RIP Sneaky (2000 – 2011)

We are sad to announce the passing of the legendary spymaster, Sneaky. In the world of feline operations, her work is the stuff of legend.

While she retired four years ago, she had been in great post-retirement spirits, in spite of being slowed by arthritis. She was a sweet, friendly kitteh.

She will be missed.

Had Enough of Feminism Yet?

While Betty Friedan’s true believers will answer in the negative all the way to their deathbeds, it’s long past time for American women–otherwise inclined to feminism–to wake up, smell the napalm, and face reality in all its ugliness. And if you think I’m being mean, don’t shoot me. After all, I’ll shoot back–and not miss. Besides, I’m just the messenger, as Susan Walsh is making me look like an Omega in drag.

Gloria Steinem gave the men all the reason they needed to support feminism: “you’ll screw more and enjoy it more!”** (And Roissy said, “Amen, now get on your knees, slut!” So many women complied that he probably can’t even remember all their names! While I’m kidding, I’m willing to bet that I’m probably not far off the mark on Roissy, but I digress…)

Now, if you’re a man, and have no compelling moral or religious reason to remain chaste, you couldn’t have it better. All you need is the audacity to ask, and you’ll never have a shortage of women willing to take off their clothes for you. Whether you wish to do this at social events, pickup bars, or–heck–even online, there are plenty of women out there who will do what you want. (And yes, even in CHRISTIAN circles! Oh, and, by the way, I got plenty of offers in those days WITHOUT EVEN ASKING!)

And Walsh is ABSOLUTELY correct:

(a) this has driven the price of sex down for men;
(b) this has driven the cost of chastity UP for the women;
(c) the risks for the women have only gone UP.

Think about it, ladies: if you don’t spread your legs, and men don’t have to try very hard to get other women to spread theirs, then where does that leave you? Ceteris paribus, you are on the fast-track to Old Maidenhood.

The only disagreement I have with Walsh–and it’s not so much a disagreement as it is a lack of coverage on her part–is that this dynamic also puts the screws to men who otherwise desire, typically for religious reasons, to remain chaste. This is because a man in protracted singleness, whose range of sexual experience is restricted to his right hand, is going to be viewed from strange to perverted, even by Christian women. If his singleness starts extending past age 25, his market value among fellow Christians starts dropping fast.

Is there an easy answer to this? Not really. Men and women will have to change their outlooks on such matters. There are only two ways that this can happen:

(a) economic (or other) factors that force women–as a group–to throw off their feminist independence and seek the security of marriage;
(b) economic (or other) factors that force men–as a a group to eschew no-strings-attached sex and seek the security of marriage.

Such a movement can be driven by any number of things: (a) economic calamity, (b) the emergence of STDs that are deadlier than AIDS and easily-transmitted through heterosexual intercourse, (c) Christian resurgence on a massive scale, (d) the collapse of the traditional academic establishment that fosters the frat-party atmosphere of college, as well as the incipient feminism.

The situation is not good, but neither is it hopeless. For the Christian, your confidence is not in the flesh anyway, and you will need to trust in God to provide for your needs according to His riches and glory, as well as to make your path straight as you live your life. Choosing boldness and courage–as Joshua did as he entered uncharted territory–will be your challenge.

For those not so religiously inclined, the situation ranges from bad to ugly. Marriage–as it exists today under law–doesn’t provide the security that it once did. But even in divorce, women are no better economically today than they were in the days before no-fault divorce. The risk of divorce has gone up, but the benefits have not kept up. And for the men, the risks of divorce have gone up while the benefits have fallen like a brick. There is a legitimate crisis of trust between the sexes, one which dwarfs any such crisis that has existed since Adam threw Eve under the bus.

From a secular standpoint, the case has been made that one ought not marry at all, as the risks outweigh the benefits. Sadly, the economic argument has merit.

Compounding matters, the price of sex has gone into a steep dive over the last three decades. The feminists–and their male supporters–have seen to that.

Have you had enough of feminism yet?

**That is according to USA Today founder Al Neuharth, in his autobiography, Confessions of an SOB.

What God Wants

I don’t know what reminded me of this today, but probably about fifteen or so years ago, a mom of two young children made a statement while they were building a new, much larger house. She said, “I just really believe God wants my children to have a game room.”

Really?!!! Hello!!!

There is nothing wrong with wealth or money or having more than someone else. But I have never been able to reconcile that statement in my mind or heart. What does God want? Never read in the Bible He wants my kids to have more stuff.

We Are FOR Informed Choice, As Long as We Control the Information…

HT: Vox Day

This is getting to be entertaining.

“During your pregnancy, we want you to have the best medical information available. That way, if your baby has Down Syndrome, is deformed, or has various genetic markers that would indicate an elevated risk of any number of medical issues, you may be encouraged to relieve yourelf–and society–of this potential burden. But we only support your exercising this freedom of choice, as long as you choose wisely. In order to discourage unwise choices, however, we will not be disclosing the sex of the child.”

Europe Trying to Create Funny Money Without Fallout

Such forays into monetary policy are very risky, and almost always result in a nasty inflation that eats up the economy.

Weimar Germany tried it, and the resultant hyperinflation handed them the Third Reich.

Argentina tried it, and the resultant hyperinflation helped coin the term “Banana Republic”.

Bosnia-Herzegovina tried it, and the resultant hyperinflation made a very bad situation several orders of magnitude worse.

Zimbabwe tried it, and proceeded to destroy what had been the most promising economy in Africa.

We’ve tried it in our efforts to stem the dot-com bubble, and re-start the economy in the wake of the crash of 2008. All we have to show for it are inflated energy prices, inflated food prices, and massive government debts that we have little reasonable chance of ever paying.

Now, Europe is seeking to do this to prevent a modern version of Creditanstalt.

“We need to find a mechanism where we can turn one euro in the EFSF into five, but there is no decision on how we could do that yet” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

That approach only works if you are underwriting new debt for something that will return more than the multiple on investment. Can someone point to a set of assets in PIIGS–or, hell, any government or financial sectors in those respective countries–that has a snowball’s chance of delivering such a rate of return?

I didn’t think so.

Here’s the way it works. When you go to the bank to get a loan, the bank is not lending you money; they are creating money on your behalf. The expectation is that either (a) you will pay down the loan according to the terms, or (b) the asset for which you are borrowing the money will go up in value sufficiently to provide a return for you while allowing you to cover the costs of borrowing.

If neither (a) or (b) happen, the resultant default/loss is tantamount to the removal of money from the economy.

Now let’s say you are a nation, or, perhaps, a central bank representing a group of nations. Let’s say a member nation is teetering on the edge of total insolvency, and comes to you asking for money to prevent a default.

Let’s say you have only X that you can loan, but your bankrupt nation needs 5X.

Creating 5X only works if the nation has the capacity to return that amount–plus interest. If the nation cannot do that, guess what? (a) The central bank, (b) any other banks that participated in the lending of that money, and (c) the country that borrowed the money–are hosed.

My point: the “bailout” ultimately delivers the same result as a default, only with compound interest added.

Of course, I find it hilarious that TurboTimmy is trying to press Europe to contain the debt crisis. That is the mother of all “pot, meet kettle” scenarios.

Why Do you “Need” That?

Professor Hale has a fine post addressing the question liberals often ask of us gun enthusiasts.

One of the most often overheard lines at gun shows is: I would love to have one of those.

This is followed by another often heard response by the wife: Why would anyone need one of those.

“One of those” is normally a belt-fed automatic weapon, a silencer, an extremely large bore pistol, a Barret .50 cal rifle, or even a .338 lapua “sniper” rifle will all the extras included.

The disconnect is between what one wants and what one needs and the illogical assumption that only needs should be satisfied because satisfying wants is just immoral on some level. You hear this too WRT large SUV’s. Why does anyone need a HUMMER? Why does anyone need a Tessla sports car?

Another problem with defending this argument is that sometime the reason you need something you are not allowed to say out loud because it is politically incorrect or flat out illegal.

“Bad” reasons for owning firepower:
1. The revolution
2. Going hunting for Human ethnic group XXX
3. Suicide
4. Commit a crime
5. Compensating for something (you know what I’m saying?)
6. To kill your spouse even though she is a lying, cheating bitch.

“Good” reasons for owning firepower:
1. Hunting, in season, with a valid permit, or waiting 11 months out of the year to do so.
2. You have a job in law enforcement that requires you to have a personal firearm, but you never intend to actually use it.
3. You are a “collector” and you need one of X to fill the unique collectible niche between your W and your Y.
4. You are buying it just to “get them off the streets” and out of the hands of potential criminals.

But these are my reasons:
1. Who died and made you king over what I need and don’t need? It’s my money. I will decide how I spend it. Even if I spend it unwisely, it is still my unquestionable right to do so. I may just need firepower to deal with people who believe their own judgement is so much better than my own about how to spend my money that quiet arguments over drinks is insufficient to discourage them from re-ordering my personal life and spending habits.

2. Q: Why do you need a AR-15?
A: To do the same thing my handgun does, only better.

3. Q: Why do you need a silencer?
A: To do the same thing my AR-15 does, only quieter.

4. Q: Why do you need a .50 caliber Barret Sniper Rifle?
A: Um. Squirrel hunting? Darned things are wearing body armor now.

5. Q: Why do you need a 30 round magazine?
A: To shorten the time between rounds 10 and 11 or between 20 and 21. Reloading is when the zombies get you.

It also really sucks when the zombies are wearing body armor.