Category Archives: QUILTS

QUestions I’d Like To See… but never seem to.

QUILTS: Sailer’s Law

A whille back, I half-facetiously created a category called QUILTS: QUestions I’d Like To See asked.  It’s an acronym in the great tradition of the greatest secret club in the world, G.R.O.S.S.:

32a1391d1e4bef8b67bee68cb0afe242That’s the facetious part.  The half part is, I really would like to hear someone address these questions to the buffoons who control public discourse these days.  Anyway, in the spirit of jokes, truth, and shameless blog-whoring, I address QUILTS #3 to HuffPo columnette Jen Bosse, via Stacy McCain.

Every day that I go out into the world, I am forced to worry about my safety. Every day, I am ogled or honked at or loudly talked about by men from all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. I have walked through a parking lot with my children and had men three times my age undress me with their eyes. Some of you may say, “What does that even mean? That’s completely subjective.” To you, I say, “If it’s never happened to you, you’ll never know exactly what that feels like.” But I can tell you that every woman I’ve ever met has.
I have been followed. I have been harassed. I have been grabbed at and “accidentally” brushed against and was even almost abducted once. I was 10 when the harassment began. 11 when the grabbing began. 18 at the time of the attempted abduction. Followed at 23. I could go on.

McCain takes xyr more seriously than xyr deserves (by, for example, asking if it’s true she gets ogled by men from ALL socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.  Surely some ogle more than others?) But I’ve got an even more basic question for her:


No, really – that’s my question.  Bullshit.  Bull-shiggedy.  Bullshit of the purest ray serene.  Bullshite, if you wanna get cockney about it.  Bullsheeeeeeeit, as the Hon. Clay Davis might say.  I don’t believe for one second that you get ogled “every day.”  I don’t doubt it has happened — are we not men? — but every day?  This I doubt.  I doubt it here, I doubt it there, I doubt it loudly from my derriere.  I think what we have here is a blatant case of Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism:

The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

All this “I was ogled!” feminist humblebragging is just whistling past the twin graveyards of The Wall and menopause.  “Oh noes!  I’m still hot enough to get eye-banged by pervs!  Woe is me!”

But I have a real question for the fellas out there: Have y’all ever seen this?  I mean, ever seen it?  I don’t spend a whole lot of time hanging around construction sites and NBA shootarounds, but I have never in my life heard a woman wolf-whistled.  Have I leered at a few in my day?  Of course, and it’s one of life’s little moments of everyday humor when you catch the eye of another dude across the room who’s been been blatantly checking out the same girl…. good times (are we not men?).  But I’ve been at frat parties galore, and came up in a traditionally misogynistic industry where one of the unspoken but obvious bennies of being a supervisor was first crack at the new crop of interns… and I’ve never seen, or heard about, anything close to what this woman describes.  N.b. that the interns in our neck of the woods all wanted to be in marketing, so they were all ex-sorority sisters, average hotness 7.9 on the Prichter scale.  And yet the Jennifer Bosses and Jessica Valentis and Loryn Brantzes of the world are constantly getting fondled on the job?

What say you, gentlemen?

Loading Likes...

QUILTS x3: Amnesty and GOP Donors

It’s taken as read on the Right that squishy Republicans want amnesty because, and I quote, “their big money donors in industry want cheap illegal immigrant labor.”

Well, ok then.  Three questions I’d like to see asked:

1) Who, exactly, are these “big business donors”?  The nearest thing I can find to hard numbers in a brief google search is this:

back1013from here (table 7).  That’s as of 2007, and from what I see, the top “immigrant” (presumably including both legal and illegal) jobs are in “farming, fishing, &forestry;” “building cleaning and maintenance;” and “construction and extraction.”

So who’s “Big Cleaning”?  Which firms are “Big Forestry”?

2) Assuming there are such firms, what good does legalizing their labor force do?  Seriously?  I thought the point was to avoid minimum wage laws, ObamaCare mandates, etc.  If they’re amnestied, “Big Cleaning” has to pony up.  I suppose this would encourage the further flow of illegals, but wouldn’t that be offset by the mass firing of the now-legal workforce, resulting in unemployment co-pays and the like?  How does that make sense?

3) Assuming there’s a coherent answer to 1 and 2, why aren’t we, the Outlaws, the Tea Party, etc., boycotting “Big Cleaning”?  Obviously the GOP will push amnesty.  Nobody can seriously doubt this by now.  They keep proposing it, and there’s always a massive voter backlash, which inevitably results in… another amnesty proposal.  Because “the big money donors who want cheap labor” &c.  So why not direct the backlash at them?  It’s the only way to get results, but I’ve never even heard this suggested.

Loading Likes...

A Question I’d Like to See Asked: The Gay Rights Timeline

I can’t begin to tell y’all how tired I am of this week’s “all gay, all the time” media circus.  I know it’ll be done with soon enough — Our Betters, the liberals, are nothing if not spazzes with the attention spans of goldfish — but I suppose we must endure it for another month or two.

So to pass the time, here’s a question I’d like to see asked:  When did “gay marriage” become a fundamental civil right?

You see, one of the reasons “all gay, all the time” annoys me so very, very much is that I remember the 1990s.  For boring bureaucratic reasons, I ended up on the same weird work shift as a fellow who proclaimed himself a “queer radical,” and since we had lots of downtime, I soon learned pretty much every conceivable thing about the “gay agenda” as it stood circa 1995.

Marriage wasn’t on it.  In fact, circa 1995, you’d be a traitor to the cause if you advocated long-term monogamous relationships.  The reasoning in the grunge era seemed to be: “Magic Johnson proves that straight people who have anonymous unprotected sex with hundreds of partners get AIDS, too, so let’s make that the cornerstone of our lifestyle.”

Call me a bigot if you must, but I was there, and that description, cleaned up a bit for publication, could’ve come directly from my queer radical coworker.

Given that this lifestyle is only slightly safer than juggling live hand grenades, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that the “queer radicals” who survived the Nineties want to settle down and raise lhasa apsos together in a nice quiet suburb here in the glorious Twenty-Teens.  It doesn’t even surprise me all that much that they themselves want some sort of legally-recognized “domestic partner” status for hospital visits and insurance claims and such.  You know, all the stuff that “gay marriage” was supposed to be about, back five or six years ago when whomever it was decided that we were all supposed to care about “gay marriage” now.

It only became a “civil right” once the left got a hold of it.  Specifically, once the left side of the Democratic Party got a hold of it.

Again, call me a bigot if you must, but again, I was there.  I remember the widespread disdain in which the Democratic Party in general, and Bill Clinton in particular, were held by activist gays.  The reason being, the great “civil rights” crusade of the 1990s was abortion, which the gay left didn’t care about — “breeders” were still breeding even if they chose not to carry to term.  (And, of course, even then Hillary! was routinely mocked for staying in the closet).

I’d be interested to see just when the “gay marriage [sic] is a civil right” decision was made.  And it was a decision, clearly — click over to the Google ngram viewer, for instance, and check out the fascinatingly divergent timelines for “gay rights” and “gay marriage.”  It’s like somebody flipped a switch, right after the year 2000 (gee, what could have happened then to get the left all hot and bothered?).

That’s a question I’d like to see asked.  And I’d really like to see the gay community itself ask it.  Isn’t there some warning about taking free rides from strangers?

Loading Likes...

Liberals vs. Evolution

Another question I’d like to see asked:

Liberals believe in evolution, right?  I mean, evolution + “global warming” = science, according to Our Betters.

So, ummm, WTF, guys?

Take a population of, say, squirrels.  Disperse them over several continents, in isolation from each other, for a few thousand years.  They’d change, right?  They’d evolve, if you will.  And any stoopid science-denying conservative who came along and said that of course the European reticulated warbling squirrel is exaclty the same, in behavior, capacity, and habits, as the Australian crested three-toed squirrel, would be laughed out of the room as scietifically illiterate, right?

And yet we’re all supposed to believe that in this one case, homo sapiens sapiens, that’s exactly what did happen.  We’re all exactly the same, in behavior, capacity, and habits.

Please for to explain this. Wouldn’t this, on its own, be an execption so huge as to render Descent with Modification false?

Or are they, you know, just bullshitting us?


Loading Likes...

A Question I’d Like Asked

The facts, Our Betters assure us, have a liberal bias.

If that’s so…. then why aren’t they happier?

Now, I must admit, I myself am usually less happy when I find my worldview confirmed.  But that’s because I’m a conservative, and we live under the sign of Saturn. But if the world really is mostly gumdrops and sugar plum fairies — if love is all you need; if we’re just one Sarah Palin disappearance away from utopia — then why are liberals such sourpusses?  As Morgan notes, you can spot a liberal chick from across the room with near-perfect accuracy, and we all know what happy-go-lucky, devil-may-care fellows SWPL “men” are.

You’d think they’d be cheerier, is what I’m saying.  Wonder why they aren’t?

Loading Likes...

The Guns Go Off to College…Texas Style

(With apologies to our friend Texan99…)

From here.

As they say…God Bless Texas. My state could learn so much from them.

I’m going to just dive right in here. Apparently, even in Texas, college campuses are a no-go zone for firearms, even when carried by licensed permit holders. I’ve always found this a bit odd, just as I do every other no-go zone. I do not understand that. If you’re a concealed carry holder, what the heck difference does it make WHERE you carry? Either you’re cleared to handle a firearm responsibly or you aren’t.

Even if you don’t subscribe (as I do) to the school of thought that the 2nd Amendment is really the only permit one should ever need to possess or carry a firearm (or keep one in your car)…the fact remains that even Texas does not hand out concealed carry permits like candy. Furthermore, there’s a distinction to be made between stuffing a handgun down your pants and storing that same weapon in a car. (The gun owner-student is reasonably expected to properly secure his weapon out of sight while it is stored there.)

The proposal isn’t about concealed carry, of course…but about the right of students, licensed and otherwise, to keep a loaded weapon in a locked car parked on campus. I don’t see why it matters where the car is parked, either. It is a given (under this bill) that a person doing so has already obtained the weapon legally – otherwise he’s already a criminal by definition, whether he keeps his firearm on campus or somewhere else.

Theoretically, this bill would be enacted so that a student could quickly run to his car and retrieve his weapon in the event of an emergency. You know, an emergency like some whackjob shooting up a college campus.

Alas, wouldn’t you know, someone has a problem with it:

During the debate on the Senate floor, Democratic Sen. Jose Rodriguez of El Paso argued the bill would lead to allowing guns in college classrooms. He later told, “I opposed the bill because, given today’s climate and the rise of crime on ours campuses, the last thing we need to do is pass a bill like this.”


Really? And why is that, Sparky? What is it about “today’s climate” that makes you so reluctant to allow students to arm themselves?

He continues:

“You allow it in the glove compartment of your car in the college campus and if you have a disgruntled student who wants to take (his or her) anger out on the teacher or an administrator, what’s going to stop the student from walking to the car and getting it?” Rodriguez said.

Here we go again – gun grabbers once again refusing to draw any distinction between law-abiding gun owners and the violence-prone. Once again making this gosh-awful, am-I-so-ever-sick-of-it, flimsy assertion that having a gun available is all it takes to cause a person to act rashly and murderously without regard to the consequences. Are you as tired of these people lumping all gun-carrying people together as I am?

Really, I’m sure there’s no difference at all between a guy who goes duck hunting before his office job…and some little punk with a rap sheet a mile long who’s looking to put a hit on someone for selling crack on “his turf.” No difference between the burglar with the 9mm and the homeowner with the 12 gauge. No difference between Joe Gunbuyer at the target range with his buddies, and Joe Crazyperson spending four months planning an assault on a mall. There’s definitely no difference between someone carrying out an attack on a classroom, premeditated or otherwise….and someone using a similar weapon to bring down the attacker.

No. Gun owners are all the same. They’re all just ticking time-bombs, just waiting to “snap” and start shooting indiscriminately, don’tcha know. Gun owners are all hot-tempered, rash, borderline-insane people with no morals, no respect for human life, no consideration for the consequences of their actions. (Sadly, many in America actually believe this.) Having access to a firearm makes you a dangerous nut, right?

I not only disagree with the Senator…as a gun owner I’m insulted by his characterization. How about you?

But since Sen Rodriguez is asking: What does stop a student from going to his car and grabbing his gun because he’s mad at the teacher?

I’ll tell you: Other students who also have loaded guns locked in THEIR cars.

(I don’t know whether they’d be able to get to their cars and retrieve their firearms in time to do much good or not, but that’s not really the point. It’s the principle of the thing. Right now, they don’t even have that option. The most fleet-footed student on campus won’t have that option unless the bill passes into law.)

This is the problem with gun-grabbers’ reasoning – they never count on the fact that when someone starts acting crazy with a gun, some OTHER person with a gun is going to put him down…not join in the fun or sit there doing nothing. Isn’t that precisely why we issue concealed-carry permits in the first place (and take other measures to expand firearm carry)? To expand the ability of civilians to protect themselves and others around them from gun-waving crazies?

No, seriously – haven’t you noticed that mass shootings never seem to take place at gun shows, gun ranges, gun stores, target competitions, skeet/trap shooting events, hunting expeditions, and other places where there often are actual loaded guns in people’s hands? Why do you think that is? Pardon the pun, but take a shot at the answer. I’ll wait…

As Thomas Sowell put it, “Attacking one of those places might be the last dumb thing you ever do.” I’ll leave it to the reader to understand why. It’s really not complicated.

It’s a great idea. I just wish my state would follow Texas’s example, instead of making things tougher for us out here and trying to disarm us.



Loading Likes...

QUILTS: Why Not Just Admit It?

Further to this RWCG piece, a QUestion I’d Like To See:  Why not just admit it?


It’s often said — often by me — that the main reason “social justice” and all other such leftist cant is nonsense is because it’s indefinable.  What does a
“socially just” world look like?

I’m starting to wonder if that’s true, though.  It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the left does have a coherent vision of their ideal world.  It’s basically a Fifth Monarchist, rule of the saints-type deal, where people who share our worldview — right down to the arbitrary aesthetic choices — get to run things until Jesus gets here.  So long as the Matthew Yglesiases can still live in their million-dollar condos with a Chop’t, whatever the hell that is, on the nearest street corner, everything the Saints do is not just ok, but morally right.

And if they start seizing the property of the non-Yglesiases and shooting all the sinners in order to hasten Jesus’s arrival by increasing the world’s net virtue, well, the right to property can’t be derived logically, you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, etc.  It’s just policy choices all the way down, right?  And that’s what we elected them to do.

My question, then, is this:  Why not just admit it?

I’ll admit it:  This is actually a pretty appealing philosophy.  The government should make the country more the way I, personally, like it, because I deserve it.  Why go through all the mental contortions of trying to make it come out consistent with the Constitution?  Why bother with the pretzel logic required to make it conform to some kind of over-arching principle?  Gay marriage is a fundamental right, but owning a firearm isn’t, because guns are icky but gay weddings are fabulous (ever been to one?  They get the best deejays).  Or: Baseball should be year-round and visible ribs on bikini models shall be punished by force-feeding hamburgers to the offenders, because I like baseball and a bit of junk in the trunk.  Liberty?  Pshaw!  It’s just policy choices, all the way down.

Why go through all this “derived logically” crap?  Why the pretense of intellectualism?  The saints deserve to rule, because they’re saints.

Loading Likes...

QUILTS: Priorities

One QUestion I’d Love To See asked has to do with priorities.

subwaypregnancyYou’ve probably read something about the furor surrounding this ad campaign in NYC.  All the usual idiots are outraged, of course, in their usual boring thoughtless screechy way.  What I’d like to know is this:

Which is worse, these ads or 16oz sodas?

It sounds silly, I know.  But stick with me here.  A large part of liberalism’s appeal is its endless insistence that, contrary to all decrees of God and nature, you really can have everything.  If you seemingly can’t have a healthy committed-but-not-clingy relationship while raising 2.1 perfect kids while making partner at the law firm by age 30 while writing a novel while eat-pray-loving around the world while staying in great shape while enjoying a fantastic smorgasbord of international cuisine while living in an ethnically diverse and vibrant yet perfectly safe neighborhood in a rent-controlled apartment no more than a block away from all major services while finishing your PhD in Women’s Studies, it’s not that this would violate several important laws of thermodynamics.  No, it’s somebody’s fault, damn it!

Given humanity’s lamentable propensity to believe pretty lies, and the media’s insistence that reality shall not obtrude upon the public’s consciousness until at least 2016, asking about priorities is the only chance we have of breaking through the veil.  We need to ask them to make some hard choices.  Even a liberal will admit, I think — if you press them hard enough — that two posters can’t occupy the same stretch of subway wall simultaneously.  So: Should we advertise the soda ban, or propagandize for Planned Parenthood?  Similarly, I think they would agree — again if pressed hard enough — that one police officer can’t be in two places at the same time.  So:  Should he spend his time going after secondhand smokers or under-the-counter consumers of oversized colas?

We have to force them to realize there’s an inflection point, even in liberaltopia, even when pursuing two bona fide Good Things.  How, for instance, are we going to get the unwed teenage mom all the education she needs about the bounteous cornucopia of public support that is hers by right if she’s spending all her time getting the 24/7 postnatal care that is also hers by right?  Which is better: a stint in the Peace Corps, or being a full-time staffer at Organizing for America?

How, in other words, do we rank Good Things?

I’d love to see someone put that to Jay Carney.  Of course, we already know how he’d answer….


Loading Likes...

QUILTS #3 – Do You Lock Your Door?

Here’s a question I‘d like to see answered: when you leave your home, do you lock your door?

I can’t answer for you, but I do. The phrase, “a man’s home is his castle” certainly applies to me, and I rule here as a benevolent monarch, just as long as my wife allows me. I don’t lock up my house because I hate people, but because I want to know who is in my home. People have no right to enter my home without permission to do so.

“You’re just one of those weird types who hates people!” Ah, no, I just said I don’t. I just simply believe in boundaries, and no one should enter my home without being invited in first. Just like vampires. But if you’re invited, then you’re more than welcome in my home. Several years ago, I received a request from a friend passing through town. She wanted to know if she could crash for the night. I happily told her that she should consider herself at home, but she’d have to let herself in since we were out of the state at the time. I trusted her to be a good guest in our home and to make sure it was properly locked up once she left. She didn’t disappoint.

So you need to be invited to enter my home. I don’t care whether you come in to steal my stuff or just to clean things up, like Sue Warren.

Police in Westlake say Sue Warren of Elyria broke into a home last week and began tidying up, but she didn’t take anything. They say she then wrote out a bill for $75 on a napkin and included her name and address.

One officer says Warren told him she does it all the time. Only now, she’s in jail on a burglary charge.

Wow. Imagine being arrested for burglary, just for doing jobs that people don’t want to do. OK, that’s a little snarky, but I think you can see where I’m going. Just as my home is my castle, and I reserve the right to admit only the people I choose, this same principle extends to the borders of the United States. We have rules in place to determine who may enter and who may stay. We may choose to amend these rules, but if we simply ignore them and turn a blind eye to those who break them, it sends a clear message to scofflaws and squatters that they can trespass with impunity. If this goes on, eventually certain parts of our nation may become too dangerous for law-abiding citizens to inhabit.

Let me be clear about this: I don’t care where you came from. American citizens came from all over the world. We’re proud mutts, and most of us can trace our ancestry to half a dozen nations or more. Since America has always selected its citizens for excellence, the result has been astounding diversity, and we’re better and stronger for it. But would-be citizens have always had to go through the process of naturalization. We want more Americans, but we want them to be here legally. We welcome visitors from other nations, but they must maintain valid visas to stay here.

Bob Gorrell - Your house is my house

This Thursday will be our second Soup Night of the year. The last time we made three soups and had about ten people to gobble them up. So far we’re on track to entertain many more this time. We supply the soup at these gatherings, but people are responsible for bringing their own bowls and spoons, and maybe some bread, too. Since it was well received last time, we’ll probably continue Soup Night every month or two just because it’s fun. My wife reminds me it’s also delicious. But if we ever reach a point where total strangers start walking into my house, picking up bowls and scarfing down food like Goldilocks, we’ll stop having Soup Night.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I love guests, whether in my home or in my nation. But people who break in, regardless of their motive, get my dander up. It’s nice that some of them are cleaning up and doing chores around the place, but that doesn’t change the fact that they broke the law to get in. Such “guests” need to be shown the door. And if we lock our door at home, it makes sense to lock the nation’s door as well.

Cross-posted at The Captain’s Comments

Loading Likes...

QUILTS #2: Why “Develop”?

Somewhere in the bowels of the UN, I’m sure, are thousands of pages of internal memoranda discussing measurable, achievable goals for “development.”  Certainly “developing” or “underdeveloped” nations provide lots of lucrative make-work for liberal bleeding hearts all across the social spectrum, from Bennington trust funders doing a little misery tourism in the Peace Corps to titled Oxfam twits making up for great-granddaddy’s injustices towards the fuzzy wuzzy.*  But I have to wonder:  Why would any country not already among the elect want to become “developed?”

Our resident cuttlefish collective provided an answer of sorts:

Among other reasons, people in developed countries generally have more income, higher standards of living, more educational choices, better access to health care, and live longer and healthier lives.

As is typical of flip liberal answers, though, this confuses cause and effect — “more income” is the font from which all the rest of that good stuff flows.  More importantly, though — and more typically — this misses the point of the question:

“Development,” as practiced by institutionalized international do-goodery, works from the top down.  Those at the top of “developing” nations are happy just the way they are.

Consider, for instance, William Easterly’s brilliant polemic The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good.  Here’s a fellow who should know — he was a research economist at the World Bank — and he argues, devastatingly, that institutional charity fails because it lacks accountability.  A million international aid dollars donated to Zimbabwe does nothing but buy Robert Mugabe a fourth Swiss chalet.

The main problem, once again, is liberals’ boundless faith in government, any government.**  It never seems to occur to them that Mobutu Sese Seko, say, was a seriously weird dude long before he came to power, and that’s not the kind of thing a sham election and a chauffeured limo are likely to change.  Or that one of the reasons we had to endure that awful “We Are the World” song back in the 80s was because the Ethiopian “government” didn’t give a crap that its people were starving, preferring to hock donated food aid for weapons in its ongoing civil war against Eritrean rebels.

And we in “developed” countries get to foot the bill.  So I’ll ask again: why would anyone want to “develop”?


*what, you don’t think the Peace Corps is lucrative?  How do you think those jet-setting international aid bureaucrats get their starts?  And you should see how “nonprofit” employees live around DC.  The Peace Corps is one hell of a resume builder if you want to be a professional taxpayer parasite.

**with the admittedly huge exception of the US government when Republicans are in power.

Loading Likes...