Bergdahl pleads guilty of desertion and other news

Six soldiers died searching for him after he deserted his post and abandoned his comrades in a war zone. Obama traded terrorists for him, feted him in a Rose Garden ceremony, called him a hero.
He just pleaded guilty to desertion. He was and is no hero.

In England- Muslim spits at a random baby’s face, shouts ‘White people shouldn’t breed,’ and gets off scot-free. Another man leaves a bacon sandwich in front of a mosque along with a St George flag saying ‘No mosques,” and is jailed for a year. He can’t fulfil his sentence because he was found dead in his cell four months later.

If your name is Clinton, you don’t get to claim there are sexual predators in the White House. We know it isn’t sexual predation you object to, but a nominally GOP candidate in the WH, because it isn’t you.
Nothing Trump is accused of comes close to what Clinton did. Juanita Broaderick, now in her seventies, is still telling anybody who will listen that Bill Clinton raped her, but Hilary is one of the people who not only won’t listen, but has tried to silence Ms Broaderick in the past.

New FBI documents enforce claim that Comey was ready to exonerate Hilary before his ‘investigation’ was completed- before key witnesses were interviewed.

Hilary falls on stairs, breaks toe. I saw the headline linked on twitter and I almost didn’t go look because I thought, ‘meh. People fall on the stairs, it doesn’t have to mean anything. I’ve broken a toe moving a table. Don’t overdo it with the negative reports, guys.’ But then I clicked through and read Hilary’s ‘explanation:’

“I was running down the stairs in heels with a cup of coffee in hand, I was talking over my shoulder and my heel caught and I fell backwards,” Clinton told “The Graham Nortion Show.”

“I tried to get up and it really hurt. I’ve broken my toe. I’ve received excellent care from your excellent health service.”

She’s lying. She doesn’t run on stairs. She can barely walk on them, often needing support. Watch how careful she is, and how hard she clutches the rail, sometimes with both hands, and how labored a single step is:


Beautiful, raw (language warning) insider response to Weinstein allegations.
This is powerful stuff and I am sure writing it was cathartic and helped with his guilt. Guess what? Nobody is surprised that he knew and kept quiet. We know all of Hollywood knew.
You know what else we know? We know Harvey is not the only one. We know there are others still being protected by silence. The author know this, too. If he was really sorry, so sorry victims mattered more than his self disgust at not speaking up about Harvey, about not being the head of the pack there, then he would speak up now about the other ‘open secrets.’

In the wake of Weinstein there’s this ‘Me Too’ thing on social media, where you’re supposed to say “me, too’ If you’ve been the victim of sexual harassment and such- the idea being to give American a sense of the magnitude of the problem so maybe things will change. I am thinking a culture that celebrates the founder of Playboy magazine and considers Larry Flynt an admirable free speech advocate isn’t going to get it, and is not going to know what to do about it anyway. Going along with that campaign, here are some tips a helpful feminist offered men on what they could do. mostly, I think the’d do well to do the opposite of her suggestions.

I have previously compared the left to Mao’s cultural revolution where victims were publicly shamed, made to recant, disavow and engage in self criticism. Pretty much every day I see another example of that mob mentality. Here we go again- author of a young adult novel which was given a positive review by a Muslim reviewer on Kirkus is victim of backlash- and Kirkus pulled the positive review.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Response

News and so forth

The removed Confederate Flags- which I, shortsightedly and in an emotional reaction to Dylan Root shooting up a church Bible study of peaceful black people, thought at the time was a good idea.

Then it was statues of Confederate generals or statues that looked like they might be confederate generals or artwork that looked like somebody might think it looked confederate (I am not making that up).

Now we’re at Dr. Seuss and To Kill a Mockingbird. School district pulls To Kill a Mockingbird from reading list. It makes people uncomfortable.

Telling your kids they might be the wrong sex, trapped in a wrong-gendered body is child-abuse. IT’s evil. It’s not science

35 women have now accused Harvey Weinstien of various levels of abuse, from harassment, to rape. Two women have also accused Ben Affleck and at least one has accused George Clooney, and a couple big names at Amazon as well. (I don’t agree that the refusal to publish these stories is the Gawker Effect. It’s a political issue for the media. If it hurts conservatives, they publish, if it hurts leftists, they generally won’t, as anybody can see who stops to consider why Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy were never held accountable for their sexual exploitation- and manslaughter in Kennedy’s case- of women, and why it took ten years, a transition from registered Democrat to registered Republican, and the month before the election before the media released and commented repeatedly on Trump’s lewd and crass remark about how women let men do something disgusting when you’re famous.)

Kaya Jones, formerly of the Pussycat Dolls, says she wasn’t in a band, she was trapped in a prostitution ring, and that she told Hollywood executives and members of the press on more than one occasion and was ignored, but she also says she is going to start naming names.

Remember that Corey Feldman has been telling us for years that pedophilia is a huge problem in Hollywood. Here’s Barbara Walters reprimanding him for speaking out.

Deadliest outbreak of Hepatitis A in years, in California:
“According to the CDPH, there have been a total of 18 deaths so far – all in the San Diego area, which has reported 490 cases of hepatitis A and 342 hospitalizations.

The CDPH said the Santa Cruz area has 71 reported cases and 33 hospitalizations; Los Angeles has 8 reported cases and 6 hospitalizations; and other regions in California have 7 reported cases and 5 hospitalizations.

This brings the total number of cases in the state to 576 with 386 hospitalizations.

California is experiencing the largest hepatitis A outbreak in the United States transmitted from person to person – instead of by contaminated food – since the vaccine became available in 1996.”

In this case, that ‘person to person’ contact they don’t explain is coming from the large number of people defecating on the streets and sidewalks in public spaces.

Trump and the Iran deal.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Responses

Find a special place

“According to a study commissioned by the National Trust, people experience intense feelings of wellbeing, contentment and belonging from places that evoke positive memories far more than treasured objects such as photographs or wedding rings….

…It found places that are intensely meaningful invoke a sense of calm, space to think and a feeling of completeness.

…It found the brain’s emotional response to special places was much higher than towards meaningful objects. Two thirds of those surveyed (64%) said their special place made them feel calm, while 53% said it provided an escape from everyday life. Among younger people, 67% said their meaningful place had shaped who they were.”

More here

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why is There Beauty?

“The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” (Origin of the Species)

Darwin explains why he doesn’t think this is a valid argument (among other things, beauty existed before man arrived, he says.  This is true if one believes the geological time table, but for YEC it would be an invalid rebuttal).  But what if beauty wasn’t created for man, but rather, for the enjoyment of the Creator, and He created man in order to share that love of beauty with us (and other reasons? Well, then, Darwin says it’s beyond the scope of scientific discussion, although he admits that if true, would be completely fatal to his theory.


One of Darwin’s other objections is that beauty is subjective.  There’s some truth to that, but it’s an open question exactly how much. There are variations in standards of beauty and styles between cultures and eras. In countries that have known starvation a certain level of plumpness is considered more attractive than in areas that have know plenty long enough to have forgotten starvation. Sometimes extreme fashions take root- footbinding, breast flattening, shaveing the forehead and plucking hairs to give an artificially high forehead, multiple face piercings, bustles and hoopskirts- although I would argue that those are more successful marketing trends than they are actual standards of beauty. They are the trappings, but certain things seem fairly universal. A symmetrical face is always viewed as more beautiful than asymmetrical. I don’t know of a culture that admired or admires warts on the nose. Left to ourselves, standards of beauty are less extreme and an increasing amount of research indicating beauty is not totally subjective.
Today’s evolutionary scientists attribute appreciation for beauty to sexual selection traits, but it’s harder to explain why humans also find and admire beauty in flowers, stars, a full moon, rainbows, waterfalls, butterflies, horses, dogs, and diatoms.   Darwin himself demonstrates this truth when he dismisses the beauty of diatoms and similar creatures is because of their symmetry:

“If beautiful objects had been created solely for man’s gratification, it ought to be shown that before man appeared there was less beauty on the face of the earth than since he came on the stage. Were the beautiful volute and cone shells of the Eocene epoch, and the gracefully sculptured ammonites of the Secondary period, created that man might ages afterwards admire them in his cabinet? Few objects are more beautiful than the minute siliceous cases of the diatomaceae: were these created that they might be examined and admired under the higher powers of the microscope? The beauty in this latter case, and in many others, is apparently wholly due to symmetry of growth.”

  1. What if beautiful objects are not created solely for man’s gratification, but beauty, and human gratification of beauty, are both designed by the designer of the universe?
  2. What on earth does it even mean to say that beauty in any situation is ‘wholly due to symmetry of growth?’  Isn’t he admitting here symmetry is itself inherently beautiful? In which case, beauty would appear to be not quite as subjective as Darwin believed.

For instance: Researchers in England present evidence gathered in a couple of studies showing that infants have a fairly systematic and similar appreciation of beautiful faces- that is, it doesn’t seem subjective, as infants prefer the same beautiful faces over less beautiful ones.

“There is no doubt that beauty (which here means both male and female attractiveness) is to some extent in the eye of the beholder, but across individuals and across cultures there is nevertheless considerable agreement about what makes a pretty or handsome face, and the evidence strongly counters the conventional wisdom that attractiveness preferences are mainly acquired through life experience. For one thing, the beauty bias is already present in infancy. Six-month-olds prefer to look at the same relatively attractive faces that adults do (Rubenstein, Kalakanis, & Langlois, 1999).”

Darwin again undermining his own argument that beauty is subjective:
“On the other hand, I willingly admit that a great number of male animals, as all our most gorgeous birds, some fishes, reptiles, and mammals, and a host of magnificently coloured butterflies, have been rendered beautiful for beauty’s sake. But this has been effected through sexual selection, that is, by the more beautiful males having been continually preferred by the females, and not for the delight of man. So it is with the music of birds. We may infer from all this that a nearly similar taste for beautiful colours and for musical sounds runs through a large part of the animal kingdom. When the female is as beautifully coloured as the male, which is not rarely the case with birds and butterflies, the cause apparently lies in the colours acquired through sexual selection having been transmitted to both sexes, instead of to the males alone. ”

So while beauty is subjective and varies widely between human cultures, apparently female fish, peacocks, butterflies, all our most gorgeous birds’ and human beings all have the same standard of beauty? And why would sexual selection alone cause human beings to see the male peacock and hummingbirds and butterflies as beautiful?

Keith Buhler on Jonathan Edwards :

Edwards presents a compelling understanding of beauty. Though he is not persuaded by the naturalistic scientism of many modern thinkers, he does not consider aesthetics to be located in the emotions but  in mathematical relations. And though he is fairly enamoured with the beauty of Nature, he does not paint the saccarine and sometimes sappy portrait of it that we are familiar with in the writing of Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, etc. Rather, he grounds beauty in proportionality and ‘suitableness.’ He even goes so far as to anticipate modern light theory and suggest that it is a proportionate relationship of vibrations stimulating the optic nerve that makes the green grass and blue sky and white clouds agreeable. (“Beauty of the World”Jonathan Edwards Reader, p.14)

It’s all about advantages in sexual selection and reproduction really only goes so far, and ignores too much. I agree with Wiker and Witt when they say:
“What we deny is the crudely dogmatic reduction of the desire for beauty to these (sexual) levels alone.
“And so, we are not trying to ignore the body as if humans were all head, rather, we object to those who wish, for the sake of their argument, to cut off the head and present a human being as a creature from the neck down, (or even from the waist down). Thus, ours is the more inclusive argument, the one that truly describes our entire human appreciation of beauty, it doesn’t dogmatically exclude the higher or reduce what is higher to the lower aspects of our nature. Darwin, in contrast, felt compelled to do just that, noting that the existence of beauty for its own sake, or more properly, for the sake of human beings, “would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” (Page 117, A Meaningful World)

Also from A Meaningful World, this quote from Philp Skell, The Scientist, 2005:
‘Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive- except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed- except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less even use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.’

I don’t know why there is so much beauty in the world. I have guesses. That’s really any of us have. My gues is that it is a reflection of the Designer:
Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined. Psalm 50:2

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Response

Headlines and Stuff

97 Islamic terror attacks and plots in the U.S. since 9/11

Supreme Court and the travel ban:

“The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to President Trump’s travel ban on majority-Muslim countries Tuesday because it has been replaced by a new version, sending the controversy back to the starting block.

The ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, which had asked the court to drop the case after Trump signed a proclamation Sept. 24 that replaced the temporary travel ban on six nations with a new, indefinite ban affecting eight countries. That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled.

“We express no view on the merits,” the justices said in a one-page order.”

Dem sexual predator Weinstein’s name to be erased from shows he produced.  New Yorker weighs in with a longer article on Weinstein’s history of sexual assault, dodging accusations of rape, destroying reputations of a few women who tried to speak out.  It’s not easy reading, and it’s not for your kids. It’s disgusting how long this went on when everybody knew about it.  I find it very odd that they include the October 2016 release of a recording of Trump making a crude and disgusting statement about what he said women *let* you do when you’re rich and famous as part of the culture that made women feel safe speaking out.  I see that very differently.  Trump was a Democrat when he made that claim, a good friend of the Clintons.  And the tape was held back from the public for TEN YEARS.  Nobody thought it was important to release it until a few weeks before the election when Hilary’s campaign was hurting.  It wasn’t released to help women, but to hurt Hilary’s opposition, which was all that mattered to the press.  I believe the allegations now coming out, and I also believe that some of them are made in good faith- women hurt by Weinstein’s exploitation and abuse now feel a sense of relief and know they can speak up without destroying their careers.  But the media didn’t release this story to help women. A few resignations from the board isn’t enough. They knew.  Hollywood knew.  The press new.  We know that because the media has had the story for decades.  NBC has been sitting on tape of Weinstein admitting to groping a woman for months! Women went to the police decades ago, and Weinstein used a complicit media to plant stories destroying their reputations and prevented them from working in their field.   Ben Affleck, who has now come out saying he had no idea and we should do more to protect women is being contradicted by Rose McGowan, one of Weinstein’s victims.  She says she was raped by Weinstein,  tried to go public and paid a high price for it, and says Affleck told her personally, “I told him to stop doing that.” So he knew.

How open was this secret?  2013 Oscars, one of the ‘jokes’ was that those nominated for best supporting actress ‘no longer need to pretend to be attracted to Weinstein.’

The NY D.A. office also had copies of tape of Weinstein admitting he’d assaulted a woman, didn’t prosecute.  He not only admitted to it, he claimed it was just because he was used to doing stuff like that (claimed on tape) and that she should not embarrass him or destroy their friendship (ie, her job) over five minutes.  It’s highly disturbing to listen to that tape, and CY Vance *stopped* his investigation and shortly afterward,  Weinstein’s lawyer donated thousands of dollars to his campaign. I’m sure there is no connection at all.

Weinstein has been friends with the Obamas and Hilary Clinton for years- he’s a power donor.  It took Hilary five days to speak about the allegations.  Remember, it took her five minutes to blame the NRA for a heineous crime they had nothing to do with, but five days to speak up about crimes against women committed by her dear friend and moneybag source, and then *she* didn’t say anything. She had a spokesperson release a statement.  The Obamas took even longer.

Corey Feldman has been telling people for years that Hollywood empowers, protects, and rewards pedophiles in power who have access to child actors.  It’s not a secret. It’s not like nobody knows.  Terry Crews says the Weinstein allegations are giving him PTSD flashbacks, because he was groped in public by a powerful Hollywood figure, and he was afraid to fight back.   It’s a cesspool.  Note the causes Hollywood publicly supports, and how few of them protect women or children- Weinstein loved Planned Parenthood and donated lots of money, but not because he cared about women. It’s obvious he doesn’t.  PP has a long history of protecting predators, just like Hollywood.

Weinstein has been friends with the Obamas and Hilary Clinton for years- he’s a power donor.  It took Hilary five days to speak about the allegations.  Remember, it took her five minutes to blame the NRA for a heineous crime they had nothing to do with, but five days to speak up about crimes against women committed by her dear friend and moneybag source, and then *she* didn’t say anything. She had a spokesperson release a statement.  The Obamas took even longer.

Roger Goodell now says everybody should stand for the National Anthem  More here.  This has not worked well for the NFL.

Russia and the U.S. media– it’s been a long time now that the U.S. media is worse than PRAVDA.  We begin to see why.

James O’Keefe releases video of sting at NYT, a video editor says he took the job with the NYT *because* of his bias, and openly admits to Trump hatred. I realize this hatred is shared by the entire left and many alleged conservatives, but the media also claims not to choose sides (which is laughably and obviously to the awake, completely false).  This is going to be fun, because of Veritas Press approach of releasing videos of small fish and small revelations and watching the denials and explanations pile up, and then showing them for the lies they are by releasing larger and longer clips of larger fish and more troubling revelations.


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Responses

  • The Common Room on Facebook

  • Amazon: Buy our Kindle Books

  • Search Amazon

    Try Audible and Get Two Free Audiobooks

  • Brainy Fridays Recommends: