UPDATE II: Right Response to Legalized Sexual Assault (Revenge Searches)

Constitution, Fascism, Government, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Justice, Law, Politics

HOWL is what this woman does with all the indignation and outrage she can muster, after her breasts were “touched” by the TSA. The woman’s heroic son films the event. All the while he is threatened by the Kapos—Kameradschaftspolizei, “comrade police force”—of Sky Harbor International in Phoenix and ignored by the sheeple shuffling by. I would be very afraid at Sky Harbor. It’s where “The Homeland Security State” came together in all its brutality to extinguish the life of the fragile Carol Anne Gotbaum. And look how brazen they are.

‘It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp’ advised travelers “to name and shame the perpetrators. fliers who’re frisked should document the name of the particular TSA perp who pawed them, and expose him on the Internet. Footage of the victims is everywhere, but the agents—the stars in these horror films—remain nameless and faceless. Name, shame, and dissociate from them.”

NEXT, and before anything else—the debt-ceiling pseudo-debate can wait—our overlords who art in DC must stop this. The Tea-Party “freshmen” are getting stale. They’ve done nothing to make the TSA cease and desist. They must forthwith.

UPDATE I (June 6): Via Shelly Roche: “Congress strikes down body scanners”: “Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Robert Aderholt’s (R-AL) proposed legislation, the Fiscal Year 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, denies the $76 million that US President Barack Obama requested to be used toward the scanners. As per Obama’s request, the funds would provide for nearly 300 additional body scanners being deployed across US airports, as well as the employment of a staff of over 500 needed to operate them. …”

The Politburo and its piecemeal tokenism. A “nuisance and slow”: That’s the stale, utilitarian reason one Tea party freshman uses to motivate against the state’s new meat irradiation program.

Via Shelly Roche: MORE.

UPDATE II (June 7): REVENGE SEARCHES. I made the point that in certain places along the traveler’s US route, he encounters racial revenge. I certainly did. I analyzed it in “Congress: Call Off Your TSA Attack Dogs!”:

America’s airports are ugly, militarized places. As I write, malicious assaults on person and property are underway there, carried out by the detritus of humanity, and with federal imprimatur. The TSA workforce manning crucial sections of the air terminals reflects the federal government’s legislated preference for angry minorities. Each one of these workers seems singularly intent on exacting revenge upon his or her perceived oppressors. The alternative media (Anderson Cooper and his ilk are excluded) must insist that these perpetrators be tagged, collared, and impounded.

Picture Los Angeles, and hundreds of British seniors, who still have some British character left—that typical linguistic acerbic bite included—being molested for hours-on-end in the heat.

[W]hen a handful of the [tourists] questioned whether the lengthy security checks at the port were strictly necessary for a group of largely elderly travellers officials were not amused.
Although they had already been given advance clearance for multiple entries to the country during their trip, all 2,000 passengers were made to go through full security checks in a process which took seven hours to complete.

As tourists and American travelers are assaulted, this country’s Idiocracy continues to entertain Palin’s roving circus, as well as busy itself with the measly contents of Weasel Weiner’s trousers.

UPDATE III: Naipaul Right About Women Writers

English, Gender, Literature, Music, Pop-Culture, Reason

It is getting harder to tell men from women writers, as males have been so thoroughly feminized over the last couple of decades. Still, Nobel Laureate V.S. Naipaul is correct when he states the following: “I read a piece of writing and within a paragraph or two I know whether it is by a woman or not. I think [it is] unequal to me.” In general, you can indeed tell right away if what you’re reading was penned by a man or a woman. On the whole, the best writers have always been men, still are. I excerpt here from “The Silly Sex?,” in which I was way to kind:

Since 1950, women have won only five Nobels in literature. And some of those are questionable. How can one put Toni Morrison into the literary company of Patrick White, Albert Camus, and Isaac Bashevis Singer? In past years, the literature prize went to authors of the caliber of J. M. Coetzee, Günter Grass, and V.S. Naipaul. But last year, Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek was awarded the literature prize. I’m not suggesting the grumpy Jelinek is a fraud like Guatemalan leftist and Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu. Some of Jelinek’s dusty works, translated crudely into English, showcase some skill (if one can stomach the contrived subject matter). However, unlike her male predecessors, she is better known for politically correct posturing than for penning memorable works of literature.

Naipaul fingers women’s “sentimentality, the narrow view of the world … that comes over in her writing too.” True. Sentimentality, moreover, accounts for why women (including those with the Y chromosome) are wont to misplace compassion. If you can’t think clearly, your feelings tend to be muddled and flimsy; your sense of justice is skewed too.

Mundane, mainstream media are furious with Naipaul. This Via NPR:

Alex Clark, a literary journalist, said: “It’s absurd. I suspect VS Naipaul thinks that there isn’t anyone who is his equal. Is he really saying that writers such as Hilary Mantel, A S Byatt, Iris Murdoch are sentimental or write feminine tosh?”

YES! When Vladimir Nabokov, Patrick White and Isaac Bashevis Singer died, I stopped reading novels.

As for non-fiction, Ann Coulter (and this writer) excepted, where is the woman who writes a strong, witty, wickedly funny column? Nowhere. Sure, I like Diana West a lot, but even she suffers from that singularly female proclivity to fixate obsessively on one issue only: Islam this; Islam that. On and on. All terribly important, but it can get repetitive. And that’s another thing: Non-fiction female writers cleave to a couple of easy, oft-charged subjects. Most steer clear of economics. (How many Amity Shlaes are there?) They simply don’t seem to have a wide array of interests. (I’ve covered Ann Coulter’s awful acolytes in many a blog post, “The Republican Tart Trust” is one.)

I’ll tell you what I’ve discovered, though: men generally prefer women who’re sentimental and unhinged, so long as they don’t have a better head than they do.

UPDATE I (June 3): Cross-posted on Facebook:

Has any of my Hebrew-speaking readers read Shmuel Yosef Agnon? Pure genius. Better than Naipaul. He was, of course, widely translated, as is all Hebrew literature. A translation would not do justice to Agnon’s use of the Hebrew language. But this was required reading when I was growing up. The current crop of Hebrew writers is as bad as their English, stream-of-consciousness counterparts.

Agnon was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1966, well before honoring females, however forgettable, became the rule.

UPDATE II: Myron, Ayn rand was one of the greatest essayists, showcasing a brilliant, unparalleled capacity to development a logical argument. But one would be less than honest as a writer—and fall into sycophancy—if one failed to mention that her style was a little dour, lacking in any humor. The classical liberal philosopher DAVID CONWAY alludes to this fact here.

UPDATE III: Rob, I do think Brookner is a genius. I devour her books. I discussed her with Derb, who, in my opinion, has mistaken her subject matter—the utter aloneness of a certain kind of character—for some sort of feminine preoccupation. However, Brookner has written equally of males in this predicament. I ventured that because our Derb is such a suave, confident gentleman, he does not empathize with the kind of person who is as alone as Brookner’s protagonists are. Needles to say, I do.

UPDATED: Economic Apocalypse Now

America, Constitution, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Propaganda, Republicans, Ron Paul

The following is from “Economic Apocalypse Now,” my latest WND.COM column:

“… On reflection, the U.S. Treasury takes in enough loot to pay down the interest on the debt as well as a portion of the principal. Matching federal spending with federal revenue: what a concept! And what a tonic to our moribund economy that would be!

To the soul of the subject: The engorged organisms (Anthony D. Weiner is a sample) that currently control the economy from D.C. can discharge their responsibility to creditors without authorizing more borrowing. To do so, however, they will have to cease their many unconstitutional endeavors and break the promiscuous promises they’ve made to certain voters at the expense of the vassals, out of whose hides these ‘promises’ are carved.

As it stands, Republicans – and a few Democrats, one of whom has even cosponsored an amendment to cap federal spending – have done no more than perform a budgetary Bonnie and Clyde: If Democrats want to continue the heist and run deficits and debts to eternity, they will need to promise – “nudge-nudge, nudge-nudge; know what I mean? know what I mean?” – budget cuts, preferably in the trillions. Or introduce, not necessarily pass, a balanced-budget amendment….”

Read more: “Economic Apocalypse Now.”

My new book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, is now available from Amazon. A Kindle version should be on offer by next week.

UPDATE (June 5): Rand Paul:

“On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day. So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.…Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem. If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have a $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.…I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts, and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said $500 billion is not enough. And they’re right. $500 billion is a third of one year’s problem. Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.” —Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on the Senate floor, March 9, 2011

Pay attention to how the same self-anointed policemen of libertarianism—the tinny ideologues who’ve never reflected authentically American libertarianism—have taken it upon themselves to purge Rand Paul.

On the positive side, it seems like Beltway libertarians such as the author of this fair-minded piece have learned from the mistake they made when they reflexively panned Rand’s father, Ron Paul.

S’cuse Me While I Die

Government, Justice, Law, libertarianism, The Zeitgeist

Approved, indubitably, by Mayor Marie Gilmore, the “rescue” guidelines adhered to by members of the pampered oink sector of the City of Alameda preclude rescues that necessitate “water training.” Alameda is in the San Francisco Bay Area!

Since they did not have “water training,” the Alameda pigs chose to stake out a good spot on the sand from which to watch a man drown. The man took an hour to expire. At no time were these pampered pigs overwhelmed by an urge to violate the bureaucratic restrictions imposed upon them. What resolve!

The deceased would be alive had these services been rendered by a private company, where owners would be sued into bankruptcy over such an incident. As it stands, the taxpayers will be penalized: they will pay for ensuing lawsuits. Responsibility for criminal negligence will be collectivized, as in all state-run enterprises. Wait for a statement by the mayor, who’ll announce a commission of inquiry, which is where all issues of culpability pertaining to the State go to die.

As to the libertarian issue of free will and the right to die. I understand that the man was trying to kill himself. But I am not of the libertarian mindset that you leave him to die. Since I cherish life, my position is that it is incumbent on good people to attempt a rescue in this case. Incumbent, but not legally binding. Not in libertarian law. The point here is to alert you to government callousness. If you want rescue services to be effective, private arrangements, neighborhood associations and the like, are most effective.