Mailvox: to the editors

LL is a big fan:

I read Vox Day’s Commentary “Beating he War Drum”. I was discusted by it. I used to think this man was a Christian, and I linked to his commentary on the Narnia Chronicles” in my blog, but after reading “Beating The War Drum”. I have no use for this man!

I hope youu will drop him because he isnot a Christian and he doesn’t have a clue about the post 911 era we live in, nor does he have a clue about the iblical times we live in. He is very sophomoric.

I can’t believe this man could suggest we wait for Iran to nuke Israel before we do something or that we should wait for Iran to give nukes to terrorist cells in USA or Europe, or that we should allow Iran to destroy USA with a EMP weapon fired from a freighter off our coast.

He is still asleep in a pre 911 paradigm, he knows nothing about Bibilical prophecy nor the biblical times we live in, he is antisemitic, he is a Bush hater, he is stupid.

Why is he allowed on your website?

I laughed, I cried, much better than Cats. It seems the definition of anti-semitism has been broadened to include insufficient enthusiasm for unprovoked attacks on Israel’s enemies.

Here’s a simple question for you. If Iran making threats against Israel justifies the USA preemptively attacking Iran, aren’t the USA’s threats against Iran similar justification for anyone else who wishes to attack the USA? If not, do please explain your reasoning.

NRO: dumb or desperate?

Brookhiser on NRO’s Corner:

Did anyone else think that W’s praise of Bill Clinton, which was all over my AOL startup menu yesterday, was sly sabotage of Hillary (grossing out the Kossacks)?

If you doubted the depths to which Three Monkeys would sink, doubt no more. First, note the telling confession… AO-freaking-L? NRO has crawled so far up the elephant’s posterior that I have no doubt that Goldberg will soon be cracking wise about the pachydermic stomach acid and Lowry will explain how funding Hamas is a clever Bush administration plan to bankrupt it.

As for the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton crack, indications are that Hillary has already been Anointed. If so, George Delano would surely know and is not tweaking the Kossacks, but the clueless electorate. I still don’t see how Hillary can possibly be considered electable, but it is early yet and it is not hard to envision various scenarios that would render her so.

1. Hillary becomes the Border Warrior. This would be the easiest move, especially if the Republicans continue to alienate their base.
2. Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate. A major Republican runs as a pro-life third-party candidate and splits the Republican vote ala 1992.
3. War in Iran goes poorly, Hillary becomes the Mideast Peace Candidate.
4. No war in Iran, inflation in 2007, Hillary becomes the New New Dealist.

Strike N against democracy

From Debka:

After a series of muddled statements and zigzags, wishful thinking prevailed in London and Brussels after all. The European Union, led by the Middle East Quartet, agreed to release financial aid to a Palestinian government taken over by a terrorist organization….

The EU gave the PA $615 million last year. The US had budgeted $234 [million] for 2006.

Let’s summarize. The various Western governments claim they need the ability to track everyone’s financial information lest someone send any of it to those loathesome terrorists. At the same time, they are providing $849 million dollars per year directly to terrorist organizations.

Who buys this nonsense? Seriously, is everyone THAT brain-dead? And why on Earth would you want to provide anyone who is capable of accepting this twisted reasoning with the ability to vote?

The economically-illiterate Left

Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, on Monday reported a quarterly profit of $10.7 billion, capping a year of record earnings dominated by surging oil and gas prices.

The results pushed up Exxon’s profit for the year to a staggering $36.13 billion — bigger than the economies of 125 of the 184 countries ranked by the World Bank. Profit rose 42 percent from 2004.

The company and its peers have come under fire for posting billions in profit while consumers struggle with high gasoline prices. Exxon was quick to emphasize that such results would help it make long-term investments to meet energy demand.

The Irving, Texas company’s fourth-quarter net income rose 27 percent, to $10.71 billion, or $1.71 a share, from $8.42 billion, or $1.30 a share, a year earlier. Revenue was just shy of $100 billion.

Try to keep this little profit statement in mind the next time you run into one of the morons from the “No Blood For Oil” crowd. As I pointed out in an article two years ago, oil is paid for in dollars, which are nothing but debt. So, there’s no national incentive to wage war for oil unless you can’t pay for it in dollars. And if you want to theorize about global corporate conspiracies influencing politicians behind closed doors, you should probably know that the oil companies LOVE expensive oil, for as the quote above demonstrates, they make significantly more money. Nobody wants cheap oil except the masses, whose feelings are irrelevant no matter which way you look at it.

I am no fan of the Bush administration, the neocons or their World Democratic Revolution, for a myriad of reasons. But don’t ever make the mistake of lumping me in with those utterly clueless cretins on the Left.

Baiting the bear

The Fraters Libertas can’t resist, even when the bear in question is busily soiling itself again:

…never underestimate the power of an MSM internal watchdog to pardon the unpardonable. And in Platt’s column I recognized the familiar style of the Star Tribune’s so called “Reader Representative” Kate Parry. That style, outlined and excerpted for your pleasure:

1) Cop to a lesser charge:

It’s not a monumental goof… We dropped a plate here; we didn’t smash the china cabinet. Though the editor’s personal sensibilities are to be admired, this time they did not serve the readers, or the newspaper, or journalism

2) Question and belittle the motives of the readers pointing out the error:

but it’s [an error] that fuels suspicions some readers have about the news media in general and this newspaper in particular. Also, his couching of the mayor’s statements made the newspaper a target for familiar broadsides of bias. In trying to address potential sensitivities of some readers by excising the controversial remark, it could be taken by other readers — and believe me, it was — that the newspaper was trying to cover or protect this particular public official from his own articulations.

3) Mention how hard it is to work at a newspaper and characterize those who made the error as the real heroes of the story.

One more thing about copy editors: They are the mostly unsung heroes and heroines of daily journalism. They spin a lot of important plates in a very short amount of time, and on deadline to boot. Theirs is a difficult job and their efforts go mostly unnoticed when they do the job right, and keep all those plates spinning — which is most of the time.

Always remember, these are the same people who insist that blogs and the Internet media can’t be taken seriously because they lack editors – you know, the same gatekeepers who are too busy making the words of black politicians look more palatable and protecting the editorial pages from dangerous thinking to actually verify the accuracy of the news that the newspaper is reporting.

Their self-aggrandizing apologies are disingenuous, too. For example, the 611 errors reported by the Star & Sickle’s omsbudswoman won’t include the many ludicrous predictions which are always carefully shielded by the word “could”. Sure, a carry law COULD cause the streets of Minneapolis to run red with blood, just as it COULD cause them to run green with blood as the armed citizenry defends itself against saber-toothed aliens from the planet Wumpus. Of course, the fact that the chances of the former actually happening aren’t much higher than the latter – or that it didn’t come to pass – never seems to find its way into print.

Hollow at the core

Americans’ personal savings rate dipped into negative territory in something that hasn’t happened since the Great Depression. Consumers depleted their savings to finance the purchases of cars and other big-ticket items. The Commerce Department reported Monday that the savings rate fell into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent, meaning that Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income last year but had to dip into previous savings or increase borrowing.

The savings rate has been negative for an entire year only twice before _ in 1932 and 1933 _ two years when the country was struggling to cope with the Great Depression, a time of massive business failures and job layoffs.

With employment growth strong now, analysts said that different factors are at play. Americans feel they can spend more, given that the value of their homes, the biggest asset for most families, has been rising sharply in recent years.

Morons… that’s my first thought. And then I stop and think, you know, if we have to invade Iran because the worthless nature of our money is on the verge of becoming apparent to the world, why bother saving it?

After all, you’re going to watch the empire begin to crumble, you might as well do it on a 50-inch flatscreen plasma.

I can’t help but wonder how the I=S crowd explains this. Was there also no investment in 2005?

Mailvox: Our President, who art in the White House

CA is troubled by my heresy:

I am really disappointed [by today’s column]. I find it hard to believe you are actually a Christian.

I know, it is hard to believe, especially given Jesus Christ’s example in storming that hill at San Juan, followed only by his 12 Roughriders… or maybe was that Teddy Roosevelt. It’s so hard to tell them apart.

I’m just curious. In precisely what branch of Christian theology does insufficient enthusiasm for unprovoked foreign aggression equate to eternal damnation?

Music to Southron ears

DL sees a different comparison:

The administration pronounced Slobodan Milosovic a latter-day Adolf Hitler and decreed that his effort to retain sovereignty over Kosovo went beyond ethnic cleansing to genocide–a new Holocaust.

My examination revealed much greater similarity in motive and action between Milosovic and Abraham Lincoln than between him and Hitler. A substantial segment of the nation was attempting to secede, and he sent his forces to prevent that from happening. As the Serbian troops gained ascendancy they marched through Kosovo as Sherman through Georgia–killing, raping, pillaging, burning–to destroy the Kosovar’s will and capacity to continue the insurrection.

Of course there were major differences in kind and quality, but the equation of Lincoln and Milosovic holds up about as well as most historical analogies one might attempt. It was close enough to get me shouted down in what we call “polite society”–including by my own family–every time I broached the thought. One might think I had said something naughty about affirmative action in college admissions or corporate hiring and promotions.

Well, we can’t have people thinking that Lincoln was Hitler, can we? After all, everyone knows that he’s Hussein… I mean, Ahmadinejad. Or something. Sometimes I cannot believe what passes for rational discourse in this country. It almost makes one feel as if the dumbing-down of the school system is redundant.

The sheep do hate it when you disturb their mindless grazing.

Oh sweet Cthulhu

Andrea blogs about her dream:

I learn there’s a kidnapping plot against me, so I email Vox to enlist his help and let him know that I’m going to try to make it out to his place, which is a sprawling compound (natch). This place is in the middle of nowhere. I’m driving down a dirt road in my beat-up old car. Soon the road becomes too rough to drive on, so I have to abandon the car and finish on foot. I make it through woods, brush, and shallow gulches, and then I finally reach the edge of the compound. There are several nondescript buildings and many security stations. Next thing I know, I’m in his personal residence. (I don’t exactly know how I got in, but it was kind of implied that the guards knew me and let me in without hassle.) His house was light and airy, kind of like a seaside condo, but stark and stylish. What little furniture he had in there was ultra-modern, Italian leather stuff. The floor was slate or tile. I checked his computer and saw that he had left a message for me – it said that he knew about the plot and was on his way to pick me up. Suddenly he comes roaring up outside in a shiny black car, flings open the door and jumps out looking like Neo without the trenchcoat. The thumping beats of European techno come pouring out of the car. I dive into the backseat. There are tons of buttons and gadgets inside (I also gather that the car is armored and bulletproof). He jumps back in, glances back quickly and asks if I’m ok, then stands on the gas. And we take off, screeching around corners, busting stuff up…off into the sunset, I guess. I don’t know, the dream ended there. It was all very James Bond.

Actually, it’s marble… and haven’t you been paying attention? NOBODY TOUCHES THE COMPUTER! If I’m going to leave you a message, there’s a perfectly good pad of Post-Its right here.

Looks like I’m going to have to get that electroshock keyboard after all.

Mailvox: extrapolations and explanations

Ken dislikes the paradigm:

It seemed to me, however, that you were arguing something more significant than a transitory deference. Moreover, if you are arguing for a transitory phenomenon, I still think it’s more complicated than you would have it (and this is where animal psychology provides an incomplete picture)… you said, e.g., that there aren’t many of these alpha males. But most men have had the experience in their lives of commanding the attention of a whole room or particular conversation.

It seems to me that it depends on the social and intellectual makeup of the environment. In short, I just don’t think your alpha male paradigm works very well except to describe fluid situational dynamics of social interactions. You are incorrectly applying the attested social phenomenon and you’ve incorrectly linked it to a particular stereotypical carciature… and, incidentally, Spacebunny this applies to your response to me too.

Finally, if character isn’t an issue as you claim, why is your description of alphas, betas, and gammas so clearly value-laden? If character isn’t an issue, you would not try to label me as a gamma as a means to argue your point. This tactic is especially amusing in light of the fact that you just said alphas, such as yourself, “would have been to state that the argument is clearly bogus because of X, Y and Z, and he’s got a PhD from Stanford in Animal Psychology saying so, Column Boy.”

Of course it is transitory, being situational. The whole phenomenon is clearly relative, being social, as one should have been able to discern from the example provided of Donald Trump and Henry Kissinger. No male is an Alpha in diapers at two, or rambling incoherently with Alzheimers at 92.

How it seems to Ken is totally irrelevant. It is a model that works quite well and is far superior to that used by most men, especially Gammas, to understand the social situations in which they find themselves. It also helps many of those men who are bewildered as to why they constantly find themselves out of the game when it comes to office politics and women.

I could not care less if the quietly competent engineer whose name no one knows, but upon whom the entire operation depends wants to call himself a “stealth Alpha”, “Spock” or “Tinkerbell”. It makes no difference to me, although I note the engineer’s typical paradigm of the importance of excellence in performance doesn’t get him anywhere with regards to social interaction. If this archtypical Gamma is not interested in that, fine, he should happily ignore this entire topic. But the fact that numerous women have indicated an appreciation for the model would tend to indicate that it is not, in fact, entirely useless.

Character isn’t a relevant issue, because character isn’t synonymous with value. Ken simply can’t keep his concepts straight. But I do assign value because I despise the passive-aggressive behavior of the Gamma males. Even the interminable conflict-resolution dialogue of the Betas is preferable. I saw Ken as a likely Gamma because a) he appeared to take the paradigm personally, and b) his first two responses were typical Gamma attacks, indirect and designed to undermine rather than confront. I have never met Ken, so obviously this snap judgment could easily be incorrect, but the fluidity of his subsequent responses tend to support it.

Also, I am not a true Alpha, not being much of a pack animal in the first place, though I happen to possess enough dominant qualities that when drawn into social situations – usually by necessity and often against my inclination – I find myself in that role. And of course, I did find those qualities to be useful in the days BSB. But I was not thinking much about my own experiences when writing on this topic, I was actually thinking about the two men I have known who most powerfully project their dominance. What I find interesting about the phenomenon is that with the exception of above-average intelligence, these two Alphas have nothing in common – they are extremely different in terms of size, wealth, character, looks and accomplishment – and yet I tend to think of them as being fundamentally similar.