Archive for August, 2011

You Misspelled Punching …

No Comments »

Good God, this is awesome. (h/t The Macho Response)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

A Couple Good Reads

No Comments »

Zombie hits it out of the park once again with his latest essay, Brave New World arrives ahead of schedule — sex indoctrination for toddlers.

Aldous Huxley’s classic dystopian novel Brave New World envisions a deeply disturbing one-world totalitarian state in which hypersexuality and loveless promiscuity are considered normal — even for children. Twenty-six years after its 1932 publication, Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited to marvel at how many of his book’s outlandish futurist predictions had already come true — things like in vitro fertilization and psychopharmacology.

But if Huxley were alive today, he’d have to write Brave New World Re-Revisited to account for the new elementary school curriculum in Basel, Switzerland. Because what Huxley predicted would happen by 2540 A.D. has already come true in 2011 — 529 years ahead of schedule.

I can no longer deny what I’ve long merely suspected: That many “progressive” educators use mandatory public school sex education specifically for the purpose of indoctrinating entire generations of children into being promiscuous as early as possible. Why? To cause the breakdown of the nuclear family, to pave the road for a Brave New World.

Read the whole thing. And check out Zombie’s posting in the comments (about five down from the top) for links to even creepier things.


Meanwhile, over at AoSHQ, Ace has a thought-provoking post, This Is Why The Argument Over Michelle Obama Confuses Me (And Why I Am Often Confused In Arguments

There is tendency among conservatives — particularly now — to cast virtually every single discussion of policy in terms of whether or not the state even has this power in the first place.

In many cases, I think this is a sanguinary development. Conservatives keep saying, “Why are we assuming, as an initial matter, the government needs to act at all, and instead proceeding directly to questions of in what manner shall it act?

I actually agree with that. I think that is long overdue. We need to have that discussion. Every new law should begin at Step 0. Not Step 1. Step 0 — an inquiry into a, does the government have this power? and b, even conceding it does have this power, is it urgent that it should exercise this power?

However, we seem to have ventured into an Undiscovered Country in which things I know for a fact are constitutional and have always been done by the state (or states) — since the days when we were colonists; since the Articles of Confederation; since the Constitution; since the Golden Age of libertarian thought in the 1920s — are now simply being claimed to be unconstitutional, without even an argument as to how this surprising conclusion came to be held.

I think arguments are getting very sloppy here. I think disputes that are accurately about proper policy keep morphing into arguments about general philosophical/theoretical arguments about the power of the state, and furthermore, we seem to be frequently steering into wildly ahistorical territory in asserting, without evidence, The state never had x power.

Again, read the rest and check out the lively discussion in the comments.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather