A bouquet of stuff from all over

Quick Link and Open Thread imageThere’s so much good stuff out there on Mondays.  All the pent-up writer’s instinct and energy from the weekend seems to pour over into this day.  Here’s some of that good stuff:

Camille Paglia points out the obvious:  it’s false that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.  Men are necessary to women’s survival and well-being.  The important thing, as I frequently point out, is to cultivate men’s virtues — and, as my readers have pointed out, to raise women who appreciate men’s best qualities.

And while we’re on the subject of men’s importance, did you know that the majority of crazed mass shooters in the past decades have come from single-mom homes with no stable male role model?  Guns are just tools.  What’s interesting is to see the dynamic social forces that lead young men to those tools:  my list now includes boys and young men who take psychotropic drugs, have Democrat or other leftist backgrounds, and were raised in broken homes usually headed by single moms.  Those are the types of people who use tools destructively.

I keep saying that Charles C.W. Cooke is rapidly becoming one of my favorite pundits.  Posts such as this one, about the media’s endless efforts to pin mass shootings on the Tea Party (instead of on the shooter, or psychotropic drugs, or Democrat backgrounds, or single moms, all of which actually tie in to mass shootings) explain why I like him so much.

Whatever Al Qaeda touches, it turns to shattered human flesh and bones.

Lawlessness at the top of an institution invariably filters downwards.  In Obama’s America, sheriff’s are now refusing to enforce gun laws.  Actually, though, to the extent that this “lawlessness” involves sheriff’s refusing to enforce new laws that violate the Second Amendment, I’m inclined to say that the nation’s sheriffs aren’t being lawless.  They are, instead, engaging in the time-honored American tradition of righteous civil disobedience.

Of course, the lawlessness isn’t just at the top.  There’s also a deep dishonesty that permeates the Left from top to bottom, with its most malevolent outlet in the American media.

North Korea is looking increasingly unstable.  While I’d love to see Kim’s government collapse, I worry that, given North Korea’s massive dysfunction, and the result of 60 years of national brainwashing, anything that is able to topple the Kim dynasty will be worse than the Kim dynasty (assuming that’s possible).

Good for ESPN’s Stephen Smith to speak out against the pariah status imposed on conservative blacks.

Obama’s efforts to polarize America for political ends have resulted in something very dangerous:  a polarized America.

Two on Kerry:  (1) His horrible, awful, dreadful, truly horrible (did I mention horrible?), self-defeating diplomacy; (2) and the fact that he never shuts up, but just keeps spouting nonsense.  In England’s Restoration period, the Earl of Rochester got himself banished from King Charles II’s court when he wrote this little doggerel:  “Here lies our sovereign Lord and King, whose word no man relies on; Who never said a foolish thing, nor ever did a wise one.”  Had I a knack for rhyme, I would rewrite that for Kerry, emphasizing both foolish talk and dangerous action.

Add the University of Maryland to the list of schools that wants to have all students pay $15 more per year for insurance so that a very small number of transgendered students can get free surgery.  On the one hand, $15 is only about 1% of the total cost of student insurance.  On the other hand, if you keep adding in these small amounts, you end up with big amounts.  And to show you how that works, I had a poetry book when I was young that included a poem in which the narrator describes  how Jane would offer him some pie.  “‘Will you have some pie?'” asked Jane.  Said I, ‘Just a little bit.'”  The narrator and Jane repeat this pattern several times.  Eventually, the narrator decides not to wait for Jane to ask him if he wants some pie.  Instead, he asks her for a slice of pie.  To his chagrin, Jane tells him that there’s none left:  “Little bit by little bit, I’d eaten every bit of it.”  And so it goes with trying to insure for every eventuality, including politically correct ones aiming at making everyone feel included in the insurance pie — at the end of the day, there’s nothing left.  Little bit by little bit, insurance costs have became unsustainable and no one can be insured.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Beth

    Does anyone else find this as hilarious as I do?:
    forgive me for co-opting the post.  Just wanted to share.

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      No forgiveness necessary, Beth.  That made me laugh out loud.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Kerry is like this Fing vampire. You thought you got rid of him in 2004? Nope. He’s back. They will always Be Back, these Demoncrats. No matter how many elections you hold. No matter how many Centuries pass.
    They will always be there. You cannot get rid of them. For only death has the power to wipe out the existence of evil. Debate and argument is pointless against the devil.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Has Charles C.W. Cooke ever felt the driving intent to kill a person? With full acceptance of the potential lethal backfire consequences?
    if he hasn’t, then he truly has no conception of what he is talking about in his intro, concerning how ideology provides no fuel for killer motivations. He has no conception of the intent and what it is.
    This isn’t something easily grasped by a person’s intellect or his test scores in English and Math here. You need experience or a shat load of research and study on the topic to supplement lack of experience.
    Since his premises are flawed, he can’t quite get to the right point later on in the article. Or rather, since his aim with the gun is off, the hit box will be off at the end of the bullet trajectory as well. While he isn’t off concerning what the Demons have done in attaching human atrocities to their political enemies, he doesn’t understand the reasoning and the benefits. They aren’t just political.
    I say again, They Aren’t Just Political. It’s tactical. As in war tactical.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Book, I get the feeling that after you wrote about the Leftist totalitarian regime vs male virtue issue, a lot of conservative net groups started doing the same thing, including Instapundit.
    Just what exactly inspired you to write about the subject now, or rather a few days ago? Because if it was just an internal intuition or inspiration, then you may have accidentally set off something interesting on the net. It’s not that people refused to talk about it. It’s just I’m seeing a pattern. And as always, I trust my instinct vis a vis pattern recognition protocols.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Rereading your raising boys post, it’s obvious what inspired you. You told us, facebook wall postings. So I suppose the better question from me would be what inspired your FB friends to do so, at the same time, on this subject…
    The wave of patternalization starts.

  • erisguy

    Does the health care cover breast enlargement surgery, too?
    I’ve never understood why some people condemn altering one’s sexual characteristics in one instance and no the other, other than the obvious, of course: enlarge breasts, bad; castration, good.

  • Libby

    WSJ’s James Taranto has a good response to Kay Hymowitz’s article that you posted yesterday:
    “Hymowitz laments that young males are insufficiently interested in “becoming reliable husbands and fathers.”…..
    Well, why should men? Except perhaps in very conservative communities, men with sufficient social skills can find sex and companionship without need of a matrimonial commitment (and for those who lack social skills, a willingness to marry is unlikely to provide much compensation). The culture’s unrelenting message–repeated in Hymowitz’s article–is that women are doing fine on their own. If a woman doesn’t need a man, there’s little reason for him to devote his life to her service. Further, in the age of no-fault divorce, “reliable husbands and fathers” not infrequently find themselves impoverished by child support and restricted by court order from spending time with their children.”

  • Mike Devx

    The idea of sheriffs deliberately ignoring a law makes me uncomfortable. For me, a key concept of civili disobedience is that you accept the punishment for it.  David Thoreau knew this and spent his nights in jail.  Martin Luther King knew this too.  How does a sheriff accept punishment for his “civil disobedience”?
    On the other hand, many or all of these sheriffs in Colorado have also filed suit in court against this law.  As a group.  The case remains outstanding.  In that sense, this can hardly be considered a settled law.  So there’s more to the picture perhaps than meets the eye…

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Mike, sheriffs are a sort of executive officer. EOs have always been able to ignore orders they don’t like. If they carry them out, they don’t carry them out to the letter.
    The law is just an authoritarian system telling you to do or kill things that make little sense at the time. It’s up to each individual to choose to obey or not. If Obama can refuse to enforce the law, if Andrew Jackson refuses to enforce the Supreme Court’s verdict, that’s just an example of the power to execute actions. You can also choose to NOT execute actions.
    If people don’t like this, they probably shouldn’t put serial killers and cockroaches into positions of Executive Authority.