April 24, 2014

Happy 2nd Birthday, Tanner!

Willful, playful, expressive, verbal. And freakishly strong, like an ant without the whole insect vibe. You are a blessing and a joy. And we love you very, very much.


(We just hope that you like chocolate. And superheros. Because that’s the cupcake and balloon you’re getting, and there’s really no turning back now)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:50am
18 comments | Trackback

April 24, 2014

What’s old is new again

So, I’ve mentioned the swarm of Twittercons who’ve spent the last couple days coming after me — with one in particular, “ofwolfsandravens,” proving himself to especially dense and dimwitted.

Tonight, in fact, he decided (as I’m a “looser” who had to “hide behind lawyers” when “threatened by a woman”) he wanted to meet me face to face. Presumably to bump chests or some shit. Which isn’t how it works. (Hi, Marc Danziger. Are you home?) But hey, it’s his wish, so I offered to give him my address if he emailed me. Which I knew he wouldn’t do. Because, well, c’mon.

But that’s not what this post is about.

Because suddenly, unsolicited, enters into the timeline Scott Fucking Jacobs — pretending to be the tough guy, and taunting me, yet again, from a safe distance.

The same Scott Jacobs who started Tweeting me before BlogCon in Denver a few years back asking if I’d be there so he could show me I wasn’t particularly tough. How he was going to show the world the truth about “JeffyG”:

The same Scott Jacobs whom I found immediately upon arrival (I literally jumped out of the car while it was still moving, much to my wife’s surprise), approached without hesitation, and asked him if he had anything he’d like say to me — my having (rather infamously) informed him if I ever met him in person I’d happily give him the opportunity to say to my face all the nasty things he was saying about me and my family online — and that if he did, things would go badly for him.

Shockingly, he didn’t have anything to say. No “Jeffy.” No “Sparky”. No “kitten.” And no “pansy.” Nothing.

I gave him the same opportunity later in the day. And the next day. Nothing. He kept his eyes down and tried to make small talk. Honestly? I thought he was going to shit himself. Which I reminded him about tonight. But like the little faraway warrior he is, he responded by denying it ever happened:

Until today, I never really said anything about it publicly, with the exception of a few cryptic remarks here and there. Because he didn’t act the tool at BlogCon, and I thought things were settled — and that we had and understanding. I met him face to face at the first opportunity. And he looked like he was ready to break into tears at any moment. He’s a squat, fat smoker in a ball cap. Like a Trekkie trying desperately to be hip.

Yet here I am, just so stunned by his return to my life that I can hardly see straight right now.

Whatever it is about me that makes people want to take things into meatspace, it is what it is. But I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to let that fat little punk stick his head up again after several years and pretend he’s Billy Badass.

I am so sick of this bullshit. You can’t begin to imagine. All of it.

There is more honor among thieves than there is among the right-side clique that lives to try to demean me.

Life isn’t only made of pixels, though.

People need to remember that.

Don’t tread on me.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:28am
70 comments | Trackback

April 23, 2014

“Keystone Uncensored”


Republicans are denouncing President Obama’s latest delay on the Keystone XL pipeline, six long years after it was proposed. But for cold political fury they have nothing on Terry O’Sullivan, who runs the Laborers’ International Union that represents a half-million construction workers.

“This is once again politics at its worst,” Mr. O’Sullivan said in a public statement that deserves to be quoted at length. “In another gutless move, the Administration is delaying a finding on whether the pipeline is in the national interest based on months-old litigation in Nebraska regarding a state level challenge to a state process—and which has nothing to with the national interest. They waited until Good Friday, believing no one would be paying attention. The only surprise is they didn’t wait to do it in the dark of night.

“It’s not the oil that’s dirty, it’s the politics. Once again, the Administration is making a political calculation instead of doing what is right for the country. This certainly is no example of profiles in courage. It’s clear the Administration needs to grow a set of antlers, or perhaps take a lesson from Popeye and eat some spinach.

“This is another low blow to the working men and women of our country for whom the Keystone XL Pipeline is a lifeline to good jobs and energy security.”

The pipeline is expected to create some 2,000 new jobs from construction and thousands more related to the project. Many of those jobs would go to Mr. O’Sullivan’s union members, who do not live on San Francisco’s Pacific Heights like billionaire donor Tom Steyer who opposes Keystone.

Mr. O’Sullivan may feel especially bitter because he and the Laborers twice endorsed Mr. Obama for President, calling him a leader “who will fight to create jobs.”

Well, to borrow from Eric Stratton…

I’m sure it’s a bitter pill for Mr O’Sullivan to swallow.  But it’s not like he wasn’t warned.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 3:53pm
15 comments | Trackback

April 23, 2014

“Liberals Petition White House To ‘Abolish’ Capitalism…”

Well, I guess the relative lack of signatories should be heartening. If you’re a glass half-full-type guy, that is.

If alternately you embrace your own cenosillicaphobic masochism, you’ll assume that the kinds of people who would sign such a thing are simply too stupid to find it — though they are, in fact, legion.

It’s a pick em, really.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 2:49pm
8 comments | Trackback

April 23, 2014

What I learned today, redux

Since I’m still being hounded a bit on Twitter (well, a few putative conservatives are still talking about me, after having blocked me.  Because IRONY), I decided to merely start replying to certain critics — one actually suggested there’s nothing conservative about me — with links to old posts.  To see if maybe these people could put aside their pride for a bit and engage me on ideas I’ve expounded on over the years.  I know, good luck, right?

Anyway, in order to do so, I looked back in the archives and plucked out a few links.  And I reread what I’d written.

It’s an interesting trip down memory lane, but it also shows a kind of site trajectory.  So in that sense, the exercise was instructive — at least to me.  My Twitter stalkers won’t read them, because, you know, being challenged intellectually is not what this new brand of “conservative activism” is about.  Instead, it’s go team — and maul the heretic!

Which, good luck with that.  I don’t cow easy.

So here’s the plan:  I’m going to post those links here in order to revisit some of the arguments I’ve made on this site over the years.  If you’re interested, take some time to look them over.  I’d rather talk about substance than deal with the kinds of people whom I now have to rely on to carry “our” battle flag.  Because having dealt with them — and been blocked by a few who have 10s of thousands of followers — that’s just too damn depressing.  Especially when I realize that some of these were written when the current crop of “conservative influence peddlers” on Twitter were probably in the 3rd grade.

In no particular order:

Link 1: 15 Jan 2007 — “There’s no such thing as race (and it’s a good thing, too)”

Link 2: 13 May 2004 — “The protein wisdom interview: Ted kennedy”

Link 3: 23 Apr 2004 — “The protein wisdom interview: Noam Chomsky”

Link 4: 05 Oct 2008 — “How the Left Hijacked the Magic Words”

Link 5: 09 Aug 2002 — “The Race Race”

Link 6: 01 Dec 2005 — “Defining the terms: racism, feminism, and the problem of identity politics”

Link 7: 16 Feb 2007 — “On cultural materialism, language, and the progressive gambit”

Link 8: 12 Mar 2009 — “Losing more slowly: an OUTLAW’s lament”

Link 9: 16 Mar 2006 — “Being Frederick Jameson”

Link 10: 15 Mar 2006 — “The Impeachment Agenda”

Link 11: 07 Aug 2011 — “outlawry”

Link 12: 09 Mar 2009 — “Hot Air: How I learned to stop worrying and love the f-bomb”

Link 13: 11 Apr 2010 — “Provocateurism, 11″

Link 14: 14 Aug 2008 — “Provocateurism, 8″

Link 15: 15 Mar 2009 — “This way lies fascism: an OUTLAW’s lament (cont.)”

Link 16: 29 May 2006 — “in which I spend my morning correcting a number of remarkably self-satisfied “academics” who, quite frankly, have no idea what they are talking about”

Link 17: 23 May 2006 — “I think SOMEBODY needs a little more frozen strawberry and a little less rum… ”

We all know — because I’ve bitched and whined endlessly about it — of my marginalization by those on “our” side who, though one-time pragmatists, have now evolved into full-throated conservatives pining for individual liberty and distrustful of the ruling elite.  And we also know the marginalization was intentional and part of a back door email campaign, bits of which I’ve had forwarded to me over the years.

Be that as it may, however, I offer up these links as a way of reminding people what I offered the conservative movement (back before being a TEA Partier was edgy, or even before there was such a thing as a TEA Partier); and to perhaps introduce those who joined the movement at the time of my banishment to the kinds of things I used to write, be it on immigration reform, the establishment feminist movement, the antifoundationalists, and the necessary trajectory of our political system given our acceptance of incoherent linguistic premises.

I don’t suspect the post will gain much traction, or that any of today’s perpetually OUTRAGED putative Twittercons will have the attention span to engage most of the arguments.  But you guys are smart.  So if you have the time, take the trip.

If you need help, there are some red pills behind the sofa cushions that may help you out.


Of course, after he wrote that he blocked me, too. The craven little suck-up.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:41am
54 comments | Trackback

April 22, 2014

What I learned today

Asking a question of a supposed fellow conservative is, according to a legion of sycophantic supposed fellow conservatives (just read through my Twitter feed today), akin to “harassment.”  To “attack.” To “slapping” someone who has suffered from battered wife syndrome.

And noting that asking a question doesn’t equate at all to any of those things means, according to supposed fellow cons, you hate women, have a micro-penis, are a “fucking faggot” and a “cunt.”  Supposed fellow conservatives w/ substantial Twitter followings will chime in to tell you you are “cray cray,” that you are “hostile,” that you are a pathetic psycho in need of meds, that you are a stalker of someone who, before today, you’d never even heard of. You need a good raping.  Or a you should kill yourself.

Then, after a spell, these same supposed cons will group together – in a touching bit of ostentatious soul searching — and bemoan conservative on conservative violence.  “Hey, you hostile psycho fucking faggot cunt with the micro penis who is off his meds and who should kill himself, or at least be raped, for being so ‘cray cray’,” they’ll cry,  “Can’t we all just get along?”

That’s the state of “our” side.   They are big-time defenders of liberty, or rather they lay claim to being such, yet I am their enemy.  As are the few people who came to my defense, presumably, several of whom were shouted down.

These would-be activists swarm like libs.  They argue like libs.  They distort, they move goal posts, they allow ego to keep them from educating themselves.   When cornered, they move on to ad hom first, emotional appeals later.  They trot out straw man arguments.   They try to break your spirit by retweeting each others’ lame arguments as if to create the feeling of overwheming consensus.  In short, they’re rather poor Alinskyites.  And it is they we have to put our faith in.  God help us.

So.  To sum up, what I learned today is precisely this:  there is very little  intellectual honesty left in political discourse, certainly on the left, but from my experience today, from a large swath of those who have taken on the conservative label, likely because it makes them feel like the new counterculture.  They have no respect for those who came before them, and no time for anyone who questions “one of ours.”

They are the very things they claim to decry.  And it is evident to almost none of them, or none of the people who follow them.  Which makes it almost tragic.  They followed the wrong path — and refused to even consider arguments made by someone so odious as am I.

Just another anti-intellectual, bullying hive mind. Only one that carries an R after its name.

It saddens me.  Because though I can’t be bullied — and found the whole experience less like a personal rebuke than  like a sociology experiment that resolved certain questions in a way that one hoped at the outset it wouldn’t — it’s clear that I’m a dinosaur.  And so is classical liberalism, at least the way I’ve promoted it for over a decade here or on radio, etc.

If you look around at your putative brothers and sisters in arms, and they are sniffing their own  rifles with their fingers on the trigger, you know the army you’re in doesn’t really have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a difference when the worst of the fighting breaks out. We saw some of that last election cycle, when they turned on those the left demanded they turn on and convinced themselves it was they who were making their own decisions.  Useful idiots.

That most of those people who came after me today had no idea how long I’ve been active in promoting the cause of liberty just speaks to how different the internet has become.  How full of self-righteous and phony “pragmatists” pretending to have any kind of sustainable set of principles it is.

It may well be time for me to bow off the stage, remembered for being the women-hating cunt psycho faggot I am.  The serial harasser.  The destroyer of honor.  The pseudo-intellectual who specializes in fighting people on my own side for no good reason.  A terrible teammate, if you will.

Still, I encourage those of you still around to steal my stuff — most of it’s been archived — and pass it along.  But put someone else’s name to it if you decide to do so.  That way it doesn’t come pre-poisoned.

Alrighty then.



Posted by Jeff G. @ 3:58pm
111 comments | Trackback

April 22, 2014

“How to respond to Thomas Piketty’s inequality alarmism”

Piketty, for those you who don’t know, is leftist/socialist French economist who has put together a modern-day version of Marxist market principles, which of course are a critique of capitalism and the garden variety Fabian concern over “income inequality” — which rejects the whole “rising tide raises all boats” idea championed by such proto-TEA Party extremists as, eg., John F Kennedy.

And, according to an interview he gave recently, he’s had the ear of the White House, Mr Lew, and the Democrat Party for quite some time now. A socialist. Proposing socialist principles. Who rejects capitalism. And is evidently the economist with the most influence with Democrats.

Which means the way to respond to Mr Piketty’s alarmism is to ask him if the relative income inequality in, say, Cuba and North Korea and parts of Africa are making those countries Utopian paradises? And then bitch slap him and walk away.

Jim Pethokoukis, though, takes another, more urbane tack, one that grants Piketty more respect as an intellectual than I believe is deserved. Which I might not be saying were this the late 19th century, and we hadn’t yet witnessed the historical reality of anti-capitalist, anti-free market economic systems, and the inevitable totalitarianism and police state apparatuses that come along with them.

Not to mention the gulags, or gas chambers, or killing fields, or mass graves.

Writes Pethokoukis:

[...] Piketty [is a first-rate scholar whose magnum opus is well worth reading, whatever your ideological inclination. His thesis is straightforward. At its center are observations and forecasts about the return on capital, economic growth, and the relationship between the two. Some economists, such as Paul Krugman and Martin Wolf, think Piketty’s probably got the story right. Others, including AEI’s Kevin Hassett, Tyler Cowen, and Joshua Hendrickson, take the other side of the trade.

Yet even if Piketty is wrong, there is reason to believe technology and globalization might sharply increase immobility, as well as boost income and wealth inequality–and  lead to long-term wage stagnation for the vast majority of workers. The good news here is that many of the most realistic responses — even Piketty thinks his own end-game policy agenda is utopian — are intrinsically good ones. Since slow economic growth worsens inequality, we should want to pursue policies that might boost birthrates (tax relief for parents) and innovation (remove regulatory barriers to entry).

Indeed, Piketty has said as much. If capital ownership is becoming too concentrated, then we should try to broaden it (universal savings accounts) and turn more workers into owners. Cowen highlights “deregulating urban development and loosening zoning laws, which would encourage more housing construction and make it easier and cheaper to live in cities such as San Francisco and, yes, Paris.” And, of course, both primary and secondary education need a strong dose of disruptive innovation to meet the changing needs of students and workers.

If policymakers start giving such ideas greater thought, then Piketty’s book, right or wrong, will have performed an immensely valuable service.

From where I sit, this is precise NOT how to respond, generally-speaking, to Piketty’s inequality alarmism, if only because we know that it isn’t “inequality” that drives leftist dogma, but rather a rejection of true diversity, economic liberty,  individual autonomy, and a free market.  They want concentrated power, an ability to control and manipulate the masses, and to essentially run the world as their own social Petri dish.

So rather than dignify Piketty’s boring retread of socialist economics, what we need do is simply point to the numerous examples of countries that have followed that lead — who have sought radical egalitarianism, which leads to equality of misery and is a necessary rejection of liberty, which by its very nature ensures certain inequalities of outcome (because it is the product of individual choice and individual industry, not to mention an entire matrix of additional personal decisions) — and not that they have either failed, are failing, or are becoming police states, with more and more centralized governmental power.

Like, for instance, our own country.

Now, I understand and agree with Jim’s more general point — that the questions Piketty raises allow for conservative and free-market answers to find voice in the conversation — but the truth is, that presumes that the left is interested in good faith economic arguments. It’s not. It’s interested in entrenched centralized power and control and promoting a permanent ruling class.  It is liberal fascism’s end game, because in order to run paradise, some pigs are going to of necessity have to be more equal than others.

Concentration of capital, as Mark Levin pointed out last evening, is occurring, but more and more that concentration is taking place in the federal government.  Taking money from the private sector and creating disincentives to move capital around.   Obamacare is a further deterrent, because venturing out on one’s own to start a business could lead to a loss of health care, etc.

And it was intended to do so:  socialist economic policy is not a legitimate engagement in intellectual debate; instead, it is an attempt to re-distribute wealth, gain enormous power of citizens turned subjects, and entrench the progressive trajectory that has so long been chipping away at our constitutional system and the protections of our natural rights t was devised to secure.

So, sure, if you want to join the debating society, by all means, expound upon the flaws in Piketty’s thinking.  Me, I’d rather just tell him to go fix France first before worrying about us.

(h/t to geoff B, who brought Piketty’s influence to my attention weeks ago; I just never go around to writing about it)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:24pm
46 comments | Trackback

April 22, 2014

SCOTUS GETS ONE RIGHT: upholds Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in college admissions

Washington Examiner:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan’s ban on using race as a factor in college admissions.

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences, presumably because such a system could give rise to race-based resentment.

Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court’s prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Kennedy said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically. “But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups,” said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

At 58 pages, Sotomayor’s dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.


Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case, presumably because she worked on it at an earlier stage while serving in the Justice Department.

In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race among many factors in college admissions in a case from Michigan.

Three years later, affirmative action opponents persuaded Michigan voters to change the state constitution to outlaw any consideration of race.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the issue was not affirmative action, but the way in which its opponents went about trying to bar it.

In its 8-7 decision, the appeals court said the provision ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment because it presents an extraordinary burden to affirmative action supporters who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign to repeal the constitutional provision.

Similar voter-approved initiatives banning affirmative action in education are in place in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies.

Black and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the ban took effect. At California’s top public universities, African-Americans are a smaller share of incoming freshmen, while Latino enrollment is up slightly, but far below the state’s growth in the percentage of Latino high school graduates.

The case was the court’s second involving affirmative action in as many years. In June, the justices ordered lower courts to take another look at the University of Texas admissions plan in a ruling that could make it harder for public colleges to justify any use of race in admissions.

The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682.

(my emphasis)

What’s interesting here is not that SCOTUS came to the right decision (or that Breyer went along with the majority): that’s merely surprising. Instead, what may be important here is how this decision provides some indication as to how SCOTUS might rule on things like California’s proposition 8, once proponents of that democratically passed amendment to the state’s Constitution overcomes the hurdle of “standing” that SCOTUS used to dodge the issue in a 2013 ruling.

To listen to the majority — Kennedy notes that “nothing in the Constitution or the court’s prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results” in Michigan — is to listen to a Court that is clearly at an ideological crossroads, particular insofar as it in essence denied States like Arizona the rights to pass laws to combat illegal immigration under the pretense that the Executive has “discretion” on whether to follow such laws, just as they have discretion when it comes to enforcing already existing federal law like our current immigration statutes and DOMA.

The real takeaway here, though, comes from the dissent, written by Sotomayor, the Wise Latina, who complains that “without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups” — an argument evidently rejected in this case by the majority.

Which means that, though the leftists will try to fight Prop 8 and likeminded state constitutional amendments securing the traditional definition of marriage on equal protection grounds under the 14th Amendment (which had nothing whatever to do with marriage or homosexuals, and so has no jurisdiction over questions raised on their behalf, from an originalist perspective), the Court here has, at least in this case, rejected that argument: affirmative action is not, despite Sotomayor’s overheated rhetoric, a constitutionally protected “civil right,” and therefore voters of each state are allowed to make the determination as to whether or not they find what is in essence a long-enforced, activist-led social experiment enshrined in Bakke, an effective or even viable law.

If the decision on Proposition 8 comes down to the same question — is same sex marriage a “civil right,” or can states determine the meaning of marriage, based on long-standing traditional understandings of the legal arrangement and definition of the term? — we have seen in this particular instance the majority suggest that what is not a civil right, and same sex marriage is not, but is instead a semantic intrusion on a long-standing institution (a civil rights battle over same-sex civil unions may well go the other way, and arguably should), is, therefore, a matter of state jurisdiction.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I think the Court will be swayed by the faulty and dishonest “civil rights” argument, or at least pretend to be, and deny states (and by that, we are talking about the majority of we, the people) the right to make our own determinations. States that refuse to abide such a decision will then be held as civil rights violators by the Justice Department and will be subject to all sort of legal molestation.

But what will be evident, should all this come to pass, is that we are living not under a stable or even coherent rule of law, but rather one driven by political expediency, the whims of 9 philosopher kings and queens, and special interest groups.

Which is judicial oligarchy, nothing less — and as such, is an affront to a representative constitutional republic built specifically around federalism.

Of course, I’m no lawyer, so take this all with a grain of salt. Just one guy’s opinion. And it’s just one guy who doesn’t happen to do designer cupcakes. So there’s that.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:08am
6 comments | Trackback

April 21, 2014

From the Dept of deadpan: Who’d have thunk it?

“Attkisson: Some CBS Bosses Seemed ‘Personally Defensive’ of the Obama Administration”:

Former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has been making the media rounds, discussing her departure from the network she called home for more than two decades. She appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources over the weekend and shed additional light on a developing culture inside CBS News that she said she could no longer abide. Attkisson cited the network’s “declining appetite” for original investigative reporting, prompting host Brian Stelter to note the irony that CBS News’ slogan is “original reporting.” But her concerns extended far beyond some producers’ and executives’ apparent disinterest in her brand of journalism. She said CBS’ internal editorial inertia resists stories that could reflect poorly on the Obama administration, or the federal government in general.

Wait, is Ms Attkisson really suggesting that a major, national mainstream media source is more interested than covering up for Obama and the federal leviathan he runs than it is in covering the federal government in a way that speaks truth to power?  Well, then.  Looks like we’ve unveiled another racist.

The Left’s objective with Attkisson — who has been one of the few mainstream reporters willing to wade into major Obama scandals — is to “controversialize” her work product in an effort to convince her fellow journalists to tune her out. Liberals ghettoize conservative outlets and Fox News as illegitimate, so Attkisson’s tenacious pursuit of the “wrong” stories prompted a furious marginalization campaign. Watching Attkisson coolly and professionally expose their machinations on CNN must have caused some heartburn at Media Matters headquarters — although they’ve got their hands full at the moment with an absolutely hilarious labor dispute with…the SEIU.

Somewhere, Oliver Willis is crying into a giant 8 layer cake with a side of ice cream flavored only “gallon.”

The other day on Twitter I suggested that the Koch Bros. REALLY get political active and fund a full-scale investigation into Harry Reid’s land deals.  Reid is free to libel and lie while on the Senate floor, but once he has to defend himself outside the walls of power, he’s just another flesh and blood human, albeit one with the gaunt, haggard appearance of Walking Dead extra.

So let’s up the ante yet again and have the Koch Bros. — and the TEA Party — see what we can do about getting Media Matters declassified as a non-partisan outfit.  Because everyone knows it’s a mere hit squad for the progressives, and any disinterested study would show that the risible veneer of non-partisan media criticism is a sham, and that Media Matters is therefore required to reorganize for tax purposes.

The country’s warring factions, the socialists masquerading as “progressives” and the constitutionalists constantly presented as “fringe” or Hobbity, etc., are nearing a point of a no-holds barred battle for the soul of the nation.  Our advantage is, we understand just who and what they are; whereas they have always had to fool others into making us into things we are not.

That’s going to harder to do the more people are awakened.  And it’s happening.  I can feel it.

Check out these video clips of Attkisson making her case below:

Continue Reading →

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:45pm
23 comments | Trackback

April 21, 2014

Go Towson Tigers!

Never before have I been so proud to be an alum. Just as a year or so ago I was never more proud to be a graduate student alum of Johns Hopkins, and, more recently, a former English, argument, and creative writing teacher at the University of Denver.

I did two summers at the School of Theory at Cornell, who I’m sure has made me equally as proud. But I just don’t feel like looking it up, because frankly, the whole thing is just too damned depressing to take.

Universities have become breeding grounds for enforced groupthink, politically correct bullying, and victim politics. They are, with few exceptions, hotbeds of leftwing propaganda, anti-semitism, and a decisive (and repugnant) anti-intellectualism.

I was fortunate enough to witness this first hand, which is one of the reasons I decided to opt out of a career in the academy. And why my wife and I are at odds over my declaration that I’d rather we just give each of our sons $100K to start their own lives than send them off to indoctrination camps.

When I left the English program at the University of Denver, or when I finished up the two tours at Cornell, I was convinced that the bulk of Humanities studies had been so thoroughly polluted with incoherence and identity politics that it would be a mistake to stay and have constant “debates” with the cookie-cutter postmodernists/poststructuralists/queer theorists/feminist theorists who were being routinely churned out by these grievance mills.

So instead, I started a blog.


Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:29pm
15 comments | Trackback

← Older posts