So Much Worse Than They Realize

Hillary Clinton - the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history - lost the election to Donald Trump, and her supporters are freaking out.

Many are protesting, some are rioting.

Anyone who's been paying attention expected riots, because it's what Leftists do when they don't get their way. Leftists are overgrown toddlers, so when someone tells them "no", they pitch a fit. Besides, it's what they've been doing all along this election year.



Things look pretty bleak for Leftists on the presidential front.

Source: NYT

The mainstream media expected Clinton to carry Florida and Arizona. They certainly didn't expect to lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (a traditional bastion of union and Democrat support).

Ironically, things are far worse (or better, depending on your perspective) than the vast majority of Clinton supporters suspect. Because they're Leftists, and for Leftists politics are a religion, they see their presidential candidate as a sort of messiah figure.



Because they see their presidential candidates as saviors, they focus almost all their attention on the presidential race, to the detriment of the hundreds of other races throughout the country. Yes, Republicans maintained majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives (though not with a filibuster-proof super majority), and yes, that's bad news for Democrats, but it's the states where things get really ugly for them. Check out these maps from the Washington Post.

When you look at state legislatures alone, the picture looks even worse. From Reason Magazine.

Republicans control 32 state legislatures, but - as the WaPo points out - Nebraska's legislature "is technically nonpartisan but Republican in practice". That means Republicans "in practice" control 33 state legislatures. As the WaPo points out, most of this Democrat decline took place during the Obama administration.

However, this latest decline is part of a 38-year trend, according to Pew Research.

Joe Scarborough put it this way.

Democrats Under Barack Obama

-11 seats in Senate
-60 seats in House
-14 governorships
-900 state legislative seats

Worst since 1922.

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) November 13, 2016

There are at least two major reasons why this is a disaster for the Democrats. First, state legislatures and governors make up a political party's "bench" for national politics. The Republicans now have a much deeper bench from which to draw national-level candidates than the Democrats do. It's not even close.

The second reason is far more important. Article V of the US Constitution reads...

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

With 33 state legislatures effectively under Republican control, the Republicans can now call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, and they don't even need to convince Democrats to go along. In fact, a convention of the states has been in the works for years. The states already held a simulated convention from 21-23 September 2016. According to National Review...

The simulated convention passed significant amendment proposals on the following six ideas:
1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt
2. Imposing term limits on Congress (effective retroactively)
3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by allowing an easy congressional override
5. Requiring a supermajority to impose federal taxes and repealing the 16th Amendment, which legalized the federal income tax
6. Giving the states (by a three-fifths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation, or executive order  

If the states ratify just half of these proposals, they would greatly limit and decentralize the federal government's power, which would return the country to a point closer to the founders' intent - a federalist system in which the states govern themselves with little input from the federal government, and the federal government is mostly limited to regulating trade between the states and implementing foreign policy.

Now, don't get too excited (or horrified, depending on your perspective). Article V of the Constitution states that new amendments must be...

... ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof... 

... in order to make those amendments...

.... valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution... 

Three fourths of 50 state legislatures equals 38 state legislatures. The Republicans effectively control 33 legislatures, which means they need to convince five legislatures they don't control to ratify any amendments. Right now, there are three bicameral legislatures that are split between Democrats and Republicans.

Can the Republicans convince five state legislatures that are either split, or controlled by the Democrats, to ratify Constitutional amendments that would be a Leftist's nightmare?

We shall see.

There's a lesson here for my Democrat friends. Slandering your fellow Americans as racists so you can wallow in your unearned sense of moral superiority is no way to persuade people to your way of thinking. But, hey, keep it up. Surely you can deliver five more state legislatures to the Republicans.

Woman Worship

Joining in on the fake outrage over Donald Trump's lewd comments, many Republican politicians released statements condemning Trump's immorality - of which they were well aware from the start. That's only a springboard to this post's subject. Here are two of the stupidest statements I read. 

“Mr. Trump’s comments were offensive and disgusting. There is no excuse for such degrading behavior. All women deserve to be treated with respect.” ~ Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) 

“I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.” ~ House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wisconsin)

Coincidentally, around the same time I ran into this horror story.

Shockingly, police accused the child’s mother, Michelle Martens, 35, of arranging for her boyfriend, Fabian Gonzales, 31, to rape her child. Police also accused Martens of helping to stab the child to death and dismembering her. Gonzales’s cousin, Jessica Kelley, 31, was also arrested for participating in the horrific crime. 

Michelle Martens (left), murderous mother of the late Victoria Martens (right, 10 years old).

Now new details from the investigation obtained by KRQE News 13 reveal that police think Martens sat back and watched her own daughter’s death and then had sex with the child’s killer.

..... 

But ultimately the records show Martens gave up her claims of being a victim and admitted she had allowed several men to have sex with the child and named at least two men who did so. 

Have you ever heard anyone say that all men "deserve to be treated with respect", or that men "are to be championed and revered"? Me neither. Why? Because no one believes such nonsense. Everyone understands some men earn respect and reverence through their respectable, reverential behavior, while others don't, and that we should treat them accordingly.

But, for some bizarre reason, few apply that same standard to women.

Does Michelle Martens "deserve to be treated with respect... championed and revered"? Is pimping out her daughter to various men in exchange for drugs, watching them have sex with her daughter, watching one murder the 10-year-old girl and then having sex with the murderer respectable, reverential behavior that we should champion?

If you answered "yes" to either question, please leave my blog.

If you answered "no", please ask yourself; why is it acceptable to say that "all women deserve to be treated with respect", and that "women are to be championed and revered"? If those statements are true, that means that Michelle Martens "deserve[s] to be treated with respect... championed and revered".

The truth is that women who've earned respect and reverence through respectable, reverential behavior deserve to be respected, championed and revered. Those who haven't, don't. If you think otherwise, you're sexist.

Think about it. Judging a person on the basis of his/her sex instead of his/her individual behavior is sexism.

Furthermore, people who treat women who've never earned respect as though they have are basically treating women who have earned respect like chumps. After all, if you can receive respect without earning it; why go through the trouble of earning it?

Women aren't angelic, sinless beings born through immaculate conception. They're retched, depraved sinners, just like men.

Romans 3:10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11     there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14     “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16     ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
...
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

Note the repetitive use of absolute terms like "no one", "not even one" and "all". There is only one exception, and it's not your wife, your daughter or your mom. It's Christ. That's it.

Now, I realize that Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch are politicians, and as such they are craven opportunists who'll say anything to give their political party an advantage. But, precisely for that reason, they would only make such statements if they knew that such statements play well with their constituents. Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch probably aren't stupid enough to believe those statements, but they probably know their constituents are.

It's far worse when pastors - who really should know better since, presumably, they know the Bible - engage in woman worship.

I don't have time to get into that now, but I will.

Human Planet Honors Fathers

I meant to have this ready for Fathers' Day and failed miserably, but any day is a good day to honor fathers, so here we go.



Human Planet is a BBC documentary narrated by the legendary David Attenborough. Every documentary of his I've watched is about animals or plants, but this one is different. Here, the BBC shows us how people from vastly different cultures all over the world live. In so doing, the BBC ends up telling compelling stories about the extraordinary things fathers do to support their families. I assume this is inadvertent, but that makes the documentary even better. Here's what I mean.

As I noted earlier, movies that are based on true stories are more likely than fictional movies to honor fathers. That's because in real life, fathers aren't the incompetent, impotent imbeciles commonly portrayed in modern popular culture. Human Planet, because it's a documentary, and because it didn't set out to portray fathers heroically, sets the difference between real life and Hollywood indoctrination in even starker contrast.

Without further ado, I'll start with my favorite story.

Sailau and Berek



Sailau belongs to a Kazakh tribe who traditionally use golden eagles to hunt foxes. His family needs fox furs to stay warm through the brutal winter. Sailau trains his son, Berek, in the art of falconry, beginning with capturing a fledgling female (they're bigger than the males), then training her, then taking her on her first hunt. The best part is when Berek and his eagle make their first kill. Sailau tells his son, "now you are a man of your people".

Stanzin



Stanzin and his family live in a remote Himalayan village. He wants his children to receive an education, but there are no schools in his village, so Stanzin takes his children to a boarding school 90 Km away. It's a treacherous six-day trek over the frozen (but thawing) Zanskar River.

Sam Niang



Sam Niang risks his life every day to feed his family of seven. The roiling rapids of the Mekong River trap migrating fish, but to net them, Sam Niang has to climb wet, mossy cliffs and traverse the Mekong on a makeshift bridge he jury rigged together in the dry season.

Tete



Tete also risks his life for his family, but in his case it's by climbing 130 ft up a tree with no safety gear and suffering dozens of bee stings to score some honey for his wife and children. Tete's wife has some great lines.

Tete is the best. The kids are not afraid for him, just proud. They say, "wow, look at dad!"... My husband has a kind heart. He always brings me honey. 

The narrator, though, gets the best line.

Tete takes time to savor his success. He's done enough to keep his wife sweet, treat his children and earn respect from his tribe. 

Isn't that what all married fathers want?

Hatogo and Sulaiman 



I've observed good men work themselves into an early grave to support their families, but nothing quite like this. In the Indonesian island of Java, men mine sulfur in the Ljen Volcano's crater. The gasses that constantly fill the crater, including Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), are highly toxic, and even if they don't kill the men right away, they destroy their lungs over time. On top of that, carrying 90 kg (about 200 lb) of sulfur at a time in baskets leaves their shoulders scarred, calloused and deformed. One of them states:

They say this job can shorten your life. I do it to feed my family. No other job pays this well. 

All for $5.00/load.

But that's what dads do. They sacrifice themselves for their families.

Human Planet contains many more stories. Not all of them are about dads, but most are. The documentary is beautifully shot, entertaining and educational, but what I love most about it is the stories of dads from wildly different cultures who are remarkably alike. They all want to provide for their families and earn their peers' respect. That theme is so nearly universal that it's almost as though someone designed it that way.

I shouldn't be surprised anymore when I see God's plan naturally bubble to the top through layer upon layer of human sin, but for some reason I still am. I doubt that any of the men whose stories I highlighted have ever heard the Gospel, but they all bring to my mind passages from the New Testament.

Romans 2:14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Having never read the book of Ephesians, these married fathers nevertheless love their wives and children sacrificially. My experience and observation tell me that is the rule, not the exception, among married fathers, and for that we should honor them.

Watch Human Planet on Netflix while you still can.

Choose Your Own Judgement

King David had sinned. Tempted to rely on his own strength instead of God's (which had saved him numerous times and made him the great man he was), and against his Commander in Chief's advise, David conducted a census of all the men in Israel. As soon as the census was complete, David felt remorse and asked God to forgive him.

The angel of the Lord by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite

God sent the prophet Gad to King David with the following message.

2 Sam 24:12 “Go and speak to David, ‘Thus the Lord says, “I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I will do to you.”’” 13 So Gad came to David and told him, and said to him, “Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days’ pestilence in your land? Now consider and see what answer I shall return to Him who sent me.”

This is the only case of which I'm aware in which God commanded a Biblical character to choose his own judgement. That brings me to this meme I saw at Pastor Doug Wilson's blog.

That's not an exact quote from Calvin, but it gets to the heart of what he did say on the matter. If Calvin was right, and I think he was, the United States of America is already under judgement, and is headed for more (probably worse) judgement. Barring a miracle, only two people are likely to be elected president, and they're both wicked, and everyone knew it long before the primaries. Anyone who pretends to be surprised at either candidate's latest outrage is faking it. That means we Americans find ourselves in a position to choose our own judgement.

I completely understand my Christian friends who've decided that Donald Trump is the lesser judgement upon our nation. I don't see how one can make the same case for Hillary Clinton. My Christian friends who are enthusiastic about either candidate are - I think - following the wrong shepherd.

 
How did King David respond?

14 Then David said to Gad, “I am in great distress. Let us now fall into the hand of the Lord for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man.” 

Which is, of course, exactly the right way to respond.

15 So the Lord [g]sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning until the appointed time, and seventy thousand men of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, “It is enough! Now relax your hand!” And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

Unlike David, God didn't instruct me to choose between the judgments facing us, so I won't, but like David, I'll also pray "Let us now fall into the hand of the Lord for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man". How should we pray for our abundant wicked rulers? I have an idea.

Psalm 58
1 Do you rulers indeed speak justly?
    Do you judge people with equity?
2 No, in your heart you devise injustice,
    and your hands mete out violence on the earth.
3 Even from birth the wicked go astray;
    from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.
4 Their venom is like the venom of a snake,
    like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears,
5 that will not heed the tune of the charmer,
    however skillful the enchanter may be.
6 Break the teeth in their mouths, O God;
    Lord, tear out the fangs of those lions!
7 Let them vanish like water that flows away;
    when they draw the bow, let their arrows fall short.
8 May they be like a slug that melts away as it moves along,
    like a stillborn child that never sees the sun.
9 Before your pots can feel the heat of the thorns—
    whether they be green or dry—the wicked will be swept away.[c]
10 The righteous will be glad when they are avenged,
    when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 Then people will say,
    “Surely the righteous still are rewarded;
    surely there is a God who judges the earth.”

What is it About Iceland?

For the first time in its (admittedly short) 10-year history, the women's podium at the 2016 CrossFit Games looked exactly like it did the previous year.

2015 CrossFit Games women's podium
1st: Katrin Tanja Davidsdottir (Iceland)
2nd: Tia-Clair Toomey (Australia)
3rd: Ragnheiður Sara Sigmundsdottir (Iceland)

2016 CrossFit Games women's podium
1st: Katrin Tanja Davidsdottir (Iceland)
2nd: Tia-Clair Toomey (Australia)
3rd: Ragnheiður Sara Sigmundsdottir (Iceland)

A repeat like this has never happened before, so that was surprising, but it wasn't the least bit surprising to see Icelandic women on the podium. In fact, at least one Icelandic woman has stood on the podium every year since 2010, when Annie Thorisdottir (yes, that means Thor's Daughter) took second place, except for 2013, when Annie Thorisdottir took a year off due to injury.

Annie Torisdottir

Only American women have more podium finishes at the CrossFit Games that Icelandic women.

American women have two big advantages. First, CrossFit started in the US - Santa Cruz, CA, to be exact. When the Games began in 2007 all the podium finishers were Americans. The Games only started growing into an international event in 2009. Second, the US has an enormous population from which to draw competitors, and more CrossFit gyms than any other country.

As impressive as the Icelandic women's accomplishments are by themselves, they become mind-blowing when one considers that Iceland has a tiny population of 332,529. By comparison, Wichita, KS has a population of 389,965. That means that a tiny island country in the North Atlantic with a population smaller than that of a mid-sized city in the American Midwest has dominated the women's half of a grueling international multi-sport competition for the last six years. When I compared women's podium finishes to population size (podium finishes per 1 million of population), the other countries practically disappeared.

The Icelandic women's dominance has been a major topic of discussion among those who follow the CrossFit Games.



Icelandic men haven't been nearly as successful in CrossFit. The only Icelandic man to stand on the podium is Björgvin Karl Guðmundsson, who took 26th at the 2014 Games, 3rd in 2015 and 8th in 2016.

Björgvin Karl Guðmundsson

American men are far more dominant in CrossFit with only one non-American champion (Mikko Salo, of Finland, in 2009). Even so, when one considers population size, Iceland eclipses all other countries in podium finishes.

Why don't Icelandic men perform as well at the CrossFit Games as their female compatriots? Maybe because they're too busy with the World's Strongest Man competition.

A photo posted by Björgvin K. Guðmundsson (@bk_gudmundsson) on Jun 15, 2016 at 5:44am PDT

The giant on the right is Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson. Most people know him as The Mountain on Game of Thrones, but he first gained fame by placing 3rd in the 2012 World Strongest Man competition, 3rd in 2013, 2nd in 2014 and 3rd again in 2015. The 2016 competition will take place later this month in Botswana. As you can see from the video I posted above, and Björgvin Karl Guðmundsson's Instagram feed, Icelandic CrossFit athletes train with Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, in large part because the CrossFit Games typically include some Strongman events (though at much lower weights). And also because he's preternaturally strong, and training with someone who's stronger than you are is a great way to get stronger.

Like the CrossFit Games, the US has more podium finishers at the World Strongest Man competition than any other country.

Fortunately, the WSM has been around since 1977, so there is a lot more data to sift. Again, the US has the same advantages in WSM as it does in the CFG (yes, I'm tired of typing both those out), yet tiny Iceland isn't far behind. And when I compared podium finishes to population size...

... no other country even comes close. And, as with the CFG, others have noticed this phenomenon.


The WSM and CFG share a few similarities. They're both strength-based sports. They both feature different events each year, so they both require athletes to adapt to unknown and unknowable challenges. And, as I mentioned above, the CFG often feature events like yoke carries and weighted sled pushes, pulls and drags that are staples of the WSM. But the differences are much greater than the similarities.

So, why does Iceland produce great athletes for these two sports in numbers so wildly out of proportion with its population? Obviously, genetics have a lot to do with it. Every world class athlete is a genetic freak. No amount of hard work or great coaching will turn an ordinary person into a world class athlete.

But, why Iceland, specifically? No other Nordic country is nearly as disproportionately represented in these sports as Iceland. What is it about the Norse who colonized Iceland that makes them such outstanding athletes in these two sports? Is there a cultural component on top of the genetic component?

Unfortunately, I don't have answers to my questions, but maybe someone reading does. If so, please comment. Hopefully, I'll get to watch the WSM later this month and marvel at the near-super-human feats the athletes will perform.

PS: The current WSM champion is American Brian Shaw, who's been on a winning streak since 2009.

PPS: Australian Tia-Clair Toomey will compete in Olympic weightlifting at the XXXI Olympiad in Rio de Janeiro next week. This is the first time any athlete has qualified for both the CFG and the Olympics in the same year.  

Leverage

I broke the end off my clutch lever by dropping the Tiger in my driveway, because I'm a klutz.



Aimee and I went to Engle Motors as part of our Fathers' Day date mostly so I could drool over the new Thruxton R. While we were there, I ordered some new adjustable levers.



They look a lot nicer than the stock levers and and have a lot more adjustability.





They were very easy to install. I only used a 10 mm socket and a screwdriver. I think I'd like some had guards. I don't plan to do any offroading with this bike, but they'd make cold weather riding a little more comfortable. I'll probably wait until the weather cools down.

Movies that Honor Fathers

“Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society, the way that a child catches the measles.” ~ Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture

Culture matters. A lot. And if Francis Schaeffer was right about how most people form their world view, popular culture matters most of all.

The contempt for fathers that generations of children (now adults) absorbed through popular culture is one major reason that families are crumbling in the US and throughout the West. Families are the foundation of civilization. If the foundation crumbles, what happens to the civilization?

Fortunately, there are still movies that portray married fathers as heroes, and Fathers' Day is the perfect time to highlight them. This is a non-exhaustive list, so if you know of others, please feel free leave a comment below.



Cinderella Man



James J. Braddock was a real life Rocky Balboa, an aging, has been, washed up, working class boxer with far more heart than talent who got a shot at the world championship. Unlike Rocky, Braddock was a married, devoted father of three who lived during the Great Depression. He fractured his right hand (his only weapon in the ring) in a fight he lost and was forced to retire from boxing. He lost everything during the Depression - except his family.

This is a story about the lengths to which a father will go to support his wife and children. If you haven't watched it, do so. Better yet, read the book.

We Were Soldiers




Hal Moore is one of the great American combat commanders of the Vietnam War. He commanded the 1st Battalion of the 7th Cavalry Regiment at the Battle of Ia Drang in 1965. He is also a married (now widowed) father of five (now grandfather of 12). The first act of the movie focuses on the Soldiers and families of the 1-7 as they prepare for the deployment. I posted one of my favorite scenes above, in which then-LTC Moore mentors one of his young LTs on balancing soldiering with fatherhood.

Watch the movie and read the book!

American Sniper



I reviewed this movie previously, so I won't write much about it here. Chris Kyle was not only a heroic Navy SEAL sniper, he was a devoted married father of two. Read the book!

The Impossible




If you have kids, this movie will scare you more than any horror movie ever could. It's based on a true story (are you starting to see a trend?) about Enrique Álvarez, María Belón and their three sons Lucas, Simón and Tomás Álvarez, who were on vacation in Thailand during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. The movie changes the names and nationality of the characters from Spanish to English, but the main theme remains intact - the lengths to which a father will go to reunite his family after a natural disaster tears them apart.

Soul Surfer 



When, in real life, a shark bit Bethany Hamilton's left arm off just below the shoulder, it was her dad who trained her to surf again. Since then, she's placed first in six international surfing competitions and competed in many more.


Apocalypto



This one really surprised me. Though set in a completely alien (now extinct) culture, the primary subject matter is entirely familiar. It's a story of the lengths to which a father will go to protect his family. Whether intentionally or not, this movie makes the point that marriage is God's idea, and therefore transcends culture and time. Jaguar Paw and his wife, Seven, obviously weren't married in a church, nor do they hold a marriage license, yet we recognize them as husband and wife.

Act of Valor 




A fictional story portrayed by real-life Navy SEALS, it begins and ends with a letter written by one of the SEALS to his battle buddy's son. Yes, I know that's an Army term that the SEALS don't use. Sue me.


Avengers: Age of Ultron




When the Avengers need a place to recuperate after a mission goes disastrously wrong, they take refuge at Hawkeye's house, the only member of their team who is a married father.

Man of Steel



Though flawed, Man of Steel portrays Superman's natural father (Jor El) and his adoptive father (Jonathan Kent) as honorable men doing what they believe is best for their families and their people.

That's all I have for now. Surely there are more. My tastes obviously gravitate towards action, adventure and war movies, and I haven't watched all of those, much less every other genre. If you're a dad, I hope you had a happy Fathers' Day. Enjoy a good movie with your kids!

You're Stuck In This Country With Us

If you've ever watched the movie Watchmen - or better yet, read the comic - you probably remember the following scene. If you're squeamish, skip the video.

Rorschach, one of the heroes, gets locked up with many of the criminals he put in prison. After defeating an attacker in a fight, Rorschach yells at his fellow inmates, "I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!"

Prof. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit alluded to that scene when explaining one of the basic functions of government.

Police don’t actually protect law-abiding citizens from criminals so much as they protect criminals from the much-rougher justice they’d get in the absence of a legal system. Burglars would be hung from lampposts, and shoplifters would be beaten and tossed into the gutter if there were no police, as in fact happens in countries where there isn’t a reliable justice system and a civil-society culture that restrains vigilantism. Reminder to the criminal class: Ultimately, we’re not stuck in this country with you. You’re stuck in this country with us.

The following day (3 Sep 2015), Prof. Reynolds linked to a story about the rising trend of street "justice" in Venezuela.

When a man they believed to be a thief sneaked into their parking lot in the Venezuelan city of Valencia, angry residents caught him, stripped him and beat him with fists, sticks and stones. 

They tied him up and doused him in gasoline, according to witnesses, in one of what rights groups and media reports say are an increasing number of mob beatings and lynchings in a country ravaged by crime.

Almost a year later, the trend has not abated. In fact, as Venezuela continues its death spiral under the crushing weight of Socialism, it seems to be getting worse. Why? Caracas city councilman, Jesús Armas, explains...

This year will without a doubt be the most violent in the history of our city...  

The insecurity has three roots. The first is associated with levels of poverty and inequality that we see in the city. Today Venezuela is the country with the highest inflation in the world, with shortages that force people to line up for hours to buy food. For decades neighborhoods have sprung up outside the city, and now more than 50 percent of the city's population lives in places where houses are built with low-quality materials, and where they don't formally have access to basic public services and are without roads or consolidated public spaces. 

Poverty, inequality and no basic public services in the Chavista Socialist paradise? Unpossible!

The second element has to do with a culture of lawlessness. In the country, a habit of disrespect for most basic laws - those related to transit, shoplifting, even the ways the authorities and the rest of the population interact with these laws, has resulted in a collective indifference toward much larger crimes because the law is simply a dead letter. 

When the government officials who are supposed to enforce the law are the biggest thieves, how can anyone else be expected to respect the law? Chavez died a billionaire, and his daughter is the wealthiest person in Venezuela.

Finally, there is the reaction of the national and local government in terms of managing the violence. The truth is that we have a mayor who, through hate speech and a series of acts of violence promoted by groups related to his party and his administration, has over the years exhibited excessive permissiveness toward huge criminal groups that dominate vast and populous parts of the city, either because they handle drug trafficking or because they have a monopoly on violence and illegal activities that generate income. 

Likewise, the state has implemented a policy that has nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property of citizens, but on the contrary, has driven a socialist model that seeks to limit those freedoms, using crime as a way to maintain power and control of the population. But the truth is that today things are out of control and we are left with a failed state in which the so-called peace zones are micro-states controlled by gangsters and not by constitutional institutions.

Life, liberty and property? Where have I read that before? Mr. Armas hit the nail on the head. A government's sole purpose is to secure the people's rights to life, liberty and property. As Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address:

... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

Unfortunately, Venezuela's Socialist government - like all Socialist governments - busies itself primarily with "[taking] from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned", secondarily with buying votes with the bread it took from the mouth of labor, and not at all with its actual responsibility of "[restraining] men from injuring one another".

The result is what we now see in Venezuela. We may not see it for long, not because it'll stop any time soon, but because Venezuela's government - embarrassed by its own impotence and incompetence - banned media coverage of the lynchings. Venezuela's government won't crack down on crime, much less unshackle the people and economy from the disastrous Socialist policies that led to the disintegration of Venezuelan society. They'll just prevent news outlets from talking about it, thereby accomplishing nothing of value.

As European governments refuse to protect their citizens from Muslim migrant criminals and conspire to cover up their negligence, homicide rates in some American cities skyrocket due to the Ferguson Effect, and insurmountable federal debt leads us towards Venezuela-style hyperinflation, lessons abound. The decent among us need to learn those lessons quickly and prepare accordingly. Criminals won't. After all, criminals aren't known for prudence or self-control.

Source: Fox News Latino

Anti-Gun = Anti-Self-Defense

Observing the actions of 2nd Amendment opponents has convinced me that they fundamentally oppose the right to self defense... for us peasants, anyway. Supposedly anti-gun politicians and celebrities routinely surround themselves with well armed, professional security teams, and even avail themselves of concealed weapons permits. They deny the rest of us the right to own the most effective self defense tools (guns) because they deny our right to defend ourselves.

Most of the evidence for the above paragraph emanates from Europe, where, for example, a Danish girl was prosecuted for using pepper spray to defend herself from an attempted rapist. Every once in a while, however, "liberals" in the US provide us with obvious examples of their anti-self-defense stance.

Mr. Diallo in red shirt

Police initially charged Mamadou Diallo, 61 years old, with manslaughter after he repeatedly struck Earl Nash with a tire iron in the elevator bank of a Bronx apartment building Monday night...

... 

Mr. Nash, who has a long criminal history, has been in and out of state prison since 2006 and was most recently released in July 2015...

...

Nash

The wife told police that when she answered the door, Mr. Nash forced his way in, took off his pants, tried to tear off her clothes and attempted to rape her, the official said.

The [female] cousin heard the commotion and tried to fight off Mr. Nash, the official said.

While the cousin and Mr. Nash struggled, the wife used a cellphone to call her husband, who was outside, the official said.

As Mr. Diallo arrived in one elevator, Mr. Nash tried to flee in another, the official said. The wife pointed to Mr. Nash as her assailant and the men clashed in the elevator bank in a one- to two-minute fight that was caught on surveillance video, officials said.

This story reminded me of an earlier one from much more gun-friendly Texas, where a father beat to death a man who attempted to rape his 5-year-old daughter. The father wasn't even arrested, much less charged with a crime.

The father was never arrested, but the killing was investigated as a homicide. 

Philip Hilder, a Houston criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, said he would have been surprised if the grand jury had decided to indict the father. Hilder said Texas law provides several justifications for the use of deadly force, including if someone commits a sexual assault. 

"The grand jury was not about to indict this father for protecting his daughter," he said.

The anti-2nd-Amendment Brady Campaign gave New York State an A- for its strict gun laws. Why only an A-? Presumably because 100% confiscation alone would satisfy the Brady Campaign.

By contrast, gun-crazy Texas received an F. Unfortunately, an F is the lowest grade the Brady Campaign awards, because Texas has since then legalized open carry, and freedom-minded folk take pride in low Brady scores. It's kind of like golf. Just ask the people of Wyoming. It won't take long. There aren't that many.

Here's the score that actually matters.

1. In anti-gun New York, a man will be prosecuted for beating to death his wife's attempted rapist.
2. In gun-friendly Texas, a man wasn't even arrested for beating to death his 5-year-old daughter's attempted rapist. 

Why? Because anti-gun actually means anti-self-defense. Hopefully, sanity will win the day, but it's Mr. Diallo's misfortune that he lives in an anti-gun, anti-self-defense, "liberal" state. 

Why do we conservatives support the 2nd Amendment? Because we believe humans have the right to live. In fact, the right to live is the foundation of all other rights, because one can only exercise ones other rights if one is alive. If a human has the right to live, then it stands to reason that he/she also has the right to defend his/her right to live. If a human has the right to defend his/her right to live, then it stands to reason that he/she also has the right to "keep and bear (carry)" the most effective tools with which to defend his/her right to live - guns.

One can't oppose a human's right to "keep and bear (carry)" the most effective self defense tools available and logically, simultaneously claim to support that human's right to defend his/her right to live.

Which is why "liberals" don't.  

Doing Good vs. Feeling Good

Dead tortoise (not) walking.

That tortoise is dead, dude, and it probably died slowly, painfully and in terror. Drowning is no joke. The (apparently) young man who thought he was rescuing a confused, wayward turtle, obviously felt really good about himself until someone informed him that the testudo he tossed in the water can't swim. Tortoises are exclusively terrestrial. They sink like rocks.

The photo above is a perfect metaphor of "liberal" "thought". As Denis Prager explains below, "liberals" don't care what actions or policies accomplish good things in the real world, they only care about what actions or policies make them feel good about themselves.



Mr. Prager provides two very good examples in his video, the minimum wage and pacifism. But there may be an even better example: the welfare state. The American welfare system purports to help the poor, but instead creates perverse incentives that lock people into poverty for generations, and the people most negatively affected are poor blacks, the very people "liberals" claim to help most.

The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks specifically. And today, the numbers stand at 29% for whites, 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for blacks. In other words, the entire country is moving rapidly in the wrong direction, but blacks in particular have reached a point of veritable catastrophe.  

The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America's economic ladder. Regardless of race or ethnicity, the poverty rate for single parents with children is several times higher than the corresponding rate for married couples with children. According to Robert Rector, senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass. Articulating a similar theme many years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty.”  

Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with economic, but also profound social and psychological, disadvantages. For example, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are more likely to be physically abused; to display emotional disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to perform poorly in school; to be suspended or expelled from school; to drop out of high school; to behave aggressively and violently; to be arrested for a juvenile crime; to serve jail time before age 30; and to go on to experience poverty as adults. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. With regard to girls in particular, those raised by single mothers are more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation.

Obviously, "liberals" can't blame their pet policies for this catastrophe. After all, their hearts - and therefore their intentions - are pure, unlike those mean, heartless conservatives. "Liberals" therefore invent all kinds of excuses, like racism and "white privilege", as though 21st century America could possibly be more racist than Jim Crow America.

Kathryn Edin writes:

After several years of interviewing, observing, and living among these fathers, I’ve learned that not caring about their children is not the problem. Our 2013 book, Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner City, reveals that these men desperately want to be good fathers, and they are often quite intensively involved in the early years of their children’s lives. Yet they usually fail to stay closely connected as their kids grow older.
...
If they want to stop the father-go-round, moms will have to do what they can to keep the biological dad involved with his child and not push him aside. It’s up to them, because currently, mothers have most of the power de facto, if not de jure. Almost always, an unmarried mother has presumed custody, even if the dad willingly signs documents to establish legal paternity.
...
So here is my message to the single moms I’ve come to know and admire over the years, the ones who do so much of the nurturing and caring—those who often struggle mightily just to keep a roof over their kids’ heads: You can’t easily substitute someone else for your kid’s dad.

Unfortunately, Ms. Edin doesn't make the connection that custody law is not the only factor that gives  mothers the power, and that fathers aren't just being replaced by other men, but by government itself. As Daniel Mitchell points out, depending on her state of residence, a single mother might need to make $69,000/year before getting off welfare makes economic sense.

That also means that the father needs to make $69,000/year before marrying him and getting off welfare makes economic sense. The probability that a young man who grew up poor in the inner city can clear that bar is minuscule. That means that governments give mothers incentives to kick fathers out of the home rather than marrying them, even if both together can make that much. From the Front Page Magazine article quoted above:

The marriage penalties that are embedded in welfare programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds a man who is employed in a low-paying job. As a FamilyScholars.org report puts it: “When a couple's income nears the limits prescribed by Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income cause thousands of dollars in benefits to be lost. What all of this means is that the two most important routes out of poverty—marriage and work—are heavily taxed under the current U.S. system.” 

William Galston, who served in the '90s as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, estimated that the welfare system, with its economic disincentives to marriage, was responsible for at least 15% to 20% of the family disintegration in the United States. Libertarian scholar Charles Murray has placed the figure at somewhere around 50%. By Murray's reckoning, the growth and increased liberalization of the “welfare complex” have eroded the traditional ethos of working-class communities that once held people who worked at low-wage jobs, and men who married the mothers of their children, in much higher esteem than unwed parents who became wards of the state.

People tend to respond predictably to incentives. Obviously, these perverse incentives affect everyone who partakes of the welfare state, not just blacks, but blacks are most likely to partake, and are therefore most negatively affected.



Note that blacks make up 15.1% of the under-18 population, but 30.5% of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) recipients, which makes them the demographic most likely to use welfare. Hispanics are next, followed by whites, followed by Asians. Note that, as noted above, blacks are most likely to grow up in fatherless homes, followed by Hispanics, then whites, then Asians. That's a strong correlation, and although it's true that correlation does not necessarily prove causation, when strong correlation exists alongside strong financial incentives, causation becomes rather obvious.

As Walter E. Williams stated:

The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do, and that is to destroy the black family.

I've presented this evidence to my "liberal" friends and they simply don't care. It doesn't matter to them that in reality the welfare state they support has destroyed the most vulnerable American families, causing untold, unnecessary misery. It doesn't matter to them that the murder rate in Chicago and Baltimore, the incarceration rate of young black men, the poverty rate, unemployment rate and rate of drug use among blacks can all be traced back to fatherless homes, which can be traced back to the welfare state. It's not about race. The same is true for poor Hispanics in the migrant farmer communities where I grew up and poor whites in Appalachia.

None of that matters. Like the ignoramus who tossed the non-swimming, terrestrial tortoise in the water without so much as a Google search on his smart phone, facts don't matter to "liberals". All that matters to them is the feeling of righteousness they derive from supporting policies that Democrat politicians insist are compassionate. But there's nothing compassionate about perpetuating generational cycles of dependency, poverty and criminality.

It's not just economically stupid. It's immoral. It's unconscionable. It's an atrocity. It's downright evil.


Further reading:

Get a preview at Amazon.

Perpetuating Stereotypes (Feminist Edition)

Feminist Julie Bindel claims that "marriage can never be feminist". On that much we agree. You can watch and listen to her arguments below.

I get the feeling that Ms. Bindel's video will backfire more often than not. Why? Because Ms. Bindle perpetuates stereotypes about feminists. Compare Ms. Bindle to the women she mocks in her video.

Enlightened feminist Julie Bindel

Poor misguided sap #1

Poor misguided sap #2

Poor misguided sap #3

When selling something, the salesperson matters. That's especially true if you're selling something intangible, like an idea. A product can sell itself if it's good enough. An idea can't. The salesperson needs to embody that which he/she is selling. Ms. Bindel is selling feminism as a means to freedom, and ultimately happiness, yet she she comes off as dour, bitter and generally unpleasant. The impression one gets from the video is that of a woman whose choices have made her miserable, and would love some equally miserable company.

If I didn't know better I'd wonder if Ms. Bindel's video was a parody made by her ideological opponents. But I do know better, because I've been exposed to feminists. Stereotypes about feminists exist for a reason. Behold exhibit A (language warning).



Behold exhibit B.

When selling something, the salesperson matters. That's especially true if you're selling something intangible, like an idea.

I could do this all day, but there's only so much I can take. All these feminists are perfect examples of why "liberals" want conservatives to shut up, while conservatives want "liberals" to keep talking. In fact, when exhibit B went viral, a fellow feminist penned an angry (what else?) email that "provided a list of demands that included a request that [student journalist Kassy] Dillon be prohibited from writing or publishing for Campus Reform or any Mount Holyoke-affiliated student publication".

In other words, a student journalist provided a feminist with a soapbox from which to broadcast her message, and feminists are so embarrassed by their peer and her message that they want to punish the journalist. 

I can't say that I blame them. 

This brings us back to Ms. Bindel's video. She's a terrible salesperson for feminism, not because she gives a false impression of feminism and its adherents, but because she gives an accurate impression of them.  Feminism does, in fact, make women miserable, and miserable company. A 2009 paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (clearly a bastion of conservative thought) put it this way: 

By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative wellbeing is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries.

It's not a paradox. There is no paradox. There is an obvious correlation between increased acceptance of feminist though throughout industrialized countries and increased female misery. Looking at and listening to the women who've most wholeheartedly embraced feminism, no one should be surprised. This is why - like most conservatives - I want feminists to be seen and heard as much as possible. Because I suspect that when most young women are exposed to their misery and hysteria, their reactions will resemble that of this young woman. 




What about the substance of Ms. Bindel's arguments? I'll let Steven Crowder handle that. 




UPDATE (30 May 2016): The Guardian tackles the question of why women are more miserable than ever "despite" feminist "progress", comes tantalizingly close to the answer, and still misses the mark. 

The social history of Switzerland, where women weren’t allowed to vote until 1971, reveals the subtleties of employment expectations on happiness. A decade after Swiss women gained suffrage, the country’s citizens voted in a referendum on whether the constitution should be amended to state that women deserve equal pay for equal work. 

Different parts of Switzerland voted very differently. Unsurprisingly, cantons (Swiss states) with a high proportion of votes in favor of the amendment were recorded as having a small gender wage gap some years later. But strangely, working women in areas with strong traditional values – where most people had voted against equal pay – were happier than working women in liberal cantons. 

Right. "Strangely". No correlation to see here, folks. Move along.