Iowahawk Gathers The (Barely) Rejected Stories About The Ft Hood Shootings

Big Hollywood Headline Roundup: Troubled American Psychiatrist Allegedly Turns Gun on Warmongers at Ft. Hood

Iowahawk had gathered the first submissions of various newspaper stories in different markets. Most were heavily changed before publication, others not so much.

As usual, Iowahawk provides the answers to questions we never asked, but wish we had.

(Danger! Satire being used on site. May be harmful to those who take themselves much too seriously)

Politically Required Training.

The sham of sex harassment training – Los Angeles Times

The imposition of training that has a political cast violates my academic freedom and my rights as a tenured professor. The university has already nullified my right to supervise my laboratory and the students I teach. It has threatened my livelihood and, ultimately, my position at the university. This for failing to submit to mock training in sexual harassment, a requirement that was never a condition of my employment at the University of California 30 years ago, nor when I came to UCI 11 years ago.Interestingly, I have received many letters of encouragement — about 25% of them from women. The comments have been rich with words like “demeaning,” “oppressive,” “politically driven” and “indoctrination.” Other phrases included “unctuous twaddle” and “sanctimonious half-wits.”

Sexual harassment is a politically charged issue. The people of California have granted no authority to the state to impose narrow political and cultural opinions on individual citizens.

Since I work for a government agency and before that was a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army, I have been forced to participate in a number of training classes that I thought were a waste of time.

Like the Professor, I resented the implication that I was guilty of whatever, and needed such training.

But I was wrong. I have come to realize that my view of such things was skewed. Like most people, I supposed that the purpose of such training was to instruct me in some area where I was deficient. But that is not the case.

The purpose of these training sessions is political. Some interest group or another, in the case of Sexual Harassment Training it would be militant feminists, but it could be the NAACP, had made a lot of noise and convinced some politicians that it was imperative that they “do something.” So they made such training mandatory for government employees. Then the fact that it was embraced by the government meant it spread into the private sector.

The purpose of the training is twofold. First, it gives an appearance of “doing something” which can mollify vocal critics. Secondly, in many cases, but not all, the training requirement has generated demand for people to give the training. In the case of Sexual Harassment it would be militant feminists. But in any case the ones who pushed for the “training” are the same group which ends up giving the “training.”

This also has the side effect of giving these groups access to a captive audience for their message. Whatever that might be.

So you see. The purpose of these mandatory classes is not to correct deficiencies in the conduct of employees, it is to protect the management and buy off critics.

Commenters

On the KGW Channel 8 in Portland’s website there is a comment who recently started showing up in the comments section to various news stories. He is very good.

He writes in the style of the extreme left commenter but if you read his comments closely they resemble Frank J’s “In My World” series which is one of the great satirical series of the Internet.

For example, here is the comment he left on a story regarding the protests againsst Prop 8 in Portland.

Once again this site is overloaded with the Reich-Wing hate from the Judaic/Christian playbook sponsored by the RepubliKKKan monsters who were thankfully cashiered by the enlightened electorate on November 4th.

But then the joyous celebration stopped.

With the exception of Massachusetts and Connecticut, the rest of the country continues to elect the right people, but then does a 180 degree turn and rolls back the clock to the dark days of Jim Crow, Poll taxes, separate toilets and water fountains, and jingoistic patriotic Irving Berlin songs.

What will it take for these homophobic parasites to realize that marriage, as well as morality, is an individual choice fully recognized in our once beloved Constitution?

Only when we can stand proudly before the bar of United Nations approval,and realize that the institution of marriage,like every other racist and deluded idea held so highly by the Neo-Cons who regulate Christianity,is meant to be defined and shared among any person or group that wishes to partake,

If a transgendered person wants to marry him/herself- then who are these brutal Bush/Reagan plutocrats who dare attempt to force their bestial pious will on such a lovely person?

If three, four or eleven people regardless of sexual orientation, want to collectively marry each other, then the Newt Gingrich/Sean Hannity warped view of monogamy must stand aside and make room for the peaceful and beautiful future designed to be shared under the large and colorful rainbow tent of tolerance and diversity.

As I previously stated in other similar posts on this subject, the Courts of California once addressed this travesty by invalidating the RepubliKKKan forced ballot of 2000 where these myopic, merciless and bigoted citizens shamelessly voted 3-1 to cruelly define marriage as between one man and one woman.

I personally would think that such archaic and totalitarian ideas would have disappeared from our culture at the same time that JFK freed the slaves.

Now, covering itself again with disgrace, California, like their progressive brothers and sisters in Florida, pulled the lever once again to ban gay marriage and totally overturn what the Courts had once deemed unconstitutional.

Are we somehow to think that because the majority of voters choose something as immoral as banning gay marriage,that our courts are now rendered prostate and impotent?

It is the duty of the courts to legislate from the bench when the majority has clearly taken a pigheaded path that the members of the minority community don’t agree.

I can only continue to offer my daily chants to His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his retreat in far away Dharamsala, that he will provide the wisdom to President Obama to issue an Executive Order on January 20, 2009 which immediately terminates these notorious and discriminatory ballot measure such as we saw with California’s Measure 8.

What is really hilarious is how many other commenters take him at face value. It’s hard to satirze a bunch of nuts.

Here’s a link to his comments. I think Frank J ought to get him to write a column.

Uprising

Television: Dave Kopel & Glenn Reynolds on Uprising on NRO Weekend

The heroes of Uprising knew this instinctively. From the very beginning of the first episode, they are the ones who warn of the danger, and urge Jews to acquire weapons and fight, while the politicians and “wiser” heads preach prudence and collaboration. And throughout the series, guns, and the acquisition of guns, are portrayed in a positive light, as a means of self-defense and a sign of self-respect.

It reminds me of Winston Churchill’s famous exhortation.


Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.e>

Nazi Literature in the Americas – Roberto Bolaño – Book Review – New York Times

Nazi Literature in the Americas – Roberto Bolaño – Book Review – New York Times

“Nazi Literature in the Americas,” a wicked, invented encyclopedia of imaginary fascist writers and literary tastemakers, is Bolaño playing with sharp, twisting knives. As if he were Borges’s wisecracking, sardonic son, Bolaño has meticulously created a tightly woven network of far-right littérateurs and purveyors of belles lettres for whom Hitler was beauty, truth and great lost hope. Cross-referenced, complete with bibliography and a biographical list of secondary figures, “Nazi Literature” is composed of a series of sketches, the compressed life stories of writers in North and South America who never existed, but all too easily could have. Goose-stepping caricatures à la “The Producers” they are not; instead, they are frighteningly subtle, poignant and plausible. Like Leni Riefenstahl, the artistes Bolaño invents share a certain Romantic aesthetic, a taste for the classic and nonvulgar, a dislike of “cacophony” and a lurking sense that something has gone terribly wrong in the modern world — that children, for instance, have been “stolen and raised by inferior races” and that a better world in the form of the Fourth Reich is imminent. There is little to no mention of Jews or other undesirables; there are no death camps; World War II is a passing reference at best. Instead, with a straight face, Bolaño narrates the Nazi writers’ tireless imaginations, their persistence in the face of a world history that goes against them, their contrarian determination as they continue to write books that go unread, unreviewed and largely unnoticed. They’re the losers but, with incredible passion, they remain steadfastly in denial of that fact, churning away at their refutations of Voltaire, Rousseau and Sartre; their verses vindicating Il Duce; their novels decrying the decline of piety; their Aryan literary societies. Like Riefenstahl, they find the highest beauty in a particular sort of symmetry and order that only in retrospect seems indubitably fascist. Horribly, persistently, they have a vision that they are incapable of giving up.They are, in other words, writers. Substitute, say, “language poetry” for “fascism” and the trajectory of these invented lives would be much the same as they are for the busy networks of real writers Bolaño knew from the inside out. Whereas in “By Night in Chile” Bolaño’s dissection of hypocrisy and bad faith (the main character is a morally bankrupt priest allied with the junta) is swift and merciless, here it is not only as if the writer in him couldn’t keep himself from filigreeing in endless perfect and revealing details about his lost souls and their laughable oeuvres, but also as if he couldn’t entirely resist them. As a fellow traveler, he probably knew only too well what it is to pit the invented world on your ratty pages against the firmly stated values of the real world. The imaginary Ernesto Pérez Masón, who pounds away at his novella that is “an erotic and fiercely anti-U.S.A. fantasy, whose protagonists were General Eisenhower and General Patton”; the mysterious beauty Daniela de Montecristo, who loved Italian and German generals during World War II and wrote an epic novel called “The Amazons”; Max Mirebalais, the ceaseless plagiarist who sought to combine Nazism and negritude: the heinousness of their political philosophy is the only thing that distinguishes them from any writer, anywhere, at any time. Moreover, literature, Bolaño writes, “is a surreptitious form of violence, a passport to respectability, and can, in certain young and sensitive nations, disguise the social climber’s origins.”

The reviewer marvels at the author’s ability to create a set of affluent, well-read Nazi sympathizers who could write play and books celbrating Adolph Hitler while ignoring the preditations of the Nazi system.

He seems to think it takes an inspired imagination to come up with such a premise.

If only that were the case. Not to detract in any way from the talent of Roberto Bolaño, but all that is necessary it to observe the thousands of bright literate people who, to this day, celbrate the professed intentions of Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China and, perhaps the most egregious, Castro’s Cuba.

All Mr. Bolaño needed to do was to look back in the archives of the New York Times, Times, Newsweek and The New Republic and take the hosannas written to the various leftist regimes and alter the names and the object of the adoration from Leftists to Nazis’.

Do that and you have your “heinousness of their political philosophy is the only thing that distinguishes them from any writer, anywhere, at any time.”

But…I Thought Carrying Guns Was Illegal?

Gang mayhem cripples big area – Los Angeles Times

Police blamed the incident on the notorious Avenues gang, which has cast a wide shadow over districts north of downtown L.A. for decades and continues to be active despite several high-profile attempts by authorities to shut it down.

The violence began around noon when a 37-year-old man police described as a bystander was shot more than a dozen times by suspected gang members as he held the hand of a 2-year-old girl. He later died. The toddler, apparently picked up by a passerby and carried to safety, was not wounded. As the gunmen drove off, witnesses told police, several pedestrians who apparently knew the victim opened fire on the car.

Minutes later, police attempted to stop suspects driving in a white Nissan sedan about 10 blocks away. Three men jumped out of the car, and at least two of them fired weapons at officers.

Every time there is a shooting, gun control advocates cry for more restrictions on gun ownership and possession in order to improve “public safety”.

California has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. A carry permit is almost impossible to get unless you are a politician, a celebrity or an advocate for gun control (for every one else). In California you can’t even own an SKS if it has a removable magazine. If you had on when the restriction was passed, you had to turn it in.

But with all those laws and restrictions in place to improve public safety; with the average person have virtually no chance of getting a carry permit; with California being the model for the restrictions that the gun controllers want to put on the rest of the country; just how exactly is it that there is a shootout on a public street? The man who was first shot was holding the hand of a two-year old girl. Obviously the people shooting at him were not concerned with the girl’s safety. I thought the restrictions on gun sales and ownership were put in place in order to keep people who have no regard for the safety of others from having firearms?

It appears that those laws failed miserably.

The “by-standers” who were with the man who got shot had enough firepower to return fire on the car as it drove away. Did you know that police can’t even fire at a fleeing car? Too dangerous to the by-standers. I guess that was not a concern here.

The the police flood the neighborhood. They just came in and locked the place down. I’m not clear about where exactly they get the authority to do that? We can’t listen to people conspiring with known terrorists but the police can take over an entire neighborhood and prevent people from traveling.

Is that legal? What about the civil liberties of the residents? You can’t just assume everyone is a suspect. They were actually asking questions of people who were not suspects in any crime. Good thing places like Portland have Mayor Potter who would never stand for that.

Stand Back! Give The Man Some Air!

There’s something about Berkeley. I think its location in the East Bay places it too close to pollution sources such as Code Pink and Jerry Brown.

Robert Reich, the Clinton Administration Labor Secretary, has been in the area too long. I know of others in the area that have suffered no ill effects, so I think Mr. Reich’s unique position at the level of my sternum has caused him to inhale something that is affecting his brain, if his Op-Ed in the NYT is any example.

Totally Spent – New York Times

The underlying problem has been building for decades. America’s median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Most of what’s been earned in America since then has gone to the richest 5 percent.

Yet the rich devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they’re rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, and thus stimulating the American economy, the rich are more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return.

Read the whole thing. You will find that the economic problems we are having are absolutely unique in history and can only be addressed by forcing “the rich” to move from investing their wealth in businesses where people work, to having their money redistributed to McDonald’s drive through clerks.

What a concept! So much for property rights and due process. Mr. Reich wants to send some goons to your house to hold a gun to your head and take your investments, bank accounts, savings and probably, any jewelry you might have lying around.

This wealth is going to be redistributed to the poor woman who dropped out of school to have 4 kids before she was 24 and has trouble scraping the money together to feed them. She has cigarettes, beer and meth to buy. She needs help, and some jewelry would be nice too.

So Mr. Reich, together with his buddies, who have all had their property seized as well (snicker..as if?), are all going to meet in some normal, all American setting, like Hilton Head Island, Aspen or Martha’s Vineyard, and decide how to correct the income disparities caused by allowing people to make their own way.

This will be a great blow for equality and will also have the effect of forcing foreigners that have invested in American businesses, bonds and government instruments, to dump them as fast as is humanly possible. This will not have any affect on the American economy because…hey…why would anyone invest in the American economy if they’re only going to have their earning seized and doled out to the same people that called in sick twice last week? The only economy left would be the ones run by Organized Crime, because they’re not stupid enough to buy into this “income equality” crap.

Meanwhile Mr. Reich could use his influence to get a job as a McDonald’s drive through clerk, or a CEO. After all, the pay’s the same.

Now That You Ask, The Answer’s “NO”

Does anyone care about the Oscars? – CNN.com

I can’t think of any time in my life where I have give a flying rip about who won the Oscar. OK, maybe when Michael Moore won it, because it was so obviously a political award rather than being based on talent or skill. But other than that, no.

I don’t watch movies often. My wife watches TV constantly since she has been unable to work. She watches AMC, Bravo and the Discovery Channels. I will stick around for the Discovery shows but not the others. Neither of us care about whether a movie won an award or is “important.” In fact, I will go out of my way not to watch “important” movies. That’s why I rarely, if ever, watch Sundance. That channel, and the makers of the movies they put on suffer from elevated pretentiousness.

Hollywood, with few exceptions, has disconnected itself from me, and I don’t miss them a bit.

We’re Going To Pay For What? Why?

Deal afoot to alter Klamath for users – OregonLive.com

Oregon would be asked to contribute lottery funds to help pay for the deal, according to the agreement. California and the U.S. Congress would have to chip in as much as $500 million in “new money” to the deal, with the remainder coming from money already being spent by the states and federal government on the basin.

Included in the agreement is a new 90,000-acre reservation for the Klamath Tribe in Klamath County, where the tribe once had ancestral lands. The tribe, like many other participants in the agreement, sought its own benefits in exchange for agreeing to the overall settlement.

A question for all parties. Members of the Klamath Tribes voted to accept termination of their tribe in return for cash payment from the U.S. Goverment. Are the parties reneging on the deal now? Isn’t this what we used to call, back in the insensative days, “Indian Giving”?

Of the 2,133 members of the Tribe on the final roll, 1,658 voted to withdraw and 77 elected to remain, while 398 didn’t vote in May 1958. Those who did not vote were added to the list of remaining members, except for Edison Chiloquin, who began a lengthy battle to get his own parcel of land instead of continuing to get per capita payments.Those who withdrew from the Tribe got about $43,000. In all, about $70 million was paid out in 1961.

Are the tribal members going to pay back that money now? Or does this mean that the people of the United States, having bought the land from the tribe once, now have to pay to replace the land they bought in 1961? If so, the $43,000 paid in 1961 is now $282,759.63 and $70 million is $460,306,381.20.

Before termination, Bureau of Indian Affairs officials and political activists who wanted Indians to be freed from the bonds of federal paternalism had told members of Congress that timber wealth made the Klamath Tribe ripe for termination. They said the Tribe could support itself on its own timber money.

Are the Klamath Tribes now arguing that they are in fact unable to care for themselves without the “Great White Father” and were stupid and gullible when they took the money and want the BIA back? Do they think this going to work out better than the present situation on most reservations where alcohol and drug abuse are rampant, and unemployment is the norm rather than the exception?