Contra Mozilla

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

A Thought About Lena Dunham

Lena Dunham is an actress in the classical sense.

It's a shame that she is viewed by so many as being the "voice" of my generation. To be fair, she does seem to be the embodiment of the zeitgeist.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Quick Links: On Strong Female Protagonists

NPR does a nice job of explaining why I can't really get into the whole Hunger Games series: the strong female lead is made at the price of any real men. I have nothing against strong female characters--a well-written one can be the best part of a story. Unfortunately, it seems to me that Hollywood (and others, really, anyone under the thrall of feminist theory) can't create a strong female character without surrounding her by comparatively weak male characters. To be fair, there are plenty of older movies (and stories) which focus on a single strong male character with weak (or insignificant) female characters. But this seems like a self-conscious attempt to "make up" for those types of stories.

Elsewhere, John C Wright has been writing down his thoughts on strong female characters. He (and his wife, for that matter) has written stories which incorporate these without somehow making the men look weak, small, stupid, or useless. It can be done with a some effort and a little talent.

Monday, November 25, 2013

Demotivators

Always good fora quick laugh or a small dose of reality. Now available in Illboard format.

Although, they are entirely too kind to the president.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Quick Links: Another Day, Another Damning Expose' of Academia

This one is by Al Jazeera. Academia in America--like so many other things which are being run for short-term benefit--is completely unsustainable. I am pretty much ready to finish this 8-year ordeal known as my Ph.D. and move on with my life. Here's hoping that moving on doesn't involve becoming an adjunct somewhere.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Weekend Finds and Musings

Some happenings, findings, and musings from the last week:

  1. I took my wife and daughter to Chinatown (Austin) last weekend. I had kind of forgotten--despite being surrounded by Chinese folks in my lab--about Chinatown. It would more accurately be called SE Asia-Town, but that doesn't role off the tongue quite as well: most of the stores in that little area (really, an extended strip-mall) are actually Vietnamese. In any case, we visited one such place, "Short and Sweet," to buy some smoothies. The whole store, it turns out, exists to raise profits for a charity called "Peter's Clinic," which looks like an excellent little charity. They are apparently trying to build clinics (pro-family, for children, with doctors and pharmacists) in Vietnam to help the poor there. Better still, they have an affiliation with the Dominican sisters in the area. Consider donating to this, if you're looking for a charity.
  2. Professor J Budziszewski has a website and a blog. He sent me an email with links and then said "feel free to share," so here you all go. Professor Budziszewski is a convert from atheism and nihilism to Catholicism and Natural Law. A lot of his writings have to do with conscience (and its inescapability), and he is one of the kindest people and best professors I've ever met. He's also a pretty good speaker, and many of his books are published by ISI (one of my favorite organizations).
  3. Sports musing: now that Texas has been blown out at home in conference, their chances of winning the Big12 are all but shot. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting scenario for them to beat Baylor (a longshot, but interesting), assuming that Oklahoma State also picks up another loss, such that UT wins the conference and goes to the Fiesta Bowl. They would presumably be favored over whoever they face there (likely UCF), but I wonder--if they then get upset in that game, they will have the same 9-4 record as last year. Do they then fire Mack Brown for the record, or keep him on for winning the conference? The fans are mostly back to clamoring to see him fired (even if the Longhorns actually do win the next two), and they'll only get louder when he loses to Baylor.
  4. Second sports musing: it seems to me that USC's big win ends up hurting at least one of two conferences in the bowl games. The first is the Pac12, which will almost certainly not get a second BCS bowl game despite being arguably the deepest conference in the country. The second is probably the B1G, which is all but guaranteed one BCS bowl now, unless Michigan State springs a massive upset in their conference championship game (a suddenly 1-loss OSU team becomes a big possibility for an at-large birth). Stanford fans now need to root for Oregon State and/or Arizona to beat the Ducks--or for Fresno State and probably NIU to pick up a loss apiece before the season's end. Or, they can put conference strength aside and root for South Carolina to beat Clemson--and hope that Ohio State and Baylor win out.
  5. A nice relaxing weekend taketh away the stress and frustration of a miserable week at work. Sadly, my graduate student career of late has had few nice relaxing weekends and many long and frustrating weeks. I can't finish my project/dissertation/defense soon enough.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Rant: Obamacare and Schadenfreude

Jonah Goldberg's latest at National Review is a delight to read. Some will say that we are rejoicing over others' suffering. I am not rejoicing over the suffering of those who have seen their premium skyrocket and their policies get cancelled. Granted, a large number (a majority, perhaps?) can certainly be said to have brought it on themselves--they did, after all, vote to re-elect Barack Obama to the Presidency and a Democratic Party majority in the Senate. Lesson learned? Perhaps, perhaps not. We'll see what 2014 brings.

But no, this set of just deserts is not the cause of conservative glee. I'm certainly sorry even for those who were duped into voting for Obama, and even for those who continue to insist that it still wasn't a mistake to re-elect him. I don;t want them to suffer, I just want them to not be in power, since they generally make bad decisions which the rest of us have to live with.

Here is the real source of conservative glee in all of this:
As a matter of public policy and fiscal health, this is a mixed bag. It’s good that poor sick people without insurance coverage are getting something. On the other side of the scale, we have the fact that the country is racing toward entitlement-fueled bankruptcy. So if you can overlook that, yippee!
But as a political and ideological matter, this is beyond fantastic. For years we’ve been told that Democrats were more “reality-based,” that “facts have a liberal bias,” in the words of Paul Krugman, and that if they could just have their way, they could fix all of our problems. No one represented this arrogant promise more than Barack Obama himself. But, with an irony so rich it would be made of Corinthian leather if it was a car seat, the only way he could get his signature legislation passed was to baldly and brazenly lie about it, over and over and over again. He created a rhetorical cloud castle where no one would lose his insurance, every family would save thousands of dollars, and millions of the uninsured would suddenly get coverage. Anyone who doubted this was called a fool or a liar, or even a racist. It was, in the parlance of liberalism, a “false choice” to assert that Obamacare couldn’t be a floor wax and a dessert topping.

It is indeed a very Christian sentiment, "How the haughty are brought low" (Isaiah 2:17, 5:15; Luke 1:52). And I can think of few people in living memory more haughty than President Obama, and to a lesser extent his enablers and their supporters. How many times during the "#Shutdown" were we told that Republicans just wanted to take Obamacare hostage by delaying it? That they should be made to kneel like good subjects before the throne of Barack Almighty, kiss his ring, and beg his forgiveness for opposing the Obamacare Bill?

And now, scarcely a month and a half later, all we are hearing from the Democrats in Congress is that we need some sort of delay for Obamacare. Suddenly they're suggesting that maybe we should hold off on the whole thing until it myriad "bugs"--a euphemism for the various unfortunate features and predictable if unintentional bad effects--can be fixed. That very suggestion was actually called "racist" when Republicans were making it.

My suggestion is that we scrap the whole damn thing, starting with the worthless and tyrannical HHS mandate, and nearly equally tyrannical though apparently Constitutional individual mandate. If we're going to require everyone to have healthcare insurance, we could at least be sensible in what we require the healthcare plans to cover--big and unexpected costs, emergency services (for true emergencies), perhaps a check-up/physical once per year. The rest should be at best optional. And if we're going to admit that the purpose the Obamacare is to subsidize debauchery and hedonism for Millenials (and beyond), that we should scrap the whole thing. It really is reasonable and fair to make people dig into their "beer money" to buy their own contraceptives, whether at $9/month (the actual cost) or $18k over 4 years (the claimed cost).

Then there's the fact that many American have lost their insurance--the insurance that they largely chose for themselves--to Obamacare in spite of the president's "promise" (really an outright lie) to the contrary:


The president and his administration have doubled down on this lie by first claiming that he "misspoke" when he made this promise, that he had never really made this promise. When he realized that people have a tough time believing that he misspoke when he uttered nearly the exact same phrase 36 times (or probably more), he switched to claiming that the insurance lost was "substandard." This apparently means that it didn't cover contraception and maternity leave for 70 year old men. That contraception coverage is crucial--why else would the penalty for not covering contraception/sterilization/some abortions be steeper than not providing any healthcare at all ($100/employee/day = ~36,500/employee/year for the former and $2000/employee/year for the latter)?



But in the meantime, it is certainly entertaining to sit back and watch our haughty president and his arrogant supporters squirm a bit. And not just because they have been lying repeatedly to the American people for the last several years.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Quick Link: Fr Z Tells It Like It Is--What is "Pastoral"

First of all, good for the bishops in general and Bishop Zubic in particular for continuing to stand against the tyrannical HHS mandate. I'm not necessarily expecting the good guys to win on this one, at least not in the short term. Perhaps it will be another nail in the coffin of civilization, another step closer to the abyss, another stumble into the outer darkness. I am expecting this to occur in my lifetime, so it's not merely an abstraction.

Second, Fr John Zuhlsdorf is spot on with this:
For liberals, being “pastoral” means compromising the Church’s teachings and lying to people. For liberals, being “pastoral” is like being “prophetic”. They proclaim themselves “prophetic” and then claim that their prophetic voice trumps what the “hierarchical” or “official” Church says and does....
Of course secularists and catholic liberals who run along with them don’t care that the Church will be driven out of providing health care for the poor.  They want more big government.
I've known a handful of liberals who honestly did care for the poor, and even a few who actually did more than caring in the abstract sense. Good for them. However, the tendency is often exactly as Fr Z calls it: clamoring for more government, even when big government is precisely the problem. And I have scarcely known a liberal catholic who can honestly claim to be really faithful as a Catholic. Doctrines matter. Morals matter. They aren't the whole of Catholicism; they aren't the only thing to Christianity. But neither are they irrelevant, and neither can they be discarded in favor of "social justice" or "being pastoral" or whatever euphemism they may concoct for the abandonment of the Faith.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Quick Link: Demeaning?

Ace notes that the new Obamacare ads are awfully demeaning, especially to Millennials (their obvious target group). I agree with him wholeheartedly. Men, this is what the President (and his adwriters) the President's supporters think of us:
"Don't tap into your beer money to cover those medical bills." This is another way of saying that we are too stupid to have bought medical insurance on our own, that big-brother government needs to step in to make sure we have insurance. Apparently our problem was that we had to choose between hedonism and health care, and we chose hedonism. There is certainly some truth to that in some cases, but as a whole generation, really?

Oh, and women, you're not off the hook either. Obamacare wants you to be as easy as your access to birth control:





Ace has this to say about these ads:

Do Millennials really see themselves this way? My God, I hope not.
You know, I bust on Millennials a lot. So that is Enemy Action.
But I think these ads are worse. When I insult Millennials, I mean to insult them. I'm trying to blame and shame them for their vapid grasp of policy (and reality).
Again, that's an Enemy Action. And the insult, while insulting, is less hurtful, precisely because one knows it comes from an enemy's mouth.
But here are people trying to appeal to Millennials. They present themselves as "friends." They "get" you, Man.
And here is what they think appeals to you -- pictures of young people in Party Hardy poses and daffy young stupid things who think Ryan Gosling is like sooo dreamy and my God where would I get birth control pills if Obama didn't draw me a map?
Really?
If this actually is appealing to Millennials -- and they find this to be non-demeaning -- then every insult I've shot their way is true.

Sadly, we millenials  are the ones who overwhemlingly voted for Obama, and who in large part were turned on to the Obama Campaign by the old Lena Dunham ad:


So apparently, these ads do speak to members of my generation, and are not taken as demeaning. That's unfortunate, and telling. Call it the slow realization of the great liberal death wish, if you will.

How Bad Is ObamaCare? The Ads

How bad are the Obamacare ads? They're so bad, apparently, that even Planned Parenthood is decrying them. Oh, they tell the truth alright, and it ain't pretty. Even Planned Parenthood dislikes them (mistaking them for anti-obamacare ads). Screenshot from Planned Parenthood Colorado:

Caption of their tweet: "Unfortunate that anti-obamacare folks are #slutshaming #women who use #birthcontrol #ThanksObamacare twitpic.com/dxrep"

So yeah, about that #Waronwomen....



Monday, November 11, 2013

The End of Man

Q. "Why did God make you?
A. "God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next."

There was a time when we knew this from memory and had internalized it. It was a rote answer, yet for many people it nevertheless came form the heart.  Now it's been forgotten--or worse, pushed aside--with the result being that life has become fleeting yet endless.

Man was made to be happy, was made for love; and on the other hand, to seek truth, to know. Happiness is found in meaning, love is found in truth. In abandoning this simple wisdom, and in turning away from God, man loses not only truth and meaning, but also ultimately knowledge, happiness, love, and indeed his very identity, his very soul.

We cannot find any of these things ultimately in the world. We catch glimpses of them, in temporary, incomplete, and imperfect forms: so many reflections as in a glass. In turning away from God, we turn away from that which we are seeking, that which makes us happy, or wise, or really loving. We substitute purpose for meaning for end, and kindness for charity for love, with the result that even kindness seems bitter, and our purposes seem empty and contrived.

Friday, November 8, 2013

Obamacare: Put Up of Shut Up

Ace nails it.

Both parties should have no problem with this suggestion. Basically, take the delay (you know, the one that Republicans were asking for during the shutdown, but that Democrats are now asking for having "won" the shutdown showdown). Give the left until just before the next election to get it working.

If it works, it become a winner for the Democrats. If it fails, it's a winner for the Republicans (etc.). Get rid of the goddamned HHS Contraception mandate either way--there is, to be blunt, no good reason to retain that. For the rest of this misbegotten bill that the left likes so much, make it a put up or shut-up deal. If it can be made to work, fine. For better or for worse, the idiots who voted in the 2008 election (and again in 2012) elected Demoncrats, so be it. The people apparently wanted this, even if a bunch of innocents end up suffering over it. Repeal becomes the long game, and may change to "restrict". It becomes one more nail in the coffin of civilization.

On the other hand, if (as I and many others believe) Obamacare can't be fixed then the people who voted for it should immediately face an election which is a referendum on that vote. No more political theater/shutdown shenanigans (from either side). No more "It doesn't work because REPUBLICANS." You get a little less than one year to fix it. Since it took scarcely more than a week to craft it and vote on it, a whole year should be plenty of time to fix it. If not, the whole thing goes away without any further votes, and we start over (if necessary).

And the worthless goddamned tyrannical HHS mandate needs to die either way. There's no excuse for that bit of petty despotism on the Obama Administration's part. It is unjustifiable regardless.

That is all.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Quick Link: Why It's Nice to Be Semi-Anonymous

Because he has the same views on gay marriage that Barrack Obama did until just a year or two ago, all the bien pensant have agreed that Card is a horrible bigoted monster who must be driven out of all decent society. So no review of the movie,  Ender's Game, is complete without a condemnation of the author himself.

From Ace of Spades blog. First they came for the Mormons...

I expect this kind of thing to escalate from simple boycotts (and 2 minutes hate) into being barred from "reputable" employment, fines (we already have those), possibly jail time, and then violence against persons and property (again, we have some of that) and ultimately to imprisonment, exile, and executions (via "euthanasia" knowing the folks pushing this homosexualist jihad).

Monday, November 4, 2013

Why Divorce hurts Children

It is a simple fact that divorce hurts children. It has been said (I think by Fulton Sheen) that when parents go through a divorce, they lay their crosses on the shoulders of their children. There are a lot of reasons why divorce hurts children: they become objectified, just another strategic objective in the battle between separating spouses; they have no stable home environment, especially if mom gets a new boyfriend every month and dad takes up drinking; there's no unified parental front for making and upholding rules, and any attempt by either spouse to do this might get undermined by the other spouse trying to be the "fun" parent.

It occur to me that there is another reason why divorce hurts children, and this psychologically. Children need to be loved, and this is a thing which goes beyond (though does encompass) simply being told that they are loved. What's true in fiction is true in life here: show, don't (just) tell. But love becomes an informed attribute in divorce, because the children have been told time and again by both parents that they are loved by those parents; but they know that at some point, the parents also said "I love you" to each other. They now witness that their parents don't really love each other, or don't anymore, and so "I love you" becomes an empty platitude between the spouses. Might it not also be an empty platitude between mother and daughter, between father and son?