This is McKinneyTexas's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following McKinneyTexas's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
McKinneyTexas
Recent Activity
1984. I'm out.
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Dictating how two people in an intimate moment must communicate is not the gov't getting between the sheets because "it's about preventing sexual assault". Ok, someone has no sense of irony. If it's for a 'good, Progressive-approved' purpose, the details just don't matter. No one goes to jail, they just get kicked out of college, pilloried on the internet and have no remedy, but hey, they didn't go to jail. Jesus.
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Care to expand? Here is a link to the statute: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967 Take a look at it and see if the following deficiencies don't come to mind: 1. does the accused have the right counsel? 2. ditto the right to confront and cross examine? 3. ditto, the right to appeal? to whom? 4. is a record of proceedings required? What protections are in place for the accused? How many people have to agree--and how are these people chosen--to have a conviction? Is there even a requirement of an impartial tribunal? Does the policy even give a friendly nod to the 4th and 5th amendments? The list goes on and on. And it--the Act--is right out of the Critical Legal Studies handbook. So, not only do we see a statute that is grossly outside substantive and procedural due process norms, we have gov't sticking its nose not just in the bedroom, but between the sheets--but it's for the right reason, so who cares?
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
It may be that all Progressives don't approve of the law for the "due process" slippery slopes entailed therein. There was not unanimity in the Progressive community; however, the push back was pretty mild and mainly along the lines of "this probably won't work and it may not be entirely, 100% fair . . . but, ok, it passed and now let's move on."
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
This is just crap. I wish it was. Where is the informed dissent, or even informed analysis of "yes means yes"? At this very site, the notion of the state "condemning" loan amounts on homes to reduce monthly payments for financially stressed homeowners was well received without objection. Hounding people out of their jobs for a politically incorrect political donation? Approved over mild dissent. Not a single blink at forcing citizens to buy an insurance product and not a single blink at regulatory fiat compelling every citizen who buys insurance for employees to provide BC benefits. Limits on the 'good' that government can do are theoretical only. That you would not support summary confiscation is small comfort. I am confident you would support a tax on wealth, which is functionally the same, only more limited in scope. And, of course, tax rates can go up. But, this is a bit afield--the point is, information gathering--not wealth confiscation--is perfectly fine with Progressives if it is being gathered for the right purpose. The Progressive reaction to the IRS thing (nothing to see here folks, let's move along) is not comforting and makes my point.
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
The subtext from BP, TP, Russell and LJ is pretty much this: if it's for the right purpose, it's information gathering, which is good. If it's not for the right purpose, it's an invasion of privacy, or worse, and that's bad. In the latter, the concern is that wrongfully gotten personal data can and will be misused, abused, etc. Apparently, the same data, if gathered for the right reasons, won't be misused, abused, etc. Outside of cocoon, this is known as wishful thinking. The larger issue, from the outside of Progressive Land looking in, is that progressives recognize few, if any, limits on state action if the state action is in aid of a progressive goal. Because their hearts and minds are in the right place, because their goals are for the good of all, limits on what the state can or cannot do are wiped away. Where there was once a constitution, we now have Critical Legal Studies, one end product of which is the jurisprudential abomination they have deceptively named "yes means yes". That Progressives cannot appreciate the damage they do to substantive due process and to the concept of what a penal statute should be and how it should be enforced underscores the fundamental disconnect between Progressive theory and hard reality. The concerns expressed here about the security state or the NSA ring hollow. The state today does nothing Progressive won't "regretfully find necessary" if not enthusiastically endorse when their time comes. The difference is simply this: the enemies of Progressivism are domestic. And spare me the "private sector does it" stuff. Google can't send me to jail or take my home or tell me how many cars I can own.
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
It's really *amusing* to watch McTex and Slarti restating (presumably sarcastically, although it wasn't flagged as such) each other's positions. I would have thought *instructive/enlightening* in place of *amusing*, but that's probably just me.
Toggle Commented Oct 29, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Brilliant bit of proof-reading: 'you' = 'your'.
Toggle Commented Oct 29, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
TOAFC--you tu quoque lays all of my concerns to rest. Thank you for that.
Toggle Commented Oct 29, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
One advantage of the surveillance apparatus is that it probably can be easily retooled to ensure that relevant social, environmental, sexual, employment, health and financial histories are readily available for needful domestic purposes such as improving ACA and other related programs, ensuring that taxes are properly, tracking employment and income by ethnicity, gender etc to ensure fairness. Then, of course, it may well become important to know who owns how many cars, boats, etc, to ascertain each individual's carbon footprint. From there, we may someday need to know who has wood burning fireplaces, how much wood they burn, how far they drive to work, for errands and for fun. The size, number and energy consuming characteristics of homes and businesses people choose to own could also be something government may have to ferret out as regressive paranoiacs try to withhold information. These metrics could be important if not critical in the looming war against Climate Change, and if we have to break a few privacy eggs to make a Well Earth Omelet, isn't that something we all consented to implicitly by being born? And, don't forget other pressing gender issues. In time, hopefully, every aspect of unwanted sexual attention will be recognized for the crime that it is. Women in particular deserve the access to the patriarchy's "male only" conversations in which, we know, sexual predators routinely brag about their conquests, which often is the best evidence of assaultive behavior. I mean, really, when you think about it, using the surveillance apparatus to deal with terrorism or crime may be wrong--it probably is wrong, since people who are not guilty of any crime are also being surveilled. But that doesn't mean there are perfectly valid governmental reasons for gathering other kinds of information on citizens (the full range of health, financial, social, sexual and environmental activities for just a few of the reasons stated above), but it should be extremely handy for getting the good things done that need to be done.
Toggle Commented Oct 29, 2014 on I'm not seeing the upside here. at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
the conservative id has been let loose. Not really. Mighty Whitey is no more representative of conservatives than Sean Penn or Michael Moore or any one of dozens of others are representative of liberals.
1 reply
If folks think finding gender neutral terms in English is tough, try Spanish. Every noun is either masculine or feminine and the default on all plural nouns is masculine unless all of the group being described are either women or feminine nouns. For example, if there are 20 women and one man in a group, the masculine "ellos", not the feminine "ellas" would be used in place of "they" or "them". The same would hold if the speaker was describing a mixed group of objects, some masculine and some feminine, if twenty were feminine and one masculine, the masculine form would apply. So, would it be cultural imperialism for English-speaking feminists to insist that Spanish-speaking cultures reinvent themselves and their language to conform to gender neutral principles?
1 reply
You're giving my comment credit for way more substance than was actually intended. Inadvertent substance? Accidental heft? Profound depth, unintentionally found?
1 reply
Does anyone want to go to bat for these fun and games: http://fckh8.myshopify.com/?
1 reply
And yet, the man is a legend. Two comments. First, in a country of 300,000,000 and a strong private sector, there will be at least one example, good or bad, of anything you want to find. Second, 'success' or 'achievement' in life is hugely subjective. Income is only a marker. It has a lot of asterisks.
1 reply
What assistance is a low innate ability child born into a sh1tty family owed by society? Hard to say. The only meaningful assistance would be financial, direct or indirect. The socially/competence-challenged subset of society is one of many unmet needs, from the progressive view, with claims on the taxpayer. You have the poor-for-other-reasons, the lower middle class, the disappearing middle class, the blue collar worker, the uninsured, the elderly, infrastructure, clean energy etc, etc, etc, all claiming on the national treasury. I have no idea how to allocate the money.
1 reply
Navarro, I agree that being born a straight, white male in the US is a competitive advantage in some regards. I also think it's way overblown. I suspect a high percentage of the losers addressed in this thread are straight, white males. They are still losers, in my entirely subjective and personal opinion, which is different from objective fact and not intended to offend anyone who thinks I think are losers, because I don't and you're not. Family and innate ability mean a hell of a lot more on an individual basis than skin color. If there was a single marker for having been dealt a tough hand, it would be being born gay.
1 reply
They are pitiful, self-loathing, dateless, celibate losers. To paraphrase my dad, they have well deserved inferiority complexes. Perhaps I was a little harsh, or, more aptly, painted with too broad a brush. I think staying indoors and playing games everyday, during most of one's free time is a poor lifestyle choice. I think the same of rock climbing, parasailing and a bunch of other things. Smoking is stupid, and I did it. Quite a bit, back then. However, I looked up "Omnipotent Judge of All Lifestyles" and didn't see my name or picture, so perhaps that is not my role. What I meant to do was to address the assholes who, anonymously, call out women. So, for those who took offense at my words, blah, blah, blah, regret, blah, etc, apologize and so forth. but I don't think you are more generally in terms of the kind of men who write threatening and misogynistic things on the internet more generally. I've heard, for instance, from one poster, that a startlingly large amount of really nasty stuff comes from ip addresses associated with doctor's offices. First, this strikes me as correct. Second, this rounds out my thoughts about *subtractive masculinity*. Assuming I get the concept, I agree it exists but disagree that it amounts to much except at the very, very, very most outer extremes. A subset of men are threatened by women, particularly competent women. As women become increasingly ubiquitous in business and the professions, there is less and less room for men with these issues, and less and less men *with* these issues since it is less and less *masculine* to lead, and therefore less and less threatening to be led by a woman. But, the subset remains and it can be pretty shitty, particularly when it can do so remotely, anonymously and unaccountably. So, to Doc S I say: yes, it exists; in most cases, it isn't that much of a much; and you paint with way too broad of a brush when addressing this topic.
1 reply
1. Subtractive masculinity is why the prospect of women being associated with video games gets such an out-of-control, violent reaction. 2. I think a lot of the males (boys or men) who play these games are getting their sense of masculinity from them, their reassurance that they are Real Men Who Do Manly Things. I rolled these two around a bit, and concluded, for a moment, I just might be in agreement, because I *in fact, do* prejudge gamers [1]. I see them as inert, sedentary twinkies. I'm probably over-generalizing. For all I know, some of my best friends are gamers. Turb was called out by a someone he knows for doing things the idiot thought were feminine, which I thought was way wrong, and I concede I might be making a similar error (although I see badass, risky physical activity one actually does as fundamentally different from sitting on a sofa scoffing at the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome). I don't think gaming is feminine, nor do I think it is masculine. Rather, it is what some males do who want to pretend to be what they think 'real men' are. Call it manly man wannabe. And, therein lies the problem: these stone cold couch potatoes carry on this way because it is safe--as safe as pushing a button. They are pitiful, self-loathing, dateless, celibate losers. To paraphrase my dad, they have well deserved inferiority complexes. They are not men in any qualitative sense of the word. And certainly not worth all of this bother. But then, I came across this: in our society, men are the default value of "people": only (white, straight) men automatically have the status of "full human being". In other words, if you're not masculine, you're not *really* a person. What?!?! I'm married to a decidedly non-masculine but otherwise very real person. Have been for 38 years. She is also pretty athletic. Seriously, not every idea is a good one. Like Howard Dean way back when, it is good to keep in mind the beauty of the unspoken thought. Doc, how do you account for the millions of men who are married to women they love, have daughters they love, have female friends, co-workers and colleagues who they respect and admire? Give me a break. [1] I distinguish "gamers" from people who play games. My possibly arbitrary definition of a gamer is someone for whom gaming is at least a lifestyle if not an obsession. Gaming is a major part of who they are, their self identity and self worth. Plenty of people play games. I doubt they give two sh*ts who else plays games or what someone, somewhere, male or female, has to say about games.
1 reply
I love old stuff. Joel, thanks for the link, which I've book marked. Here is another that is on my Daily Read List: http://www.archaeologica.org/NewsPage.htm Here is a Wikipedia link to a site in France that is really, really cool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus_of_Bougon I will send you a picture of an Achulean hand ax and an Olduwan scraper that I have. I won't be able to do that until this evening or tomorrow morning.
1 reply
Guest post perhaps? LJ, very kind offer. Highly unlikely my schedule will permit anything other than sporadic, drive-by commenting for quite some time, as much as I would like to address that issue and others.
Toggle Commented Oct 14, 2014 on Subtractive Masculinity at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
the only ones that a boy can rely on to signal his masculine status are ones that are not publicly exhibited by women or girls. Since this got posted, I've been trying to figure out what it was I disagreed with--took me a while. First of all, the concern seems to lie with boys and men in arrested development, i.e. immaturity. I fail to understand why this should be anywhere on anyone's horizon. Either they outgrow their issues--as most of us do--or they remain perpetually on the sidelines of life, which is pretty sad when you think about it. Second, the notion that the only ones that a boy can rely on to signal his masculine status are ones that are not publicly exhibited by women or girls is wrong. It is the opposite of the commercial. The commercial is making the point that the guy does not want to do something that is almost exclusively associated with feminine activity. I have held my wife's purse any number of times in public and elsewhere--not a big deal. However, if she asked to put on a woman's dress so that she could see what it looked like on me, I might balk. Let me also make the opposite point: as a young man, I invited my then GF to go frog-gigging. This involves after hours wading through ponds and lakes, and using a high beam flashlight, either shooting a bullfrog with a .22 or impaling it on a gig, the idea being fried frog legs the following day. As the frogs accumulate, someone has to hold them while the rest continue gigging and shooting. If a guy does not like holding a woman's purse, I can assure you that at least one woman does not like holding a freshly shot or impaled bullfrog. Not at all. If a guy is uncomfortable holding his wife's or GF's purse, it could be insecurity (a common byproduct of youth, for both men and women, or so I am told) or immaturity or because he's been following her from store to store for the last three hours and is really getting tired of shopping. It is a fact: the vast majority of males, mature or otherwise, do not like to shop. It has nothing to do with signaling masculinity. It has everything to do with boring us out of our minds. The fact is, most of us hate shopping. We also can go a relatively long time without significant conversation. And, bodily noises tend to be less offensive. These are not elective behaviors. It's just the way it is. But what we don't do, after an afternoon of involuntary shopping, is write a post about "Additive Feminism" or "Cumulative Masculinity" or some such. Because there are differences. And, sometimes its fun to have a little fun with the differences. The commercial was pretty harmless. A lot less harmless than the law Jerry Brown signed into effect last week. It was light years from being called out by some asshole for doing something the asshole thinks is girly (Turb's experience). It was light years from pushing/humiliating someone into a fight per WJ (also a youth thing, as I recall). Bad behavior is bad behavior. It is unisex, uni-gender, whatever. I get a certain amount of grief, in fun, for driving a car associated with women. I also like theater, cooking, the symphony, travel and museums. I know plenty of bubba's--all of my former hunting and fishing buddies fall into this group--and none of them give me any grief about going metro. Seems to me that some folks are on the lookout for a chance to find a victim. If the worst we have to deal with is a Canadian whiskey commercial, I'd say the war is over and the good guys won.
Toggle Commented Oct 13, 2014 on Subtractive Masculinity at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
If BobbyP and I agree, it must be so.
1 reply
It isn't that difficult, Ugh. You've got it turned around. Outlawing point shaving isn't to aid gambling, it's to prevent the gambling industry from corrupting amateur and professional sports. If players could sell their loyalty and the outcome of a contest, the gambling industry would then have the opportunity to further rig the outcome. It's not a gamble if one side of the bet knows what the spread is going to be before the game starts.
1 reply
I don't think there's any way they are going to demote sex discrimination back down to rational basis review, and if that's how it's teed up for "gay marriage," just seems it would be easier for them to go along. Ok, I follow. Over time, except for the bitter-enders, it will morph into heightened scrutiny eventually, just like it has morphed into inevitability.
Toggle Commented Oct 7, 2014 on Fish or cut bait at Obsidian Wings
1 reply