Quote Of The Day

On the chickenhawk meme:

We call them "keyboard builders" here because their argument is predicated on the notion that if you aren't personally doing something then you have no business thinking positive thoughts about anybody else who is doing it, nor are you permitted to so much as to acknowledge, audibly or in silence, that what they do needs doing.

The argument they seek to make, depends completely on this nonsensical premise. Not just a little bit. Completely.

So I figure every time I read this argument, and it was typed into a computer somewhere, whoever said it must build keyboards for a living. I mean, the accusation they're leveling is one of hypocrisy, so I know no way could those guys be hypocrites. They have to be building keyboards.

Worst Smear Evah?

Of course, when all else fails, liberals have their old standby: complete insanity.

Liberals Are Losers

Looks like the left's narrative on Sarah Palin is taking shape. Apparently, the highly-accomplished executive of America's largest state might be a mother of five, but she's not a Real Woman.

Apparently, to qualify as a Real Woman she'd have to have a bag full of sexism atrocity stories, rather than being a happy and well-adjusted family woman. The equation is rarely stated as openly as that: losers only need apply.

Which is another great thing about the US. There might be a certain percentile that goes in for this wallowing in victimhood, but Americans tend to be happy, optimistic and patriotic. They surely aren't attracted by a party that spends its time claiming - in the teeth of all the evidence - that living in America is the worst fate that could possibly befall anybody. That's the problem the Democrats have: their entire platform is designed to appeal to losers, and there just aren't enough out there for them.

Our Rubbish Politics

Brilliant though the Republican's choice of an all-pilot ticket is, it does ram home how awful British politics is. Say what you like about 'Maverick', but he at least have a history. As for Palin, she's not only a great pick for all the reasons Ross notes, but she's got that something extra - she seems normal.

Can anyone seriously imagine anyone as well adjusted as Sarah Palin in the Tory Party? Of course part of that is that US politics has two features rapidly disappearing from British life. There's the link between politicians and communities, which was on life-support even before the Tory A-list formalised the process of parachuting Metropolitan candidates in constituencies. Then there's the opportunity for meaningful executive experience at a local level, rapidly disappearing under continuous bombardment from government and EU directives. Still, there's something extra.

Seriously, could anyone imagine living next door to David Cameron? And not just because you couldn't afford it. The average British politician has been sucked into the Westminster vortex at the age of 21, thence to lose all sense of reality and contact with normal people. Seriously, is there anyone - anyone! - outside the incestuous world of Westminster who looks at David Miliband and thinks 'hmmmm.... prime minster material'? The man's a freak.

Carol Sarler: NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZI!

Talking of the blogwar reminds just what started all this off: Carol Sarler's article in the Times. Funny thing is her argument has now been rebutted in the same paper by.... Carol Sarler.

I guess a week's a long time in journalism?

Here's what she used to say:

if a man, for reasons not remotely his fault, is posing a risk to others, he should be subject to sectioning under the Mental Health Act, with all the appropriate regret, sympathy and kindness that accompanies such a move. Given the grip of the current bogeyman frenzy, it is hard to see that one playing in Peoria; nevertheless, it would be the only humane response.

If we accept that [paedophilia] is a crime, however, then it is something which the perpetrator can control. He may choose to offend or not, and if he chooses what is unacceptable, again we should respond as such. We catch the bastard, try him, lock him up by way of penalty and then - this is the crucial bit - once he has served his sentence we restore his liberty. In full.

But that was then, and this is now, and Carol is reminiscing about small-town Britain:

The corollary, however, was that if it was inconceivable that we could misbehave without being spotted, so it was inconceivable that anybody could misbehave towards us without equal scrutiny; paedophilia existed, but was scant terror given that pretty much everyone – especially the children – knew who, what and where lay the local kiddie-fiddlers. Strangers they were not.

And every now and then a rampaging mob of parents would lynch them all.

Actually, I stuck that last bit in just to make her sound less of a humbug. After all, she did get it right eventually. The average nonce is more Arnold Rimmer than Hannibal Lecter. They can be deadly, but only under the cloak of anonymity. Daylight doesn't suit them. Equally, being exposed, and therefore harmless, they can be safely ignored by all and sundry.

That was the way it was back then - and it worked. It's the belief that it is the role of the state to protect perverts from the social consequences of their actions that's new and unrooted in law. It does, however, provide great employment opportunities for the usual suspects.

Blogwars: Special Extra Time Edition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the libertarian revolution comes, you'll be free to flirt with foul ideologies with no come back, but until then these folks will just have to rely on constant whining (I guess not enough people noticed the first two times he claimed to have totally quit forevah!).

He tries the more in sorrow than anger route this time, with a link thrown in to show how reasonable he's been. Trouble is the link goes to an off-site comment. Since he won't bother, here are the links to his earlier posts - feel the rationality, but don't forget to compare them to his denunciations of paedophiles (if you can find any). Then again, just note that title: the underbelly of the Internet isn't Gary Glitter logging on to chat rooms as CrazeeGirl237, it's the people who think he shouldn't be allowed to. Ah yes!

Oh and he tries the desperate 'libel' thing again, thereby proving he's as clueless about civil law as he is about the criminal version.

Did I say desperate? Try a shoehorned Shakespeare reference. Intellectual, baby!

Still, got to keep hope alive - if he keeps coming back, we might some day find out just how his position differs from that of the average NAMBLA member.

Quote Of The Day

Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.

The whole thing is pretty good. In fact, with a few changes, you can imagine the Ayatollah Dave giving this speech.

Hey, You Know What We Need More Of Over Here?

Definition of the Open Borders lobby: people who think only a racist could possibly object to these guys taking up residence next door.

(H/T to Rob, who correctly points out the silence of another well-known group of liberal prats - although, on second thoughts, it's not like anyone called the victims 'honey!')

It'd Take A Heart Of Stone Not To Laugh

Let's not be too harsh about this - it may just be that his handles his personal financial dealings like he handled his city's ones. He probably invested it all in Zimbabwe.

Sauce For The Goose

With a windfall tax on those nasty energy companies on the agenda both here and in the US, DH raises an important question: why not stick a windfall tax on these guys?

True, the British movie sector isn't as big, but showbiz still pays pretty well. After all, find me a power company executive who would do this.

And you can't even switch to another supplier.

Blogwar 4 Evah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, another instalment in my battles with the would-be hipsters busily twisting the ideals of socialism and libertarianism beyond anything either Keir Hardie or Ayn Rand would possibly recognise.

Of course, last time we met ShortBusRider was ranting about how his nuclear-powered ninja mind could totally destroy the right's arguments, except he, like, had to run 'cause he had a really hot date with a load of super-models, on a big yacht in Monte Carlo.

I'm guessing his date must have got cancelled, and his brain must be running low on plutonium, 'cause he's back and relying on that most desperate of talking points. Yep, our kewl-running rebel tiger is complaining that he's been libelled. Anarchy!

Hey, you know how he hates harsh language, right? The old paedophile apologist has taken time out from publishing pro-nonce talking points to complain about being called a 'paedophile apologists' except - and if you've been following earlier instalments you'll have guessed this already - he never actually gets round to explaining just how his philosophy differs from that of actual paedophiles.

Consider the evidence: hipsters claim paedophiles are an unjustly persecuted minority, like Jews in Nazi Germany, or blacks in the deep South, with us folks playing the role of the Nazis/KKK. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters claim the public isn't really opposed to paedophilia, it's just they've been whipped up into a frenzy by dark forces with their own sinister agenda. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters claim that taking action against paedophiles will lead inevitably to a descent into fascism. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters claim the whole 'age of consent' thing is kind of arbitrary, and seize on any countries with a lower age of consent as proof Britain is EVIL! So do paedophiles!

Hipsters seize on any evidence that violent paedophiles can be rehabilitated, while dismissing the far more numerous - and generally more independent - studies showing that paedophiles not only often re-offend, but often escalate the seriousness of their offending. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters often argue that paedophilia is less serious where the victim consents - even though by definition they're below an age where they can. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters often argue in bad faith by citing the tiny proportion of technical offences involving boyfriends and girlfriends very close in age, even knowing that the justice system can - and does - differentiate between these cases and Gary Glitter raping a pair of 10 & 11 year old girls. So do paedophiles!

Hipsters claim that even multiple convictions are no guide to the likelihood of future offending. So do paedophiles!

True, the hipsters and the paedophiles do diverge on the question of legality, but then even some of the more politically astute nonces will admit that, gosh darn it, some of their comrades do go too far. Meanwhile, where did we come into all this? Ah yes: hipster's trying to re-brand paedophilia as an unfortunate medical condition. Look how that turned out with smackheads!

And all that is just the highlights!

The logic of the hipsters leads directly to the mainstreaming of paedophilia. You simply cannot argue that nonces are being unjustly persecuted by fascist bigots in the service of a totalitarian agenda and still claim to opposed to paedophilia in any meaningful sense.

But even all this doesn't get to the heart of it. What the hipsters hanging out with perverts symbolises is something deeply wrong with modern politics.

Why is paedophilia evil? Isn't that like asking why fire is hot? The desire to protect children runs deep in pretty much every functional human being - that's part of why there is such outrage about paedophilia. But here come the hipsters! Smug elitists explaining why 'good' and 'evil' are so passé these days.

The hipsters aren't 'rational', they're 'rationalisers' - people bending over backwards to excuse evil for no better reason than to establish their own superiority over anyone who isn't a moral void.

A large part of our political class is unable to engage with the world through any means other than self-concious ironic detachment, and are unable to offer anything other than nihilism. Why let them get away with it? Let's stop letting the hipsters bully us into believing that their knee jerk support for depravity is somehow sophisticated. Why not call them out for what they are: apologists for paedophilia and every other kind of evil out there?

We ought to demand that our political class acknowledges one thing. Paedophilia isn't a part of civilisation, it is the antithesis of it. A culture that is 'rational' about absolute evil hasn't just lost its soul, it's lost it's mind. Without morality, there is only force to hold a society together, and that can never be enough.

Another One Bites The Dust

Talking of the police and their 'arrest first' policy, there's been another case of the thing that never happens.

Note this bit:

Gemma Capon, 20, invented the allegation after she and Graham Tysoe's turbulent six-month relationship came to an end.

She told detectives he forced his way into their home and attacked her on the living room sofa.

Mr Tysoe, also 20, was arrested in front of colleagues at the pub where he works as a chef and held for almost 24 hours.

He was interviewed, had his DNA, fingerprints and mugshot taken and was subjected to intrusive forensic examinations.

When police confronted Capon with discrepancies in her story a day later she confessed that she had made it all up and was charged with wasting police time.

So this was never a 'He said, She Said' - they never had sex anyway, which is kind of important in a rape case (the laws not as complex as some people would have you believe). Ditto, there's no evidence of forced entry, and the complaint falls apart as soon it's seriously questioned - but that's still enough to put an innocent man through the mill.

Key question: did they do all this to the victim - the real one - in spite of the weakness of the complaint or because of it? In other words, did they rush it all through before the case fell apart?

Apparently, the new policy is 'zero tolerance for made up crimes against women'.

The Obamamessiah Meets Spinal Tap!

There's a fine line between arrogance and self-parody, and the Chosen One might just have crossed it.

The comments are a scream too.

Even The Police Are Getting Hacked Off With The Police

Actually, that's kind of harsh: Coppersblog has always been a bastion of common sense, so I'm not surprised to find that even they are starting to object to the police's 'arrest early, arrest often' policy.

They make an important point: not only is this sort of thing lead to victimisation of innocent members of the public (like here!), it also results in police officers wasting huge amounts of time on this rubbish.

Even More Blogwars!!!!!

Don't be shocked, but paedophile apologist ShortBusRider refused to answer my question about whether or not Zuzanna Zommer could have been saved by a harder line on paedophiles. He claims it's not a fair question because killer - and convicted rapist - Michael Clark might just have killed someone else anyway.

Really - that's his argument for going soft on predators: they'll probably just kill someone else anyway. See, that was kind of what the right was saying...

Oh, and never mind that his pals did all but send Clark a set of steak knives as a housewarming present. We're not talking about a master criminal here. Clark specifically said that he wanted to get out of Scunthorpe as too many people were alert to his history of sexual violence, so the libs set him up in Leeds next door to a family with young children.

Hey, be happy these people don't feel the same way about drunk drivers. Otherwise, they'd probably meet them at the prison gates with a bottle of Bells and the keys to a BMW.

Of course, this also raises - for the third time - the question of why these people aren't so enraged about drinks drivers losing their licences in addition to jail time. I don't think we'll get an answer either:

I’m not going to bother fisking the rest of this asinine rubbish – as it is merely more of the same ill-informed, hysterical tabloidesque assertions, stupid assumptions, willful ignorance and bullshit. It’s why I usually keep away from this particular subject – people cannot or will not discuss the issues without resorting to stupid and emotive nonsense.

See, he totally could explain why *suspected* footy hooligans should lose their passports, but convicted child rapists shouldn't, only he's, like, totally busy and stuff.

Personally, I'm just glad these people eschew the overheated invective popular amongst the lower orders.

Meanwhile, I guess it's down to the rest of us to try and find any key parts of their doctrine which differ from those of the paedophiles themselves.

Art Souls

Sounds like Canada is just like Britain, at least to judge from the comments to this post. This is my favourite:

I wonder if I could get a Canada Arts Council grant for the piece of Canadian art that I've envisioned. It's a headstone made of feces, with Pierre Elliot Trudeau's name on it. Standing on one side is a statue of a farmer (made of wheat, beef, and oil) who is urinating on the headstone, and on the other side are statues of two naked males (one white, one black) holding hands, and 'showering their love' on the headstone. It symbolizes the truly Canadian aspect of how Western Canada feels about our most controversial P.M., and the love that the gay and ethnic community feel for him for espousing minority rights.

Do you think I could get a couple of million for it?

Meet The New Boss...

Further evidence for my theory that the worse public sector bodies get at their real jobs, the more they want to expand into social engineering. Like Stan says, I'm sure most folks would rather have a reliable bin service - but keep reading to the end for the ironic twist.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Check out the sidebar!

Random Obambi facts round the clock, guaranteed at least 67% more reliable than the BBC!

Blogwars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh no! The libertarians are angry with me! It's a crisis alright - scowly, geriatric teenagers are closing in from all sides!

First up, it's ShortBusRider. He's heard the old line about how bad arguments should be refuted not just named, but he thought it was all a statist trick. God knows what his point actually is, so I'll make it real easy for him, and boil it down to one question: would Zuzanna Zommer be alive today if we'd been less concerned about the rights of a known predator? Yes or no?

But that's just a warm-up. Uber Libertarian Tom Paine - after complaining that I called him a liberal (check the title of the post here) wheels out the Sarler (non-)paradox, but still avoids the central absurdity. Drunken Duncan may have chalked up a hatrick of DUIs because he's an alcoholic, or it may just be that he's a tool, but either way that doesn't change the fact he's still a danger to other road users.

This is what so revealing about these people. They're all about the criminal. Surely the natural starting point is the protection of law-abiding members of the public? Yes, the courts should consider whether Duncan would benefit from doing the 12 step program or not, but not to the point of compromising public safety (and again, I still haven't heard any cases of paedophiles so driven by their condition that they strike in the presence of uniformed police officers).

But that's not even the best of it. He complains about me criticising paedophiles thus:

Take the word "paedophile" and replace it with "murderer", "racist", "homophobe" or (in an earlier age) "homosexual" and the passage works just as well as demagoguery.

Yes, and if we change 'War on Terror' to 'War on Cute Puppies', that proves Bush hates dogs.

Huh?

Words have meaning. In particular, 'paedophiles' means people with at least one - and usually multiple - convictions for victimising vulnerable young people. That's why this next sentence is just bizarre:

Everyone should have the same legal rights as everyone else unless and until convicted by due process of law.

Again: huh?

Is there any evidence of a sizeable body of opinion in favour of victimising the innocent? Really, am I missing something here? For the record let me make clear I'm against persecuting the innocent. Also: carpet bombing, genocide and dropping anthrax spores in the water supply.

Now, back to stuff people are actually saying.

Those rights should then only be removed (or rather suspended) until the expiry of the sentence passed by an indpendent court in accordance with the law.

You mean when Drunken Duncan gets released he can drive himself home? Bet he can't. Plus, I'm guessing his cell mate Phil the Phraud might have a bit of trouble working in finance or becoming a company director. Meanwhile, banning orders preventing foreign travel - the very thing that these people are so steamed about - have been in place for football hooliganism for years.

Hey, this is all settled law. Just who's getting thrown in a tailspin by S-E-X again?

Then there's this:

It is not libertarianism which is leading to "clamping down on the rights of the non-depraved," it is such addled, tabloid emotionalism as this.

The witch-hunters cannot have it both ways. However much they may describe any attempt at rational thought as "...near-lunatic ranting..." If they are allowed to get away with their afternoon-TV, chav sentimentalism, what next?

And thus was refuted the claim that their position was driven by snobbery and elitism.

Meanwhile, a night time trip around our nation's town centres will confirm just how successful breakfast Radio 4 pretentious ninnyism has been in bringing order to our land.

Yes, paedophile sex is a vile assault. It is a repulsive attack upon innocence. So are many other kinds of assault on the weak and defenceless.

Yes, and you people never pen long articles complaining that we're all being too tough on the Mad Axeman, or defending the right of wife beaters to own shotguns. Some sauce for that goose?

Anyway, wasn't it these folks who were just jabbering about how it could all be a sickness? Even those of us on the right will agree there's a compulsive element to all this - we just don't think it rises to the level of an 'irresistible impulse' as it were (or, at least, not till we get a positive result to the 'within sight of a policeman' test). On the other hand, we're all supposed to hate those Southern US churches that claim to 'pray out the gay' even as we're told that all it takes is a bit of psychic WD-40 and a slice of therapy and suddenly the, as it were, paedosexuals with multiple convictions for crimes against children will never look at a child again.

Two of the most significant characteristics of predators is that they're likely to reoffend, and they escalate the degree of offending as time goes on (you know, sort of like a guy with convictions for child pr0n who goes on to get convicted of child rape, to choose an example completely at random). Put it this way: the evidence for those two propositions is at least as strong as the evidence for the effectiveness of rehab. This is why we think paedophiles should be treated differently to those who indulge in merely instrumental violence, like muggers or bank robbers.

Hey, even if you buy into the whole Ferapee Nation 'the illness made them do it' deal, you have to see benefits from leading them not into temptation, right? Meanwhile, the rest of us get the same benefits from restricting the liberty of convicted paedophiles as we get from ensuring that wife beaters don't have guns in the house. We might not stop them reoffending, but we sure can make it harder for them and make it more likely they'll be stopped before they can inflict serious damage.

But even that's not it. The real question is this: is there a moral equivalence between convicted felons and innocent citizens, and should we be required to balance the interests of the two? To ask the question is to answer it - but not if your main interest is adolescent rebel posturing.

Libertarians: Liberals Against Tax

Also exposed by the Gary Glitter case: libertarians. We always knew they were just people who wanted to live in a liberal world, but without having to pay for it, and now no one can deny it.

Our friends in black have adopted the liberal position wholesale, even down to the snobbery. Hmmmmm.... apparently, the libertarian position is to trust the people, even though they're all morons.

More to the point, the libertarian position doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Unelected agents of the state have pronounced on Mr Gadd's case, and so the rest of us should just shut up? Huh?

Never mind libertarian principles, when did we stop being a democracy?

Even arguments about slippery slopes don't cut it. Harassing perverts who prey on young children is pretty much the definition of what the state should be doing. On the contrary, it is the people arguing that the state should declare itself neutral between degenerate felons and innocent citizens who seek to establish a new - and absurd - principle.

If you're going to insist that paedophiles have the same rights as everyone else, then you're arguing that everyone should be treated as though they were a paedophile. Once you claim there's no meaningful distinction to be drawn between the average citizen and degenerate filth, then you're faced with either letting maniacs run free or clamping down on the rights of the non-depraved. Doubtless, there will always be folks in government keen to push Option 2, but I'm not sure why libertarians would want to help them out.

In reality, no one really supports equal rights for vermin. Again, no one on the left is demanding that felons be given firearms licences - it's only the specific case of perverts that has these people claiming we're on the way to the Fourth Reich.

The liberal - and now libertarian - position is that a predator released from prison in the morning should be free to spend the afternoon reconnoitring the main routes to and from local schools, free of harassment, risk, interdiction or even minor inconvenience. It finds no support in any obvious concept of natural law.

Or take the Sex Offenders' Register. Here we have a list of all the active threats within a given area, but access is carefully restricted to agents of the state. Libertarian, how ?

This is the flip side of the supposed hysteria about paedophiles: the state really is conspiring to help perverts infiltrate unsuspecting communities - with entirely predictable consequences. It's easy to mock the 'nonce-spotters' who claim a father photographing his daughter in the park is an obvious pervert, but let's hear the flip-side of that. There really are perverts out there and, again, the right of felons to pass themselves off as ordinary citizens is not something that immediately follows from natural law, let alone cries out for government assistance.

Hell, if you're going to argue against welfare in general, surely your taxes going to help perverts set up shop elsewhere ought to be something of a sore point?