So we had a couple of drinks, and played a bit of Buck Hunter. A couple things came up as we were getting to know each other. I was probing a bit because I knew he was from Texas, and I wanted to find out if he was a Republican, or a bad person. (Not that the two are necessarily one and the same.) It turned out he was pro-choice and an atheist, which was good. We disagreed on gun control, because he’d served in the Marines. San Diego is a big military town, so there are a lot of those types of people around.
So her first test for a guy is “are you anti-God and is it OK if I kill the kid if you knock me up”. It gets better
But the night progressed. We went out to some other bars, had some more drinks, and he invited me back to his place. I was super excited, because I was really into this guy. We hooked up, and it was incredible. There was a lot face-touching and intense eye contact. He was cool as hell. I was completely smitten.
Just a reminder this was the very first time these two people met.
But things turned south as soon as she saw his bookshelf post sex contained books by Trump and Ann Coulter, they started talking politics and it went downhill from there:
He started talking disparagingly about Black Lives Matter. This entire conversation happened in five minutes, while I was frantically getting dressed to leave. I wasn’t there to argue, and I felt deeply uncomfortable.
I got a Lyft home and I thought I was done with him.
Because nothing says: “This guys not a keeper” like opposing people who cheer the murder of cops.
Now lets forget the whole hooking up at the first meeting paradigm and consider for a second. You have a woman in her late 20’s who meets a strong handsome man who she is sexually compatible with and served in the marines which means he is tough and trained in responsibility and would have advantages in securing a job etc. This would seem like the best possible fish she is going to catch and she tossed it back, but it gets worse:
The next day he messaged me on Tinder. He said, “Hope you’re still not upset over politics LOL.” I explained that it’s hard for me to remain attracted to someone whose views are so different from mine, and who believes in bigotry and xenophobia—which sucked, because the sex was amazing.
Then he said, “Not accepting other people’s beliefs is the definition of bigotry.”
So apparently it was my fault.
So this guy is willing to overlook the argument and looks for a second date but she’s still in full SJW mode and passes.
Now most sensible men would have moved on but he must have seen or felt something he liked because he gave it one more shot a week later.
He sent me a “hey” message a week later, which I never replied to.
And thus the story which concludes with a self-righteous rant about never sleeping with a Trump supporter again ends.
The really sad part, this is likely the best guy this woman was ever going to find, moreover he was willing to overlook their political differences for the sake of getting together, which is key because the real secret to a successful marriage or a relationship if you aren’t interested in one, is the ability to put up with the person you are with.
He had it, she didn’t so at age 27 she tossed her best shot away.
As a Catholic we don’t do fortune-telling but this woman’s future can be predicted in a single image.
Now it’s of course possible that this woman dodged a bullet, that the only reason why this guy was interested was he had established that she was available for risk free sexual release, but I have a funny feeling that twenty years from now she’ll find herself reading and re-reading that post over and over mumbling under her breath the word “stupid” over and over again.
The Darwinist would celebrate this result as an affirmation of natural selection but as a Catholic I’m required to pray for both of these people, because even though her future would be apparent to any member of the greatest generation who held Christian sexual morality in high regard, in the end with God all things are possible and their disbelief doesn’t make that statement any less true.
And after all it’s Christmas time, and I always prefer a happy ending.
Nine or so years ago I spent an afternoon at the Princeton Public Library watching two American-made Cuban propaganda films. One of the films was titled The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil.
The film praises the virtues of Medieval agriculture as practiced in modern-day Cuba, including the return to the use of oxen, and how superior plowing a field with two oxen is, compared to using tractors. My late father, who was not Cuban, had a farm and if he got wind of that he would have turned in his grave.
After I posted that, a historian friend joked that the agricultural practices I described date back to the Iron Age, if not earlier, so let’s not give the Middle Ages a bad name.
Tourists are quite literally eating Cuba’s lunch. Thanks in part to the United States embargo, but also to poor planning by the island’s government, goods that Cubans have long relied on are going to well-heeled tourists and the hundreds of private restaurants that cater to them, leading to soaring prices and empty shelves.
Yes, foreigners and anyone else paying in dollars eat better than ordinary Cubans (be assured that the regime’s elite are not going hungry). As in healthcare, the dictatorship has an apartheid system against its own people.
Otherwise, like Rick in Casablanca, Mr. Ahmed was misinformed:
“Castro, whose ruined nation shipped $780 million worth of vegetables, sugar and agricultural exports to the U.S. in the 1950s, has turned his nation into a lunar wasteland over his 48-year dictatorship, its famous sugar industry now gone. Does Castro take responsibility? No. He blames global warming, not his disastrous decisions.
“But Cuba’s land lies in ruin not because of bad weather but because its massive propaganda-driven ‘great sugar harvests’ of the 1960s ruined the land in the name of making Castro’s arbitrary quota — and because no citizen can own or trade land for its most efficient use. Now, Cuba grows so little food it must import it from the very nation its leader denounces and undermines and blames.
“In fact, it’s Castro’s dirty secret: The U.S. is Cuba’s food lifeline. The U.S. sells $340 million in food a year to Cuba just so its ration books can be worth the paper they’re printed on.
“The U.S. is Cuba’s top trade partner, but Cuba ranks only 32nd on the U.S. list.”
All U.S. agricultural goods must be sold to one state-owned company, Alimport, and many Cuba observers generally believe the Castro regime uses it as a political lever. During much of the 2000s, Alimport purchased U.S. agricultural products from dozens of states with the hope of garnering support from the states’ respective lawmakers to repeal the embargo.
The purpose of this lobbying initiative pressuring Congress to end what remains of the embargo? To guarantee the survival of the Communist dictatorship.
“Cuba’s Surge in Tourism” is not what “Keeps Food Off Residents’ Plates;” what’s keeping food off residents’ plates is Communism.
Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.
As we’ve noted many times here there are two ways media bias works.
The first, and most common is bias of comission where the MSM/left promotes stories or meme’s to attack the right, usually as wikileaks confirmed at the direct behest of the left. A great example of this are the attacks and ridicule of Ben Carson on CNN.
Removing all pretense of substantive discussion, Don Lemon, Marc Lamont Hill and Peter Beinart began openly mocking the nomination of Dr. Carson for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The scope and severity of the exhibited ridicule was so over the top, fellow CNN panelist Brian Stelter was both visibly trying to hide his glee and simultaneously uncomfortable joining in amid the laughter and mockery.
If this was any other media panel mocking and ridiculing a black nominee for an Obama administration the calls of racist outrage against the network would be overwhelming. However, as customary within their hypocrisy, the pontificating left-wing ideologues cannot even fathom anyone taking exception.
Once again proving that if the left didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
But the greatest sin of the media is the ability to define a story as not worthy of promotion as a national story, like this one:
Germany’s leading news programme has been slammed for failing to report the rape and murder of the 19-year-old daughter of an EU official by an Afghan ‘refugee’.
The Tagesschau show, produced by ARD, the world’s largest public broadcaster, claimed that the story was “too regional”. Others, however, blame political correctness and an establishment desire to silence criticism of mass migration.
Last week’s revelation that 19-year-old Maria Ladenburger – a medical student, migrant home volunteer, and daughter of a prominent European Union (EU) official – was attacked and killed by a recently-arrived 17-year-old migrant shocked the nation.
Despite having a budget of €6.5 billion (£5.5 billion) and 20,617 employees, the public broadcaster decided not to allocate resources to bringing the story to national attention.
ARD’s editor-in-chief, Kai Gniffke, played down the decision, arguing they “very rarely report on individual criminal cases”.
By deciding this news wasn’t fit to print, german media were basically protecting Angela Merkel and her supporters from the consequences of their open borders policy.
Merkel, who recently announced plans to run for a fourth term in September, has seen her popularity plunge in the last year in large part due to her staunch refusal to accept demands from her party’s right wing to limit migrants entering the country to 200,000 per year.
She did not comment on the slaying in Freiburg and has remained determined to keep Germany open to refugees.
That’s the real reason why the MSM hates Breitbart news and Trump’s twitter account. Liberals like the Kellogg’s people want to delegitimize Breitbart because they dare report stories like this that don’t fit the MSM narrative:
Immigration advocacy groups are asking California Attorney General Kamala Harris to “block federal access” to the database containing names of gang members in the state. The goal is to block access before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in, thereby preventing his administration from seeing the names of individuals who could find themselves on a the deportation short list.Immigration advocacy groups are asking California Attorney General Kamala Harris to “block federal access” to the database containing names of gang members in the state. The goal is to block access before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in, thereby preventing his administration from seeing the names of individuals who could find themselves on a the deportation short list.
Yeah because nothing would unite the rest of the country against the rule of California Liberals like protecting gang members here illegally from deportation.
And they really hate Trump and his tweeting because in 140 characters he can force a story like the Steinle murder onto the national stage that the MSM is determined to bury.
If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar
Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.
If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the continual post presidential campaign meltdown of the left outside of New England firsthand.
And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
This is the first of three guest posts I did for Ladd Ehlinger’s site back in late 2011. I’m reprinting them here (With Ladd’s permission) because I think the election of Donald Trump is a significant event in the culture wars and these posts (and the follow ups that I intend to write) serve to explain what happened to our friends on the left who are still pulling out their hair over the events of November. While Ladd’s old blog isn’t there you can find the original piece via the wayback machine.
“The trouble is you don’t want a man for a husband! You want a coward who will run out on his friends! Well, that’s not me, never was, and never will be. I don’t care how much I love you! And I do very much. I’m a soldi… I mean I’m a man first!”
Even a person with a casual knowledge of movies knows the number 1 movie of 1939, because “Gone with the Wind”is the highest grossing movie of all time. If you asked them what picture was number 2 that year, odds are they haven’t heard of RKO’s “Gunga Din”.
A 70 year old action picture is unlikely to generate a lot of interest from the denizens of the CGI-YouTube era and with the left practically owning film studios, a period piece depicting the British Empire suppressing a murderous cult in colonial India is not going to be high on the view lists of professors.
This is a shame because it’s a movie that deserves attention from viewers, not only for conservative themes, but on its technical merits, historical influence, strong cast and the story itself.
Second, consider the scale of the film. Over and over you see groups of hundreds of men in formation, both marching and on horseback with great sweeping views over spectacular landscapes. For people used to CGI it’s quite a change to see real people and real animals reacting in real ways. This is 1939. What we would call “computers” were two to six years in the future and where they would exist was the size of Cuba. If you wanted a shot of a group of men charging on horseback, you needed…a group of men charging on horseback, if you wanted an incredible background vista, you either had to have incredible background paintings, or actually shoot at a such a location. And a fall off a roof meant someone actually had to take that fall or you needed good modeling. For the modern filmmaker or student used to manipulating massive groups with a click of a mouse, the concept of having to control hundreds of men and animals for a shot is way above their pay grade.
Third, check out this cast: Douglas Fairbanks Jr.; a legendary name who, in a few short years after this film would match his on screen valor in actual combat. Victor McLaglen; a two time Oscar winner who had faced two heavyweight champions in the ring and fought in Iraq before he ever appeared in front of a camera, and Cary Grant, acknowledged as one of the greatest actors who ever lived. Talk about holding three aces in a hand.
Finally there is the story, and what a story: After a patrol and a village drops off the map a force is needed to repair the telegraph lines and investigate. Three sergeants freshly pulled from a brawl are assigned to lead the party which includes a regimental bhisti (water bearer) named Gunga Din. While the troops begin repairing the line at the village the sergeants start searching the village and come across some suspicious characters whose arrest is a prelude to an ambush.
After a running fight the sergeants get their surviving troops out and report. Their commanding officer recognizes a captured weapon as a sign of the murderous thuggee cult that the British had suppressed decades ago (funny how things like the thuggee cult, the slave trade, Caribbean piracy and Suttee were all suppressed only by the actions of those evil colonial Brits)
A new advance force is prepared sans Ballantine, (Fairbanks Jr.) who is due to marry and leave the army in six days. In a hilarious scene, Cutter (Grant) & MacChesney (McLaglen) manage to temporarily incapacitate his replacement forcing Ballantine into the expedition. When they reach the village and set camp, Cutter, after being locked up to prevent it, sets off to find a temple of gold that Din, (Sam Jaffe) who dreams of being the company bugler, has told him is nearby. Din and Cutter find the temple beyond a mountain pass which turns out to be the base of a thuggee army they are looking for led by the cult leader (well played by Eduardo Ciannelli). Cutter prepares to send Din back to get with the exit blocked deliberately gets himself captured to clear the way.
With the prospect of his friend in deadly danger, MacChesney sets off with Din after him. Ballantine, end of enlistment or not, insists on joining them over the entreaties of his fiance. (Joan Fontaine, the only cast member still alive). They blunder right into the Guru’s trap hoping to lure the regiment to an ambush in the pass.
The following passages contain major spoilers, if you don’t wish to know how the movie ends, skip the following two paragraphs.
The heroes manage by means of a ruse to grab the guru and find themselves in a Mexican standoff that persists until the guru, after a speech that could have been made by any of the heroes in the pictures, sacrifices himself in order to allow the attack to go forward. With their hostage gone the thuggees take the Brits, bayonetting both Din and Cutter in the process.
The thuggees ignore the wounded Cutter and Din and drag Ballantine & MacChesney to the edge of the parapet to watch the ambush of their regiment. As the guards concentrate on their impending victory, Din, still bleeding from his wounds with bugle in hand slowly climbs to the top of the temple dome and blows “stand to arms”. He is shot down but he manages it long enough for the regiment to deploy, avoiding the trap and allowing the army to rout the thuggees. Din is given a hero’s burial and posthumously made a regimental corporal listed “on the rolls of our honored dead.”
Through the entire picture manly virtue is celebrated: It’s celebrated when the survivors of the first battle, after an arduous trek bearing their wounded, form to march into the camp parade in good order. It’s celebrated as Din, with Cutter’s support, dreams of being a soldier instead of a water bearer. It’s celebrated when Cutter allows himself to be taken so Din can give warning. Ballantine refuses to leave his friend in the lurch even for the woman he loves. Cutter and MacChesney endure torture, Din gives his life to warn the regiment, and even the villain of the piece sacrifices himself in the hope of victory for his cause.
These manly values are not only conservative values, but are instinctive human values that since 9/11 the left has been unable to suppress. It certainly isn’t matched by the left protestors who cry oppression if they are evicted from other people’s property at little personal risk.
But what about colonial cultural inequality? I’m glad you asked, let’s look at the first battle scene again.
While the men are repairing the telegraph wires (and given water by Gunga Din) the sergeants search the village for clue to what happened. Ballantine finds a first a single man then a group he is trying to conceal. When they fail to convince him they are poor villagers who survived the raid, one tries to jump him. He finds himself in an outnumbered brawl. Cutter and MacChesney enter, and rather than drawing weapons join in the brawl till the men are subdued. Our politically correct friends might point to this one might question one European handling a group alone, but only if they didn’t pay attention to the larger British group they handled at the film’s start. When they fail to provide adequate answers, they prepare to take them back when the leader lets out a cry signaling a group of snipers on rooftops to fire and a wave of riders to pounce upon them.
The entire British force other than the sergeants consists of Indian troops, yet nowhere in the scene from the start to the end is there any sense that these troops are different than any other. They fight as a unit, throughout the running battle and retreat through and over the rooftops the town against overwhelming odds. The sergeants lead from the front, take the biggest risks and you will note are the last to make the jump that predated Redford and Newman’s by 30 years. Just before the last of them jumps, he checks on a fallen private soldier to see if he’s can be saved, and when the survivors march into camp, they march in together with heads held high.
There was a time when this message was the norm, and it’s not a coincidence that it was also the time of the greatest generation. When we ceded the culture wars we ceded our message, the message of Judeo Christian values, the message of a shared culture and belief in not only right and wrong but what makes a culture and a people thrive as our forefathers did. If we are unwilling to fight the culture wars by supporting our own cultural message, then we need to remember those who already did so effectively in years gone by.