forced to seek the counsel of her favorite wise man, Dr. Phil?

Glad the hair-do is fixed. The Fox News hair stylist is awful. An exemplar of her (or his) creation is Kimberly G-String’s rigid wig. The Hair sits on Guilfoyle’s head like a helmet. Andrea Tarantula’s stiff coif and Megyn Kelly’s old, shaggy hair extensions—all were awful.

Megyn’s new hair is neat. A good cut has replaced the old, matted shag that likely needed extensive reviving before each show.

Let’s leave the spandex, cling-wrap, cheap looking garments the broads on Fox News swaddle themselves in. Surely they can afford some gorgeous couture? Take a page out of Taylor Swift’s wardrobe or Kate Middleton’s. Beautifully tailored, high-end clothes are so flattering if one can afford them, sartorial essentials Ann Coulter is missing too.

Conservatives for Abolishing the Fact of Evil

Conservatism, Ethics, Media, Morality, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Reason

“Conservatives For Abolishing The Fact Of Evil” is the current column, now on The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine. An excerpt:

The public personas who pass as conservatives are NOT system builders. We know them as conservatives not by their well thought-out, philosophically consistent thinking; but because they’ve staked out certain positions on The Issues, over time.

“Gun violence” is the term used by conservatives with this messy habit of mind. A careful thinker would allude to “goon violence.”

“For guns are not the root cause of man’s evil actions. Neither are the multiplying categories of manufactured illness in the psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Evil is integral to the human condition, always has been, always will be. Evil can’t be wished away, treated away, medicated away or legislated away. It is here to stay.”

In cahoots with their left-liberal partners in crime, conservative jurists, journalists, politicians and pundits now routinely debase this moral vocabulary. “Gun violence,” they all jabber, is caused by mental illness.

Their cure for goon violence: Bring in the big therapeutic guns to do the diagnosing. With state imprimatur, the witch doctors will lay the “scientific” cornerstone for walling-in society’s oddballs.

Democrats concur: If someone does something awfully wicked, he must have an illness as real as cancer or Alzheimer’s.

Still, progressives are pioneers in abolishing the fact of evil and replacing it with a diagnosis amenable to state intervention. Did not Joseph Stalin replace the wisdom of the ages with a scientific system that deployed the therapeutic idiom to murder and imprison dissenters? Yes he did.

But while they dare not cop to it openly, a secondary goal exclusive to progressives is to destroy the very idea of a self-reliant citizenry. …

… Read the rest on The Unz Review.

UPDATED: Derek Turner’s Morally Correct Immigration Novel

Britain, English, Europe, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Literature, Morality, Nationhood

“Well-written, meticulously researched and thought-out, Sea Changes, Derek Turner’s first novel, succeeds mightily in bringing to life the prototypical players in the Western tragedy that is mass migration. The reader becomes intimately au fait with the many, oft-unwitting actors in this doomed stand-off: small-town conservative folks vs. progressive city slickers; salt-of-the-earth countrymen against smug, self-satisfied left-liberals. Ever present are the ruthless traffickers in human misery: both media and smugglers. Like it or not, the dice are loaded. In this epic battle, the scrappy scofflaws and their stakeholders triumph; the locals lose.”—ILANA MERCER

That was me. I not only devoured Derek Turner’s Sea Changes, I provided advance praise for the book. It’s that good.

If ever a book was timely, it is Sea Changes. Here are excerpt the author was kind enough to forward. They demonstrate his exquisite sensitivity.

Derek is not politically correct; he is emotionally and morally correct:

The following presages the discovery of the little boy’s body:

“All that sighing and significant night, the North Sea had been laying a terrible cargo tenderly along the tide-line. As the stabbing sun raised itself above the rim of the ocean, the revealed brilliant bigness of sand was studded with defeated shapes. But no one was there to notice.

A brown-skinned man lay where the water had reluctantly relinquished him at last, with his face pressed into the fine yellow sand, his inky hair drooping with dampness, his limbs sprawled awkwardly.

A bark-dark teenager lay nearby, his eyes bulging at all that unenjoyed beauty, his refined features petrified in panic, mouth agape as if his life had been in such a hurry to leave that it had forgotten to close the door.

A few feet away sprawled an older man, who looked a bit like the boy, similarly staring straight at the sun without it hurting his eyes, his blue jacket inundated indigo, swollen ankles trying to burst cheap running shoes, a white skull-cap on his head and his thick and curly beard clasping moonstones of moisture.

A young black woman was disposed elegantly 50 feet along—her beauty belied by an equally uncomprehending expression, and a streak of blood that had leached from her nose and was now starting to attract tiny flies. She lay on her left side with one arm aimed appropriately inland, her hands curled in a grab for ground found too late.

The four lay unheeded in the gathering dawn, strewn with many others along miles of strand—lead-heavy leavings which just a few hours before had contained memories and machinations, cynicism and systems, hoards and heirlooms. Pitiable personalia had washed up, too, tangled up with the shells and starfish—suitcases, a comb, toys, a tiny plastic shrine to Vishnu with a blown electrical fitting. …”

[SNIP]

And this next extract is a perfect look at how cultural arbiters and politicians react to migrant misfortune:

“For the most acutely attuned, this sad stranding was another awful installment in an interminable tale. It was a reprise of too many other disasters—those Moroccans choking to death in the refrigerator truck at Felixstowe, the train-crushed Laotians, or those notorious news agency images from the Mediterranean—disregarded dead on resort beaches, chilled swimmers clinging onto tuna-nets hundreds of miles from any coast, bobbing brothers, pilgrims treading water with diminishing strength, forgotten face-down floaters, whole hopeful boatloads upturned and lost on the way to El Norte—the lands of intolerant over-plenty, whose tall grey warships sliced casually through the drifting destitute, captained by cold-eyed men.

It was a parable, a practically self-penning story of seeking and never finding, and a search for new life met by death—a cautionary tale to trouble the conscience of a continent….

…The globe’s screens were crowded with dignitaries expressing their shock, their determination to get to the bottom of this tragic event, their admiration for the emergency services— and their words were ported planetwide, the chrism of compassion, the Immaculate Conception of the International Community.”

On the aggregated media coverage and cultural impact:

“The dead had made landfall in more than one way. They had been the People’s People, opined a columnist hitherto best known for having been punched by an actor he had tried to interview outside a night club at 3 a.m. He added that those who could not feel for the People’s People were not People. Another journalist fought back real tears as her cameraman homed in on a salt-soaked teddy rolling slowly on the edge of the sea—for which she would deservedly win that year’s Excite! Social Conscience Prize (formerly the Thanatos Pesticides Shield).

For John and a few important others, that week brought contradictory emotions—horror, guilt, moral certainty, satisfaction at being proved right and a sense that great affairs had somehow been set in train. To them, the recumbent ones were a standing reproach, a symbol of all that should be altered. They were exhibits in the case against everything that was wrong. They were polychromatic pilgrims, MLKs for the XBox generation, Chés for today, drowned James Deans, rebels and martyrs, dead in the name of love, saintly for being silent, idealized for being unmet. They were enzymes of change. They represented a billion whorls of life passing and repassing south to north, east to west, First to Second to Third, poor to rich, fresh to stale, surging to senescent. People just like you and me (morally better than you and me)—fleeing war, famine, poverty, disease, and smothering tradition, shuffling towards our setting sun, coughing, crying, sighing and dying en route, to be trampled by illimitable followers with no possessions except authenticity, and always ill children held in always stick-like arms.

They were dry scarecrows waiting to be woken into life—an army coming in peace, hoping for crumbs from the groaning tables of those whose cars they would wash, whose children they would nanny and care homes they would staff. They were bringing colour and vitality— enlightenment and folk-wisdom—welfare state salvation and low wages. Our world was dying. The tide had turned, and sea-longing was filling everyone with a desire to see the wide-open countries of the North. The world’s They were on their way.

But there were some who could not comprehend, and who would do anything to preserve their privilege. Standing athwart history was a perverse coalition—businessmen, bankers, landowners, the military, white-bread holidaymakers who strolled blithely along beaches ignoring the imploring, populist politicians, pudgy provincials. These had thrown up bristling barricades against the future—fear and forms, police and procedures, guns and indirect discrimination, meeting tears with tear gas. …”

From Sea Changes.

UPDATED (10/5): I have still to tackle Camp of The Saints. To be honest, I stopped reading novels a long time ago for obvious reasons. However, Derek’s is a page turner. I recommended it to my husband, moreover, b/c he is unable to read unless text is real boy stuff; packed with information. I’m like that too. I skip- or skim LONG-WINDED dialogue. But Derek’s Sea Change is packed with the kind of detail men (me too) relish: bridges, firearms, architecture, buildings, history, and sympathy; it’s all there. This is not an anti-immigration screed.

UPDATED: It takes A Special Kind Of Stupid To Lose Moral High-Ground To Planned Parenthood

Conservatism, Federalism, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Morality, Republicans, Uncategorized

Progressives are evil, immoral; as clueless as the pope in their arrogant ignorance of the American political system and the role of government in the American federal scheme.

But one has to be a special kind of stupid to lose the moral high ground to the 500,000 dollars-a-year babe (Cecile Richards) and her congressional harpies, who plump for public funding for Planned Parenthood.

THAT Republicans certainly are. (I say this as a libertarian who doesn’t see how, in a free world, one can agitate for the arrest of a woman for what she does with her property: her body and all that’s in it. I do, however, see a clear and logical way to argue the outlaw of late-term abortion. The reasoning I’ll share in a new book.)

Progressives are gloating: “The GOP still has nothing to show for its anti-Planned Parenthood campaign.”

UPDATE: What I mean by outlawing” late-term abortion is arguing convincingly—well, almost convincingly, since it’s pretty hard—against the practice of late-term abortion based on libertarian reasoning. Libertarian law turns on private property rights and the non-aggression axiom. You cannot initiate aggression against a non-aggressor. To aggress against a woman for what she does to her body, however much you abhor the practice, flies in the face of libertarianism.

So the challenge is arguing for that aggression in the case of a late-term child. It’s almost impossible logically, but I think it can be done. Stay tuned. In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing from religious libertarians how they’d argue for outlawing abortion. Ron Paul is anti-abortion. Not sure it works in libertarian law. But please share. Don’t bother specifying that abortion should not be funded by the state. We all agree. In fact, this is the central silliness of the Repubs; they can’t explain to silly bimbos that to defund abortion is not to ban abortion.