Politics

Guardians of the unborn

ArgusEyes — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:11:29 GMT

It is undoubtedly fascistic and totalitarian, yet I am surprised that a country like the Netherlands would consider such a proposition that actually inhibits women! Men sure - I'm used to seeing articles proposing things that are just a few hairs short of imprisoning all men out of the womb but one rarely sees such propositions against women.

This bit got me:

"I must admit that it shocked me that this law was the brainchild of a socialist. As a confounded psychiatrist friend who deals with troubled children put it, this bill is vaguely reminiscent of the eugenics and sterilisation programmes of the fascist era.

Really? When I saw it was a socialist who proposed this I thought "ah.. that explains it". I think Mr. Khaled Diab needs a little education on what socialism actually is. It is not always bad to be sure. After all, an amount of social programs and institutions help keep society civilised.

However, let’s take the example of the fascists. The Nazi party were undoubtedly socialists "Nazi" is short for their full name which is "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (you need to say it in German to see the link in the pronunciation). They were socialists, it is there in the title, it is undebatable.

Sperm donor bureaucracy introduced in the U.K. – Men walk and women get hurt

ArgusEyes — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:11:06 GMT

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112160915.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2008) — A radical overhaul of sperm donation services is needed to address the critical shortage of sperm donors in the UK, say two fertility experts in an editorial on bmj.com today.

...

They believe that the removal of donor anonymity in 2005 may have contributed to the current shortage of donors.

...

The authors say increasing the number of families that can be created from a single donor should be considered. To prevent siblings born from donation later inadvertently having children together, UK law limits the number of families that can be created from any one donor to 10. But Hamilton and Pacey argue that this figure is arbitrary and not evidence based, and a more flexible approach is needed.

They point out that the size of the UK population is enough for a large safety margin to already exist. Interestingly, in the Netherlands, which has a smaller population than the UK, the upper limit is 25 offspring per donor, while in France it is five.

Basically remove anonymousness and reduce how many times donations can be made and you get a shortage. Wow, bureaucracy and government interference certainly helped women there didn’t it? I’m sure that Feminists will be lining up to blame men for this. How dare they be selfish enough to not put down their personal details so that they can get whacked for 10 sets of child support down the line when the next set of anti-male legislation gets passed?

Race baiters rush to reinforce the victim status of American blacks.

ArgusEyes — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:34:15 GMT

Obama win does not end racism, activists say: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4A4B8820081106?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Please consider the momentous unwisdom of this statement "Obama win does not end racism". I think the only thing that will erase racism is the destruction of the human race.

A black president means nothing to the victim mongering race baiter. We have feminists and P.C. madness here in the U.K. but we have had a female prime minster. It ultimately means nothing to the politically correct.

A message to all the starry eyed Obama worshippers

ArgusEyes — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:08:55 GMT

This video got me called a racist. Please identify the racial slurs in this video.

Why is this news?

ArgusEyes — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:47:08 GMT

Extremists face tougher UK entry

..It should be common sense.

A society keeping out destructive and hateful bigoted fanatics? If course that doesn't solve the problem of the ones who are already here and I fear it is a bit late but it is a needed step.

Important

ArgusEyes — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:06:31 GMT

Sacred cows make the best hamburger

ArgusEyes — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:16:52 GMT

Democrats must learn some respect

ArgusEyes — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:37:17 GMT

Am interesting article.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1984d88-7cd5-11dd-8d59-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

Palin, abstinence, teen pregnancy and political smears

ArgusEyes — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:28:43 GMT

Reactions from the left are to cackle and shriek. Take this video from a person who I am subscribed to:

This is not reasoned argument which, to be fair, he does provide a lot of the time. This is hand-rubbing. Obama made a very fair and respectable point that families should be off-limits in decent debate. He mentioned that he had said this before and he has, but he was talking about his wife. There is a problem with this and that is that Obama’s wife was actively inserting herself into his campaign and was giving speeches in rallies so Michelle Obama was definitely on-limits. Bristol Palin should be off limits because she has no political involvement in her mother’s campaign (to the best of my knowledge).

The left smears started before this so I don’t expect them to stop now. However, the legitimate question on this matter is the issue of teen pregnancy and sex education. Many have claimed that this is ironic. No. People may have different ideas on how to tackle pregnancy but most all people agree that teen pregnancy is something to be avoided. And no one method is said to be perfect, accidents will still happen. Ignoring this case of one for a moment – do people thing that traditional families like Palin’s will contain more teen pregnancy than non traditional ones?

Sex education and the acceptance of sex (as exemplified by in-school nurseries) has increased in the modern age. Do we have less teen pregnancy now? We do not. I don’t think ramping up sex ed will help, I don’t think that abstinence only sex education will help. What will help is decreasing the social meme of the acceptance of casual sex.

But whatever will happen, people will still make mistakes. What is important is how they get over those mistakes. Bristol Palin has announced that she will get married to the father and raise the child. This is the appropriate thing to do and does testify to the way that she has been raised.

I’m not a frothing-at-the-mouth supporter of the right. I’m the first one to bash creationism teaching in the schools. But the left has failed to show any class and have acted to this incident in the typical thuggish way that they normally do. We all have mini scandals in our families but to try to destroy Palin on this is disingenuous, I consider this an example of good values that Palin’s daughter has taken control of her situation which is ultimately what the people on the right believe in – personal power from within instead of power from without.

Feministing’s reaction to Palin fails to surprise.

ArgusEyes — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:28:04 GMT

I wrote in the last post about how interested I would be to read Feministing’s reaction to Palin. I have now done so and it is pretty much what you would expect.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010705.html

The piece was written by Ann of the fuck you John McCain fame (will we see a “fuck you Sarah Palin”?).

Republicans are more open to a certain type of woman -- one who is strongly against things like equal pay, universal health care, and reproductive freedom. In other words, the party is pro-woman-candidates, as long as they enact anti-woman policies.

Oh I see. So republicans are only interested in one type of woman. One who is.. you know.. conservative!

Since when was opposition to universal health care an anti-woman policy? This statement is the kind of breathless stupidity you can expect from the feministing gals, a mix of lies and non-sequiturs. Its ground I’ve covered in my “feminism and the left” video. Feminism is primarily a left based political movement which has aligned its leftist values with being for women and thus to oppose them is being “against women”.

And what the fuck does “anti-woman” mean anyway? It’s your normal meaningless rhetorical garbage. Basically the leftist cant is “I like the fact that she’s a woman but..”. But what? If you’re a feminists then you should be pretty happy with this, but maybe that “but” betrays something else? That politics is more important than gender to you.

A sign to show I'm not dead - thoughts on Sarah Palin

ArgusEyes — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:57:09 GMT

Greetings the 10 guys who read this blog. My life continues to be stamped under the cruel foot of a massive project at work. Plus I am approaching a new format for my videos. I want to release something soon which will be a bit of an experiment.

But in the meantime. John McCain has nominated Sarah Palin to be his VP running mate. Being the cynical bastard that I am I though something to the effect of “this is a ploy to egg up the diversity of his campaign” and “this is a ploy to hook the disenfranchised Hillary voters”. One should about such knee-jerk reactions to things such as this though, one can speculate but ultimately such speculations are not built on much.

So digging further reveals that many on the right who I respect are very excited about the McCain-Palin ticket. Anyone who has seen my videos will notice a bit of a man-crush on Dennis Prager and Dennis is almost jumping up and down in excitement. Most reactions from the right are good.

The left has its smear machine in full gear. Which given that any critique of Hillary made us all sexists.. makes them a bunch of sexists. Anyone who the left hates has to be alright so I consider this to be very promising.

Whos Behind the Anti-Palin Smear?

Daily Kos - Sarah Palin Dominionist Stalking Horse

Sarah Palin and Creationism

But let’s be honest. Sarah Palin is an attractive younger woman (politically speaking mind) and this has undoubtedly had a huge amount to do with being picked. I do think that she has the political chops as well. And politics is politics so all in all.. I’m feeling pretty good about it.

I can’t wait to hear what feministing has to say about this.

Latest friday feminist fuck you. Can you guess who it is? Go on, guess..

ArgusEyes — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:59:40 GMT

To feminists, gender is more important than skill.

ArgusEyes — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:34:07 GMT

British men - You also need to wake up!

ArgusEyes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:08:00 GMT

Boycott relationships. Your country wants you to do it apparently.

Feminism and the left

ArgusEyes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:12:57 GMT

You know, I used to be subscribed to Feministing so I could get their latest videos but they blocked me so I have to remember to occasionally check back to see what those gals are getting themselves up to.

I checked back today and I see that they have indeed been busy, they have 4 new videos since I last looked, and I took a look at the titles and had a little thought, and that is that I was once criticised by a commenter because I had dared to say that feminism is normally associated with the political left.

I would have thought that the association between feminism and the left was obvious on the face of it – like looking at a tree and saying “that’s green”. And then meeting someone who says “how can you say that”. It’s as plain as the nose on my face and the person who cannot see that

I listen and watch hundreds of pieces, be it video or articles, on feminism and gender in politics every week. And there is one piece that I am kicking myself that I didn’t save, I have looked for it and cannot remember where I saw it originally so I will have to describe it to you. There was a video interview with someone who was a member of the national organisation for women, this was back when Hillary Clinton was still in the running and she was commenting on feminists and the political candidates that they support and she made the point that Feminists don’t always support the female candidate. And she cited a number of examples from the past where her organisation supported a man over the women, when the man was a democrat and the woman was a republican. I don’t think she even realised when she was saying it how much of an admission she was making. To a feminist, the one thing that will trump gender is politics.

There are many left politicians who confess their feminist leanings, not just saying they support feminism because a political candidate would be committing political suicide if they criticised feminism, but actually fully embracing and being a feminist, Hillary Clinton is a great example of this.

Feminists normally shill for the left political candidate. After Hillary was gone they reluctantly shifted to Obama. And whilst we are on Obama. Try this on for size. Type “feminists for Obama” into Google, you’ll get a bevy of support for him. Type “feminists for john McCain” and the Feministing videos which say “fuck you” to him will show up in the first and second places.

Go to a feminist’s blog and look at the advertising all over the place

Look at some of the different types of feminism. There’s socialist feminism, there’s Marxist feminism, there’s a very small subset which I agree with, called individual feminism and if you type “conservative feminism” into Google then all you will get is people laughing at the term and calling it an oxymoron.

Which political persuasion is likely to appeal to the feminist mindset more? The right? With its tendency towards personal rights and responsibilities, smaller government, more individual freedom?

Or the left? With its tendency toward equality as an encompassing whole, more government fiddling of the figures and the governmental intrusion to instigate social programs to change the sheep like masses until we finally reach utopia.

And in case you’re wondering, yes, I did insert my own personal bias in there. An in-depth discussion of the right/left political mindset is a topic that has been discussed by many greater than I. And is a topic for another day.

But it is clear to see that of the right/left mindset, the victim based worldview of the feminists finds itself drawn to one side over the other. In fact, I personally believe that the right is the political personification of the masculine mindset. And that is personal responsibility, individuality and strength, and the freedom to act on your own recognisance. And to also, be quite bull-headed at times and to not realise it.

And the left is the political personification of the feminine mindset. And that is groupthink, the protection of the group, the strive to not offend, to try and please everyone and the stifling imposition of safety upon those who must be mothered. And also, the attempt to be as kind to everyone as you can be, even if that kindness is enforced.

Now. Let’s examine the titles of the latest three Feministing videos.

Friday Feminist Fuck You: Heidi Harris
Friday Feminist Fuck You: Rush Limbaugh
Friday Feminist Fuck You: John McCain

This should put the nail in the coffin of any last stragglers of tough that feminism is not related to left though. Why is this important? Well it is the same effect that feminists approach you claiming that they are about equality and they just want the same rights for women’s for men - the usual canter. And then you ask them the same tired set of questions that we know will bring down every feminist such as, oh, I don’t know, if feminists are for equality then why don’t they support equality – little things like that. And you ask them about father’s rights and the ways men are oppressed and that the thing they say are oppression aren’t really oppression and then they let their guards down and they admit that - of course, they are FEMinists and of course they are for the advancement of women and the men can fend for themselves in their eyes.

Well, that’s not what you said in the first place is it sister? Where’d all this talk about equality go?

The refusal to admit that they are bound to the left is the same effect. If feminists admit to what they actually are, and that is a left leaning political movement that is for the advancement of women’s rights over men’s then they lose the benefit of some of that high falutin’ language about being for equality don’t they?

RE: Friday Feminist Fuck You: John McCain, rant on wage gap

ArgusEyes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:01:32 GMT

Misrepresentatiion #1:

A lot of sources state that McCain “voted against” the law. In fact, McCain did not attend the vote at the senate. [1]

But don’t take my word for it. Ann from Feministing corrected her post. [2]. But not her youtube video. [3]

The proper way to respond to a mistake is to admit to it. Video descriptions are editable and a correction on behalf of the author testifies to intellectual credibility. [4]

Misrepresentation #2

The Ledbetter pay act would have guaranteed employers the right to sue for discrimination:

This falsehood is propagated by Ann at 0.48 in her video on the subject [3]. In fact there are many other remits under the law that can be used to address grievances like this such as Title VII and the Equal pay act [5].

Misrepresentation #3

This is an opposition of the equal payment for women:

To quote the Feministing website:

“And not holding businesses accountable for wage discrimination is the same thing as endorsing it.”

This is simplistic thinking. It’s a false dichotomy in the first place. Businesses can still be held accountable by the relevant investigative agency when a claim is filed. The Ledbetter law relates to an employee’s pay discrimination claims and increasing the time period where a claim can be filed this is not groundbreaking legislation by any objective means and it is dishonest to colour people who are concerned for the state of the law or increase in the litigiousness of society as being anti woman or anti fair pay.

Misrepresentation #4

Lilly Ledbetter was paid less because she was a woman, and she never received recompense from her case.

To quote the Supreme court of the united states document on Ledbetter v. Goodyear tire and rubber corporation:

“During most of the time that petitioner Ledbetter was employed by respondent Goodyear, salaried employees at the plant where she worked were given or denied raises based on performance evaluations.”

...

“There, Ledbetter alleged that several supervisors had in the past given her poor evaluations because of her sex;”

...

“Goodyear maintained that the evaluations had been non-discriminatory, but the jury found for Ledbetter, awarding back pay and damages.”

The question was on the status of her performance evaluations. The jury rules for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages. Ledbetter appealed anyway and this is when her claim was barred due to time constraints.

Misrepresentation #5

This law was solely about increasing the window in which claims could be made.

The law also had clauses to allow “someone other than the employee” to bring a claim. This may be a beauorcratic organisation. Leading open a huge legal hole which politically motivated groups and parties to insert themselves into a situation.

The decision on the bill is completely inline with partisan politics. With the political left aiming to increase the reign and affect that government can have on private businesses and with the political right acting to minimise the government intrusion.

I have included sources because I believe that issues such as this deserve the in-depth treatment it has certainly not received in the popular press.

In light of Feministing’s treatment of this topic I have to stand by my previous statements that Feministing as an organisation is intellectually vacuous, given to cheap and simplistic gender demagoguery and propagating hatred and false information in line with a radical feminist, sexist agenda.

Sources

[1] McCain Opposes Equal Pay Law – Washington post
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/24/by_juliet_eilperin_washington.html

[2] John McCain supports wage discrimination - Feministing
http://www.feministing.com/archives/009085.html

[3] Friday Feminist Fuck You: John McCain - Feministing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjaXk-qCVw

[4] The problems with feminism, ArgusEyes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68l4XUeJYo0

[5] Nothing Fair About the “Fair Pay Act” - Hans Bader
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/04/29/nothing-fair-about-the-fair-pay-act/

[6] LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., INC.-SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-1074_All.pdf

[7] Post Editorial for Changing Lawsuit Deadline Based on Factual Misunderstanding - Hans Bader http://www.openmarket.org/2008/04/23/post-editorial-for-changing-lawsuit-deadline-based-on-factual-misunderstanding/

Shit like this almost makes me want to become a feminist

ArgusEyes — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:28:13 GMT

I kid.. We know that the feminists don't fight against the real evils against women. Which, seem time and time again to be Islam.

The Men's Coalition... Stealth feminist apologists?

ArgusEyes — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:39:00 GMT

http://www.themenscoalition.org.uk/Welcome.html

The Men’s Coalition is a new organisation that aims to put issues of concern to men and boys such as health, parenting and caring, relationships, education, employment, crime and violence firmly on the public policy agenda.

At the bottom of the page it states that the Men's Coalition supports the White Ribbon campaign which bills itself as "Men working to end men's violence against women. As anyone who has seen my videos should know, language like this gets me seeing red a little bit. Why just men's violence against women? If you read their F.A.Q. page then they specify that they are talking about DV and rape.

That is a bit dissapointing but there are many things on their website which seem promising. Could you guys weigh in with your opinion of this?

My reply to MarquisMongaga

ArgusEyes — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:54:28 GMT

Note the thoughtful pose.

Do as I do Jessica valenti

ArgusEyes — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:25:29 GMT

From Feministing (again):

"Yeah, a bunch of misogynist trolls have swarmed the site. I'm sorry to Feministing readers for the nonsense. I'm going to shut down comments for the weekend until they find something better to do (because I just can't spend all weekend online deleting and banning).”

“But in the meantime, this serves as a pretty good reminder as to why feminism is so needed! (Even if it does kill my Friday night occasionally.)"

Read: Thos icky boys are invading our little girl’s club and I need to expel them all. It’s the patriarchy!

Sorry Jessica, when you talk shit about people they tend to want to defend themselves. Not all defences are what I would call “cogent” but I’ll give you some tips to show you the kind of nice guy I am.

When it comes to opposing views. You can save yourself time and effort by not being a comment dictator and just letting them on there.

Your head is probably reeling right now, so I will try and say it again a little slower.
Just. Let. Them. On. There.

You’re faithful minions will have fun replying and saying things such as “you’re afraid of women” or “you’re not real men”. The furore will drive your traffic up.. It’ll be a regular internet bonanza!

And most importantly of all. You won’t come off as a prissy little girls who cannot handle opposing views.

Also. The line that “this shows why feminism is needed” is used to death by Jessica. As you should know by now, I read her bloody book and read her bloody blog and trust me – this is overused. EVERYTHING show that feminism is needed.

A word to the wise Jessica, one asshole or a bunch of assholes does little to prove systemic oppression of women which needs a left-based sexist socialist ideology to counter it. You make a living talking smack about men and when we reply in kind it is used as a proof of some societal evil. Pay heed to these words from a wise man.

Any loon feminist can accuse men of being rapists, killers, sadists, and Marines. These are pretty serious charges. A fellow could take exception to them. But if I say something comparatively innocuous in return, such as that I weary of being harried by a rat-pack of diesel-fired tarantulas who mostly look like Rin Tin Tin's littermates--why, they get mad. (Yes, I know, that was a three-animal zoological-automotive metaphor. Patent applied for.)

I figure if radical-feminist ladies can talk ugly about us, then we can talk ugly about them. And we're probably better at it, which they might bear in mind.

Another good slam of Feministing

ArgusEyes — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:39:36 GMT

I was sent this link to a good blog post that further demolishes the ladies at feministing.com

http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=122

There are some very good bits:

One source of these steaming shovelfuls is Feministing, a web site run by self-styled “feminist” writer Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism. While the site bills itself as a blog for young feminists, it is in fact a “me too” web page where Miss Valenti’s sycophantic friends and cultish followers get together to recite dogma, honor the sacraments, pledge their devotion and excommunicate or anathematize the unbelievers. Any who dare to disagree with or mock the more ridiculous dogma are branded heretics (or “assholes”) and abjured with the magic words “Fuck You!”, a devastating show of wit, no doubt.

And...

It is the act of pointing out that such thinking is harebrained that is unforgivable, according to what they call “Feminism 101″, the mere mention of which is believed by the faithful to counter all facts, reason and logic in much the same way that fundies counter all arguments with “The Bible says so!”. In fact, the denizens of Feministing draw “Feminism 101″ like Randolph Scott drew his six-shooter in his old Westerns, but like Scott’s revolver, it’s full of blanks.

But go and read it for more good stuff.

The article also raises some interesting points. At the beginning he raises a dictionary quote such as this one.

fem•i•nism –noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

And then goes on to basically say that people who agree with this should reasonably be called feminists. I agree that most decent people agree with these principles. And if that is the case, do we need a term for us? Or do we merely need to shame those who don’t believe these things. I.e. we call people who don’t believe in equality between the races racist, we don’t call people who do believe in equality between the sexes pro-race. It’s not needed.

And we don’t need the term feminism, by the same logic. But, I would also like to say that the modern feminist movement is a political movement that has been very successful in appropriating this definition for themselves. So much so that if you go and ask a good young woman who would call herself a feminist such as this, and you ask her why she is a feminist then she will say something along the lines of “because I believe in equality”. The irony is that if you truly believe in equality then you have to go against what the modern feminist movement believes.

Fred on common sense

ArgusEyes — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:38:47 GMT

Since I read a part of his article in my latest video. I though it would be a cool idea to list some of his best material as regards feminism.

I recommend you go on over and check out all of his stuff.

Dennis Prager responds to Keith Olbermann on President Bush

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:37:03 GMT

This is off topic, but the truth has to be served.

Keith Olbermann, a far left thug, leads a dishonest slanderous television program. His every word needs to be treated with the utmost scepticism. I'm not a fan of Bush, but lies and distortions should not be used by anyone. This is a video reply to TurpisHaereticum who posted the Olbermann diatribe.

To leftists: Just because you differ with a person. That does not make that person evil. You need to lean the different between a differing opinion and a bad one. Likewise a comment that differs from you is not bad and deserving of being down-thumbed into a hidden state just because it differs.

Perhaps you would like to think about how much intellectual substance there is to a post that says "FUCK BUSH". Does that deserve to be thumbed up? If it feels like I am talking to you in a condescending way then stop acting like irresponsible children who need to be talked to as thus.

If Turpis has any interest in honest discourse then he will remove the thumb system from this video so that the leftist tendency to silence opposition will not find a niche in which to manifest itself.

Read the original transcript:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10316_Page4.html

Q Mr. President, you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do.

The gender card, Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:50 GMT

Taken from the Tim Russert Show 4-5-08.

Dennis Prager deconstructs Hillary Clintons comments

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:08 GMT

A clip from the Dennis Prager show which discusses Hillary Clintons comments which I mentioned in my previous video. As you will notice, the opinion I stated in my last video and Dennis's opinion are the same. Dennis's comments here go more in depth than mine did and I see no reason to add anything else.

Don't vote for sexism in 2008 Hillary Clinton is bad for men

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:15:56 GMT

I have a dirty little secret. Hillary Clinton scares me, I was always aware of her feminist leanings but now that she is running for the president of the united states I think it's time to focus on Hillary.

And of course this makes me a chauvinist pig. If there is one thing that Hillary is using to death it's the female victim card, standard feminists phrases such as "glass ceiling" and a completely gynocentric campaign.

From what I've heard from Hillary Clinton over the past months. It seems to me that she is completely banking on the female and emasculated male voting base. Whether or not this will work - remains to be seen. But one thing is sure, that this is a small minded strategy, completely lacking in wisdom and sophistry. Of most campaigns waged throughout human history that target one particular demographic in a demagogic way have had foul intentions and foul consequences and I exempt Hillary from this in no small way. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be an extremely bad idea for men.

I'm not going to mince words here. In my mind Hillary Clinton is a female supremacist, a bigot and an ideologue. She is Cold and calculating and she is a feminist. Being the good feminist, Hillary seems to have a female supremacist streak. Making this statement in the Vital Voices' Women's Global Leadership Summit:

"Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behaviour and lowers corruption."

Maybe you could call this the Larry Summers effect. Make a statement about some inherent difference that makes men better than women in some regard then watch as the wailing begins. But turn the tables and claim the ethical or physical superiority of women then it becomes perfectly fine. Her claims may be true, but we live in a world where is a massive difference between what one can say about women and what on can say about men.

Hillary made an astounding in one of the democratic debates. Which I am paraphrasing as such:

"It's about time that someone started talking about what is good for women. Because doesn't that make a nice change?"

And of course everyone clapped like lemmings. The inanity of this statement is unbelievable. For as long as I can remember, all I have heard is what is good for women. It is virtually unheard of to hear what is good for men.

I put it to Hillary that most all political candidates mention "women's rights" in some way and if they do not then it's not that they are talking about "men's rights" in particular, it is more that they are simply not mentioning it. Men's rights are hardly ever mentioned in politics, and I put the word "hardly" in there in case it has happened but to be honest I cannot think of a time it has happened in the perpetuity of politics - such an event would be so rare that it would be emblazoned onto my consciousness.

The sad truth is that not talking about women, to Hillary, would be the equivalent of being sexist towards them. And to make things "equal" is the same as giving women more and more perks to hurtle them through that ever problematic glass ceiling. This is proven by the kind of commentary we see in the media about the sexism of those evil white men who would not vote for her, take the actions of the New York chapter of the National Organisation of Women criticising Ted Kennedy for not endorsing Hillarie's campaign.

The message is loud and clear: If you don't vote for Hillary then you're sexist. As an aside, I have one question for the democrats. When it comes for the time to vote are you going to be sexist and vote for Obama? Or are you going to be racist and vote for Hillary?

Does Hillary even live in the real world? For all her huffing and puffing about how downtrodden women are you would think that she still lives in the 1950s. But enough of the rhetoric. Is her talk merely hot air? What effect would Hillary have if she became the 44th president of the united states?

Unfortunately there is likely to be an unfortunate effect on men. It's not just about having another president who will surpass all the others in ignoring the issues that plague men - like we haven't had to put up with that forever. She has leant herself to a blatantly sexist proposition called the "Paycheck Fairness Act" which would:

"take critical steps to empower women to negotiate for equal pay"

The Paycheck Fairness Act is an equal pay for equivalent work law by which:

"employers could not pay jobs that are held predominately by women less than jobs held predominately by men"

The matter of the wage gap is something I have always meant to get into in a separate video so I will be talking about these issues in greater depth later but I will give you the gist of it here. Essentially it's all bollocks. You get paid based on how much and how hard you work, there is no shadowy cabal of men holding women back, all of us have mothers, sisters, aunts and female friends and I do not even want to think about what image people like Hillary have of men or how this will shape her. Would you let David Duke oversee race relations? Would you assign David Irving to the head of the holocaust council? Would you let Kent Hovind decide science policy? Would you let Hillary tell you about how sexist America really is?

You see, Hillary Clinton is what the old feminists would have called "sexist". She makes arguments for the superiority of women, she hosts women only and women centred events and campaigns. She makes bigoted statements about men and seems to dislike them and she would make laws that actively disadvantage men and advantage women. I would urge my American brothers and sisters who love true equality to not vote for her.

Sources
Is Hillary Clinton a Closet Sexist?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/15/is-hillary-clinton-a-closet-sexist/

How did Hillary Become a Feminist?
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30039.html

HILLARY PLAYS THE FEMALE SUPREMACIST CARD
http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey56.htm

Hillary Clinton, Cultural Marxist
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29731.html

How did Hillary fall into the feminist fold?
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/080102

The (Anti-)Feminist Movement
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/14/135245.shtml

NOW WTF?
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/01/now-wtf.html

National Committee on pay equity
http://www.pay-equity.org/info-leg.html

Thai king Under monarchy you are a subject not a citizen part 2

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:06:44 GMT

I have been on youtube a fair while and my experience here has taught me two very important things:

People don’t listen to what you say.
People make up their own version of what you said.

Thus I have to follow up my most hated video so far with a couple of clarifications about the most common arguments used against me. And for you to understand what I mean by “hated” let me read you some of my viewer mail.

FUCK YOU, SON OF A BITCH
MOTHER FUCKER, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MY COUNTRY. DON'T SAY A WORD CONCERN TO MY HOMELAND AGAIN, JUST GO TO HELL.

That comment was from vidsdids0000, I want to thank vidsdids0000 for his thoughts.

I’ll tell you something. I honestly had a good opinion of the Thais before I made this, the video is not about Thais of course, but about lese majeste. But now I have a really bad opinion of them from reading the comments to this video.

Enough distractions, to the comments.

1) Don’t insult our king

Nowhere in my original video did I insult the king. It is a matter of fact that that friend who many of you denigrated told me in great details just how much the Thai people love their king and he told me just what the king did to deserve that sense of love from the Thai people. He described to me how much work he does for his people and I thought to myself “you know, he sounds like a great guy”.

The topic of this video was not the king himself. It was the laws of lese majeste, the actions of the Thai government and the principle of monarchy. If you can find any section from the original video where I insulted the king or cast assertions on his character then point it out to me.

2) You are not Thai, why are you commenting, why don’t you leave us alone?

I comment because I can and that’s the end of it. I don’t expect people who so furiously seem to want to put padlocks on their own mind to understand that point.

3) The Thai people want their king and monarchy

Great, of course I mentioned that I don’t like monarchy in general. My comments about wanting to abolish the monarchy were refined to my own country only.

But the point is, if you want to love your king then you can still do that without a lese majeste law. This law will have no effect on your love for the current king. But what will happen when the current prince becomes the next king? From what I’ve heard the Thai people do not think as much of him as they do of his father.

How will you like your petty laws then? Laws that tie your hands and threaten you under the penalty of punishment to not criticise him? I’ll bet that when that moment comes you’ll reflect on the wisdom of being able to think freely but perhaps it will be too late. I think this poem adequately reflects that position.

First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Pastor Martin Niemöller

4) You don’t know about Thailand. Do more research. You don’t understand! Followed by personal insults on my friend.

This might sound a tad ignorant. But there is not need to know anything about Thailand. I suspect that this is a thinly veiled version of the first point, “we love our king”, about the respect that the Thai people have for the king. But I must echo myself again. It is not about the king. The parts about the video that are about Thailand are about the actions of the government and the lese majeste laws. Both of which exist and don’t need to be studied to further confirm that they exist. The law is there and this has implications for freedom of speech which is my main point. Notice also that people who say I should study more

5) The example you give of stamping on the money is ridiculous. Followed by personal insults on my friend

I got a great comment that said “that is RIDICULOUS”, the law is only to stop acts intentionally done to disrespect our king. Sorry looks like I should have been more specific. If you step on it innocently then that may be fine but if it seems like you were thinking of a certain thing at the time or trying to express a certain thought then away to jail you go! Perfectly reasonable:

I got an interesting email from someone who wasn’t interested in spewing forth venom: Which is quite interesting:

I am sure that you don't get arrested if you step the blowing bank note. But if you do it on purpose such as testing how people will react on your action, intentionally insulting the king (I personally think it's ok to insult other royal family members), you will probably be arrested. But I'd say 10-20% chance.

Getting arrested if you step on a Thai bank note is a joke for expats and tourists in Thailand. As far as I was born, I've never been told from a Thai not to step on the bank note because it has the king face, but many expats asked me about it. I think it's funny and sounds make sense to me, so I say "yes! you will probably get arrested" I guess that's how your friend got this from.

May I suggest that if you don’t want people to get this idea, then you don’t tell it to them.

6) Who needs freedom of speech anyway

I have a hard time with this one, it’s hard to explain how something that seems to me to be so fundamental a human right cannot be seem by so many to be something that they want. Government may inhibit our actions but there is somewhere they cannot get. [taps head] up here, and I can think it and express it and organise with other people who think the same thing. Incompetent fascist governments all throughout time have feared the ability of people to think because those thought might lead the people against them.

Then you are a child, you are a helpless little baby crying in the night, subjugated by your masters, no more than shit on the end of their shoes. If freedom scares you then don’t come to me to express these slobbering views.

What is really worrying is the mentality of the type of person who wants the government to manage what they think. Who wants to be told that you can think this but you can’t think that.. I hasten to guess that they are of the moral majority and the types of things that would be banned are the types of things that they disagree with anyway, but again, I must cite. What happens when they ban something you actually agree with. Where are you then. First they came for the Jews and all that..

7) The king himself doesn’t agree with lese majeste and pardons those who suffer from it.

That’s great. Like I said before he seems to be a great guy. But there may be a day and a king who does not pardon these things. The kindness of one man has no effect on a bad law.

All in all I expected some faeces to be thrown but the hateful, emotional, anti-rational, idiotic, ignorant, disagreeable attitudes of the people who replied were still very shocking. Which brings me to the last common point:

8) Stay out of Thailand, don’t come to our country. I never want to see your face here, why don’t you kill yourself, why don’t you just die.

*ahem* I shall read something that I wrote on the thread.

Most people in this world are haters. People who cannot tolerate an opposing view and must instead resort to hateful tactics, shouting, labelling, insulting, threatening deaths and murder. Everything except a thoughtful refutation of my points.

I have already been warned against "going to Thailand". Perhaps the Thai people around he globe need to consider why their government should stop them thinking certain things.

Freedom of speech means nothing unless it also means the freedom to think different (and perhaps unpopular) thoughts.

A man who does not defend his views but will cower when he is subjected to the cowardly threats of others who cannot handle it. Is a coward himself.

Global warming - Avoiding the questions that matter

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:59:10 GMT

Global warming is a subject which I approach in a purely non ideological way. I have no affiliations to big oil and I have no affiliations to anti-corporatism. This is a subject in which I genuinely want to find the truth on and always have.

You could look at the populist discussion in the media on this topic as a parallel between two documentaries. The most popular of which is Al Gore’s documentary supporting man made global warming versus the documentary refuting it called the “great global warming swindle”. Both of them are very convincing, al Gore’s doc is slightly more emotional and contains less science and facts.

But first is a big problem that plagues any debate on these issues. And That is the usage of the word “global warming”. When the words global warming are used on the news it normally refers to manmade global warming, and scientists who seek to prove manmade global warming normally reveal studies talking about rising co2 levels or the retreat of glaciers or the melting of the polar icecaps and assume on top of that that mankind is causing it all.

The issue here is whether this warming is caused by humans. I have always been very frustrated by the lack of focus on this aspect of the debate. Which always seemed to me to be the only important question.

How much of the temperature rise is due to humans.

The conventional surveys reporting on the status of the poor polar bears or the melting of the ice caps, support what we all know and shouldn’t debate.

Which is that the planet is actually warming.

Which is not under debate at all! Both the documentaries have temperature charts in them in which you can see that the temperature of the planet is wither going up or going down, it is never in a straight line, it is always changing. And if you think about it, why would it always be constant, it makes more sense that it changes over time.

To me, though when people talk about the scientific consensus being settled then they are referring to this. But I fear that far too many people make an ideological jump from the real evidence that the planet is warming to the assumption that humans are causing it all.

The argument for human caused global warming hasn’t changed much. It goes along the lines that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect which in turn causes a rise in temperature, and human industry produces CO2. But how much CO2 is there? How much is caused by humans? These are burning questions.

Be wary of people who do not address the weaknesses of their own arguments.

Also, the question as to whether CO2 causes temperature change is under fire. In the al gore documentary he shows a chart correlating warmth to CO2 levels, but if you look closely at the chart then you see that the temperature levels leads the CO2 level, therefore it is impossible that CO2 drives the temperature, in fact it seems to be the other way around.

The CO2 causes global warming argument seems to be the only argument that the man-made global warming advocates promote. However, more C02 is caused by animals and rotting plant matter and the oceans then by humans. Also, look at the forest around me, its beautiful. These trees and this plant matter is releasing carbon dioxide as we speak, we are made of carbon. It is not a pollutant, it is a part of life.

The best argument for moving array from non renewable sources is that they are non-renewable. They will run our some say and we shouldn’t be left holding our nobs when that happens. This angle is rarely stressed though.

But what is the harm of taking action to limit emissions? Well, it puts more of a stranglehold on businesses, it holds back industry, limits developing countries, and can result in some pretty Orwellian laws such as a recently proposed carbon emission points where you need to buy points for your own carbon emissions. These laws, whilst being well meaning should not be made until we are sure that our carbon emissions does cause global warming.

To sum it up. I am still not sure what to think. If you asked me whether I believed in man made global warming only a year ago I would have said yes, mainly because of it was the consensus. But then consensus can be wrong. It is generally a consensus that feminists represent equality and I don’t believe that. I moved to a middle ground and now I will probably land on the side that it is not man caused. But one thing is clear, that we need more discussion on many points. Such as the role of the sun in warming, does CO2 drive temperature? And is the cause really man made.

Thai king under monarchy you are a subject not a citizen

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:57:43 GMT

This a piece which is partially about the decisions of the thai government to block youtube at the ISP level due to a video on it that was considered offensive to the countries monarch [1]. I know someone who knows a lot about Thailand and feet are considered dirty and if you were to chase your money down the street and try to stop it by stamping on it – this could be considered defacement of the kings image and you could go to prison for it, insulting the king might not result in prison time but it would certainly get you arrested apparently.

Now the idea of this is less to protect the king it is more to protect the idea of monarchy. The real crime is more criticising monarchy rather than criticizing the king. Now this is utterly disgusting. For a government to decide which ideas should be promoted by law and which should not is utterly fascist. Even though the idea of the laws in Thailand are more to protect the idea of monarchy – it does result in more protection for the king versus normal people when you can be arrested for insulting him.

In Thailand can you be arrested for criticising a man on the street? No. Can you be arrested for criticising the king? Yes. They’re up there and we’re down here. This is my main problem with monarchy.

Under monarchy it is impossible to be a citizen, all you can ever be is a subject.

Now, I’m English as you’ve probably guessed. In England we have a royal family. They are a family of people sharing common blood who are privy to a number of perks, one of which is tax exemption, they don’t have much of a role in government but their view counts. And who are they? A bunch of fuckwads!

I like America, in America anyone can be the president, there is no tiered society, everyone is at the same level. Under monarchy there is a two tiered society. You can work hard and make an impact but there is a level you cannot even reach, a level that you are born into by an accident of birth.

Now this is not the same thing as being born into a rich family vs being born into a poor family, both are subject to the same rules of society and both can make it with a little effort. For the royals there is a whole different set of rules.

So in summary the idea of monarchy should be ridiculed because it is ridiculous. Contempt is the only appropriate reaction to the contemptible. For the UK to be considered a free and modern culture we should abandon our old fashioned models of monarchy throw them on their rear ends to fend for themselves.

Sources
[1] http://www.physorg.com/news94922984.html
[2] http://www.physorg.com/preview95072199.html

The HIV Gun [Adult Content] - Sitting pretty in the moral zeitgeist

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:55:26 GMT

A was recently made aware of this despicable advert called “The HIV Gun”.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/hivgun

Now here were my first thoughts regarding this advert:

It insinuates that men purposely do this to their partners.
The lines are gender split – the victims are women and the perpetrators are men.
It man bashes and the most common canards about men are unrepresentative or untrue.
No stats are presented, I have been criticised for this in the past but for augments that were logical and didn’t need stats.

Now, I want to make the point that the claims made in this PSA may be true and they may be untrue, I am sceptical about the claims they make and the claims don’t seem to be backed up in anyway and regards information that I have not heard before, the website for the advert dosen’t list evidence and instead links to another website which is called “UNAIDS” and Unaids is an imitative for the global coalition on women and aids. Now, all these things raise red flags in my mind I simply will not take on good faith the claims that are just presented, the corresponding website has sections that sound like they were lifted from a feminist pamphlet and the feminist are not known for telling the truth.

I am also cautious because the advert is very politically correct.

All the perpetrators are male, even in a problem that can occur between both sexes. See domestic violence.
All the men are white.
Men are portrayed as the bad guy in a problem that if true can be solved by mutual corporation.
All the men are white and the victims are mixed race

The last point may seem a bit unnecessary, after all what does it matter what the race of the people are? It matters because race actually relates to this issue. In a 2006 Health protection agency centre for infectious diseases published a report that stated:

"The annual number of infections newly diagnosed in heterosexual men and women born in Sub-Saharan Africa remains high at 3,136 in 2004. There has also been a slow but steady rise in the number of heterosexual infections probably acquired in the UK in recent years from 227 in 2000 to 498 in 2004. Most of these individuals were probably infected by partners who were themselves presumed to have been infected outside Europe, mainly in Africa. As the number of black and minority ethnic heterosexuals living with HIV (diagnosed and undiagnosed) in the UK grows, the likelihood of heterosexual transmission within the UK will increase."

The retreat of reason, Anthony browne

Now this applies mainly to Britain, but I’m sure that it applies to other places as well. So what this says is that immigrants from areas with a high amount of AIDs account for most of the rise in HIV in Britain, which is a completely reasonable statement. Most of these people are from Africa and this it is reasonable assumption that therefore they will be black, there are no black people in this PSA.

This is the root of my grievance with this ad. The problem is misrepresented in the name of political correctness, and because of this many people will be infected with AIDS when they might not have been if the truth was told. But then saving lies takes second place to promulgating the PC zeitgeist in the minds of these people.

Political correctness 101 - What is political correctness?

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:50:37 GMT

OK, let it be said here that political correctness (PC) is in my humble opinion the root of innumerable problems in western culture. Its gnarled fingers reach towards some of our most respected institutions such as the police force, the army and universities. It is the primary form of brainwashing and the dominant ideology in Britain today.

It is also so immensely flawed. The video sums it up.

For an in-depth read on political correctness. Buy this book:

The Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain.