Overreach Against The 1st Amendment

     Drawings are not people and people with drawings shouldn’t be treated like someone who hurts an actual child. One might think that this makes obvious sense, but then one likely isn’t an elected politician.

     Your humble author has warned about censorious overreach:

“A clear example of this conflation comes from a The Daily Signal article by Tony Kinnett. Much of the article quite rightfully goes after LGBTQ&c. propaganda that tries to normalize kinky sex and transgendersim amongst elementary school children and earlier—often as part of formal classroom teaching materials—but conflates that with a Seinen Japanese Manga that has nothing to do with wokeness, LGBTQ&c. ideology, or even promoting anything sexually deviant (or really anything sexual at all).

“Why did they lump in a manga adaptation and interpretation of a popular light novel series with clearly pro-woke propaganda? Boobies. [sic] And that it showed evil goblins attacking females (but never showing the actual sexual assault). This does not and can not normalize anything sexual, deviant or otherwise, when it shows rape to be absolutely evil and the rapist as needing to be killed for their evil. There is more focus on the horror and evil of rape and especially of the lasting psychological damage that a rape survivor experiences.”

     Under SB20 in Texas, as enrolled, an “obscene” drawing of a character that subjectively appears to be under 18 will result in a “jail felony” which mandates that “first-time offenders convicted under this law to a minimum of five years in prison, simply for owning or viewing such material”. It reads, in part:

“(b) A person commits an offense if the person: (1)   knowingly possesses, accesses with intent to view, or promotes obscene visual material containing a depiction that appears to be of a child younger than 18 years of age engaging in activities described by Section 43.21(a)(1)(B), regardless of whether the depiction is an image of an actual child, a cartoon or animation, or an image created using an artificial intelligence application or other computer software”

     Note that a sexy photograph of an adult with a petite or youthful body is considered less egregious than a drawing of the same person, as the bill goes on to talk about using “an image of an actual child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image was made”, but not actual photos of youthful looking adults—a distinction not made with… drawings.

     Under this Texas law, the aforementioned Goblin Slayer could get someone sent to jail on sex crimes charges, since fifteen is considered the age of majority for humans in Goblin Slayer and the minimum age to be an adventurer… and goblins are noted to attack newly minted adventurers. Even more ridiculous is the the idea of a person being sent to jail for having a drawing of a flat-chested elf, over a millennium old, in a bikini.

She’s over 2000 years old. If anything, the FBI should be protecting you from being taken advantage of by her.

     To put it simply, a drawing isn’t a real person, adult or child, and drawing do not have human rights nor are capable of crimes being committed against them.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

News of the Week (June 8th, 2025)

 

News of the Week for June 8th, 2025


Continue reading

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Leave a comment

Firing Line Friday: What Does PEN Have to Offer?

     In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.

     The question of art and oppression, of description or proscription, is long an ongoing question.   Let us look back forty-years ago when Norman Mailer and Kurt Vonnegut, who were raising money for the New York conference of PEN (the international society of poets, essayists, editors, and novelists) discuss with William F. Buckley, Jr. the question of what does PEN have to offer?

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

Quick Takes – Euthanasia Expanding Everywhere: Extreme Laws In France; A Human Right In Estonia; MAID For Kids in Manitoba

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: Everywhere death spreads, normalized.

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

Death, Rx

     France seems to be hell bent on going all out with euthanasia, or nearly so.

“French MPs are preparing to vote on a law that would legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide. In the final days of the parliamentary debate, as the proposal’s provisions were reviewed, some of the most outrageous articles were discussed and, unfortunately, many were adopted.

“For several days, the voices denouncing the text have been growing. The proposal that MPs are preparing to vote on will make France one of the most permissive countries in this area, alongside countries that have sunk into increasingly serious abuses of ‘assisted dying,’ such as Canada and Belgium.

“Based on the model that already exists for abortion, a ‘crime of obstruction’ has been created, which will allow the prosecution of anyone who wishes to prevent or attempt to prevent euthanasia, whether by action, words, or access to information. Deterring a suffering loved one from receiving a lethal injection could earn you up to two years in prison and a €30,000 fine. The penalty sought is even larger than the one for abortion.

“Conversely, the symmetrical possibility of a ‘crime of incitement to euthanasia,’ i.e., the act of pushing someone to request death, has not been retained, even though experience in other countries has shown that psychological, family, and financial pressures abound for those who are considering assisted suicide.”

Continue reading

Posted in Healthcare, Progressives | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Blowing Up The Rules

     Increasingly, we are seeing more and more people declare that “there are no rules” and that we must “fight like the Left” to the point of adopting Leftist thinking and frameworks, both of which are necessary prerequisites to engage in “tactics” of Gramsci, Marcuse, or Alinsky. The line of “thinking” is that everything has already been blown up by the Left so that we have to “join ‘em to beat ‘em” at their own game. That this ignores the little fact that the “rules for radicals” or “repressive tolerance” are tailor made to achieve goals antithetical to America seems beyond too many who foolishly believe that they can highjack the immanentization to steer it towards their own chosen eschaton, by sheer manliness or oracular intervention.

     To put it bluntly, NO, Marx or his pseudo-intellectual dependents did not have any “good ideas” or any “good points”/insights into society or power. In reality, the adoption of Leftist thinking is nothing less than a triumph for the Left, for the Right has become them… the debate merely one of who is the bolshevik and who is the menshevik.

     What the Gramscians did is replace the old with their framework via the “Long March Through The Institutions”, waiting for the Right get frustrated and toss out “the rules”. The Right only had superficial normalcy left; without those rules, they had only that new framework left—the framework of, by, and for the Left.

     Totalitarian is, ultimately, in the mind, and one can’t break free because of internal capture, and nothing underlying to replace it. The superficial means nothing, at that point, at least nothing of true value or worth.

     Many on the Right, purported or otherwise, only opposed things because they were outside that superficial layer of normalcy. It was alien only because it was alien and due to the momentum and habit, once it became normal in society it became normal for them individually, because the underlying fundamentals upon which lay “normalcy” had changed.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Washington State’s War On Clergy

     Privilege communications are generally excluded from admissible evidence and those individuals who receive such privilege communications are exempt from being forced to testify in trials or otherwise give evidence. There are arguments that at least in some cases, such privilege should not be allowed.

     However, the state of Washington’s approach is now to affirm that privilege… with the explicitly called out exception of members of the clergy. HB 5375 explicitly excluded clergy from the allowance given to privileged communications. The law was amended to, in part, read, with deleted text in strikeout text and new text underlined:

“((No)) Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be 11 required to report under this section when he or she obtains the 12 information solely as a result of a privileged communication as 13 provided in RCW 5.60.060.”

     They were further explicitly added to the limited list of mandated reporters:

“(1)(a) When any member of the clergy, practitioner, county 25 coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional 26 school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service 27 counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of 28 children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care 29 providers or their employees, employee of the department of social 30 and health services, juvenile probation officer, diversion unit 31 staff, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills 32 program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children’s ombuds 33 or any volunteer in the ombuds’ office, or host home program has 34 reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or 35 neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to 36 be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as 37 provided in RCW 26.44.040.”

     If this were a more general revision, then whether such revision were inclusive regardless of religious elements, that’s be a different discussion. But this is specifically targeting people based on religion.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , | 1 Comment

News of the Week (June 1st, 2025)

 

News of the Week for June 1st, 2025


Continue reading

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Leave a comment

Firing Line Friday: Three Approaches to Terrorists

     In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.

     From Al Qaeda on 9/11 to Hamas on 10/7, and far too much in between, the 21st Century has been as rife with terrorism as the 20th. Let us look back forty years ago where the question of what to do about terrorism is debated by William F. Buckley, Jr., Brian Michael Jenkins, E. C. Ackerman, Ariel Merari, and three approaches to terrorists discussed.

     Until next Friday.

Posted in War & Terror | Tagged | 1 Comment

The Woke Way Of Thinking

     Wokeness is a way of thinking and a framework built on false premises whereby any analyses stemming therefrom are fundamentally flawed. Ultimately, it is designed to steer one to a predetermined conclusion, with only the details to be filled in, like some type of philosophical MadLibs. For example:

     In it’s ultimate form, it is Kyriarchy, which could be said to be “Critical Consciousness to intersecting systems of oppression”. And wokeness is wokeness regardless of which classes/groups are in which part of the MadLibs.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Violating The 2nd Amendment For Wrongthink, Ex Post Facto

     In the United States of America, it is not a crime to commit “wrongthink” and you can’t have your inalienable rights taken away because of it. However you can have your rights stripped away because your commission of “wrongthink” made a crime worse and and made you eligible for stripping you of your rights when merely being convicted of the crime, per se, could not. SB 89, which has just been passed by the Nevada Legislature, does exactly that, and reads in part:

202.360 1. A person shall not purchase, own or have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm if the person

[…]

(g) Has been convicted of committing or attempting to commit a hate crime involving violence

     But oh, it gets worse, especially for people who don’t even commit any included crime in the future…

     The bill declares that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime in Nevada, for Nevada to strip you of your Constitutional Right within the state:

(2) An offense under the laws of the United States or any state, territory or district:

(I) An element of which is that the conduct of the offender was motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of another person or group of persons; or

(II) For which a court of competent jurisdiction imposed an additional penalty pursuant to a finding that the conduct of the offender was motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of another person or group of persons.

     But at least this won’t be retroactive, because ex post facto laws are Unconstitutional, right?

      Continue reading

Posted in Gun Rights | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment