Category Archives: News

Careless Talk Costs Lives

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Ashley Madison hack, here are the details:

  • Ashley Madison (“A-M”) is a dating website that specializes in extra-marital affairs.
  • Their business model is likely aimed at men, who are willing to pay for access to available – and presumably attractive – females.
  • Personal Data from A-M was exfiltrated, apparently by an insider who no longer works there according to AM executives.
  • This data includes personal email addresses, names and credit card details of millions of A-M members.
  • A group calling themselves the “Impact Team” have threatened to publish this data unless A-M ceases operations.
  • A-M have not ceased operations.

I am not going to moralize, criticize or look for someone to blame; that’s above my pay grade. I am not going to say how stupid these folks were (they were) or how easy it would have been to avoid giving out personal information (it is). What I will say is that given the number of high-level people who are likely current of former customers of A-M, this information represents the greatest vehicle for extortion that has ever existed in the history of the world.

  • Not every person who signed up for an account with A-M has availed themselves of their services.
  • Not everyone who has paid them money got anything in return.
  • It would be relatively easy to ruin a completely innocent person by inserting their details into the published information.
  • Anyone who pays money to a blackmailer to suppress publication of their information will likely face repeated demands for payment from them or others who happen upon that information in the future.

Like so many of the portents of our time, the existence and success of A-M not the problem. Just like pornography, promiscuity, the marriage strike, or “herbivore culture”, it is but a symptom of the world that we have created for ourselves. We can choose to attack A-M, but they are evidently meeting a need that millions appear to have.It would be easy to dismiss every husband with a wandering eye as a “cheater”, but there are at least two sides to every story – three if you count the truth. Incidentally, why is it that a philandering husband is always vilified and castigated, but the behavior of a cuckolding wife is so often pinned on him as well? But I digress…

When the A-M hack was announced a few weeks ago, it was greeted with much cackling and merriment, mostly from the distaff side. I was a little more sanguine, and opined that the cost of such a disclosure would be measured in lives. So imagine my surprise when I hear that there have been at least two suicides because of the A-M hack…

I’m sick of being right.

Full disclosure: While I am aware of A-M, and have a superficial understanding of how their business works, I have never been a member or signed up for any of their services. Even if I were inclined, their premise – that there are attractive married women who are itching to get a little action on the side with little old me – sounds to good to be true.

And if there is a lesson to be learned here, it is that if is something is to good to be true, it probably is.

Advertisements

SCOTUS Screws Up

This is a long-overdue post, but I didn’t want to expound on this subject without giving it some serious thought, as it is a highly controversial subject.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Gay Marriage is now legal in every state of the Union.

Short answer: This is wrong on so many levels.

Longer answer:

  • There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that Gay Marriage is a constitutional right. You do not have the *right* to marry anyone.
  • There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any of the three branches of the Federal Government any power over marriage.
  • Marriage has always been a free exercise of religion — an area where the Federal Government is explicitly ordered to keep out.
  • Since the Federal Government has no explicit constitutional mandate to police marriage, this responsibility clearly falls to the States, which is where it was before five Supreme Court Judges (including, unsurprisingly, all three women on the court) decided to usurp that power.

Women on top

This ruling is a logical and expected consequence of giving women the vote. That sounds like a horrible, sexist thing to say, but it is nonetheless true. Two-thirds of the six men on the Supreme Court voted against this measure; had the court been all-male, the measure would have been soundly defeated 6-3. But there were also three women on the court, and that made all the difference.

This is hardly surprising; women in general overwhelmingly vote for progressive/liberal/democratic causes and candidates; they also tend to vote for legislation and social programs that benefit them at the expense of others (such as affirmative action, free birth control and other female-only benefits), as opposed to the population in general. They also, as a rule, tend to prioritize feelings over unpleasant truths. It comes as no surprise, then, that all three women on the court voted in favor of recognizing Gay Marriage, and that was enough to squeak out a 5 to 4 victory — the narrowest possible.

It’s not over till it’s over

I have noticed that whenever Liberals win a victory over the Conservatives — such as in this situation — the former instruct the latter in no uncertain terms to sit down and shut up, as the question has been settled for all time. But when the latter takes place — such as California’s Proposition 8, where the majority of Californians voted against gay marriage, or the Hobby Lobby Abortifactants ruling — the result is cry of the losers is invariably a rallying battle-cry of “This is not over! We shall fight on until victory is ours!

Well folks, this is not over. And there will be consequences.

With Marriage comes Divorce

Yes, Gay marriage is now legal in all fifty states, for good or ill. I suspect that there will be quite a lot of ill. For one thing, when you get marriage, you also get divorce. And given that gay men are generally more promiscuous than straight men, I suspect that we will be seeing a lot of those. With Divorce comes property and custody battles; with the added wrinkle that identifying the “mother” or the “father” is impossible in this case, which will make the jobs of the family courts far more difficult than the current “man-bad-woman-good” model currently allows. Still, given that gays are generally more affluent than straights, the divorce lawyers must be rubbing their hands together in delightful anticipation of the windfall that is to come.

The Beatings will continue until morale improves

With marriage also comes a higher level of domestic violence, and studies have shown that lifetime Domestic Violence statistics among homosexuals is significantly higher than among heterosexuals (7.1% for men, 20% for women). Gay men report 21% Domestic Violence, Lesbians report an incredible 35% — and that was before they were allowed to marry. Given that Domestic Violence is less prevalent outside of marriage on the premise that either partner can walk away at any time, one can only assume that once marriage enters the picture, things will get worse.

Unholy Matrimony

While it is true that Homosexuals now have the right to marry, it has not yet been decided whether they can force a given minister, church or denomination to marry them. And if the primary goal of gay marriage proponents is social acceptance, that is going to be a major sticking point. The US Constitution States that “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof“. If marriage within the church is an exercise of religion (Hint: it is), this means that Congress cannot compel a church to marry anybody.

In the real world, ministers can, and do, refuse to marry heterosexual couples — for a variety of reasons — every doo-dah-ding-dong-day. And many will flatly refuse to marry homosexuals, claiming (rightly) that the Bible does not have a single positive thing to say about homosexuality. That is their prerogative — both legally and morally.

And even those churches that choose to marry homosexuals (Which is the bride? Which is the groom?) may find their pews emptying as folks leave in disgust — particularly the older ones, whose tithes and offerings keep the doors open and the preacher in paid employment. Hopefully the happy couple have enough rich friends who will step in and take up the slack.

Disagreement is not Homophobia

There are some who will read this and label me as some sort of bible-thumping homophobe. You are welcome to your opinion, as I am welcome to mine. We can agree to disagree. But you understand this: disagreement is not hatred or fear. To my gay readers out there, live your lives as you see fit; the Constitution guarantees you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do what you want to do with whom you want to do it, as long as nobody gets hurt it is no concern of mine. If you need specific legal rights — survivorship, beneficiary, custody, etc — you can have them in a Civil Union. I have no problem with that.

But when you mess with Marriage, you mess with God. And He has an annoying habit of having the last word.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

When Inequality meets Injustice

Just stumbled across this story (original source). The short version: Couple has sex on the beach, in front of families. Folks get offended, they get arrested, and both end up in jail.

He gets two and a half years.
She gets time served and is released.

My thoughts:

  • It takes two to tango, but only one gets to pay the piper. They both did precisely the same thing. Wassup wid dat? He was given the heavier sentence because of a previous drug-related conviction which was served in full. To me, this is just not right; this was not a second drug offense, this was an unrelated charge.
  • Two and a half years? Some killers and rapists get lighter sentences than that.
  • “Witnesses testified that a 3-year-old girl saw them” Chances are that a three-year-old won’t won’t understand what they are seeing anyway, and if they did, it would be a lot like watching a couple of animals mating at the zoo. This is sad, but kids see worse things on prime-time TV every single day.
  • He was 40, she was 21. That dude has some serious mojo if he can pull a bird half his age and close the deal on the spot. Whatever vitamins he is taking, I want some o’dat.

I’ll end with a particularly bone-headed quote, from Assistant State Attorney Anthony Dafonseca: “If you think about 2:30 in the afternoon on a crowded beach. It takes a certain type of person to do that in front of children a few feet away,”

Er… no. it takes a certain type of couple.

Damned if you do…

Or: Action, meet consequence

Stumbled across an interesting story: Here and here:

TL;DR. Some male members of Congress have policies in place that prohibit them from being alone with female staffers. They say that it is to eliminate the appearance of impropriety, and to defend their reputations against accusations of impropriety or sexual harassment. Naturally the “Equality mob”, who, by definition, are never satisfied, are up in arms about this; they say that this “reduces women’s access to advancement opportunities and is discriminatory”.

Cut the crap, ladies.

Let’s face facts; a man’s reputation can be easily shattered by even a hint of impropriety. One accusation is enough to put a cloud over a man’s career that never goes away. We live in a world where sexual harassment is taken seriously, but the same system that protects women can be abused by unscrupulous ones, and a man’s career can be derailed or permanently besmirched without a shred of hard evidence.

So what is a man to do? If he allows himself to be alone with a woman, he opens himself to accusations of sexual harassment; if he doesn’t he opens himself to accusations of sexual discrimination. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. As for me, I err on the side of caution; in my work life, I will not allow myself to be alone with a woman behind closed doors. So you can see which side of the debate I am on.

Lincoln once said “He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help“, so in that spirit, let me propose a solution. These congress-critters should amend this policy so that, In the interests of transparency and integrity, they are not alone with *any* person. Male or female. Problem solved.

There. Fixed that for you. No need to thank me.

Going back to the well

Saw this story a few weeks ago.

TL: DR: Back in the nineties, a two people made a baby. He was unemployed and she divorced him in short order. No child support was awarded because he had no money.

Fast-forward twenty years, and he is a multimillionaire… and she suddenly wants £2 Million for child support.

This is not exactly news: She tried this before and was shot in flames down a few years ago, but she’s obviously not letting that slow her down.

At this point, she has only received permission to apply for child support, so there is not much of a story here. But the fact that she has even received permission to take this matter to court is alarming.

There is a tendency in divorce family courts to put women and children first, mostly at the expense of men. This made sense when women could not vote, own property, divorce their husbands without cause or survive and thrive after divorce. But those are no longer problems, yet we still expect men to live up to their side of an ancient bargain that no longer exists.

But women who walk out on their husbands have already made that decision. They have chosen freedom over marital obligation.

If a woman decides to blow up her marriage and walk out on her husband, that is her choice. But that choice came with consequences.When she left him she knew that life would be hard, and she knew that he would not be able to help her. For her to then change her mind yet again and claim child support because he has money is effectively saying:”I don’t want you, but I sure would like some of your money“.

A wife takes a man for better or for worse. A mistress takes a man for better.

It sounds to me like she is trying to get the best of both worlds.

Run Randall Run!

It has just come to my attention that Rand Paul has announced his bid for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

Long-time readers of this blog will know that I have long supported his father, Libertarian Ron Paul, in his previous attempts to attain the highest office in the land, while being painfully aware that his chance of being elected were low. So I have greeted this news with much optimism.

The Republican party has lost much of its unity over the past eight years. Whomever wins the nomination will have to unite a mixture of TradCons, NeoCons and RiNOs and Socialist-Lite factions within the party. A lifelong Libertarian, Rand Paul is about taking the party back to the roots of Republicanism: Small government, low taxes, non-interference, anti-socialism, free-market, personal liberty with responsibility.

This will annoy a lot of people; from the hard left who believe that Government should be all things to all people all the time (Obamacare, anyone?), to moderate conservatives, who would like the government to pay for their pet boondoggle. Bot those on the far right will be threatened too, as their dreams of Empire will be thwarted by any president who takes the Constitutional Limitations of his job seriously,.

I wish you luck, Sir.

An ancient cure for a modern problem

Great-(x30)-Grandma knew it all along.

Thousand-year-old onion and garlic eye remedy kills MRSA

TL;DR: Scientists in England discovered a 9th-century “eye salve” (which includes garlic, onion or leeks, wine and cow bile) which apparently kills methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Who knew?!

And no, it wasn’t an April Fool’s joke.

Rape Fantasy

Starring Ms. Reporting, Ms. Representation, Ms. Characterization and Ms. Communication

I just stumbled across this piece:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2842276/Anti-rape-campaigners-slam-terrifying-blog-tells-men-never-no-answer-want-sex-wives.html

Upon an initial read, my first thought was “What an appallingly poor piece of reporting“. But from the Daily Mail I expect nothing less. What was intriguing was how many rules of journalism were broken in this piece. I can only assume that Jennifer Smith is not a real reporter.

  1. No references, attribution or source material: The beautiful thing about the world-wide web is that it features these things called hyperlinks that allow users to click on them to examine the source material. Ms. Smith forgot to insert such a link to the actual story under discussion, so that readers can examine the material for themselves. Here is a link to the story so you can check it out for yourself.: www.returnofkings.com/47540/5-lines-that-potential-wives-cannot-cross
  2. It’s old news: “News” is, by definition,”new”. The original piece that mas made Ms. Smith’s head explode was published more than three months ago, but they waited until today to go hysterical over it. One can only assume that it was a slow news day in the offices of the Daily Mail.
  3. Poor or non-existent research: The site that caused such an uproar is called “Return of Kings“, not “Return of the kings”, as Ms. Smith ms.-reported. Her inability to get the name of the website right does her no favors. One can only assume that her love for all things Tolkein rendered her temporarily blind to reason. This is a trivial point, but if she cannot even get the title of the blog correct, then how can she expect to be taken seriously?
  4. Misrepresentation/mischaracterization of the source material: The article purports to give advice to men considering marriage – a dangerous proposition at best. It posits several areas that should be deal-breakers, of which sex is one. Men have a fear that once women have a men “locked down”, the great sex he married her for will dry up and she will no longer “feel like it”. That is a reasonable and valid fear. And it is not unreasonable for a man to feel this way – after all, sex is the only part of marriage that cannot be outsourced.
  5. Suppression of discussion: The original piece has hundreds of comments, the Daily Mail piece has three, none of which call out the alleged journalist on her foolishness. The fact that they disabled commentary is telling; it shows that they do not want any discussion or disagreement with what they have decided must be the truth.

I could easily dissect this miserable little screed paragraph by paragraph, but it is simply not worth the effort; my fingers have better things to do. Suffice it to say that this is not about rape, it is about setting solid boundaries before entering into a life-long marriage. To disagree with the author’s point of view is to flout the “to have and to hold” part of marriage vows.

Marriage is, at its core, a negotiation between two parties, both of whom have their wants, needs, and non-negotiables. If a man even *thinks* that his prospective wife will use sex as a bargaining chip or to control the relationship, he is entitled – and, I daresay, encouraged – to walk away. And that is the exact opposite of rape.

Bottom line: Beware of opinions masquerading as news.

Don’t Poke the Bear

I paid little attention when Ray Rice, the Football player, got plastered all over the news earlier this year for beating up his girlfriend, Janay, and the media went nuts; I do not follow sports and celebrity gossip means nothing to me.

When the infamous elevator video was released – in which he dragged her unconscious body around like a sack of potatoes – I remember having two curious thoughts:

  1. What, exactly, did *she* do to provoke that kind of reaction from *him*?
  2. It can’t have been that bad – she married him afterwards, didn’t she?

When I was a boy, my brother and I used to fight, as boys are wont to do. Since I was far bigger than he, my parents instructed me “Don’t hit your brother”, as parents are wont to do. One sunny afternoon, we were playing in the garden when he started hitting me. At first I ignored him, but eventually I gave him a half-hearted swat. He immediately went running indoors with tears in his eyes “Muuuuuuum! He hit me! Tell ‘iiim!”.

Fortunately for me, our mother had seen the entire production and called him out on it. His crocodile tears dried up with alacrity, and he said “You didn’t say I couldn’t hit him”.

That is the unfortunate state of affairs between men and women in the western world today. Women are allowed to hit men with impunity, but the moment he even attempts to defend himself, he is immediately in the wrong. When Solange Knowles blatantly assaulted Jay-Z in that that infamous elevator video, he made no attempt to defend himself; he knew that if he had done so, he would be up on charges – and Solange knew that as a woman she was effectively immune from criticism. Had the situation been reversed, he would have been arrested and incarcerated as a matter of course.

So much for “equality”.

Indeed, thanks to the “Violence Against Women Act” (VAWA) passed during the Clinton Administration, police officers in many areas are instructed to routinely arrest the man in Domestic Violence disputes – even if he is clearly the victim.

Let me stop right here and state clearly that I do not condone domestic violence. However, there are two sides to every story; three, if you include “The Truth”. But statistics show that the majority of Domestic Violence incidents are started by the woman. A fundamental lesson of manhood is “Never start a fight – but always finish it”. But what’s a man to do if the aggressor is a woman?

Returning to the Ballad of Ray and Janay, she recently aired her side of the story… and that’s when the truth came out:

Ray and I were bickering. We were drunk and tired… As we were arguing… I went to reach for his phone, and when he grabbed it back, he spit at me and I slapped him… We got into the elevator and what happened inside is still foggy to me. The only thing I know – and I can’t even say I “remember” because I only know from what Ray has told me – is that I slapped him again and then he hit me…. The next thing I do recall is being in the casino lobby, surrounded by cops.

Aaaand there it is… the cold hard truth – she hit him first.

The man-haters out there would like to believe that woman good, man bad. But contrary to much of the yammering in the media, most men do not go through life looking for an excuse to hit women. In fact, most men have a protective instinct towards woman – an instinct which, I have found out from personal experience, some women simply do not appreciate.

Another thing that too many women do not appreciate is the fundamental nature of men. We have been designed and sculpted by evolution to confront and overcome danger and adversity. We still have that Cave-dweller living in our heads. And when we are roused to action, adrenaline multiplies our strength, sharpens our reflexes and short-circuits our thinking process to the singular task of fighting – to the death if necessary.

But being hard-wired for fight-or-flight is not much use when confronted by sharp-tongued, confrontational, aggressive or nagging women. Walking away is cowardice, hitting them, as we have already established, is abuse. So what’s a man to do?

Interestingly, nagging, haranguing, annoying behavior is not a crime – unless a man does it to a woman, in which case it is relabeled “Psychological abuse”, and it’s off to jail with you, Sir.. For too many women this is Standard Operating Procedure. For too many men it is “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”.

One lamentable side-effect of the climate of fear and stress in which we live is that men are now actively suppressing the natural urge to help women, because too many men have found themselves jailed, injured or dead for “doing the right thing”. We men are now learning that discretion is often the better part of valor – to the detriment of women everywhere.

Let’s deconstruct the logic here:

  • Man hits man twice his size and gets knocked out = Idiot.
  • Woman hit man THREE times her size and gets knocked out = Victim.

How’s that equality stuff working out for you, ladies?

  • Rule 1: A gentleman never hits a lady.
  • Rule 2: A woman who hits a man is not a lady. She therefore cannot claim the protection of Rule 1.

Here’s a revolutionary idea: if you want your man to act like a gentleman, learn to act like a lady.

A man instinctively knows not to pick a fight with another man twice his size. Yet thanks to the laws of the land and the current political climate, a woman can pick a fight with a man three times her size who is capable of easily killing her with one blow, safe in the knowledge that she can put him in jail if he retaliates or even tried to defend himself.

Whoopi Goldberg made this surprisingly commonsensical point on “The View” (to the annoyance of the female presenters, and to the delight of the mostly-female audience) and this is one of the few times that I have ever agreed with her on anything.

Ladies, the lesson is a simple one: Don’t Poke the Bear.

What a Socialist Paradise looks like

I recently came across this story: Brazil’s valley of beauties appeals for single men. It tells of a rural town in Brazil that appears to have a chronic man shortage.

Here, the only men we single girls meet are either married or related to us; everyone is a cousin…I haven’t kissed a man for a long time. We all dream of falling in love and getting married. But we like living here and don’t want to have to leave the town to find a husband. We’d like to get to know men who would leave their own lives and come to be a part of ours. But first they need to agree to do what we say and live according to our rules.” [Emphasis mine]

I see what you did there: “If you want to live with us, you must submit to our demands.” If you are a young man looking to start his tribe, do you really want to start from a position of supplication? No. Just… no.

The town… “has a reputation for its strong female community after its founder, Maria Senhorinha de Lima, settled in the town when she was branded an adulteress and exiled from her own church and home in 1891.”

Aaaaaaand that’s where the trouble started: with the sin of Eve — female rebellion. And the town’s women are lonely as a result. What a surprise. Action, meet consequence.

We have God in our hearts. But we don’t think we need to go to church, get married in front of a priest or baptise our children. These are rules made up by men.”

Whenever I hear the phrase “…in our hearts“, I mentally grimace and think “Cop-out”. Here’s my translation: We want spirituality — the cheap and easy part — but don’t want religion — you know, the part where you actually have to do stuff.

“There are lots of things that women do better than men. Our town is prettier, more organised, and far more harmonious than if men were in charge. When problems or disputes arise, we resolve them in a woman’s way, trying to find consensus rather than conflict.”

True enough, and I am sure that it’s all fun and games… right up till five hundred hairy, smelly barbarians — or worse, a crowd of Muslim men — show up at the gates. Then they will look for strong men to hide behind, as females of all species are wont to do in times of crisis.

“We share everything, even the land we work on. Nobody competes with anyone here. It’s all for one, and one for all.”

Sounds like the perfect utopia… for women. Men, however, are a little more competitive… and we like it that way. I have found it to be true that  women are wired for community and fear abandonment, while men are wired for significance and fear failure.

“The whole town came together recently to help buy a huge widescreen TV for our community centre so we can all watch soap operas together. And there’s always time to stop and gossip, try on each other’s clothes and do each other’s hair and nails”

This is the socialist/feminist paradise in action. A herd of women watching soaps/gossiping/clothes/hair/nails. Not like that happens here. Not. At. All.

Meanwhile, somewhere in the world there is a bunch of people working on a cure for cancer. And they are probably men.