Steyn time.
I’ve still got way too much crap to do, and the internet is boring today. Except of course for the shining light of Mark Steyn, who is a very sexy man.
Earlier today I had been trying to think of some way to say shit about the Democrats digging their own hole but I stopped when Steyn did it for me a million times better:
…dear old Nora Ephron’s sneer over at The Huffington Post about whether Pennsylvania’s embittered white men are more racist than they’re sexist or vice-versa gets things completely upside down. The embittered white men are just about the only demographic weighing these candidates on their merits. The significant proportion of women and blacks in the Democratic base for whom identity politics trumps all is what’s stopping either candidate from gaining the momentum that would have emerged in a contest between two squaresville dead European males. It’s the identity-uber-alles blocs that prevent the black guy from finishing off the feminist or vice-versa. As the Bee Gees so shrewdly observed:
Whether you’re a mother
Or whether you’re a brother
You’re Staying Alive……This contest is the logical reduction of the identity-group fetishization that they’ve been peddling for years. They’re just feeling suckered because they plumped for the establishment diversity candidate and then found themselves out-diversified. But, if they think this is a low, mean, petty, unbecoming contest, wait an election cycle or two when the Democratic primary offers the gay guy versus the imam.
Also, Steyn is giving all profits on his book or other merchandise sold today to the Canadian bloggers being sued over free speech by that poop-eater Richard Warman.
I have read that book, and he is a very, very smart man.
Steyn for VP of Foreign Relations in a Rachl Lookiz controlled world is a very promising thought.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 pmSteyn is a hero … as you observed, a very sexy hero.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pmThe man is a genius. To be able to quote the Bee Gees without looking like a fool is not easy.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pmAlready ordered it over the weekend — through your Amazon search link! Woohoo — everybody wins!
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 pmSaw Mr. Steyn in PA a couple of months back.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pmThe books are great, but you will love the live performance!
There’s been lots of good commentary on this BS Texas child welfare case where the judge has made false findings to justify keeping clearly unharmed children in shelter care. I’d love to hear your comments.
PS Dunno if you’ve read this or not, but the person who actually made the false call and has been arrested was an Obama delegate from Colorado. It’s getting reported in the MSM in Europe but not in the US. Ha!
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 pmsteyn and ezra levant are two of the most alert and well-spoken writers of our time–that HRC (think mind-censorship) that canada has going is Orwellian in nature. thank god it isnt here yet–but be afraid–cause the CAIR type groups here in the US are trrying to get some similar laws enacted here!
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:33 pmJoe Bingham Says:
Clearly unharmed children Joe? If you really think that it is okay for a 58 year old man to have three wives 17 and younger and then say that they have not been harmed I suggest you see a therapist as you have issues.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pmI don’t know if I’d call them “clearly unharmed”. The pretext for the raid was flimsy, to be sure, but from what I hear there were some sort of….let’s say “shenanigans” going on in that compound.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pmOfficer Barbrady, I’d like to call shenanigans!
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 pmThose Terence and Philip dolls are sweet!
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pmThanks for plugging the/our fundraiser!
PS: you know Steyn loves Broadway show tunes, right Rachel? Sorry, did that ruin your whole “sexy” thang…?
Seems almost everybody has the hots for Steyn, even the guy who is suing us. Check it:
http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/poetry/richard-harman-esquire-a-dr-seuss-from-beyond-the-grave-tale/
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pmShenanigans or no, I have serious issues with law enforcement being able grab 400+ children on the basis of an anonymous, possibly fraudluent phone call. Working backwards once you find evidence of criminal wrongdoing to achieve a conviction is not lawful, however I might feel about the defendants in this case. However, since it’s For The Children™ , my guess is that the courts will roll over and rule the raid was somehow lawful.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:48 pmSweet! I just bought America Alone today, unware that is was a Werman Wednesday…
I need something to counteract all the Obama-rama going on…it makes my head hurt.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pmPhysics geek,
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pmthe FLDS bunch in west Texas had Warren Jeffs as their spiritual leader, so there’s probable cause.
Clearly unharmed children Joe? If you really think that it is okay for a 58 year old man to have three wives 17 and younger and then say that they have not been harmed I suggest you see a therapist as you have issues.
You haven’t been following the news. Actual abuse is alleged against only a few children. 417 children were removed, few of whom are adolescent girls. The theory behind the removal and shelter of the other children (including infants) is that they may be raised in a way that will one day lead them to commit polygamy.
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pmSo do I. But then again, we’re not the ones who actually have to make these kinds of decisions, are we?
Consider this from the court’s and the police’s perspective. If they had taken their time and tried to perform a full, by-the-book investigation, it would’ve taken them months to get it all done (we are talking about 400+ kids, after all). Meanwhile, every anti-child abuse activist in the state would be lambasting them for dragging their feet while hundreds of children were being victimized.
Legally this was probably a bad move. But what’s done is done. The investigation has to go forward.
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 pmCrud — didn’t catch the ‘Warman Wednesday‘ aspect.
Never fear! For folks like me who already have Steyn’s book, but want to help the ‘Canuck-6′, ‘The Nose on Your Face’ has more great fund-raising swag over at http://www.cafepress.com/tnoyf/4623428 — w00t!
Doesn’t every ‘Saddest Bee’ mug need a matching one of these — http://www.cafepress.com/tnoyf.253076231 ?
Update: Mine will get here in time for Mother’s day!
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:26 pmEphron missed a demographic group that should have weighed the candidates on their merits, the correlative of the white males to wit black females. I could not find any PA polling data on black females, but judging from BO’s percentage of black votes he did well with the both sexes.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 pmSo do I. But then again, we’re not the ones who actually have to make these kinds of decisions, are we?
I am, sort of. I’m not one of the CPI’s, but I work in the system. This was a terrible decision made in complete disregard of the law, honesty, and the best interest of most of the children. It appears to be a mixture of stereotyping, political agenda, and social agenda. The representative of child protective services has actually lied under oath about the case (saying they’d found friends of the girl who called in the original report, though they hadn’t identified her yet). It’s a debacle which will scar these children for life. As a worker in the system, I can tell you that this will be awful for nearly all of these kids, and even for the “married” ones of 15-16, probably be more harmful than non-removal =/ (although the state probably has valid cause to remove the young mothers & “marrieds”).
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 pmWhile I’m not sure at all about the merits of the abuse allegations against the FLDS, I know enough about them to figure that the Texas authorities wanted to stamp on them ASAP, instead of letting them entrench themselves as they have in Hildale/Colorado City. In their previous home, they’re a constant PITA to the local authorities; their cute little habit of conveniently declaring surplus boys excommunicate and dumping them by the side of the road’s led to a lot of Bad Results.
Also, I don’t think that any LEO of any sort wants a Jonestown on his watch, and the FLDS are just nuts enough to do something like that if ordered to.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 pmWow, this thread really got hijacked. Mark Steyn, where are you?
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 pmYes, but were you the one who actually had to sign off on the decision of whether or not to raid that compound?
It’s easy for us to sit in judgement when we’re on the outside of this whole controversy. We’re not the ones who had to make the decision of whether or not to remove the kids. We’re not the ones who would’ve been blamed if the anonymous allegations had turned out to be true.
It’s a moot point anyway. They can’t travel back in time and undo the decision. All they can do is complete the investigation, find out if any of the kids were abused, and figure out where to go from there.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:02 pmYes, but were you the one who actually had to sign off on the decision of whether or not to raid that compound?
That’s not the problem. The investigation was justified. Removal of all the children (even those against whom no abuse was alleged) wasn’t. The facts at this point are publicly available information. It is, in fact, easy to sit in judgment on the situation when the facts are all available to us.
Especially when the facts include Texas child welfare’s spokesperson lying under oath.
You’re right that they can’t (and shouldn’t) try to undo the initial investigation. They can (and should) return the children against whom no abuse has been alleged.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:09 amNon-trolling comment: Richard Warman does suck!
April 24th, 2008 at 12:18 amSteyn rules! I’m always in awe of how perceptive, astute and erudite the man is. I value his opinion on Iraq a whole lot more than most, since he actually went over there and rambled around the country. How anyone can be so learned on so many fronts is amazing!
I’m impressed that he’s helping out financially on the Canadian lawsuits!
As far as the religious freedom case … I have to admit I’m shocked about the animosity to plural marriages - since (at least) they’re marrying the opposite sex instead of the now acceptable same sex marriage. I was figuring that by this time we’d legally be allowed to marry and have relationships with farmyard animals.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:32 amSomehow I’m thinking there will be absolutely zero ramifications for the government fascists that have far exceeded their authority and continue to do so. Hints and claims of abuse are convenient … especially when anonymous and done “for the children.” Texas was the last place I expected to see such political shenanigans.
Legally this was probably a bad move. But what’s done is done. The investigation has to go forward.
MS, I do not believe that sentence #3 follows from sentence #1. There are clear limitations on what our law enforcement are allowed to do. If we allow them to NOT uphold the law in a case which we (I include me) find the defendants to be unsympathetic, we also allow them to run roughshod over cases with which are most sympathetic. This includes cases in which we are the defendants.
If we allow the people who are sworn to uphold the law to circumvent it just because the law is inconvenient at times, well, I have a serious problem with that. I find that working backwards from a desired solution does not justify illegal actions by law enforcement officials. Saying that we cannot unring this particular bell is incorrect. We can, but the fallout will be severe if we do. Tough.
Oh, and to get back on point: if I were a woman I would want to have Mark Steyn’s children.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:40 amOne final point from Volokh:
April 24th, 2008 at 8:23 amIt wasn’t legally justified, but again, we’re not the ones putting our careers on the line. Imagine for a moment what might’ve happened if they had waited for however long it would have taken to confirm the abuse allegations. Can you imagine the public firestorm that would result? Can you imagine what the headlines would have said once the media caught wind of this? I think I can:
OVER 400 CHILDREN SEXUALLY ABUSED BY RELIGIOUS CULT; TEXAS AUTHORITIES REFUSE TO ACT
Note the convenient omission of the word “allegedly”.
No, that would be a very bad idea. IF there was abuse going on at that compound then sending ANY of the children back there would put them in danger of being abused.
Granted, but those limits have already been broken. We can’t just snap our fingers and retcon it out of existence. What we need to focus on now is the interests of the children. We need to figure out whether they were abused, and if so, who abused them. We can assign blame to law enforcement later.
I’m not saying we should let them run roughshod over the law. If the raid was unlawful (and apparently it was) then everyone responsible for it, including the judge who ordered it and the CPIs who orchestrated it, should be punished to the full extent of the law.
The problem is that situations like this often lead people to overcompensate. Liberals do this all the time. Whenever there are allegations (whether true or not) of police brutality or US soldiers committing war crimes, the left starts screaming like a bunch of wild monkeys about how racist/corrupt the cops are or how racist/evil/bloodthirsty our soldiers are. Then some shit-eating politician steps up and offers to “solve” the problem by forcing yet more burdensome regulations on the police or the military. Ultimately this “solution” creates more problems than it solves because it hampers the ability of law enforcement to actually enforce the law and the ability of our soldiers to fight effectively.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:53 amPoop-eater?
Now, Rachel, that’s low-class!
Try “coprophage”.
He’ll have to have someone explain what it means to him before he can file an HRC claim.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:31 pmIF there was abuse going on at that compound then sending ANY of the children back there would put them in danger of being abused.
That’s obviously untrue. An allegation that girls between 14 and 18 are having sex in illegal marriages has no implications for the safety of infants.
It wasn’t legally justified, but again, we’re not the ones putting our careers on the line.
Politics may be the motivation for the actions of these workers, but it’s no justification. I make decisions in my job almost weekly that could result in my name showing up on the news if anything happens to a child. It’s one of the risks you have to take. Child welfare workers who harm children to cover their asses are selfish cowards. “Putting your career on the line” is just something that a good worker has to do sometimes.
You say you think the initial raid was probably illegal. I don’t think that’s clear. I think the initial raid was probably justified, as would be the removal and shelter of the adolescent girls. As far as what’s legal, I’m apparently more with the government on this one than you are. However, allegations of statutory rape against adolescents have little relevence to the safety of infants and toddlers.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pmAre you really willing to take that chance? Child molesters often have multiple victims. These girls could be just the tip of the iceberg.
I didn’t say it was. I’m just saying people shouldn’t assume they had sinister motives for doing this.
I don’t know Texas law, but don’t the statutes usually prohibit anyone under suspicion of a sexual offense from being around children at all, regardless of the seriousness of their crime?
April 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pmAre you really willing to take that chance? Child molesters often have multiple victims. These girls could be just the tip of the iceberg.
There’s no evidence or allegation of pedophilia in this case. Lumping pedophiles and statutory rapists together as “child molesters” is unhelpful.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pmBut there is evidence of sexual assault. Why you think it would be okay to let hundreds of other children stay in that compound with alleged rapists I can’t imagine.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pmBut there is evidence of sexual assault. Why you think it would be okay to let hundreds of other children stay in that compound with alleged rapists I can’t imagine.
Do you think that, as a rule, a man’s children should be taken away when he’s accused of the rape of an adult woman?
April 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pmThe standard for keeping the children in care is probable cause here in Florida, and I’m guessing it’s similar in Texas. Would an allegation that someone had sex with a 17-year-old mean that his 2-year-old child and 14-year-old male child were “probably” going to be raped by him? Would you suggest a new legal standard of “remote possibility of risk”?
April 24th, 2008 at 3:07 pmJoe, let’s not proposed to do anything to a man who is merely accused. Let’s investigate the situation so his kids aren’t traumatized and he isn’t jailed over a false accusation. The old innocent until proven guilty is generally a safer bet.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:04 pmJoe, let’s not proposed to do anything to a man who is merely accused. Let’s investigate the situation so his kids aren’t traumatized and he isn’t jailed over a false accusation. The old innocent until proven guilty is generally a safer bet.
I’m with you there. Mightysamauri is the one who says any accusation of a sexual crime should be enough to remove all the children.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:00 pm