Less than zero

A story in the pot-head’s favorite rag alleges a brutal rape in a fraternity house at the University of Virginia. If it’s in Rolling Stone magazine, it must be true! in response to these allegations, the U-Va worthies have sprung into action. Something must be done!

Here’s today’s example of the hysterical over-reaction by U-Va’s governing board:

The University of Virginia’s governing board unanimously approved a statement of “zero tolerance” of sexual assault Tuesday, less than a week after a magazine story detailed an alleged gang rape in 2012 at a university fraternity…

…On Saturday, University President Teresa A. Sullivan suspended fraternity and sorority activities until Jan. 9 to give the community time to discuss the next steps.

So glad they clarified that. I had thought that the U-Va governing board had some tolerance for sexual assault. I stand corrected.

What these politically correct morons are doing is reacting to allegations of criminal behavior. Behavior which, if actually criminal and proven in a court of law, should lead to jail time. But such niceties of due process elude those on a witch hunt.

Here’s my obligatory disclaimer: I, too, have a zero tolerance for sexual assault. But, also, a zero tolerance for punishment for unproven allegations.


Perhaps it’s a consequence of being led by mush-minded progressives who believe that the primus inter pares of all virtues is getting multinational agreement and approval before the United States does anything.  This is the same mindset that got us the League of Nations and which pretends that the United Nations actually exists in anything but name, Manhattan traffic jams, and lovely formal dinners held at (mostly) U.S taxpayer expense.

One symptom of this disease, which was also shared by George W. Bush, is that we shall not go to war unless we have a lot of partners in a coalition.  In the current conflict against the latest offshoot of the Religion of Body Pieces, ISIS (the “Islamic State” that isn’t islamic, according to Dimbulb Kerry), the Obambis are jumping through hoops to claim that they’ve got lots and lots and lots of nations who are part of the coalition.   Hoo-rah.

Not that most members will be doing anything more than sending nice notes to our State Department, or, if they are particularly motivated, flying a couple of planes (which we will no doubt have to pay for in the long run).  But the point is not what little any of these allies of convenience might or might not do.  The point is quite simply:  Why do we worry about who will join us?

If our fight against ISIS is in our national security interest, then it matters not that Belgium, Britain, France, or Saudi Arabia are with us.  We will and ought to do what is needed, on our lonesome if necessary.

If, on the other hand, our fight against ISIS is not in our national security interest, then none of this is worth even mentioning.

The United States, pre-Obama, used to consider itself the lead nation in the Free World. Leaders stand tall in front and don’t beg for people (or nations) to follow.  Now, under Obama, we’re no longer exceptional, we’re just another happy United Nations member.  No more important than Gabon, Congo, or any other fly-speck of a nation.

It is always nice to have nations on your side.  It is not essential, if the mission is essential to our national security.


Well, my cousins in Scotland are now voting on whether they remain in the United Kingdom. The arguments for separation seem to boil down to Scottish ethnic pride. Period.

Not being one of them, I can’t know how prideful the Scots ought to be about the mere fact of being Scottish. But I do know that cold, hard economic facts are a far better basis for a long-lasting and successful nation. And Scotland is not going to be another Norway, with everybody on the dole forever and ever due to the North Sea’s oil bounty.

“Persistently disappointing revenues” is how The Telegraph describes that bounty. The problem is that the SNP wants to spread all the wealth around in a complete welfare state. And Scotland, if it casts itself adrift from Britain, simply is not economically up to that kind of socialist folly.

As far as Scottish pride goes, seems they are letting those who are not Scots vote. Specifically, citizens of any EU nation or Commonwealth nation who live in Scotland are eligible to vote. Which is hardly “Scottish” nationalism. They will also be letting 16- and 17-year olds vote. Good luck with that project: with too-few exceptions, those children don’t know much and are, shall we say, subject to hormonal swings. Look, I know: I was 16 once, and it wasn’t a pretty picture for logic and rational thought. And I’m pretty smart, at that: I knew everything that needed knowing when I was 16…(this is sarcasm; just can’t find the html tag for it).

All in all, if Scotland votes to secede from Britain, the gits, led by the SNP, will have their moment in the sun. Boy, will Scotland live to regret it.

Silly idea

Dan Neil, the car guy for the Wall Street Journal, writes that he expects his teen-age daughters (some pity, I know) will not really need to own a car. Why? Because

Ride sharing and autonomous-driving technologies together will transform mobility and the private-ownership model, and not a minute too soon.

Well, it would be many, many minutes too soon for anyone who thinks it through for just a minute. Let’s just say that this state of progressive bliss won’t happen any time soon.

Ride sharing for young women is problematical right from the start. Unless, of course, they live in an area with no sexual predators. Which I would tend to think would be in areas of such low population density as to rule out ride sharing as a practical mode of transportation.

As for autonomous technologies, as an engineer I can tell you that technology of sufficient sophistication to drive safety in anything except a straight-line deserted highway isn’t coming anytime soon. If you think otherwise, then perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to the development of computer operating systems: highly sophisticated pieces of technology that are still prone to failure, some fifty years after their first development.

The point is that the more sophisticated technology becomes, the greater the chances it will be glitchy. And these glitches won’t just cause the Blue Screen of Death, but actual death and dismemberment.


Jonah Goldberg has a worthwhile piece up at NRO on the politically correct aversion of the media and of politicians to avoid the word “evil.”   This, as applied to the evil group known as ISIS.

Well, in simplest terms, any group that attempts genocide, ethnic cleansing, crucifies some of its victims, kills women, children, and unarmed civilians in cold blood is evil. The question open for discussion should be on the source of that evil. Is it Islam itself? I.e., has ISIS “hijacked” Islam, or are they merely one of many legitimate variants?

A subsidiary but important question is: If ISIS is a “hijacked” version of Islam, why haven’t the 1.6 billion or so non-ISIS Muslims eliminated it?

I know full well that organized Christianity is not without sin. We have committed evil in the name of our faith in the past. But with modern times has come the recognition of that evil, and a great deal of effort towards its elimination.

We Christians are hardly perfect, and none of us is without sin.  From Pope Francis to any cleric, to any one of us who sit in the pews of a Sunday.  But know this:  we know what is right, and what is wrong.  When we don’t do what is right, we confess our sins to God and at least attempt to repent.  And we’ve got a pretty good handbook in the form of Scripture.

Where are the Islamic gospels that teach them to love the stranger in their midst?


How to deal with ISIS and other Islamic terror groups? There are some basic remedies that are simple in concept but in today’s politically correct world almost impossible to implement.

The first remedy is to know our enemy.

They are rooted in Islam. Islam, that is, as practiced by a significant minority of the world’s Muslims. Open for later discussion is whether Islamic terrorists have “hijacked” Islam, or some other variant of excuses for the “Religion of Peace.” The point is that even a very small percentage of 1.6 billion Muslims world-wide is a large number of jihadists. “Hijacked” or not, before we can deal with them effectively, we need to acknowledge the root cause.

This is preparatory to the shock-headline, “British-born rapper is main suspect in search for ISIS jihadist who beheaded James Foley.” “British-born.” A “homegrown” terrorist. Oh, my.

Which makes no substantial difference. He is a Muslim, and, according to the news reports, went to join his co-coreligionists in carrying out violent jihad. It is as simple as that.

Take no comfort in that “homegrown” label. He does not look like those of us of British, Irish, or other Northern European backgrounds. He looks like who he is: a person of Egyptian heritage. He is a British citizen only because of how squishy and politically correct Britain has become.

Are there jihadists who look like I do, which is to say fair skin, red-blonde hair, and blue eyes? Possibly. But such individuals are, so far, extremely rare. In the black swan, man-bites-dog category.

Which leads to the second obvious remedy: profile. Profile, and examine behaviors with extra special scrutiny.

Look extra hard and anyone entering Britain or America who happens to appear to be from the Middle East or South Asia. Or from places like Nigeria or other Muslim-infested hellholes. Examine their behavior; vet them as much as possible before allowing them in. If those who travel from the Middle East already hold an American, UK, or EU passport, track them once they enter our country.

Sound harsh? Perhaps. Would you rather have some hurt feelings among the innocent, or prevent another 9/11 or worse?

We can have a safe society, or we can have an open-borders society. We can’t have both.


In case you missed this story, it seems some of the more aggressive proponents of the Religion of Peace have beheaded yet another innocent.   ISIS is a terrorist organization, and despite what you might have heard, they are not qualitatively different than Hamas, al-qaeda, or any other Islamic “militant” group.   Their goal remains: cleansing the Middle East, if not the entire world, of anyone who does not believe exactly what they profess to believe.

Heartfelt condolences to the family of James Foley, and to all those others who have been murdered, tortured, raped, sold into slavery, or otherwise had their basic human rights trampled.  All in the name of Islam, of course.

How to respond?  Well, ISIS are like unto rabid dogs.  One is not able to negotiate, reason, cajole, or otherwise negate the threat from such animals.  Only brute force, lethal force, will do the job.  Put ISIS down by as much lethal force as we may be able to muster.  And don’t worry overmuch about “collateral damage.” 

ISIS, Hamas, al-quaeda, and all the rest of the rabid dog brigades won’t worry, I can assure you.  And the sooner all of these animals are put down, the lower will be the total body count.

As for the “moderate ” Muslims, the noise they are making about how bad these animals are is positively deafening.  I’m almost unable to hear the crickets.