RS McCain

Useful Idiot Jesse Myerson Gets Slapped Around Like a Red-Head Stepchild

By RS McCain.

Myerson is the bourgeois equivalent of the kind of semi-educated twerp who slicks his hair to that Fuhrer emo-flop and quibbles about exactly how many Jews died in the so-called holocaust.

Apologetics for an ideology with Communism’s body count ought to be a one-way ticket to a compound in Idaho, printing off mimeographed newsletters to be sold for a quarter with a dimebag of meth.

I blame Trotsky, because he invented the notion that Communism was pure and humane until Stalin got his hands on it. Which is inane. Stalin did nothing that Lenin (and Trotsky) did not do before him. All he did was (slightly) increase the scale. But Trotsky’s post-downfall bit of self-serving claptrap has allowed generations of the supposedly-educated to look at Stalin and Mao and Ho and Pol Pot and say “that is not communism.”

But it is.

McCain performs yeoman service in stuffing the myth Communism in It’s True Form and The Good Tsar Lenin back on the ash-heap of history where it belongs.

Not shown: Capitalism.

Not shown: Capitalism.

Because I Need More Things to Do, I’ve Now Put Out a Literary Journal

On the Flipboard. I call it Things to Read.

In this issue:

  • Victor Davis Hanson’s “An American Satyricon”
  • Robert Stacy McCain’s “The Columbia Journalism Review is (Still) Decadent and Depraved”
  • Jessica Khoury’s “Is It Science Fiction”
  • An excerpt from Jordan Belfort’s Memoir, “The Wolf of Wall Street”

And much much more (well, more anyway)!

ThingstoRead1

Richard Cohen Calls the Tea Party Racist, But He Used the Wrong Words or Something…

Tempest_in_a_teapot

Richard Cohen is beneath contempt. In all the years I read the Washington Post, I never saw a column of his that was not cheap and tedious. Sure, I’ll fisk E.J. Dionne, because Dionne is a Dem apparatchik in journalist’s clothing, announcing the party line. His columns thus rise to the level of argument. Cohen’s collective works, on the other hand, amount to nothing but the assorted mental burps and prejudices of a man who’s done nothing but pen a newspaper column since 1976.

So this is not me taking notice of Richard Cohen. This is me examining what Richard Cohen said that has everyone so worked up. The offending graph:

Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.

Let’s parse, shall we?

  1. “Today’s GOP is not racist…but it is deeply troubled.” This is the standard You’re-not-racist-but-you-are progressive construction. It allow’s progs to make generalizations about conservatives while sparing any actual conservatives who might be in the room. It’s a variant of the Maybe-not-you-but-you-can’t-deny association smear. So far, so typical.
  2. “…about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be avant-garde”. This is the oh-the-poor-terrified-dears patronisation. You see, conservatives don’t merely dissent from progressive dogma on these subjects. We are filled with troubles about them. We are maiden aunts reaching for our smelling salts at the sight of these kids with their rock n’ roll and their eight-track tapes.
  3. “People with conventional views must suppress a gag reflex when…” And having built the strawman, you put words in his mouth. The idea that objection to interracial marriage constitutes an intrinsic or even significant part of conservatism is a non-starter, but never mind. If Reagan triumphs, they’re going to take the vote away from women. It’s just who those people are.

What seems to be the problem is Cohen’s use of “conventional.” For Cohen’s generation, “conventional” and “conservative” were synonymous. In saying “People with conventional views”, Cohen obviously refers to the “troubled” not-racist-but-racist right. However, “conventional” has a more common meaning, that of “conforming or adhering to accepted standards.” And if you so remove the context and replace Cohen’s intent with the conventional meaning, then it sounds as though he’s saying interracial marriage is something that makes normal people sick.

But why do that to a fellow leftie? Simple. Because the rituals of  racism-dissociation, as limned by Shelby Steele in his magnificent meditation, White Guilt, demand no less. The appearance of racism is all that matters, and all that white progressives need to prove their Not-Racism to themselves and anyone else. Blacks who participate in this ritual get the frisson of sticking it to an old white man, who’s probably racist anyway, because they all are, am I right?

Thus is Richard Cohen, making a tiresome accusation of racism against conservatives, hoist by his own petard. That those who attack him disagree not a jot from his premise doesn’t make the irony any less delicious.

simpsons_nelson_haha

Apparently Feminists Advise Their Daughters to Get Completely Blotto Whenever Possible

Feminism. Actual Picture.

Feminism. Actual Picture.

I have a daughter. She is young. She won’t be young forever. One day she will leave the nest, to go to college or some other place where she will be around many young people. She will likely ignore the drinking laws of this country with the alacrity and skill that her parents did. What will be my advice to her?

Probably something like this:

Be careful. Keep things within balance. Don’t try to go shot for shot with frat boys. They don’t have your best interests at heart. Make your own drinks and know what you’re putting into your body. And when you’ve had enough, STOP. Keep an eye on what’s going on and an eye on yourself. It’s dangerous out there for a young woman.

Apparently this makes me the Patriarchal Monster of the Year. Because, reifying rape culture.

Telling women to be careful precludes the moral education or punishment of men, you see.

So my advice to my daughter ought to be more like:

Honey, if you’re not completely shellacked by six o’clock every evening, then the patriarchy will win. So start with your basic cheap lagers before graduating to some liqueurs, Goldschlager or something, and then end the night knocking back Jaeger bombs with the rugby team. That can only end well.

And I should go further than this. I should manfully resist any suggestion of looking both ways before crossing the street, because it is the responsibility of drivers not to run her over. I should denounce bike locks as an execrable attempt to reify Bike Theft Culture. I should extol the right to leave my wallet and keys on top of my care whenever I leave them, because to do otherwise makes it impossible to arrest someone for grand theft auto.

Sarcasm aside, what about the other side of the equation? What would be my advice to my son?

Probably something like this:

Be careful. Keep things within balance. Don’t try to prove your manhood by binge drinking. Don’t be that one freshman who dies every year of alcohol poisoning.  Make your own drinks and know what you’re putting into your body. And when you’ve had enough, STOP. Remember, you are responsible for everything that you do, whether drunk or sober. If you do something stupid, no one will sympathize with you. They’ll call you an idiot, and they’ll prosecute you. And they’ll be right.

I leave you with my thoughts from the Steubenville Rape Case:

Let’s break this down. A girl gets so drunk that people start making fun of her, then proceeds to go to another “party”, where she spends 20 minutes puking and then gets kicked out. Hey, we’ve all been there. The sensible thing to do is cut your losses and go home. Instead, she rallies for the third party, where two goons are charged with raping her.

Is it her fault she got raped? No, by definition it can’t be. Is it her fault she’s stupid? Yes.  Because getting raped is not the only bad outcome of her state. She might have driven a car and crashed it, killing herself or someone else. For that matter, she might have died from alcohol poisoning. Nothing good comes from getting blackout drunk, and even a 16-year-old girl should be expected to know that.

But never mind, I’m sure feminists hope and pray that their daughters become exactly the kind of girls who consider the party not over if they can still remember it. That’s almost exactly what Susan B. Anthony had in mind.

@rsmcain Gets Me In Trouble Again…

I riff off an Other McCain Post, and now an angry man with his very own blog has decided to tell me off. Like, for real.

Let us savor the magnificence of Whiskey Fire (Fire…of…Whiskey…)!

To be clear: it is not the policy of this blog to make fun of horrible idiots. It is the hobby of the person who perpetrates this blog to make fun of horrible idiots.

this_room_is_full_of_people_who_think_you_are_funny

Like guerrilla warfare, all political protests aim at substituting concentration and passion for actual numbers. The idea is to pretend that your opinions are entirely mainstream, even though they’re so far removed from the mainstream that you have to organize a protest to express them.

NOTES. Citations missing. Concept of “guerilla warfare” utterly puerile, pig-ignorant. Argument hilariously not informed by awareness of many people knowing and studying relevant history, and talking about their findings in public fora. Use of “all” in first sentence worth snickering over. Obvious bog-standard pompous dumbass.

NOTES. Citations missing. Concept of “guerilla warfare”…not explained at all. Sentence beginning with “Argument hilariously not informed…” seems to be lacking hilarity, and a style guide. Finds three-letter words “snicker”-worthy.

Of course, if your “protest” involves nothing more than saying Rape is Like, Seriously Bad You Guys while dressed up like a prostitute (because, post-structuralist ironic frisson!), then you must go he extra mile to pretend that anyone not totally on board with your project is just Terrified of Strong Women, Or Something.

NOTES. Link goes to RS McCain. Hahahahaha. “Post-structuralist ironic frisson” not actual joke involving knowing jack, or shit.

NOTES. Link still goes to RS McCain. That is probably still funny. You are invited to laugh at it.

Q: Why did the Post-Structuralist Ironic Frisson Cross the Road?

A: Jack, or Shit.

I think I screwed that up somewhere…

As for RS McRape:

What people used to mean by the word “rape” has been revised in recent decades because of college women complaining about date rape. The rhetoric of SlutWalk activists — “No means no!” — is obviously not directed at the lurking sociopath, the knife-wielding career criminal who pounces from ambush in darkened alleys. Rather, feminist harangues about the meaning and importance of consent are directed at otherwise law-abiding men who don’t cope appropriately with sexual rejection….

Nowhere is this problem more widely decried than at America’s colleges and universities. Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.

YES YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE, THAT IS RAPE.

If you are “unable to avert” an “erect penis” penetrating you… THAT IS TEXTBOOK RAPE.

As Myles used to say: GAH! GAH! GAH! (“it cannot be often enough stated: women are people.”)

ALLCAPS MEANS YOU DON’T HAVE TO READ OR USE A QUOTE IN CONTEXT, OR DEMONSTRATE AWARENESS THAT A MAN IS SPEAKING HYPOTHETICALLY OR WITH A CERTAIN LEVEL OF IRONY!

Anyone who says otherwise is puerile, and can’t tell any jokes about knowing Jack, or Shit, or when Jack left town.

The point of the SlutWalks is that women are, you know, sexual: and that’s great! Women can be as sexual as they please. Because women by and large like sex, because sex is great.

Oh, so if more men thought of women as being sexual beings, who enjoy their sexuality, then obviously it would be harder to justify having sex with a woman even if she claims not to be into it.

No rapist has ever tried the “Hey, she loved it!” excuse.

But men are still not allowed to rape women.

Oh, word? You’re not allowed to do something to someone that is by definition against their will?

How would we ever know that without Slutwalks?

Why any of this is complicated is beyond me….

It’s not. Learning that Rape is an evil thing comes with what we call socialization and moral education. That it happens anyway is why there are laws against it. What Slutwalks are contributing to this is at best unclear. They’re against rape. That’s good. Who’s for it?

“Strong Woman.” It bothers me how much I hate hearing these words. It shouldn’t. Women are perfectly capable of being Strong, and indeed, must be strong if they hope to have any kind of success in life. But strength is the child of Self-Discipline. You become strong by concentration, by endurance, by will. You do not become strong by making an idiot of yourself in public with fellow idiots.

NOTES. Well, pal, you’re churning on agreeably with the “making an idiot of yourself in public”  program….

Hello, women? This young twit would like you to know that you are perfectly capable of being Strong! Ain’t he a peach?

No, I’m a Scorpio. I understand the confusion.

Although it’s interesting that you read the statement “Women are perfectly capable of being strong,” as some kind of self-advertisement, rather than a straightforward statement of an uncontroversial truth.

Project much?

Strong is not the same as Loud. Strong is not the same as Rude. Strong is not the same as Agreeing With Every Other Persun in the Room With Ovaries (because, Solidarity!). And Strong is not the same as complaining about Esoteric Linguistic Oppression when…

NOTES. When you paraphrase a sexist link, you learn that sexism is grand!

NOTES. When you toss Petitio principii around, you get Non Sequitors for free!

begging-the-question

My Lord, this dimwit publishes this picture:

Duh

You clearly can’t be trusted to handle your bits responsibly, so kindly keep the fuck away from my kids?

Thanks much, fuckface.

Interesting.

Discussing, in public, your sexuality and how much you enjoy it =  Super Feminist Social Justice.

Referencing the Kid from Kindergarten Cop, who expresses (comically, in the context of the film) an entirely common, nonsexual, and taxonomically-accurate description of the difference between males and females = unable to handle “bits” responsibly.

Yeah, I got nuthin’. Following that particular path of logic would take enough breadcrumbs to feed Haiti for a decade.

UPDATE: Stacey McCain weighs back in.  And Fire of Whiskey appends his initial post with some withering snark .

that'snice

 

When You Slutwalk in Public, the Public Also Slutwalks in You

Like guerrilla warfare, all political protests aim at substituting concentration and passion for actual numbers.  The idea is to pretend that your opinions are entirely mainstream, even though they’re so far removed from the mainstream that you have to organize a protest to express them.

Of course, if your “protest” involves nothing more than saying Rape is Like, Seriously Bad You Guys while dressed up like a prostitute (because, post-structuralist ironic frisson!), then you must go he extra mile to pretend that anyone not totally on board with your project is just Terrified of Strong Women, Or Something.

“Strong Woman.” It bothers me how much I hate hearing these words. It shouldn’t. Women are perfectly capable of being Strong, and indeed, must be strong if they hope to have any kind of success in life. But strength is the child of Self-Discipline. You become strong by concentration, by endurance, by will. You do not become strong by making an idiot of yourself in public with fellow idiots.

Strong is not the same as Loud. Strong is not the same as Rude. Strong is not the same as Agreeing With Every Other Persun in the Room With Ovaries (because, Solidarity!). And Strong is not the same as complaining about Esoteric Linguistic Oppression when…

You’re trying to control the narrative, to impose your discourse and deny me the right to disagree.

It’s a straight-up totalitarian power trip, and I refuse to play along.

Despite the illusion, totalitarians are not really that strong. The ones that don’t get bombed to rubble swirl down the drain of their own unworkable economics. Unless they sell their ideologies out completely in order to be Wal-Mart’s major supplier, and even then hiccups abound.

When you get the attention of a public that you have defined as hostile, then you get the attention of a hostile audience. If you can’t handle the predictable reaction, then maybe you should reconsider this whole “empowerment” concept.

kindergartencop

Progressives Love Them Some Jailbait

Here’s a joke from my old blog:

Q: How do you separate the grown-ups from the children at the Huffington Post?

A: With a crowbar.

This was in response not only to the linked material, but to the centrifugal talking points that accompanied the almost-extradition of Roman Polanski from Switzerland a few years ago. You remember, “it wasn’t rape-rape” and “what was that little girl doing there anyway?” and all of that. At the time, I turned it all into an essay entitled “With the Rich and Mighty, or is Roman Polanski as smart as Michael Vick?” (available as part of my Typing into the Void collection, which I mention instead of rattling any kind of tip jar. It’s only $2.99 on Kindle!) It seemed to me then, and seemed to me now, that proggies are entirely willing to give legal passes to members of Designated Victim Groups and/or Significantly Important Artistes. Polanski was both.

Kaitlyn Hunt, an 18-year-old charged with statutory rape on a 14-year-old girl, only meets the first requirement. But that’s good enough for the sterling intellectuals at Daily Kos, who are busily pretending that Florida law, which has set its age of consent at 16 or 18 years old, depending on closeness of age, somehow has a “unless it’s for hot lesbo action” corollary. Other McCain has the goods.

I seem to recall an Ally McBeal storyline along the same lines: defending a woman in her 30′s charged with seducing a 16-year-old boy because she was full of so many feels and just had to Bridge her Madison County, IYKWIMAITYD. It’s okay if you’re a woman, or gay, or a gay woman. Heterosexual males, on the other hand…

The only winning move is not to play.

(Sidebar: How stale are my pop culture references? I mean, Ally McBeal, Bridges of Madison County, and then I toss in a quote from Wargames. These jokes are all old enough vote. I need to hang out at Buzzfeed some more.)

A Bunch of People Violently Died, Which Means It’s Time for Chris Matthews to Beclown Himself.

And Outrage becomes cliche.

At different points during the day, I had the TV on three different cable channels: Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. None of them have covered themselves in glory — Allah has video of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer yammering pointlessly – but Chris Matthews was atrocious beyond description.

The worst part of ideological cocooning lies in how you lose sight of the ability to attribute good or evil outside of your epistemic shell. If violence happens in America, the Tea Party must be to blame, because the Tea Party is the representation of everything I think evil, so every evil act belongs to them somehow.

At present, the “authorities” (not sure if Boston PD or FBI or some combination thereof) are questioning a Saudi national in connection with the bombing. That doesn’t mean anything. They may determine he had nothing to do with it. But I don’t think there are very many Saudis in the Tea Party movement. Call it a hunch.

It’s boring to have to point these things out. It wearies the soul that such folly should stand, naked and unashamed, in front of us all. It’s infuriating that while we are burying our dead, that we have to blame it on each other’s politics. But the Left will have it so. They never let a good crisis go to waste.

Kermit Gosnell and the Holy of Holies

Abortion is not new. It did not spring fully-formed from the head of the Supreme Court in 1973. It is as old as civilization itself, and the controversy surrounding it is just as old:

“Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?”

That’s St. John Chrysostom, one of the Doctors of the Church, writing in the 4th century AD, damning men for seducing women and abandoning them, forcing abortion upon them (just in case you thought that those old unmarried men had no idea what made babies happen). This argument has been going on for a very long time, and it’s going to keep going on. Nothing that has happened recently is going to change that.

It’s safe to say that the dam is bursting on the Kermit Gosnell story, as it inevitably must have. Nothing as lurid and horrifying as the prosecution alleges could have truly failed to escape the public consciousness, no matter how much certain circles would have preferred it.

I am late to this story, not because I didn’t know about it, and not because I haven’t been reading up on it (Stacy McCain in particular has been all over it from the beginning). I haven’t wanted to write about this for the same reason Megan McArdle didn’t: sheer revulsion and horror. What this bland, grandfatherly-looking man of 72 – a poster-boy for “the banality of evil” if ever one existed – created in his Philadelphia clinic amounts to an infant-sized Auschwitz, a crime against humanity. And even generically pro-life people like myself dont’ want to realize that it exists, for to do so would be to violate a polite taboo.

In ancient Israel, the sanctorum at the center of the Temple in Jerusalem was called the Holy of Holies. As the home of the Ark of the Covenant, it made incarnate the presence of God in Israel. Only one man – the High Priest – on only one day – Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement – could ever enter the Holy of Holies. Anyone else (such as the sons of Aaron in Leviticus 10) who entered died. The presence of God was not for the unworthy to look upon.

If modern feminism’s obsession with “reproductive freedom” has something of a religious character (and there are those that say so), then the birth control pill is its Eucharist, and abortion its Holy of Holies. It is Between a Woman and Her Doctor: mere mortals are not supposed to know what goes on. When anti-abortion activists take to the streets with pictures of mutilated fetuses, we are angry at the makers of the pictures, not the makers of the content. This is true even of pro-life people, such as myself. We don’t want to see this. We don’t want to know. Witness Roger Simon:

The trial of Dr. Gosnell is a potential time bomb exploding in the conventional liberal narrative on abortion itself.  This is about the A-word.

No feeling human being can read this story or watch it on TV without being confronted with the obvious conclusion — like it or not — that abortion is murder.

It may be murder with extenuating circumstances (rape, survival of the mother, etc.) but it is murder nonetheless.  Dr. Gosnell — monster though he is — has accidentally shoved that uncomfortable truth in our faces.

Pushing this case front and center in the media would change the national narrative on this subject.  (The current stats are here, via Rasmussen.)

I can give you two guinea pigs to prove this point — my wife Sheryl and me.  We were in the kitchen last night, preparing dinner, when we saw a short report of this story on the countertop TV.

Both lifelong “pro-choice” people, after watching only seconds, we embarked in an immediate discussion of whether it was time to reconsider that view.  (Didn’t human life really begin at the moment of conception?  What other time?) Neither of us was comfortable as a “pro-choice” advocate in the face of these horrifying revelations.  How could we be?

Yes, Dr. Gosnell was exceptional (thank God for that!), but a dead fetus was a dead fetus, even if incinerated in some supposedly humane fashion rather than left crying out in blind agony on the operating room floor, as was reportedly the case with one of Gosnell’s victims. I say blind because this second-trimester fetus did not yet have fully formed eyes. (Think about that one.)

So I don’t think I’m “pro-choice” anymore, but I’m not really “pro-life” either.  I would feel like a hypocrite. I don’t want to pretend to ideals I have serious doubts I would be able to uphold in a real-world situation.  If a woman in my family, or a close friend, were (Heaven forbid) impregnated through rape, I would undoubtedly support her right to abortion.  I might even advocate it.  I also have no idea how I would react if confronted by having to make a choice between the life of a fetus and his/her mother.  Just the thought makes my head spin.

And there it is. We are compromised. We see murder and we pretend not to. We call it something else. We treat it as magic, as though a first-trimester abortion mystically removes the unwanted-abstraction-which-is-not-alive-shut-up, transubstantiates the woman from “pregnant” to “not pregnant” and sends her heroically on her way. The death, the blood, the humanity-reduced-to-laboratory-specimens (I have seen them), we doublethink these messy realities away. And we tell our young (and ourselves, truth be told) that they may fornicate freely, without consequence, because “protection” exists, and if “protection” fails (or they fail “protection”) we have this Serious And Important Issue to Pontificate and Philosophize About, which will unmake the the consequence.

We call this “Love”. We call it “Modern.” We call it “Necessary.” We call it “Woman Retaking her Power from the Patriarchy.” We call it “Free of Medieval Moralizing.” We call it “Rational”. We don’t call it “Infant Girl Decapitated With Scissors.

We don’t want to see it. We don’t want to know.