Questioning Michelle Obama

As most of us know, Michelle Obama has been pretty vocal with her opinions during her husband's campaign (sometimes even undercutting the "official" message he's telling us).

However, now we are told by him not to question what his wife says.

Huh? Why not?

If someone enters a debate, then it goes without saying that their statements are subject to being questioned or challenged, just like those of anyone else in the discussion.

Otherwise, they are insisting on the right to slam other people and their opinions, without those people having the right to respond. In what way is that fair or reasonable? I find that attitude worrisome in someone who aspires to civic leadership.

It also suggests that we are to treat Ms Obama as we would a small child who hides behind an adult, occasionally sticking her head out from behind his legs to make rude comments or stick her tongue out, and that the only proper responses to the things she says are

• Tolerant silence
• Saying "that's nice" and patting her on the head

I mean, if we're not to challenge or question what she says, aren't those the only alternatives? In what way is this respectful of Ms Obama... or, for that matter, of the topics under discussion, which of course is the real issue?

There is one way that this twisted attitude makes sense, and that is if the intent is to allow the Obama campaign to make statements that no "reasonable or polite" person would challenge.

IMO it's sad and revealing when a candidate feels he needs to stoop to this level of petty, and sophomoric, attempts at manipulation.

Michelle, like Hillary, is a big girl who can take care of herself. If she wants to speak publicly, let her (and him) be expected to deal with the resulting discourse like the rest of the grownups.

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" -- Harry S Truman, Democrat

More laws we can ignore a la Mayor Nutter

Defying the law by restricting guns in order to "do something" about crime makes as much sense as....

... defying US civil rights law by reintroducing Jim Crow laws, in order to "do something" about improving race relations

... taking the vote away from women and forcing them to stay at home, in order to "do something" about womens' rights

... putting children into the care of known pedophiles, in order to "do something" about child abuse

Apart from the fact that Nutter, in passing these putative laws, is defying the laws of the state of PA, as duly passed by its elected legislature, there are these things to consider:

Either Michael Nutter hasn't done his homework on the effects of "gun control", or he's so terrified of the Philadelphia criminal community that he feels compelled to introduce measures that empower them further (of course, there couldn't possibly be any other possible reasons).

It's inconceivable that Nutter hasn't done his homework on this topic. If he's so terrified of the local criminals that he's willing to subvert the laws of PA and the rights of its citizens, then perhaps it's time for the national government to send in the US Marshals or National Guard to help him clean house.

It worked with George Wallace when he defied the law of the land in favor of bigotry, and I'm sure it can help with the Philadelphia of poor, helpless Mayor Nutter.

Philadelphia passes restrictive local gun laws in defiance of state law

http://cbs3.com/local/gun.control.legislation.2.700050.html

Erm... why, exactly?

Murder rates in Philly have for over 10 years been lower than they were before the city was obliged to honor PA’s concealed carry law in 1996. Some years they have been up to 30% lower (something Mayor Nutter and his police chief never seem to want to discuss, for some reason).

Why, then, does Philly need new gun laws at all?

Maybe what Philly really needs is an administration that is less anti-gun.

Given John Street’s anti-gun tirades during his mayorship, and now Nutter’s attitude, I can easily imagine that crime bosses in the city might, following those tirades, have gotten the bright idea of ordering their guys to shoot people randomly whenever possible. Why not try to make the mayors' words into reality, and help bring forward the day when their victims might once again be generally unarmed?

The city’s stance on guns is irresponsible, dangerous, and goes against every real-world example, historical and recent, of the true effects of gun restrictions. They enable criminals, and they enable political intimidation of defenseless serfs, sorry, constituents.

The city’s stance is also cowardly and despicable, since it goes after the law-abiding (even those under a protection order!) and does NOTHING substantial to hinder criminals. God knows, criminals are dangerous people. I guess we shouldn’t expect the city to actually tangle with them. Better to go after the law-abiding wives, husbands, grandparents, mothers, fathers, gay, crippled, minority and small business owners who’ve done nothing wrong, except dare to protect themselves and their loved ones with an effective deterrent to criminals.

---

I posted the content above to citypaper.net, an online Philadelphia paper which does not generally agree with the viewpoints above. I wonder how long my post will stay online:

http://www.citypaper.net/blogs/clog/2008/04/16/philadelphia-gun-control-nutter-abraham-harrisburg/

Returning the abused to the care of the abusers

Some years ago, I watched a fact-based miniseries that told the story of a Catholic school in Nova Scotia, which in the early 70s was involved in a paedophilia scandal.

Some of the children tried to resist the advances of the "brothers", and some of the older teens tried to openly defy them, at the cost of terrible physical abuse.

Eventually, word got out by way of an outside worker who saw one of the injured teens, and heard some of what was going on, and despite much effort on the part of the "brothers" and the local Catholic authorities to silence and intimidate the children, and to put pressure on local authorities to drop the case, many brave children (and at least one of the Brothers who was innocent) risked punishment and defied the intimidation, and gave depositions and testimony.

What finally happened was that pressure from the church resulted in the police working on the case being intimidated into emasculating their report, the guilty parties went free (though they left the area), and the school was placed back into the control of other "brothers" who were, seemingly, little different in their views and actions than the previous bunch.

In other words, the abused stood up for themselves and defied the abusers, at considerable risk to themselves, and sought help from other powerful groups and institutions in their world.

And the end result was that they were betrayed by by a lot of smug, craven apparatchiks and suck-ups, many of whom had connections to the abusing organization. The victims were patted on the head, told everything would be just fine, asked to smile bravely, and sent back to the very same group who'd been abusing them to begin with (and the results were not good).

I thought of that story again today, while reading this news story, about NATO's treatment of Georgia and Ukraine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...04/wnato104.xml

Nato bars ex-Soviet states in win for Russia

Nato, led by Germany and France, wilted in the face of a sustained campaign of pressure and intimidation by the Kremlin, which has argued that the two former Soviet states must stay within Moscow's sphere of influence.ties with Europe.

If tensions persist, Nato's capitulation will be seen as short-sighted and futile.

The alliance has already been accused of breaching its own constitution, which calls for membership to be conferred on any European democracy that wants it.

The "Great Powers" throwing smaller democracies to the wolves? I'm sure we've never seen anything like THAT before on the world stage.

When, in modern times, did we start openly deciding the fate of countries based not on those countries' aspirations, but on whose "sphere of influence" they are in, and what that "somebody" might think about it?

If that's the current model, then let's make Cuba a US territory again. Or is George W Bush not actually a big enough dictator after all, for other countries to want to grovel at his feet?

Shame, NATO. Shame.

Surrendering to Sharia law in the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/09/nsharia209.xml

Sharia law already enforced in 10 courts (UK)

.........

I'd be willing to bet that if one of these Sharia courts sentenced a Briton to death, amputation or lashing, and carried out the sentence, they'd be permitted to get away with it.

First of all, Britons are almost completely defenseless, by law and in any practical sense. You can go to jail there simply for punching someone who's invaded your home at night.

Secondly, the police can't be everywhere at once, and since (as in many US cities) they can take hours to show up at the scene of a crime, they're not going to be any use protecting anyone.

Thirdly, the "official" police and courts are probably terrified of the people who make up the Sharia power base in the UK. After all, the police, court officers and bureaucrats, and their family members, are as defenseless as everyone else in the UK (who's law-abiding).

This is the sad and inhumane end state of a society whose members have been unwilling, or unable, to defend themselves or their way of life from thugs of any sort, for a very long time.

It's not about disliking Muslims (or anyone else). It's about keeping a system alive that brings out the best, not the worst, in all of its citizens whatever their religion or background, and is able, in its strength, to welcome new members whatever their origin or creed.

I would say that if this trend continues, England as we have known it will in a generation or two be as extinct as Ionian Greece. And it's worth noting that some other European countries are in a not dissimilar position.

A sad, shameful, needless, harmful and entirely preventable loss.

Koans For Our Time

A man had moved to a new town, and went to the butcher shop there to buy meat for his dinner.

After the butcher wrapped the meat and the man paid him, the butcher said, "I see you're new in town. Would you like to come to my neighborhood for a barbeque, and meet some of the other townspeople?"

"I couldn't possibly. You're a butcher. The butcher's trade is an unclean one", said the man, as he walked out with his steaks.

---

A woman said to an armed policeman (who earned far less than she), "Why do you not catch more criminals?"

The policeman responded, "we'd like to, and we do our best, but we can't be everywhere at once. Have you considered purchasing a gun?"

"Certainly not", said the woman. "The use of guns is immoral, and people who use them are contemptible. I expect people like you to protect me."

"At the risk of my own life?", asked the policeman.

"Of course!", exclaimed the woman.

The policeman laughed, and walked away.

"I think it's terrible how little respect the police have for people!", the woman complained.

---

A woman sought to pass a law in her town that would limit where military recruiting offices could be located, a law similar to those limiting pornographic bookstores.

A soldier asked the woman, "Do you think our country should have no soldiers?"

The woman responded, "Of course we need some soldiers. But they can be conscripted when our government wants them. People should not be presented with the choice of becoming a soldier."

The soldier laughed and walked away.

"That reminds me. It's terrible how little respect the military has for my favorite political party", the woman reflected.

The War Between the Sexes -- To the Benefit of Whom, Exactly?

In the not so distant future, women may be "farmed" for the purposes of pleasing men, according to Angry Harry, a men's right activist (someone whose attitudes I don't share, but will respond to below).

If anything, the chances are not so much that women will take over the planet and exterminate the men, but that men will start to 'farm' women for their very own purposes - just like they currently do with cows.

And, quite frankly, unless women in the west get their act together and start supporting men rather than making enemies out of them by supporting divisive feminists who do little more than continually stir up hatred toward them, and who, therefore, also undermine the whole well-being of their very own societies, then they shall surely deserve to be tamed, domesticated and harvested for the good of the planet, and, of course, for the contentment and happiness of the men who dwell upon it!

Source: http://www.angryharry.com/esAreWomenBecomingRedundant.htm

He's talking about Harems, basically.

And Harems have, unfortunately, been a feature of many human societies for millennia, and they are nothing I'd like to see return, in any form.

I don't agree with the author's mean-spirited attitude nor his small-minded approach.

But I do think I've observed that in societies where only a small elite have any power, where both men and women are mostly "little people" with little wealth, or ability to protect themselves and their families on their own, women are more likely to....

1. Think their men are contemptible and useless, and treat them accordingly
2. Offer themselves sexually to powerful people in the hierarchy, in order to advance their family's fortunes
3. Be "protected" as part of a Harem, in societies that allow polygamy

Due to #1, the humiliated men may take this out violently on the women, even push for laws limiting womens' power. This may make them feel better to think how "powerful" they are, but it still leaves them powerless (and still humiliated) in front of more powerful men regarding #2 and #3.

I have long thought that this is less an issue about "men vs women" than it is about how if one group of people looks to an existing power hierarchy to help it "bash" a second group of people, rather than simply standing up for its own freedom and defense and establishing a free and fair playing field, BOTH groups end up as slaves to that power hierarchy.

"Feminism is the revolutionary notion that women should be treated like human beings". I believe that probably 97% of women in the West think like that (and most men), and that this, and equal treatment in law and society, as peers with men, is what their goal is.

However, there is some virulent man-hating practiced by some women (engendered to a great extent, of course, by socially institutionalized abuse of women in the past), and this is recognized and disapproved of by some prominent women in our society (see "Who Stole Feminism?").

I do feel that the peculiar encouragement and rewarding of such behavior by some in our government, seems almost intended to create the situation of mutual estrangement and weakness that I've described above.

Such a situation can only benefit a tiny power elite, which has historically been a group of men who exploit women for their own purposes... Stalin's USSR having been one of the most flagrant examples in a "modern" country.

I find such a situation disgusting to contemplate. I much prefer men and women free to operate independently, and to be able to cooperate on the basis of mutual benefit, mutual respect, with neither group being persecuted under the law to "please" the other.

"Never invite a foreign army into your country, because they will end up ruling it" -- Machiavelli