Archives for January 2016

I marathon watched the Netflix docu-drama, Making a Murderer, last week, in what essentially amounts to The Life and Times of Steven Avery.

In a nutshell: He was wrongly convicted of rape in 1985, served 18 years in prison, before being exonerated by both DNA, and a confession by the guy who actually did it; and because the county ignored the exculpitory evidence of his likely innocence at least twice post-conviction—forcing him to serve at least an additional eight years before finally being exonerated—he sued the county for $36 million in 2005…and at the point where two county employees were added to the civil complaint personally, and were being depossed, Steven ended up with a murder investigation and prosecution on his hands: and importantly, investigated—with evidence gathered—by those same people facing life devastating civil judgments.

Yea, it’s pretty riveting. It’s also, in se, grounds for rationabile dubium. But let me probare causam meam.

I’ve seen a number of pieces since this has exploded internationally. Nothing I’ve seen yet—these two pieces just yesterday, pro and con the murder conviction: Dead Certainty and Making a Murderer, “Biased” Journalism & Necessary Outrage (h/t: Mike Eades’ excellent monthly book and reading reco posts)—are particularly satisfying to me.

It’s like this, for me. Everyone is turning on guilt or innocence, evidence pro and con, and since short of red-hand-in-cookie-jar certainty, the principles that began to be laid down in jurisprudence nearly 1,500 years ago—predating even The Muslim Menace—are intended to put the burden of proof on the accuser. Ideally, a defendant ought be able to just sit there, and it’s decided—whether by judge alone, or jury—whether a stiff burden of proof has been met. And if not: acquittal. That means: no moral or legal judgment on guilt or innocence, and you live with the double-edged sword of Enlightenment and civility. In another nutshell: you just didn’t prove it.

…

Read More

That was an impassioned plea from a 16-year-old German girl. Bibi Wilhailm. Does that sound like a claim to entitlement to you; or rather, an invocation, a reminder of how things just ultimately are in terms of biological reality?

How come she’s not pleading to Angela Merkel? How about the head of the EU, the UN, or the POTUS? FEMINISTS!!!??? See, that’s what’s interesting, especially given her age and less-that-totally corrupted, base animal instinct. She pleads for MEN! …And, the way I was raised, when genuine, it’s a plea that’s answered and accounted for, or you weren’t of the calling.

You can take a feminist to reason, but you can’t make her think.

I’m very happy to viscerally understand that this video would make my German dad’s—American immigrant since 1952 at 14—blood boil, as it does mine (probably my three brothers, too).

It’s sketchy to have this up. There’s now numerous outlets via YouTube, a Google Company, but Chancellor Angela Merkel has Mark Zuckerberg’s cell number, so it gets’s taken down continually from Facebook in Germany because…well, the last thing any German “men” would want to do in Europe is have their wives and daughters feel a base level of comfort in the place in which they were born and grew up. Or whatever. It falls under “hate speech” codes and such. Get back to clicking “Like” for cat, and Hans and Franz videos.

Mark Steyn put it up. Quoted this part, emphasis his:

…

Read More

He’s on a damn roll, and I lafed more the 2nd time.

This one ought make every white, red-blooded man look for the sharpened sword. What kind of life would we have, gentlemen, if we never had the enormous pleasure of wowing the women we decided we couldn’t do without.

Goat fucker and women rapist Muslims have never enjoyed the privilege.

There’s a very good reason that women the world over smile at white men.

Let me give you a hint.

“…was deeply influenced by Arab astrology, Neoplatonism, Renaissance Hermeticism, and legends surrounding the Egyptian god Thoth.”

Any clue? No? Then how about this?

“…went even further than the [] Copernican model.”

Zip? Nada? Try this, then, the golden clue.

“He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its ‘center’.”

…There is one reason, and one reason only that I have adored the early astronomers (Claudius Ptolemy, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei) but it stopped there. You don’t typically find his name amongst the lists of the greats.

My modest idea is that the others were waffling under church pressure, and it was he who was the first to say that ‘hey, fuckheads, what’s the point in moving the centre of our universe from the Earth to our sun? It’s just one of many.’

The Universe has no center.

But the reason I adore all of them is that the Church at the time—the Roman Catholic Church—basically advanced a geocentric premise that was easily falsifiable, and though it took hundreds of years, it turned out to be an idea that’s time is past. Lots died putting it to rest.

So the Muslim Menace burned him at the stake in 1600. See here.

…

Read More