Monday Highlights


  1. Missing the point, badly. Not a few prophets were willing to tell “the Jews” they were going the wrong way (hint: Jesus was yet another Jew). Odd that. Mr Schraub (a Jew) isn’t afraid to tell Christians when he thinks they were wrong. Perhaps he thinks turnabout is not fair play. It might be observed however, the point in question (that Jesus criticized fellow Jews might be better served to point that we should not fail to criticize other Christians when they stray … hmmm to what might that be applied?).
  2.  Markets everywhere, and everywhere markets appear the state tries to rear its ugly head, apparently.
  3. Liberal elite and their cargo cultic magic, noted.
  4. Our mainstream media acting cliquish and stupid. Idiots abound.
  5. “Cheese, Grommit!” says Wallace.
  6. Biden, “I’m not rich” (just really dumb). No investments at all. Dependent forever on the kindness of, well, the public till.
  7. For the past 25 years, in a continuous trend, gun violence has been trending downward (while gun ownership has risen). However, facts and trends don’t matter to the real gun nuts. Guns and firearms give you the heeby-jeebies isn’t an argument for the curtailment of other peoples liberties. More people die on motor cycles than by gunshot. Should those be banned?
  8. Apparently Roman Catholics don’t exchange a kiss of peace during their services.
  9. Forgetting the Civil War. Woops.
  10. Yeah. And Swiss cheese can’t be from Wisconsin. Oh, wait.
  11. Failing to give consent during a drunken encounter … compared to what the rest of the world calls rape.
  12. Speaking of rape, this has been making the rounds.
  13. And this too is not unrelated. That brings the old colonial British anecdote to mind, in which a British fellow was ordering the arrest of the people who had burned a widow on the death of her husband. He was informed this was an ancient custom of their people. He replied that it was an ancient custom of his people to hang people who burn women.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Boonton says:

    12.Speaking of rape, this has been making the rounds.

    No doubt you will use your knowledge of John Adams to come to her defense because you’re an intellectually consistent chap, right?

  2. Mark says:

    I hadn’t planned on offering a comment either way.

  3. Mark says:

    Although I suppose it is instructive that you’d come to her defense without knowing an iota of detail about the case.

  4. Boonton says:

    When she was 27 she asked to act as a defense attorney for a man accused of rape. She did and he got 10 months. Already read about it from The Daily Beast.

  5. Mark says:

    Hmm. Seems like you don’t know very much at all. Compare to your study of the Florida stand your ground case that was in the news. You seemed to not mention that the victim was a 12 y/old girl and that Ms Clinton used the tactic of discrediting the witness, which is a tactic much in favor by feminists in rape cases I believe.

  6. Mark says:

    And of what relevance is Ms Clinton’s age? You failed to mention what she wore, how her hair was made up, and what music she preferred during the time of the trial. Odd that.

  7. Boonton says:

    The timing of the event does matter. The legal systems handling of rape in the 70’s was, shall we say ‘unenlightened’ (note the Roman Polanski case which also happened around that time involved a similiar stentence that is absurdly light by today’s standards). I suppose you’re right in that giving her age at the time doesn’t immediately tell the reader when it happened.

    As for trying to discredit the victim, I’m not really sure how you think a defense lawyer is supposed to handle a rape case whether or not they are a feminist. Since the defense argues the accused is not guilty I’m not seeing how it would be possible in any time period to formulate a defense that is not predicated on the victim being discredited. Even if you argue it was another person who raped the victim, you’re still seeking to discredit the victim as a witness.

    I think feminists objected not so much to the concept that accused rapists have defense lawyers who make vigerous defense of their client, but that the system as a whole allowed certain defense to work without casting a critical eye on them.