Although forty-plus years an Australian, Canadian born and North American to the last so spent the first part of my life next to the US. And while one of those extremely nice Canadians, I have an enormous admiration for the US and its way of life. Been there often and always feel I am perfectly at home, no matter where I am. Once on the left – I actually attended the very first gay marriage in San Francisco sometime in 1972 – now on the other side but that is merely because the left has gone insane. I’m not sure that I have changed my political views on most things since JFK. I’m not even sure I was ever actually against the Vietnam War; I even remember mentioning to a draft dodger friend that if I had been an American I would have gone off and been drafted. And I remember the conversation so well because it astonished me when I realised that I had said just what I believed. But I was a Canadian so who really knows?
I don’t agree with liberals often, because I’m not an idiot and because I love America, but when they once again say, “We must have a conversation about guns!” I still couldn’t agree more. And, since all we’ve heard is you leftists shrieking at us all week, I’ll start it off.
You don’t ever get to disarm us. Not ever.
And here is the thing. I have been to the US often, from when I was under ten and then again in July, and even spent much of the time in Las Vegas. It has never crossed my mind on any trip to the US that I was ever in the slightest danger of being shot. Didn’t like being in New York in the pre-Giuliani years, but that aside I have been in approximately 40 of the 50 states with never a thought on my mind about the American constitutional right to bear arms. It’s how they do things, and it is how the US is. And it is part of what has made the US the astonishingly great country that it is. Different from every other country on earth.
But this I do think about, and in the US more than anywhere, and that is the trouble and hassle it takes to get on an airplane. And why all this trouble and hassle? Because there are people in the world who would, for their own insane political ends, blow up any planes they could. I wish someone would do something about that, but even if they can’t, I wish they would put up in large print on every airport metal detector across the world, signs that explain just why it is being done. Never mind the American constitutional right to bear arms. How about the human right not to be blown up by religious fanatics?
Watching the dismal story coming out of Las Vegas does bring many thoughts to mind, not least because we had just been there in July. In no particular order:
Whether or not they are responsible, ISIS is happy to say it was their doing. Ethical rules of war are not exactly their longest suit. They are just murderous swine whose only war aims, if we could can use the term, are essentially unknown. Psychopathic killers with no discernible outcome in mind other than to become modern versions of Tamerlaine and create their own piles of skulls.
The first item of news we heard about the killer is that he was someone who had lost a tonne of money at the casinos and had perhaps gone round the bend. But we have now heard he had just sent $100,000 to the Philippines the day before. Not exactly bankrupt, was he? Where did the money come from? There is a story there but will we ever find out?
Most importantly, was he really a one-man show, able to get such a complex logistical process exactly right on his very first attempt with no outside help? It’s possible, but so are alternative versions of how it happened.
He cannot have been a registered Republican because if he were we would have known already, and then some. We shall see whether this can be attached to the right, and then we will never hear the end of it, or attached to the left – like the shooting of Steve Scalise (who?) – and it will disappear into the mists of time like everything else of its kind.
Donald Trump’s response was on a human level, describing these killings as evil. Hillary, along with the left in general, responded on a political level – not willing to let any crisis go to waste – immediately associating these deaths with the need for gun control.
Tribalism is the darkest most unrelenting province of the left. On the right we actually like the idea of an open society where anyone can come live among us by following the rules: tolerance, hard work, self-direction, independence. The left are filled with envy and hatreds that only every so often come to the surface in a way that normal people on this side of the fence can recognise for themselves. The left’s chosen enemy is the Judeo-Christian culture of the West. We are barely able to understand how truly foreign their views are because we don’t think that way at all.
Earlier this month, the first lady sent out collections of 10 Dr. Seuss books to one school in each state to mark National Read a Book Day.
In a letter published on the Horn Book’s Family Reading blog, Cambridgeport Elementary School librarian Liz Phipps Soeiro said that her school wasn’t in need of the books, which included famous titles such as “The Cat in the Hat.”
“I work in a district that has plenty of resources, which contributes directly to ‘excellence,’” she wrote. “My students have access to a school library with over nine thousand volumes and a librarian with a graduate degree in library science.”
Instead, she wrote, the White House should worry more about providing support to schools that are underfunded and subject to government neglect.
“Why not go out of your way to gift books to underfunded and underprivileged communities that continue to be marginalized and maligned by policies put in place by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos?” she wrote.
A moron of the most typical kind, but now an icon of the left because of her vacuous hatreds based on nothing at all other than the emptiness in her life. But let us also recall this small touch at the end at the link:
Soeiro did not note that former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama both read Dr. Seuss books to children several times during their eight years in the White House.
There’s even more. She has even been photographed displaying The Cat in the Hat! which I have taken from Mark Steyn.
It’s not even hypocrisy. She is just a stupid woman with nothing else in her life other than the useless partisanship of her comrades on the left.
There’s a new world coming. In the meantime, if you are looking for some children’s literature, let me recommend Economics for Infants. I doubt it would make it past the librarian at Cambridgeport Elementary School even though she is in need of it more than most.
I came from an era in which casual sex never happened. The pill changed it all, but so too did “The Playboy Philosophy”. Written in the early 1960s, it is Hugh Hefner’s contribution to the decadence of our own time. It has been the twentieth century’s most important contribution to philosophy and culture. The one and only rule about sexual relations is that other than monitoring the ages of those who are involved, there are no rules. There was a time when people knew what was wrong with the Playboy Philosophy – we read it in the same spirit that we read Abbie Hoffman’s Steal this Book – but those times are long gone. Sex without responsibility and attachment is a kind of adolescent boy’s dream come true. But as we have since discovered, sexual anarchy is the worst of all possible worlds. So to the song:
As the story goes, it was first offered to Johnny Mathis; Columbia Records boss Mitch Miller is said to have blackballed the song, claiming it was immoral. Dawn Eden might think ol’ Mitch may have been on to something:
Like many songs from that more innocent era, “Will You Love Me Tomorrow” expresses feelings that most people would be too embarrassed to verbalize. There’s something painful about the way its vulnerable narrator leaves herself wide open. Yet, even though her asking the song’s title question implies a certain amount of courage, it’s clear that she’s ready to accept a positive answer without questioning it — which is not surprising, given the lyrics’ description of how the evening has progressed. By the time one is worrying about how the other person will feel tomorrow, it is usually too late.
For most unattached single women in New York City, and I would imagine much of the rest of the country as well, casual sex is the norm. It’s encouraged by all the women’s magazines and television shows from “Oprah” on down, as well as films, music, and the culture in general. And while “love” is celebrated, women are told that they should not demand to be loved tomorrow — only respected.
If it’s encouraged for women, it’s almost mandatory for men; a woman who is not sexually active is pitied, while a man who is not sexually active is mocked and ridiculed. (Which may be one reason why very few men — Frankie Valli is one who did — ever recorded this song.) “Tell me now, and I won’t ask again” turns out to be a variation on a theme by Scarlett O’Hara: “I’ll think about that tomorrow.”
This is a song from the 1960s written by Carole King but is the lament of many a woman of our own times. The way the song is presented in the video above by the Shirelles, who sang it originally, you would not know it is the saddest imaginable song with a sadder still message. Perhaps the Amy Winehouse version is truer to its meaning if for no other reason than that she herself had the saddest life. Here are the words with a message that can hardly even be registered by many inside our own decaying culture.
“Will You Love Me Tomorrow”
Tonight you’re mine completely
You give your love so sweetly
Tonight the light of love is in your eyes
But will you love me tomorrow
Is this a lasting treasure
Or just a moment’s pleasure
Can I believe the magic of your sighs
Will you still love me tomorrow
Tonight with words unspoken
You say that I’m the only one
But will my heart be broken
When the night meets the morning sun
I’d like to know that your love
Is love I can be sure of
So tell me now and I won’t ask again
Will you still love me tomorrow
Will you still love me tomorrow
Will you still love me tomorrow
Will you still love me tomorrow
Pick-up artists and the hook-up culture are the way of the world. A friend of mine’s nineteen year old daughter just put Tinder onto her phone. My friend is hopeful that it will be all right, but if it will be, it will only be by the greatest good fortune since the culture will no longer look after her daughter nor give her sound advice. The best that can be hoped for is to get through your twenties with no major disasters. How it can be done today is to me an unknown.
Hugh Hefner has now gone to God at age 91. Of most interest to me is that although surrounded by the most beautiful women through the whole of his adult life, he lamented at the end that though surrounded by “playmates”, he never found a soulmate. His question was the opposite from that found in the song, his question was will I still love you tomorrow, and that, my friend, is the only question worth asking.
[The basic theme is from The Other McCain where the link is found.]
And now, on July 23, 2020, I am adding in this which was a link at the end of the post by The Other McCain: A moment’s pleasure.
About twice a year, someone has the temerity to ask me why I would think any of the pop songs I grew up with could possibly have any relevance today. And my answer is always the same: I turn to the shelf, pull down Scepter 1211, then start the turntable. An opening perilously close to lounge music, and then Shirley Owens, somewhere between wistful and wanton:
Tonight you’re mine completely
You give your love so sweetly
Tonight the light of love is in your eyes
But will you love me tomorrow?
This was the first composition for Brill Building publisher Don Kirshner by Carole King (music) and Gerry Goffin (lyrics), and as the story goes, it was first offered to Johnny Mathis; Columbia Records boss Mitch Miller is said to have blackballed the song, claiming it was immoral.
Dawn Eden might think ol’ Mitch may have been on to something:
Like many songs from that more innocent era, “Will You Love Me Tomorrow” expresses feelings that most people would be too embarrassed to verbalize. There’s something painful about the way its vulnerable narrator leaves herself wide open. Yet, even though her asking the song’s title question implies a certain amount of courage, it’s clear that she’s ready to accept a positive answer without questioning it — which is not surprising, given the lyrics’ description of how the evening has progressed. By the time one is worrying about how the other person will feel tomorrow, it is usually too late.
For most unattached single women in New York City, and I would imagine much of the rest of the country as well, casual sex is the norm. It’s encouraged by all the women’s magazines and television shows from “Oprah” on down, as well as films, music, and the culture in general. And while “love” is celebrated, women are told that they should not demand to be loved tomorrow — only respected.
If it’s encouraged for women, it’s almost mandatory for men; a woman who is not sexually active is pitied, while a man who is not sexually active is mocked and ridiculed. (Which may be one reason why very few men — Frankie Valli is one who did — ever recorded this song.) “Tell me now, and I won’t ask again” turns out to be a variation on a theme by Scarlett O’Hara: “I’ll think about that tomorrow.”
And, says Dawn, “if you have to ask someone if they’ll still love you tomorrow, they don’t love you tonight.”
I still love this song, and always will. But if you thought it was just an innocuous pop tune from forty years ago, you might want to think again. “Will You Love Me Tomorrow” contains the seeds of the sexual revolution — and, perhaps inevitably, the counterrevolution as well.
Posted at 7:49 AM to Table for One , Tongue and Groove
TrackBack: 3:17 PM, 14 April 2004
» West Hollywood — where Carnivals rule! from Classical Values
The Carnival of the Vanities just keeps getting better and better! Boi from Troy hosts it this week, with a genuinely West Hollywood theme — because he’s right there in the thick of things. What’s more, he was nice enough……[read more]
— If it’s encouraged for women, it’s almost mandatory for men; a woman who is not sexually active is pitied, while a man who is not sexually active is mocked and ridiculed. —
I think you’ll find that that varies considerably, according to the locale, and even more according to the person under the microscope.
Here on Long Island, we partake in considerable degree of the New York City culture and ethos. Still, the reaction of one’s acquaintances to the discovery that one is celibate can be quite laudatory…if one has the right sort of acquaintances, from the right sort of circle, or if one is forthright and fearless about one’s convictions and standards.
At least, I don’t think my buds ever laughed at me for the nine arid years when I was “between wives.” And the fact that I’m the most heavily armed private citizen in New York had, well, only something to do with it.
The twentieth century’s most influential philosopher has passed away at 91. I remember when The Playboy Philosophy was being serialised in the magazine. I especially recall passing one of the many episodes around maths class, all of us thinking if only a world like this could come to pass. And you know what, it did come to pass and more comprehensively than anyone could have imagined, but by then I was no longer 14 years old. It has done endless harm to both men and women, making the stability of the family now all but unachievable, and added a new dimension to human unhappiness. It has now come down to where the only freedom for many is sexual freedom, but that apparently is good enough for them.
For those of us who only read the mag for the articles, let me bring this to your attention if you haven’t read it before: Donald Trump’s Playboy Interview. You can see why he’s president while also seeing that he, too, is from that era long ago before the Playboy Philosophy became the foundation and point of origin for Third Wave Feminism.
‘White Plague’: France on track for Muslim majority as native European populations dwindle
Washington Times, by Rowan Scarborough Original Article
Posted By: Ribicon- 9/26/2017 10:16:01 PM Post Reply
Within 40 years, given current demographic trends, the white population in France and the rest of old Europe will recede, creating a Muslim majority, a French researcher says. Charles Gave, an economist, fund manager and political commentator, published his conclusions this month on the webpage of his think tank, Institute des Libertes. He writes of the “disappearance of the European populations” as native populations shrink and Muslims continue to exhibit a robust fertility rate. Mr. Gave, president of Gavekal Research, acknowledges that his decidedly unpolitically correct view may bring him scorn and possibly censorship. The political left generally protects Islam
Trump cuts Obama’s refugee target in half, takes more Christians than Muslims
Washington Times, by Stephen Dinan Original Article
Posted By: Ribicon- 9/26/2017 10:15:57 PM Post Reply
President Trump, in just eight months in office, has succeeded in upending U.S. refugee policy, cutting by more than half the 110,000-refugee target that the Obama administration had bequeathed him and dramatically shifting the demographics of who is accepted. Gone is President Obama’s overwhelming focus on Muslims, and particularly on Syrians fleeing a civil war that his administration facilitated. Under Mr. Trump, the rate of Syrian refugees has been cut by more than 80 percent, and Christians have overtaken Muslims in total refugees resettled. “It’s impossible to escape the clear message that there’s a new sheriff in town,” said Matthew
There was a time in my own lifetime that a chant like this was as smutty and dirty as it was possible to be. But times do change.
Rah rah ree
Kick ’em in the knee
Rah rah ruts
Kick ’em in the other knee
More important, what has truly changed is who is the President of the United States. From the very first moment last season when the first player took a knee, as they say, while the Star Spangled Banner was being played and no one did a thing, I never watched another game again until the Superbowl and then only because it was Tom Brady.
You may think this is trivia and beneath the dignity of a president, but this is exactly why he was elected. And while it’s politics, since anything of this kind done by a president is politics, it is also his natural instinct to be disgusted by those who have lined up with the players who have refused to stand for their national anthem.
NFL Owners ‘Unity’ with Players Might Be Short-Lived…
Trump lauds ‘great anger’ after fan boos…
ESPN Becomes CNN…
STEELERS QB REGRETS…
Major sponsors tiptoe around controversy…
Car Dealer Pulls Ads Featuring BRONCOS Star…
Player Accused Of Spitting On Fan…
Stadium worker quits…
PATRIOTS ‘sorry’ for charging $4.50 for tap water…
Protests at Olympics?
Congresswoman Kneels During House Floor Speech…
WSJ: The Politicization of Everything… LIMBAUGH: THRILL OF NFL GONE…
From the last one:
One of the most premier Never Trumpers throughout the 2015-16 campaign was Rich Lowry, National Review Online. He wrote and filed a piece yesterday called, “Why Trump Is President,” and his Alabama speech Friday night and his comments on the NFL is what Rich Lowry now realizes is why Trump is president. It isn’t complicated. You have a man who is very clear in his love for the country, his love of its traditions and his appreciation for it.
And on the other side you have people who are willing to portray themselves as not, whether they know it or not. There’s no way Trump loses in this. You may think so, but there’s no way he does. There’s no way the NFL wins, if this continues as it is. The ratings are down last night. The early returns — we don’t have, of course, all the metered markets, the overnights. Some of them are in. But they were down, and it’s not insignificant, the numbers that are down.
This is not a sideshow, it is the real thing. This is how we take back our culture from the barbarians inside the gate. And no one but PDT could even have taken this burden on, never mind brought it off.
We have just received our survey form and on the ballot itself there is a bar code and the bar code is different for my wife’s ballot and mine. So far as I can tell, how I vote will be known to someone at the ABS, and perhaps to many many others. The accompanying letter does not give me confidence:
Your response is confidential, by law. It cannot be connected to you. The ABS will destroy all information after the survey is collected.
My assumption was that I would get two envelopes, the first to put my absolutely untraceable ballot into, and then the second to put the first envelope into that I would mail off. That way, my ballot would arrive at the ABS, someone would check on the first ballot that I am a registered voter and, having done so, throw the second envelope unopened into the pile with all the other ballots. It is these second envelopes that would be opened and my vote counted only then. That way, no one could possibly know how I voted, either before, during or after.
This way, I cannot tell who will know how I voted nor how that information might be used.
There seems to be as much fun in destruction as in creating, maybe more.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
Law of Markets 