I dislike even more the attempt to drum the population up into enthusiasm for the Paralympics. To me it smacks of quasi-totalitarian propaganda. An atmosphere has been created in which to admit that one finds the spectacle distasteful is to be guilty of a hate crime, an accusation that nowadays can be hurled at almost anyone who wants to preserve public taste and decorum. The spectacle itself seems to me designed to allow one the illicit pleasure of the freak show while enjoying self-congratulation at one’s own generosity of spirit. I prefer less ostentatious, less orchestrated demonstrations of human decency.
Enjoy free audio and webcam highlights from the week in conservative talk radio, including:
- Limbaugh’s praise for Bolton’s CPAC address
- Laura Ingraham endorses Jeff Sessions for president
- Michael Savage’s essay on Ukraine
PLUS: Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt talk about Ezra Levant’s trial, and more:
…in America, the testimony is interrupted continuously by objections from opposing counsel. But in Canada, everything is interrupted, all the testimony is interrupted by a tea break every 20 minutes.
Noting the rapid co-opting of the administrative apparatus in Crimea by the Russian invaders — trivial little fictions such as Kiev’s being a foreign city so far as the Simferopol airport is concerned become critical facts when they are backed by sufficient levels of terror — the economist Tyler Cowen observed drily: “Bureaucracies can act swiftly when they wish to.”
They can also act with relatively sophisticated levels of coordination and great energy. Consider the case of the corruption of the Internal Revenue Service by progressive political ideologues, which has now degenerated into the mob-trial spectacle of formerly obscure revenuers invoking the Fifth Amendment in front of congressional investigators. Many journalists and investigators have been looking for ironclad proof that the IRS conspiracy against conservative activists was directed by the White House, perhaps by the president personally. The search for what is obscured in the shadows can cause us to ignore what is right in front of our noses, in broad daylight: Elected Democrats in Congress put very public pressure on the IRS to suppress and harass tea-party groups. That is not a secret; even the see-no-Democratic-evil New York Times knows who they are: Max Baucus, Jeanne Shaheen, and, especially, Chuck Schumer. I very much doubt that Barack Obama personally ordered the IRS to abuse its powers, just as I very much doubt that Vladimir Putin has taken a personal interest in terminal assignments at the Simferopol airport. Neither had to — a fact that says as much about the fragility and corruptibility of institutions as any top-down agenda would have, and perhaps more.
‘We’re told that the presidency is important because the head guy gets to appoint, if he’s lucky, a couple of Supreme Court judges’
That’s always been my line too, but as Mark Steyn points out:
But they’re playing catch-up to the culture, too. In 1986, in a concurrence to a majority opinion, the Chief Justice of the United States declared that “there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy”. A blink of an eye, and his successors are discovering fundamental rights to commit homosexual marriage. What happened in between? Jurisprudentially nothing: Everything Chief Justice Burger said back in the Eighties – about Common Law, Blackstone’s “crime against nature”, “the legislative authority of the State” – still applies. Except it doesn’t. Because the culture – from school guidance counselors to sitcom characters to Oscar hosts – moved on, and so even America’s Regency of Jurists was obliged to get with the beat. Because to say today what the Chief Justice of the United States said 28 years ago would be to render oneself unfit for public office.
What will we be playing catch-up to in another 28 years? Not so long ago, I might have suggested transsexual rights. But, barely pausing to celebrate their victory on gay marriage, the identity-group enforcers have gone full steam ahead on transgender issues. Once upon a time there were but two sexes. Now Facebook offers its 1.2 billion patrons the opportunity to select their preference from dozens of “genders”: “male” and “female” are still on the drop-down menu, just about, but lost amid 50 shades of gay – “androgynous”, “bi-gender”, “intersex”, “cisfemale”, “trans*man”, “gender fluid”…
The party’s guests have been carefully chosen: the murder victim’s father and aunt, his fiance — and Rupert Cadell, played by Jimmy Stewart.
Rupert taught all three boys at prep school, where he filled their heads with dime-store Nietzsche, with a sprinkling of Wilde and Rand:
Intellectually superior people (like themselves, of course) were above the law, you see.
Even murder was acceptable, if the victim was an inferior. In fact, such an act of creative destruction would render the world a better place.
It’s hinted — again, this was 1948 — that Rupert had also initiated the boys (or at the very least, Brandon) into homosexuality.
And indeed, despite the strictures of the era, Rope remains one of the gayest movies ever made pre-1960s.
Both Dall and Granger were gay in real life; so was screenwriter Arthur Laurents, who was sleeping with Granger during filming.
To the amusement of all involved with Rope, words like “gay” and “queer” made it past the powers that be because, as usual, Hitchcock intentionally larded the original script with enough superfluous “offensive” fluff — lines like “My dear boy” — to preoccupy, and ultimately wear down, the censors.
The murder scene that opens Rope is, to modern eyes, campily sexual, and not just because the weapon of choice, that titular rope, suggests bondage; Brandon pulls orgasmic faces and even lights a “post-coital” cigarette.
Gavin McInnes writes:
I’m from Canada, where it’s all about French v. English, so I can approach such sacrosanct racial taboos with total ambivalence. “If it’s so wrong, you should be able to explain why,” I tell people, to which the response is usually, “Aren’t you Canadian?”
All week I’ve been asking Americans to explain exactly why blackface and minstrel shows are verboten. I’m not for or against such things per se, but I think we should be able to articulate why such rules exist. If you told me that two plus two equals five or rape should be legal, I could succinctly tell you why you’re wrong. Blackface appears to be inexplicably evil. I’d say well over half the answers were not answers at all and included questions such as, “Why would you want to?” and “Don’t you have empathy?” Here are the only 15 reasons I could squeeze out of the entire country.
Via StandWithEzra.ca, where you can learn more, send a message of encouragement and donate to Ezra’s legal defense fund:
Today I took the stand in the lawfare trial being waged against me.
All week the court had been listening to Khurrum Awan, the plaintiff. But by the afternoon today, it was my turn to tell my side of the story. I’m back at it tomorrow morning.
I don’t want to give away tomorrow’s testimony here, but I can tell you that I’m going to talk about freedom.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press – that is, the right to say things that I honestly feel, to critically examine ideas, including the idea of radical Islam.
Freedom of religion, too – including the separation of mosque and state. The activist who is suing me was the youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, an organization that campaigns for sharia law. I have the right to oppose that, and not live under it.
I have the right to speak out against bigotry and anti-Semitism – such as the Canadian Islamic Congress’s public support for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
And I have the right to criticize Canada’s human rights commissions themselves, with their counterfeit “right not to be offended”. In fact it’s my duty to criticize them – as a citizen and a lawyer myself, I have an obligation to fight for the reform of our justice system where I see that it’s broken. And our human rights commissions are deeply broken – probably beyond repair.
John Ridley just won the Oscar for best screenplay, for 12 Years a Slave.
He wrote this for Esquire in 2006. Read the whole thing…
That which retards us is the worst of “us,” those who disdain actual ascendancy gained by way of intellectual expansion and physical toil—who instead value the posture of an “urban,” a “street,” a “real” existence, no matter that such a culture threatens to render them extinct.
“Them” being niggers.
Malcolm Unwell writes:
While it’s doubtful that El Chapo draws unanimous support in Mexico, it brings into question the values of people that advocate on behalf of a gangster. To what extent are we importing these values? To what extent does America already hold such pro-gangster values?
Sure, America celebrates gangsters—in a fashion. We love fictional characters such as Tony Soprano, Don Corleone, Tony Montana, and real-life outlaws such as Billy the Kid. (Guzman, like Billy the Kid, once escaped from jail.) But it is still disturbing that the college dorm rooms of students across the US display posters of a grimly scowling Al Pacino as Scarface.
I like to think we would not literally march in support of one of these fictional characters, so I remain nonplussed at the march in Mexico. But I feel a little spooked at what this portends for our future. We are without a doubt importing many individuals who hold such values.