Escalation And Hammurabi

I can’t find the link to the correct Jordan Peterson talk, but he talks about what happens if someone kills your son, so you kill his wife and daughter, then he kills your sister, cousin, brother and mother, and so on, with escalating results until you have complete chaos and a bloodbath.

As Peterson explains it, the law is there to punish the guilty, protect society, avenge the innocent and — just as importantly — take away your responsibility of vengeance.

Hammurabic law postulated, among other things, that if a judge wrongly convicted a man to death, the judge had to be hanged too — thus making the decision important not just to the family of the wrongly convicted, but to the law and its enforcers.

In Mario Puzo’s The Godfather, when the undertaker’s teenage daughter is raped and beaten up by a group of young men, and the young men are set free without serious punishment, the undertaker says to Don Corleone (and I paraphrase):  “The young men were freed by the law — but there was no justice for my daughter.”

Let me apply all three principles to our world today.

We all know that several criminals have been released from prison after a minimal period of incarceration, or freed by Soros prosecutors / liberal justices with minimal or no bail, and these criminals have gone on to commit the same, equivalent or even worse crimes soon thereafter — sometimes within hours of release.

They, in other words, have benefited from the law (whether rightly or wrongly applied is irrelevant, the outcome is the same), but their victims have received no justice.

Under Hammurabic law, the prosecutors would themselves be imprisoned / executed for the subsequent murders;  the parole boards would be likewise punished for the crimes committed by the freed parolees.  But of course, we know that sadly, none of this will ever happen (unless I become World Emperor, in which case…).

So while the law has been ignored, misapplied, twisted, or even broken, the victims of these crimes have received no justice from the judicial system and its agents.

Now remember this part:  “the law is there to… take away your responsibility of vengeance”?

At some point soon, it will come as no surprise to me that the families of victims may seek to take revenge — in the absence of the law’s application — upon the people who are responsible for the criminals’ actions:  prosecutors, judges, parole board members, whoever.  And it will be no use wringing hands and wailing about people “taking the law into their own hands” or “becoming a lynch mob” or anything like that, because when the law breaks down and does not fulfill any of its duties to society, ordinary people are going to seek their own vengeance.

What’s more, I will refuse to condemn their actions, because as far as I’m concerned, these legal charlatans deserve their fate, all of it.  It’s not even a question of saying, “Well, I deplore their actions but I sympathize with their feelings.”

I’m going to applaud their actions, because at the end, what alternatives did they have?

I just feel sorry for the people who are going to be driven to exact the vengeance that the law failed or refused to provide, because they are going to be fully punished, you betcha.

This dam is going to burst, and it’s going to happen sooner than anyone thinks.

Growing Skin

…and I’m not talking about that skin, either.

One of the nicest things about the game of golf is that it’s a gentle one — no bodies crashing against each other, no feats of strength, no slam-dunks or soaring home runs:  just quiet, delicate and deliberate movements.

Which also applies to the subtle art of gamesmanship.  No in-your-face screaming “Bring It On!”, chest-thumping or trying to put your opponent off his shot;  just quiet, subtle digs designed to get inside his head to make him change his game, to his disadvantage or your advantage.

I remember once mis-hitting a drive which just managed to stay on the fairway, but only went for about 150 yards — whereupon my opponent asked disingenuously:  “Does your husband also play golf?” implying, of course, that I hit like a girl.

And before anyone thinks that this kind of remark is in any way demeaning to women — it isn’t, because the fact of the matter is that women can’t hit the ball as far as a man can, which is why all golf courses have a “Ladies Tee” in each hole, usually many yards closer to the fairway and green than those used by men.

So when Tiger Woods (47) surreptitiously handed his opponent Justin Thomas (29) a tampon after his drive had traveled further than the younger man’s, everyone knew exactly what he was doing:  teasing Thomas, and playing a little gamesmanship.

Did I say everyone?   Perish the thought.  Of course, Feministicals International went berserk, calling Woods a misogynist and his actions “demeaning” and “disrespectful” to Womyns Everywhere.  FFS, here’s some rancid cow’s take:

She then queried if he was implying ‘periods are embarrassing or shameful or a sign of weakness?’

No he didn’t do that, dumbass.  He was teasing his buddy, and nothing more.  It’s a golfing tradition which goes back probably over a hundred years.  Oh gawd, I can hear the cries now:  “Well, it’s a tradition that has no place in today’s game!”

Fuck you, Sheila.  If you want us to take you seriously, stop getting so upset by something so unimportant.

Stop acting like a little girl, in other words, and grow some skin.

So these humorless fucks — girlymen and womyns alike — are going to try to take Tiger down (again) for being such a pig.

Fortunately, there’s one woman with a bit of commonsense:  Paige Spirinac, who uttered the immortal words:

‘If anyone tries to cancel Tiger over this, we riot!’

…adding the priceless (and true) comment:

‘It’s funny!”

For that down-to-earth attitude, young Paige gets more than just a mention:

Clearly, she understands the situation and has the perfect response:

‘Instead of women being outraged by Tiger and the tampon, I would love for them to actually provide ideas to help,’ she tweeted. ‘ For example I would have [Tampax] team up with the PGA tour to run a campaign where they provide free feminine products at golf courses.  Most don’t actually have them and during long rounds it can be a problem for us.’

Turning outrage into marketing — now that’s a Real Woman’s response.

Question Answered

…the question being: “Kim, are you really that old-fashioned?”  upon reading the following:


…and realizing that I last used the phrase in a conversation with my sister as late as last year — with both of us understanding its meaning precisely.  (So did New Wife, by the way, when I asked her if she understood it.  She still uses it, occasionally.)

It is, by the way, a wonderful expression in that it acknowledges a feeling (melancholy) without taking it too seriously (i.e. by giving it a self-deprecating nickname).

Also by the way, I much prefer “melancholy” over “depression”.  Depression is a longtime (and potentially life-threatening) illness, whereas melancholy is just an attack of the blahs, easily remedied by the purchase of a new gun, reading a good book or listening to anything not composed by Igor Stravinsky or John Cage.

Speed Bump #2,701

I heartily agree with the sentiment, but:

Is it “Males Out Of Female Jails” or “Men Out Of Women’s Jails”?

MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS

(Given the fact that “male” and “female” are adjectives FFS, the truly correct terminology in the former would be “Male Prisoners Out Of Female Jails” (which scans really nicely) — but that wouldn’t fit on the sign, would it, and by all means let’s not allow linguistic clarity and rhythm to crowd the real estate.)

Another gin, Kim?  Why yes, I think I will.