Category Archives: Morality

Beyonce’s Pimp

Celebrity, Morality, Music, Pop-Culture, Sex

Notwithstanding the awful music Beyonce gyrates to, she used to come across as a sweet, sort of innocent young woman. Now, to watch her is to see not an edgy performer, flaunting her craft (bedroom grunts) but a desperate one.

Husband Jay Z is probably whoring around, despite being married to this beautiful girl. When they “perform” together, if you can call their mating grunts and gyrations a performance, the woman acts desperately, as though with each twerk of the twat she stands a better chance to keep Jay Z beside her. (Why?)

The couple’s 2014 Grammys performance was pornographic. And after she had put her bedroom on stage, there was a deep sadness to Beyonce’s demeanor, here:

Mike Huckabee is a bit of a huckster, especially conspicuous in his sappy sentimentality, syrupy sweet talk and statist political solutions. Huckabee, however, has a good sense of the corruption of Beyonce by “husband” Jay Z. “In an interview with People magazine,” reports the Daily Beast, “the potential presidential hopeful launched an attack on the most powerful celebrity in the world”:

The former Arkansas governor also expressed concern about the pop star’s marriage to Jay Z, wondering whether the rapper “is arguably crossing the line from husband to pimp by exploiting his wife as a sex object?”

I suspect Huckabee is right.

The Dynamics Of Media Moral Inversion

Media, Morality, Propaganda, Race, Racism

On the one hand, there’s Brooke Baldwin. She’s a CNN bimbo, not as bad as a Fox News issue—the spandex swaddled Gretchen Carlson comes to mind—but nevertheless a prototype airhead, on the air for her looks. Brooke’s brief at CNN is the enforcement of progressivism, the deconstruction of conventional news broadcasting and morality.

On the other hand, you have Charles Barkley, “basketball analyst for Turner Sports and former NBA great.” He’s no philosopher king, but high concentrations of cutaneous melanin have qualified him to be a philosopher king in contemporary America.

Barkley called the Ferguson rioters “scumbags,” a perfectly reasonable descriptive for “the rioters who set buildings and police cars on fire in Ferguson,” not to mention murdered a cracker or two.

In the universe Brooke brings to her CNN viewers, berating black looters and murderers is controversial, a position that requires “defending,” or so she framed here interview with Barkley:

“Charles Barkley defends calling Ferguson rioters ‘scumbags.’”

Dr. Ben Carson, a self-made man who has never relied on race to excel, has no problem articulating immutable moral truth: “The Community Has to Recognize That a Thug Is a Thug.”

Garner: Innocent Actor In Sovereign’s Snuff Film

Founding Fathers, Free Markets, Law, libertarianism, Morality, Natural Law

“Garner: Innocent Actor In Sovereign’s Snuff Film” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Despite its elegant simplicity, the libertarian law is difficult to grasp. This I realized pursuant to the publication of “Eric Garner: 100% Innocent under Libertarian Law.” Some of the smartest, polymathic readers a writer could hope for were easily bullied into believing that by failing, first, to submit to the sovereign and question Him later—Eric Garner had undermined some sacred social compact.

A small-time peddler is killed-by-cop for selling single smokes on a New York street corner. Yet so befuddled were readers over the application of libertarian natural law to the Garner case, that they insisted against all evidence that Garner’s was an understandable death by “civil disobedience.”

“I certainly would applaud those who resist truly immoral laws (like ordering someone to commit torture),” equivocated one writer, “but I am leery to suggest massive civil disobedience of petty regulations which may, in fact, just give rise to more oppressive government to ‘restore law and order.’”

Yes, the poor sod who dared to purchase and dispose of a couple of loose smokes had committed “massive civil disobedience.” Fearing the Sovereign’s vengeance, some of his fellow citizens felt obliged to calibrate just how daringly Garner should have deviated. Did he raise his voice excessively? Did he wave his arms too energetically? All utilitarian, not principled, considerations.

Other readers beat on breast. Hopelessly “torn” were they between my verdict—Garner was an innocent actor in the sovereign’s snuff film—and the proposition that Garner had an obligation to prostate himself before the law to his overlord’s exacting specifications. By failing to do so, Garner had somehow invited his fate.

“Torn” is a word that better comports with images of Gloria Swanson or Marlene Dietrich mid-swoon. What in bloody blue blazes is there to be “torn” over? The right of a man to stand on the curb with a few “loosies” in-hand, and stay alive?

In claiming that Garner was innocent in natural law, I was—or so I was informed—guilty of implying that he had no moral obligation to obey state-enacted positive law. Woe is me—and woe betides that rascal who counseled that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” …

… The complete column is “Garner: Innocent Actor In Sovereign’s Snuff Film,” now on WND.

The Civil Disobedience Ruse

Founding Fathers, Law, libertarianism, Morality, Natural Law, Regulation, Taxation

Despite polite efforts to resist, I was pulled, last week, into a most unpleasant, unscholarly, uncivilized, almost Kafkaesque exchange, in the wake of the publication of “Eric Garner: 100% Innocent under Libertarian Law.” Polite disagreement is second nature when one has been writing controversially and stridently for close on 20 years. However, one is also obliged to swat down any attempts on the part of an interlocutor to score points by sleight-of-hand—by obfuscation. Suffice it to say that ego-bound writing is a bad thing. When the mere prospect of being perceived as wrong is so devastating to a writer; when he becomes maniacal when challenged, digs in and digs up any and all justification for his position, however tangential—that writing ceases to edify.

Another shock to the system was realizing just how difficult the libertarian law is for most mortals to grasp. They say we libertarians make up only 10 percent of the politically conscious public. No wonder. Some of my smartest readers were bullied into believing that to not submit to the sovereign is to undermine some sacred trust or covenant.

So confused were these readers over “Eric Garner: 100% Innocent under Libertarian Law,” that they took off after the pied piper, muttering mad incantations about the understandable death by “civil disobedience” of Mr. Garner.

“Among other things,” wrote one such reader, “there are no real libertarian states and ‘common property’ exists. Thus, while I might have the right to urinate on my driveway, I do not have the right to urinate on (government-owned) Broadway and the cops can arrest me, etc.”

The issue with taxes is also problematic – one who ignores taxes is engaging in civil disobedience and suffers the consequences (this does not make the taxes good but it is not surprising for governments to enforce their own rules). I certainly would applaud those who resist truly immoral laws (like ordering someone to commit torture) but I am leery to suggest massive civil disobedience of petty regulations which may, in fact, just give rise to more oppressive government to “restore law and order”.

Eric Garner did not urinate on public property. Neither did he expose himself to kids. He waved his hands and walked away. Woe is me! As to the comment about “taxation”: yet another WTF moment. Possessing a few loose cigarettes is not a tax offense. Besides, since when do my readers stand up for the “civilizing” influence of the tax collector; a thief by any other name?

Indeed, a few of my readers took off after the rat catcher, wagging fingers at the poor sod who dared to own and dispose of some loose smokes—-committing “massive civil disobedience”—and lived to tell the tale. Scrap that. Civilization is safe. Garner did not live to tell the tale.

Some good news. The natural law has prevailed among the people:

Americans by nearly 3-1 say the white police officer responsible for the death of Eric Garner, an unarmed black man being arrested for selling cigarettes, should have faced charges from a Staten Island grand jury, a nationwide USA TODAY/Pew Research Center poll finds.

Who was it who counseled that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”?