Slaughterhouse-Five: soft pornography, says professor Scroggins

A Vonnegut library offers banned book to students says Reuters. Up to 150 students at a Missouri high school that ordered "Slaughterhouse-Five" (the book was pulled from its library shelves), can get a free copy of the novel, courtesy of the Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library, library officials said on Thursday. The Republic School District took the move at its April 18 meeting following a complaint lodged by local resident Wesley Scroggins in the spring of 2010.  According to this AP article, Mr Scroggins is "A Missouri State University professor who home-schools his children and petitioned successfully to ban the books." Why a person who home-schools his children gets a say in the question of what books the school students can or cannot read, is ridiculous. The irony here is how useful a tool the book is today to justify a military venture and I'm sure this right wing home schooling fellow felt threatened by criticism of our military. If one has a historic reference where "Disproportionate Retaliation" was used against the NAZIS, then it could be ironically used to justify an attack in Afghanistan or Gaza. Censorship is a very poor response to ideas. For example when that fellow Anders in Norway went ballistic and people reminded me there were children in the Pro Gaza camp and that they were slaughtered, I said I was indifferent because I knew that civilians and children were victims in WWII in Nazi Germany as well.  The reason I knew this is that I had read Slaughterhouse Five.  I hope the so called LIBERALS in Washington State (home to facebook) are paying attention.  More on Mr Scroggins' censorship here and here and here and here too and um here is the Neo Con Jew blog I found out about this at.

Jackie O: LBJ Had My Husband Killed

The shocker is not LBJ killing JFK. The shocker was she was a slut!

Jackie Onassis, the widow of President John F. Kennedy, believed Vice President Lyndon Johnson and a “cabal of Texas tycoons” plotted and carried out the assassination of her philandering husband, London’s Daily Mail reports. Citing soon-to-be-released audio recordings, the Mail reports that “the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.”

She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald — long claimed to have been a lone assassin — merely part of a much larger conspiracy.

Kennedy Cuckolded
There are other revelations in the tapes. If the goose and gander are entitled to the same sauce, then Jackie Kennedy was, the tapes reveal, committing adultery to get back at her husband for his relentless womanizing. “She did retaliate by having her own affairs,” Klein told London paper. “There was a period during which she was delighted to be able to annoy her husband with her own illicit romances.” Jackie apparently got her revenge, the Mail reports: Executives at ABC say the tapes are “explosive.”
JFK’s conquests included a Nazi and communist spies. He also rumpled the sheets with mob moll Judith Exner, Hollywood's ill-fated Marilyn Monroe, and a White House intern.
Jackie had a thing for stars, too. She had one affair “with Hollywood star William Holden and another with Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli — as a result of the president’s indiscretions.”
Historian and Kennedy clan chronicler Edward Klein told the Mail that “Jackie regarded the pretty young things in the White House as superficial flings for Jack.” Two of those young things were White House secretaries known as Fiddle and Faddle, who skinny-dipped with the Kennedy boys in the White House pool.
via thenewamerican.com

Britain considers mask ban; may use army if unrest continues

It wasn't even a decent movie.
So much for Angry Mobs with taste

#LondonRiots

#GoldStoneReport flashback! Bayefsky - Meet the UN's anti-Israel 'anti-discrimination' czar, Navi Pillay

The UN's top human rights official, Navi Pillay, attempted on Monday to block further defections from the UN's racist "anti-racism" bash scheduled for New York City on Sept. 22. The United States, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands have already announced a boycott of "Durban III," a UN event designed to "commemorate" the 10th anniversary of the UN anti-Semitic hatefest held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. Pillay said she was "disappointed" with these pullouts, labeling them a "political distraction."

The barb was no accident for a UN high commissioner for human rights who has been distracted by her anti-Israel and anti-American agenda since taking office in 2008. Pillay is perhaps best known for her unremitting defense of the notorious Goldstone report and for having questioned the legality of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

For Pillay, championing the Durban conference and its manifesto, the Durban Declaration, is a personal crusade. A native of Durban herself, shortly after her appointment she explained to a Geneva audience that the city's mayor asked her to "rescue the name of Durban," given its unflattering association with anti-Semitism. In response, she helped launch both Durban II in Geneva in 2009 and Durban III.

Unfortunately, her efforts to legitimize the Durban Declaration have little to do with the most basic of human rights: equality. The Durban Declaration charges only one country with racism among all 192 UN states - Israel. It calls Palestinians "victims" of Israeli racism, a 21st century reincarnation of the Zionism-is-racism libel. When Durban II ended with an "outcome document" that reaffirmed the Durban Declaration, Pillay gloated in a news conference on April 24, 2009, that Palestine is indeed "mentioned in the Durban Declaration and the word 'reaffirm' carries those paragraphs into this document."

While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the "anti-racism" crowd at Durban II, Pillay remained glued to her seat. UN videotape shows her simply watching democratic states walk out in disgust, although she and her secretariat colleagues had a copy of his Holocaust-denying speech in advance. Despite her later scramble, when under pressure, to distance herself from his comments, she issued a flowery thank-you to the Organization of the Islamic Conference for their role in Durban II - which included warm applause for Ahmadinejad.

Pillay's enthusiasm for the Durban "anti-racism" agenda goes hand in hand with her single-minded pursuit of the demonization of Israel throughout her tenure. In January 2009, Pillay called for the creation of what became the Goldstone inquiry. In August 2009, she issued a report that lauded Hamas for having "made public statements that it is committed to respect international human rights and humanitarian law." After Goldstone claimed that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians, Pillay said on Sept. 30, 2009, "I lend my full support to Justice Goldstone's report and its recommendations." Goldstone has since recanted the veracity of his slur; Pillay has not.

In July 2010, she made a rare appearance before the Security Council on "situations where the protection of civilians has been and remains of great concern" around the world - and made only two pleas to the council, both about Israel. Referring to Gaza, she said: "I urge the council . . . to ensure the lifting in full of the blockade" - which would stymie Israel's ability to limit the flow of arms to Hamas. And she made this plea: "I urge the Security Council to support the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" - that is, the Goldstone report.

After a visit this past February to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, she said this at her final Jerusalem news conference: "The clearest manifestation of institutional discrimination is the fact that during all my meetings with government and state officials, I do not believe I met a single Palestinian citizen of Israel." She could have easily determined that Israeli Arabs are members of Israel's parliament, in the diplomatic corps and on the Supreme Court. The discrimination that was apparently unclear to Pillay was the institutional charter of the Hamas government in Gaza, which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish citizens of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority's refusal to recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist at all.

The antagonism between Pillay's political priorities and the interests of Americans was most evident in her reaction to the death of Bin Laden. On May 3, Pillay expressed concern about his treatment. She demanded to know "the precise facts surrounding his killing" for the purpose of determining its legality. According to Pillay, "counterterrorism activity . . . in compliance with international law" means "you're not allowed . . . to commit extrajudicial killings." And this requirement would be satisfied only if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed was their "stated . . . intention . . . to arrest Bin Laden if they could."

Her concern for Bin Laden was remarkable both for its flagrant contradiction with the laws of war justifying lethal force in his case, and for being three times as fast as her expressions of concern in March about the victims of lethal terror in Syria.

It is little wonder, therefore, that Pillay should be a fan of Durban III. On Monday, she confirmed that she will be coming to New York to participate in Durban III, which she described as an "important event . . . to combat discrimination." Discrimination defined by the sponsors of discrimination itself.

Anne Bayefsky
For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.

info@eyeontheun.org
August 10, 2011 For Immediate Release:
This article by Anne Bayefsky appears on NY Daily News
via calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com

Perfect comedy timing. Barney mentions JOBS right as a fart comes out of his ass. That was no QUEEF!

The Decline of Men or Just the Rise of Women?

Looks like the progressive Libertarian Gender Engineer Feminists are taking note that they are no longer in the perceptual moral lead. It must be scary for them.If women are more likely to be employed then men are, then why would they reward men who work hard? women who are autonomous are not in need of cash. could it be that our entire culture is deteriorating because we are not rewarding men for hard work? The other question is how do we reward women's libido? working hard and getting ugly from it would not quench a woman's needs.

Cato Unbound has an interesting symposium on the changing status of men in society, including a lead essay by Kay Hymowitz arguing that men are in decline and “falling behind.” The idea that the men are declining is not unique to Hymowitz. Anthropologist Lionel Tiger has a book advancing the same thesis. Other writers have also taken up this mantra.

Nineteenth and early century anti-Semitism flourished in part because many Europeans didn’t understand that the economy wasn’t a zero-sum game in which gains for Jews can only come at the expense of gentiles. Today’s fears that economic gains for women somehow harm men are similarly misplaced. Even if women end up out-earning men (which they are still far from doing), that does not mean that men have been harmed, any more than gentiles suffer because of the much higher average income and educational attainment of Jews. But the evidence underpinning the case for male decline doesn’t add up. Most of it consists of the well-known facts men now have slightly lower levels of educational attainment compared to women, and never-married men trail comparable women in income. However, there is no actual decline in male performance in either field. Rather, what has happened is that women are doing much better than before thanks to economic and social changes that have opened up new opportunities for them. When several European nations lifted legal disabilities imposed on Jews in the 19th century, the percentage of Jews in various occupations and educational institutions rapidly increased, and the percentage of gentiles in the same fields fell. Obviously, gentiles were not “in decline.” Rather, Jews were doing better because of the easing of discrimination against them. Much the same can be said of women over the last few decades. On balance, men actually benefit from the rise of women, just as gentiles benefited from that of the Jews. Everyone is better off when society is able to more fully benefit from developing the talents of more of its people.

Comparing Jews to women is rather silly. It is fair to say the attributes are not the same. Jews might not have expertise in the same skills as women and vice versa. To bring up economic issues one must take this into consideration.

It’s also worth noting that men continue to dominate the highest levels of achievement in many occupations, in part because the variation in male achievement is greater than that among women. Men are more likely to become high school dropouts than women(thereby explaining some of the data cited by Hymowitz), but they are also more likely to be at the top of the class or their profession. yes,

but a minority of elite men who make more then women will not effect the ecosystem

Hymowitz also argues that men have suffered because of the “collapse of marriage norms.” However, the data shows that only about 20% of men aged 40–44 have never been married. And even that twenty percent doesn’t all consist of people deprived of marriage opportunities by social change. Some men (like some women) simply don’t want to be married, and anywhere from 3 to 9 percent of men are gay (gay marriage is a recent phenomenon, and is still available in only a few states). Marriage continues to be available to those men who want it.

er... marriage is not available for men who argue against these progressive points. just look at MoveOn.org advertising. the progressive are openly saying to their peers to use sexuality to further their agenda. There is no doubt in my mind that a person like myself has a harder time getting a mate because we are not open to women taking our jobs.

And despite Hymowitz’s concern that men have lost their status as providers for the family, married men who live with their spouses still have incomes about a third higher than those of married women.

The married men are expected to share the income. I'm not certain the same is true with women.

Whether or not married men should be the primary bread-winners in their families, the majority still are.

Hymowitz does identify two genuine areas of male decline. It is certainly true, that men have suffered a relative loss from the diminishing importance of occupations where physical strength is a key job qualification. On balance, however, men — like women — have benefited enormously form the rise of modern technology that has displaced work previously performed by human brawn. It has made an enormous range of goods more readily available to a wide range of people at lower prices. Men who rely on physical strength to make a living were relatively more in demand fifty years ago. But their overall standard of living was far lower than today.

that is if the men can afford the goods at all Also I'm not sure if this assumption is true at all. not sure where they see that.

Hymowitz is on firmer ground in pointing to the extremely low marriage rates and high rates of single-parenthood among poor African-Americans and Hispanics. This is a genuine social tragedy. But it has little to do with any broader decline of the male gender. Rather, it is in large part caused by the War on Drugs, which imprisons a high percentage of young inner city males, thereby making family formation extremely difficult. The best way to begin to restore family values in poor minority communities is to end the War on Drugs. That’s likely to be a lot more helpful than worrying about the supposed decline of males.

if you take all the jobs away from men then the black market is the only solution.
I'm not sure I see any argument here either.

UPDATE:...Hymowitz doesn’t, in so many words, say that men are in decline, merely that they are “falling behind.” That phrasing is consistent with a view that men are better off than before, but merely haven’t made as many gains as women have in recent years. Still, it’s hard to justify concern about men “falling behind” unless there is some actual harm to men involved, as opposed to merely having slightly lower educational attainment (and among the never-married, slightly lower income) than women.

via volokh.com

do a Google search for, "Mancession". It is real. The men are feeling it. The reason this topic has come up is because obviously the feminists can feel the angry breathing down their necks. I would go much further then say that women have cost men jobs. I would go so far as to say all our economic ills relate to this Gender revolution dating back to the mid 20th century and reaching it's zenith in the early 90s. I'm glad we now have cancer suffering Barbara Ehrenreich (Karma is a BITCH ain't it?) and Gloria Steinem's attention, but our society is now in decline. The cultural engineers are now screaming about proof. They are attempting to obscure... but when you are talking about social science there is no proving anything. The rage begins while the feminists play socratic after censoring men in the University for decades. Consider this Larry Summers's revenge. It isn't a matter of asking if women caused damage at this point. It is a matter of asking where the terrorism will launch. Gabrielle Giffords is the start. Our friend Anders in Norway is one of many. While the progressives point fingers at bloggers,,, there are zillions of men who are about to react. See how Socratic the feminists are in the University when faced with a gun.... oh... and don't send the police to my door. That was tried already. I'm here to give the message. I'm not here to kill anyone. There will be others to do it for me. Till that point... go ahead and make little arguments about if the feminist movement has effected men or not.

Randy: “. No wonder 75% of divorces are filed by women. What is the economic incentive to stay married when you can take the kids and most of your ex-husband’s paycheck.” Yes, every single divorced woman I know says that she is so much better off working a full time job and taking care of the kids.With all that free time they have, they write about how rotten men are. “Women say they want equality but then parade around in their Slut marches acting like they are completely blameless when it comes to sexual misconduct and sexual violence. Just don’t fault a female college student because she goes out in a top with her boobs popping out and a skirt that barely covers her behind, then flirts with men endlessly because the attention makes her feel good, doesn’t bring a dollar to buy her own drinks because she is going to con men into buying them all for her, then dance in a sexually suggestive manner with a man, and then off all things don’t expect a man to get any ideas that she might want something more than to wave “ta-ta” at the end of the night and go home. If women truly think that kind of behavior is acceptable and risk free then they really are from Venus.” So why do you keep falling for such behavior? ” In the USSA, women use marriage and politics to gain wealth, status and opportunity that by their merits they would not deserve.”

You can PROVE Anything About Boys Without Fathers...
Why are we playing Lysenkoism with children?

In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness” is a peer-reviewed reseach publication by Drs. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, forthcoming American Economic Journal: Economic Policy http://bpp.wharton.upenn.e​du/betseys/papers/Paradox%​20of%20declining%20female%​20happiness.pdf Each year since 1972, the United States General Social Survey has asked men and women: "How happy are you, on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being very happy, and 1 being not too happy?" This survey includes a representative sample of men and women of all ages, education levels, income levels, and marital status--1,500 per year for a total of almost 50,000 individuals thus far--and so it gives us a most reliable picture of what's happened to men's and women's happiness over the last few decades. As you can imagine, a survey this massive generates a multitude of findings, (see the full report by Wharton Professors Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers) but here are the two most important discoveries. First, since 1972, women's overall level of happiness has dropped, both relative to where they were forty years ago, and relative to men. You find this drop in happiness in women regardless of whether they have kids, how many kids they have, how much money they make, how healthy they are, what job they hold, whether they are married, single or divorced, how old they are, or what race they are. (The one and only exception: African-American women are now slightly happier than they were back in 1972, although they remain less happy than African American men.)

the economy has killed blue collar jobs. and yet the stimulus money was used to attempt to push pink colar (where there is real growth) into taking jobs from men.

[Video comment]
image by

SIMONSTUDIONYC

Solar Panel Windows

Israel saving the world, again:
The dream of constructing a net zero-energy building has yet to become a reality, but now an Israeli company has come up with an idea that could make it possible.The innovative product from Pythagoras Solar can be described as a solar window that combines energy efficiency, power generation and transparency. - EOZ

One of the problems with solar panels is they are expensive and the only way you can get a grant from the government is by cutting down all the trees on your property to increase the light. With this design it makes it so the individual would want to spend their own money and not depend on the government. FRIGG'N BRILLIANT!