Apr 14

Why Sebelius’ Farewell Address Was So Satisfying

Here’s the link to the video.

  1. KS is just one example of the overly-self-important, elitist women who are SURE they are superior to the Hoi Polloi.  She kind of smiles (well, it REALLY doesn’t look like a smile – more like gas pains – tight-lipped, and NOT amused) condescendingly when challenged, barely tolerating the time before she can explain – in VERY simple words (you KNOW how the commoners are – they just WON’T understand complex thoughts), her position.
  2. When she fell on her @$$, during the Obamacare rollout, she was clearly LIVID – she went from her usual tight-lipped expression to nearly having her lips DISAPPEAR – well, kind of like the usability of the web app.  Naturally, like any well-bred WASP (except for that icky P part – no need to actually get involved in religion – opiate of the masses and all), she resolutely accepted responsibility.  Not that she was actually responsible, you understand, just that, in the elite tradition, she would SAY she was responsible.
  3. You can’t say she didn’t do her part – throwing money around to fix the problem, shoveling vast numbers of plebians – I mean, citizens – into the system, even resorting to AGAIN changing regulations to allow for delayed sign-up, waiving verification, pushing them into Medicaid, and, finally, LOTS and LOTS of unemployed – and, for all we know, unemployable – former ACORN activists, felons, layabouts, and regular people, to man the phones to sign up applicants.
  4. It took Time and Money, and probably Blood, Sweat, and Tears (great band, BTW), to fudge the numbers – I mean, count the applications – and FINALLY announce that the whole thing was a HUGE success!  For several days, she basked in the glory.
  5. Until she was fired – I mean DECIDED of her OWN volition to resign.  Have to go out when you’re on top!
  6. Next on the Sebelius Success Train?  A memoir (one that, like most Democratic books, will mysteriously end up on the Best Seller list, despite being remaindered everywhere - read the comments at the link for some suggestions as to WHY), a cushy university chair, and piles of money that SOMEHOW just HAPPEN to end up in her bank account.

Someday, walk around your local public library, and count up the number of Democratic memoirs, compared to the Republican/Conservative ones – The D’s WAY outnumber the R’s.  Funnily enough, you can seldom find Grant’s highly regarded memoirs (he was likely HEAVILY assisted by Mark Twain – unlike Ayers, an engaging writer).

Mar 29

How to Use Professor’s Use of the Phrase “Cultural/Political Hegemony” To Win the Argument

First, if you are in college, my sympathies – truly.

You are paying more for a degree that is worth less than at any time in our country’s history.

If male, you are maneuvering in a minefield of feminist threats:

  • If drinking, your actions will be judged as though you were completely sober and capable of planning.  Any woman involved will be a helpless victim of you, and anyone in the vicinity.
  • If your ALLEGED actions become public, the resulting embarrassment will be just what you deserve.  She, on the other hand, will be protected from public exposure, and, if “outed”, will blunt efforts to hold her responsible for her actions by crying “slut shaming” (which, according to feminists, is a BAD thing, unlike the same thing used against males).
  • If brought up on charges by the college, you will have few Constitutional Rights.  No Due Process, Right to an attorney, Rules of Evidence, or Jury of your Peers.  You could be expelled from college, losing a significant investment of time and money, with little ability to appeal that decision.  All for an incident that does NOT rise to the level of a prosecutable crime.

If female, you will be “subtly” encouraged to:

  • Engage in random sex with relative strangers.  You will be told that it is “empowering”.
  • Drink liberally, and then use your drunken state as a reason why your partner in sex is TOTALLY to blame for the activities you both decided to engage in.
  • Express your bitterness towards men in all-female group sessions.  Accept no responsibility for your decisions turning out badly.  Focus on your victimhood.
  • Sign up for “women’s classes”, then, complain that employers don’t want to hire you at high wages, even though what you learned has no economic value to employers.
  • DON’T take math, science, or technical courses beyond the minimum.  They’re HARD!  Complain about the “mean and sexist” professors that expect you to master the coursework, without some special assistance to you for the “handicap” of being a woman.

And the classes!  As a “privileged person (if White, even though your background may be poverty-stricken and uneducated, you will be assumed to be a member of the Power Elite.  A Person of Color, even though coming from a well-educated and wealthy family background, will be presumed to be disadvantaged and given scholarships & financial assistance), you will be accused of promoting cultural/political hegemony.  That’s like the WORST thing, EVAH!

Of course, you will ask what that is.  The professor’s explanation will be meandering and confusing.  Like me, you will finally Google the phrase, only to find that it means (Wikipedia definition):

Hegemony (UK /hɨˈɡɛməni/US /hɨˈɛməni/;[1][2][3] Greek:ἡγεμονία hēgemonía, “leadership” and “rule”) is an indirect form of government, and of imperial dominance in which the hegemon (leader state) rules geopolitically subordinate states by the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force.

Huh?  According to Merriam-Webster, it’s better (and more clearly) defined as:


noun \hi-ˈje-mə-nē, -ˈge-; ˈhe-jə-ˌmō-nē\

: influence or control over another country, a group of people, etc.

Full Definition of HEGEMONY

1:  preponderant influence or authority over others : domination <battled for hegemony in Asia>

2:  the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group

I don’t get it.  Rather than using military muscle to overcome a government, and subdue a people, Hegemonists use influence/persuasion to spread their way of life to other cultures.

And, somehow, that’s a BAD thing?

Understand, these professors don’t see violent takeover as bad – providing that the states exerting this enforced, imposed-from-afar influence are NOT the United States of America.  They have no problem with rooting for Muslim-dominated countries to invade, China to send out its armies, or for Russia to take over the Crimea.

They just don’t want the USA to come out on top – ever – even by peaceful means.

Oh, on that how to use the professor’s words against them in arguments?  Don’t accept their framing of that phrase.  Every time they talk about political or cultural hegemony, say:

  • So, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that using peaceful, non-violent means to spread your culture is wrong?  Are you in favor of imposing your culture by force?
  • So, if you DON’T try to persuade people to give up aspects of their culture, you’re in favor of:
    • Slavery of Africans by people of Arab descent?
    • Genital mutilation?
    • Forced marriage by adult men to underage girls – even as young as 6?
    • Stoning of women who have sex outside of marriage – even if raped?
    • So, you’re against the Russian take-over of the Crimea?
    • So, you’re against forbidding Christianity in Muslim countries, which is being facilitated by burning churches, kidnapping and rape of Christian women, then forcing them to convert and marry their rapists? (Christians were in these countries BEFORE Islam – they have the antiquity high ground)

You get the idea.  Turn their words against them.  Make them justify their position.  As Saul Alinsky wrote, in Rules for Radicals,

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)


Mar 29

Ideas for Lent

This is horribly late, but, better late than never:

From the Roman Catholic Blog, DPC:

1. Basic plan: “DPC”

D: Carry out the little duty of each moment, with faith (God sees and knows even our smallest acts) and love (because Love is the measure of all things).

“Do you really want to be a saint? Carry out the little duty of each moment: do what you ought and concentrate on what you are doing.” (St. Josemaria Escriva, The Way, n. 815)

P: Patience! With yourself, with others, with things and traffic, with work and delays; early in the morning and late at night and in all the moments in between!

“Let nothing disturb you. Let nothing frighten you.

All things pass. God never changes.

Patience wills all that it strives for.

He who has God finds that he lacks nothing.

God alone suffices!” (St. Teresa of Avila)

C: Do not complain: in the morning or in the afternoon or at night; to yourself or to others or about others; out loud or on the inside. One exception: you may complain to the Lord if you love him enough.

“You complain? And you tell me you have reason to complain: One pinprick after another!… But do you not realize that it is silly to be surprised at finding thorns among roses?

(St. Josemaria, Furrow 237)

Check it out for other ideas, and for some interesting information/links to things Catholic

Mar 11

The New “Womb-man”

Here’s some information about IVF and the increase in surrogacy – rent-a-womb services.

“For women under the age of 35, 40.7% of fertility treatment attempts resulted in a live birth. So did 31.3% of the attempts by women ages 35 to 37; 22.2% of the attempts by women ages 38 to 40; 11.8% of the attempts by women who were 41 or 42; and 3.9% for women who were 43 or older.


So, because most older women do NOT experience a successful pregnancy, even with a “test-tube” conception, SOMEONE has to carry the child for 9 months.

Enter the “womb-man” – the person who is thought of only as a disembodied uterus. She needn’t be the same woman who donates the egg – in fact, for the purposes of wresting the baby from her at birth, it’s MUCH better if she is not.  It’s easier to deny her parental rights if she has no genetic connection to the child she nurtured during her pregnancy.

Read more about the ethical implications of this trend – about 1.5% of children born have parents who used IVF.

Mar 07

WHY Do Democrats Demonize the Koch Brothers?

Charles Cooke has an interesting analysis.

He points out that, although the Kochs have some relatively common Conservative positions, the

Kochs are not as simple as the hysteria would have them be. Indeed, even the lightest of research reveals them to be in favor of gay marriage, of drug legalization, of reforming and expanding the immigration system, of withdrawing troops from the Middle East, of cutting defense spending, of curbing the NSA’s overreach, and of helping to balance the budget by raising (some) taxes.

Is it their money?  They made it legally, as did Warren Buffet – who is lauded by the Democrats.

Is it that they donate money (their own) to affect the elections?  Unions do the same thing – with MORE money – NOT their own – and Democrats don’t seem to have a problem with that.

Is it that Harry Reid, and others who spew their name like a curse, believe that ANY opposition to the Democratic agenda must be annihilated?

Sounds to me like some Democrats have a peculiar idea of what representative government is about.  If Harry can force politicians to avoid the Koch brothers, lest they be tainted by the association, that should have a dampening effect on their chances to win elections.

Maybe THAT’S the point.

Feb 28

“Three” Parents, Surrogacy, and Commercialization in Conception and Birth

I’ve been thinking about this subject for some time.

First, some admissions:

  • Getting pregnant was NEVER a problem for me.  I had 3 kids in four years.  Coulda done more, but I was really getting tired of birthin’
  • In my younger years, I did follow the crowd and use contraception.  Never had to consider an abortion, which I thank God for.  Some things, it was just a mercy I hadn’t been in a position to have to decide upon – I don’t know that I’d have decided in a good way.
  • There have been days my kids drove me crazy.  Well, the same is true of my husband.  But, I never wished they hadn’t been born.

I never had to wrestle with the conflicts between a strong desire to have children, and the ethical problems that lay within that decision.

In high school, we all read “Brave New World” and “1984″ (funny, seldom do kids read either these days.  1984 is too uncomfortably close to the near-worship of our current leader.

And, Brave New World, with its manufactured baby products, seems WAY too close to modern elite parenting.

And, it IS an elite problem – they are the ones that delay pregnancy until conception is difficult, if not impossible.  They are the ones (Octo-Mom notwithstanding) who have the money to make their quest for a mini-me possible.  And, they are the ones that can see a potential egg donor or surrogate, and see – what?  A virtual non-person?  A “lesser” human being?  A bought-and-paid-for servant?

Egg donors take enormous risks.  The process of “harvesting” eggs requires the donor to be pumped full of drugs, some of which will imperil future pregnancies, cause premature menopause, or, even, serious illness or death.

The surrogates take risks, too.  They take on the normal risks of pregnancy, plus the added complication of implantation or medical intervention to join sperm to egg.  If the sperm donor is gay, she risks AIDS exposure, hepatitis, or other STD (Yes, I know that the sperm is screened.  Keep in mind that, in the pre-AIDS testing years, such an unknown pathogen couldn’t have been guarded against.  Caveat emptor – or rather, let the SELLER beware.).

Here’s a thoughtful look at the ethical challenges that commercial child-buying entails.

Here’s a look at sperm buying, from a person whose father was “Donor”.

Sex was not necessary for me to exist. I was not the natural fruit of a marriage. I was a very clear decision, an economic transaction and exchange of services rendered by buyers and sellers who did not know each other—not even as acquaintances. – See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/4628/#sthash.8H149Qag.dpuf

He differentiates between types of immortality:

There are two types of immortality: genetic and memetic. Genetic immortality includes the preservation as well as the reproduction of genes. Living forever like Duncan MacLeod in Highlander is one example of genetic immortality through preservation; freezing your body cryogenically is another. Genghis Khan and his now 16 million living descendants are an example of genetic immortality through reproduction. Memetic immortality, on the other hand, has little to do with the physical matter of our bodies. It is the theory that mental content and “cultural units”—ideas, beliefs, patterns of behavior, etc., can be reproduced from mind to mind—as individuals influence each other to adopt new ways of thinking, preferences, and so on. – See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/4628/#sthash.8H149Qag.dpuf

How does the never-present father benefit?

Fifty years ago a man had to devote his life through marriage to pass on his genes. Today he doesn’t even have to buy his mother’s child a drink. – See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/4628/#sthash.8H149Qag.dpuf

If the seed of the father contains at least SOME of the character traits – introvert/extrovert, easy-going/uptight, athletic/clumsy – then will our future civilization be shaped – perhaps NOT for the better – by the careless seeding of these absent men?

This woman was charged with crimes.  Read it, and tell me – just how different are her actions from the LEGAL actions of those purchasing surrogates?

Feb 26

A Blog You REALLY Have to Put on Your Daily List

I’ve long been a fan of Francis W. Porretto’s writing, both his blogs and his fiction.  Please, consider adding his blog to your list of frequently checked sites.

How to work with Liberals/Leftists?  He has some good advice:

Compromise is potentially constructive only when it’s strictly about means: i.e., when the two sides angling toward a compromise sincerely agree on the end to be sought, and are both willing to allow that they might be wrong about what means would best serve that end. Under those conditions, everyone involved will be watching the outcome and judging the means applied by that standard alone. When the ends are opposed to one another,compromise must disserve one or the other. It cannot be any other way.

If your end is political liberty — the maximum possible freedom from coercion or constraint for peaceable persons — there’s absolutely no reason to “dialogue” with persons whose end is an expansion of State power. Compromising with statists means promoting their end, which is the exact opposite of your end. Yet many a freedom-minded person will feel a tug toward such a “dialogue,” and the ideal of compromise, despite the clarity of the above. This is the Nice-Guy Trap in action.

We’re indoctrinated practically from birth about the goodness of “sharing,” and how Nice Guys should “try to see both sides” — of everything. Nice Guys mustn’t declare others to be The Enemy even when The Enemy has already done so in the plainest possible ways. That’s because confrontation is bad, don’t y’know. At any rate, it’s unpleasant, which in modern “thought” amounts to the same thing.

Hidden beneath the Nice-Guy Trap is a pair of steel jaws that can snap any principle cleanly in half. This is so obvious as to be tautological: He who compromises on principle has surrendered it to some other end.

There’s more, and I suggest you read it.

Feb 26

Benghazi Update

Here’s a link to a THOROUGH summary of the events of 9/11/12.

I’ll continue blogging on this issue in the future.

WHY is it important?  Here’s a link to Neil Young singing about ANOTHER 4 dead.

4 Dead








They didn’t have to die.













Oh, well, is that SUCH a big deal?  As Madam Secretary Clinton <s>said</s> yelled, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Seals Denied













Feb 22

This is a BAD Idea!

Honestly, you’d think that one of the requirements for people working in government today is a COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the Constitution!

There seems to be no other way to explain this boneheaded decision:

FCC to “monitor” news broadcasts for bias

Even more EXCITING, the firm that the FCC is looking at to conduct the study of the media, specializes in “social welfare”.

Here’s a link to the actual proposal.  I’m not that concerned about them looking at what they call “Critical Information Needs” – that’s examining the actual content, and comparing it to how well it matches what the public has a need to know (assuming, perhaps unrealistically, that our Leftist government minions can fairly judge that) – but, that the major focus of the study seems to be on “perceived” needs.

Whose perception is going to take precedence?  Leftists?  Minorities (including transgender, transexual, bi-, undecided, Arab-heritage – the RIGHT kind, the Muslims, not those “icky” Christian Arabs, those with quasi-psychiatric diagnoses that are PROUDLY used to excuse horrible behavior, et al)?

I’m confident that this will be used as a club to eliminate non-Leftist media.

BTW, isn’t it funny that the ones that seem to be getting most enervated about this are NOT the Old Media, but the New Media?  Who says the MSM haven’t outlived their purpose?

Feb 21

What Do You REALLY Know About History?

A recent review of books about Ulysses S Grant made me wonder.

Too often, history is written by supporters of the leading party.  In present day, history taught in schools is SOLIDLY controlled by Liberal/Leftist teachers, and written to reflect that slant.

Therefore, what children learn is:

  • Washington, Jefferson, and almost all of the other WHITE Founding Fathers were racist, sexist, and, generally, Bad Guys.  The ONLY reason for the “3/5ths” clause in the Constitution is that they ALL Hated Black People.
  • After those early days, the only presidents worth mentioning are Andrew Jackson (man of the people), Abraham Lincoln (we won’t mention his party affiliation, but we LOVE him because he abused the Constitution to keep the Union together), Teddy Roosevelt (another unmentionable party, but not REALLY – he was a Progressive!  Which is a Wonderful Thing!), and Wilson (REALLY smart – an honest-to-God PhD – and we LOVE his League of Nations idea, which only failed because of those BAD Republicans, who like to see helpless creatures die grisly deaths, among other failings.  They love him MOST because he was a Progressive).
  • Then, after a period of prosperity (for some STRANGE, unknown reason, it coincided with a series of Republican administrations ), we have The SAINTED FDR (who, just like Wilson, trashed the Constitution), followed by Cold Warriors (including Truman, who, although a Democrat, had the unfortunate habit of not always kowtowing to Communists), followed by Another SECULAR Saint, JFK (he had to be a Secular Saint, because he sure wasn’t all that Catholic, according to his family), LBJ (Bad-Good – Bad on Vietnam, Good on the Great Society), The VERY BAD – in fact, E-V-I-L Nixon (Yeah, the Progressives went all Impeachment on yo’ a$$!), Ford (Eh.), Carter (there are no words to describe how bad a president he was, except to say that he and Obama are neck-and-neck for the ABSOLUTELY WORST!), Reagan (Boo!  Hiss!  Yet, amazingly, the economy improved and the debt lessened under his administration – and, foreign relations were terrific).
  • Then, Bush I (Eh.), Billy Boy Clinton (who managed to eclipse JFK for sleazy, tawdry actions – in his case, both in and out of the bedroom), and Bush II (neither as bad nor as good as his enemies and friends say).
  • And, then, there’s Obama.  Who:
    • Took office under the cloud of probable primary and election fraud.
    • Proceeded to mis-manage the economy so badly that we’re still mired in unemployment, low GDP, and national debt.
    • Blithely ignored the Constitution (What, exactly, was he supposed to be an expert on?)
    • Handled corruption and other impeachable offenses by grandly declaring that he, and all his people, were completely innocent, even before the investigation began.  Then, proceeded to block those investigations.  Then, again declared that there was nothing to the charges.
    • Has a backside that is covered in layers of lipstick from the Mainstream Media.  Still enjoys telling them to shut up, and take his word for everything.  They still grovel at his feet.
    • Has stirred up more racially-based hatred than ANY president, including Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the Federal government.  His take on current events:  If you’re Black, you could be my son.  If you’re White, why are you even talking – you know you’re a Hater!

One bright spot is the recent fictional books by Rush Limbaugh, which are intended for young people to learn more about the United States’ history, not as they are often taught in school.

I’m convinced that it will be the efforts of SEVERAL generations to remove the Leftist detritus from our culture.

Older posts «