In honor of our historically-challenged President's belief that Emperor Hirohito signed the Japanese surrender in front of General Washington on the deck of the Titanic in Montego Bay, we come again to the 68th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. A day that other socialist-cult-of-personality-figurehead (F.D.R.) referred to as "A Day which will live...in infamy...". Obama thinks "A Day which will live in infamy" refers to the day that Canada became the 57th state (that Harvard Education is somethin', aint it?) so of course he can be forgiven for not seeing the parallels between 1941 and 2009.
In 1941, the United States was confronted by an alien culture convinced of it's innate superiority, and determined to find it's 'rightful place' in the world, even though doing so meant the abolition of freedom, security and life for millions. Their religious belief told them that they were a chosen race, the virtuous children of the gods, infallible, superior to the dishonorable 'barbarian races' of the West, with their love of technology, money and their decadent pursuit of comfort.
And so, Japan embarked on a program of national aggrandizement and enrichment that led to conflict with the United States, and took the lives of untold millions in China, South East Asia, Korea, Manchuria, India, Burma, the Pacific Atolls and Archipelagos, Australia, and eventually, Japan itself. It's first intended act was a strike against the United States Navy that was the only instrument in the Pacific capable of putting up any resistance to the Japanese steamroller.
Twenty-nine ships were damaged or sunk at their moorings. Over 200 aircraft were destroyed. 2,400 Americans lost their lives. A nation was plunged into war.
On September 11, 2001, the United States was once again confronted by an alien culture convinced of it's innate superiority, and determined to find it's 'rightful place' in the world, even though doing so meant the abolition of freedom, security and life for millions.Their religious belief told them that they were a chosen race, the virtuous children of the gods, infallible, superior to the dishonorable 'barbarian races' of the West, with their love of technology, money and their decadent pursuit of comfort.
And so, the Muslims have embarked on a program of cultural aggrandizement and enrichment that led to conflict with the United States, and which takes the form of a nuclear Iran, unchecked Muslim immigration into a Europe, the culture of which is slowly being denuded by the steady advance of Sharia. It extends to the elaborate 'lawfare' and welfare scams of Canada, where those who enter come merely to take from others -- but not to join peacefully with them -- settle comfortably, protected by speech codes and government regulations. It's come to America where a man can behead his wife or kill his daughter because his religion says his honor demands it, or maybe have the Army pay his way through medical school so that he can then slaughter his fellow soldiers. Shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while he does it, but we're not supposed to point to the common, Islamic thread that runs through it all. We'd be racists if we did.
Nineteen Islamic lunatics slammed hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and a third plane was prevented from hitting it's still-unknown target by the bravery and sacrifice of the passengers themselves. A nation was plunged into two wars.
The Japanese showed a great deal of tenacity in war, willingly going to death in suicide attacks, sacrificing blood and bodies for time. They felt they could make the war so terribly bloody that we decadent Westerners would finally just get sick of it and sue for peace on terms favorable to them. They did not surrender easily (or much), and it eventually took a combination of events which together were so monumental -- the atomic bombs, coupled with the loss of Manchuria to the Soviets -- that surrender only became an option when their leadership finally lost the heart and will to continue the fight. And even then, when the rumors of surrender began, there was a palace coup against the Emperor (the very incarnation of God himself!) that finally only failed because of one of those uniquely Japanese cultural conundrums: The generals were willing to overthrow their Emperor for the sake of going down fighting like true Samurai, but when the time came to actually do it, no one would commit the sin of waking the Son of God up in order to arrest him.
The Islamofascists in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq also show a great deal of tenacity in war, willingly going to death in suicide attacks, sacrificing blood and bodies for time. They think they could make the war so terribly bloody that we decadent Westerners will finally just get sick of it and sue for peace on terms favorable to them. They surrender easily, however, because like all bullies, they can only threaten and wave their fists from a position of strength. Beneath it all, they're really goat-herding pansies. It will eventually take a massive and bloody defeat that is so overwhelming and so utterly lays bare the shortcomings of their culture and system that surrender becomes the only viable alternative to utter destruction. And even then, some will continue the fight, too stupid to know any better, and others will continue the fight amongst themselves, blaming and killing each other for being insufficiently pious enough to defeat the inferior Westerner. It's been that way with them since Xerxes sat on the beach overlooking the Battle of Salamis; Islam merely made the Royal Persian aversion to facing obvious truths a universal institution.
President Obama should pay attention that sort of history, the kind that repeats itself, and not the made-up shit he learned at Harvard. Sometimes, in order to defeat a committed enemy, you have to do some really nasty things. Thirty-thousand men with an expiration date, and letting the craziest and most reckless of your enemies develop nuclear weapons simply doesn't cut it.
Monday, December 07, 2009
They Should Throw the Pigs at The Muslims, Instead...
Check out what the U.S. Military is doing in the world of medicine.
This sort of thing would never be funded in a government-controled "Healthcare" system.
Yeah,. yeah, yeah, I know the Pentagon is part of the government -- so spare me the "you're making no sense" e-mails.
My point is that , under a potential Obamacare regime, if medical research/technology is deemed beneficial to the State, it would be funded (because saving the lives of soldiers who may return to battle, or providing a President who doesn't care about the troops the opportunity to loudly exclaim "I care about the Troops!", even when he truly doesn't, or sending out fewer chain-letters of condolences, is seen as beneficial to the powers that be. It's good P.R.).
If the technology were made more widely available -- say, a cheaper, just-as-effective version were to be made for use by paramedics and other first-responders -- well, that might just throw the healtchcare budget out of whack, as many more accident, domestic violence, stabbing, slashing, beating, burn, and gunshot victims might actually survive. Those survivors would then eat up government-rationed resources.
And that would leave less money for late-term abortions, free dental for illegal immigrants, and killing senior citizens.
Discuss.
This sort of thing would never be funded in a government-controled "Healthcare" system.
Yeah,. yeah, yeah, I know the Pentagon is part of the government -- so spare me the "you're making no sense" e-mails.
My point is that , under a potential Obamacare regime, if medical research/technology is deemed beneficial to the State, it would be funded (because saving the lives of soldiers who may return to battle, or providing a President who doesn't care about the troops the opportunity to loudly exclaim "I care about the Troops!", even when he truly doesn't, or sending out fewer chain-letters of condolences, is seen as beneficial to the powers that be. It's good P.R.).
If the technology were made more widely available -- say, a cheaper, just-as-effective version were to be made for use by paramedics and other first-responders -- well, that might just throw the healtchcare budget out of whack, as many more accident, domestic violence, stabbing, slashing, beating, burn, and gunshot victims might actually survive. Those survivors would then eat up government-rationed resources.
And that would leave less money for late-term abortions, free dental for illegal immigrants, and killing senior citizens.
Discuss.
Tiger the Tiger...
This says more than I really wanted to know.
I mean, as if hating Tiger Woods for being rich beyond all his true relevance wasn't enough, now you have to hear he's hung like a bear and has the stamina of a wolverine.
There are probably hundreds of bimbos lining up right now to expose ever more of Tiger's dirty laundry. I have no sympathy whatsoever. We've all fucked up at one time or another, and I can remember very few people being sympathetic to me when I did it, so I figure I'm just passing on a great American tradition of pointing and jumping up and down, while adding nothing constructive or redemptive to the conversation.
I'm laughing by balls off at him, though. And that's before we get to the S&M allegations.
I find Tiger's so-called taste in mistresses somewhat strange, but comprehensible. They all seem to have the same qualities about them; they're convenient, they make themselves so, they all seem to believe they're just a heartbeat away from becoming the next Mrs. Woods (which makes them stupid), they're absolute dingbats with obvious self-esteem problems, complete with flashing lights and blaring sirens..
Tiger made the mistake most super-wealthy men with power issues and wandering penises make; they screw whatever comes to hand...as it were. And much of what comes to hand is actually thrown at them by virtue of their power or fame, by women who usually are dumb as a post (easy to take advantage of), suffering from some form of mental defect (they're needy and desperate), or who know exactly what they're doing and will milk it for personal gain the second you show a sign of weakness (the most dangerous ones of all). The Powerful Male decides that whatever their actual motivation, they are simply a place he can park his dick when he wants to, and that they can later be discarded, sent packing or paid off whenever he's done with them. What does he care? They are simply subjects to him; they are something that he desires and can easily have. Lesser beings who's proper place is to worship and serve him. He has no real respect or feelings for them. The hair pulling and domination thing this latest woman talks about is a classic example; it's all about having and exercising power over another.
In this regard, at least, there is little difference between Tiger Woods, and say, Henry VIII, except that none of the 'Other Women' have been killed for becoming suddenly inconvenient.
Last night, I was watching Geraldo on Fox News, and there was an interesting segment about the reaction of black women to the Tiger Woods scandal, particularly, insofar as all of Tiger's mistresses appear to be white women. Black women seem to be feeling left out. "How come Tiger has no black bimbos?" they want to know.
Actually, I think they do know...and it still makes them jealous. But ladies, really, just what are you jealous of? You should be jealous of someone this shallow, that knowingly engages in an affair with a married man, and then gets herself a lawyer afterwards? You should be jealous of a woman who pours her heart out to the New York Post in a manner that describes her as little more than a handy sperm receptacle and convenient object of abuse? You're jealous of a bunch of women who are so down on themselves that they have to steal another woman's husband and bask in the glow of his fame in order to feel good about themselves -- and then get unceremoniously dumped, or exposed to public ridicule for it?
Successful black men go for the Forbidden Fruit of White Women to symbolize their rise in what's perceived as a racist society, just as Successful White Men hunt down Asian women to symbolize their conquest of the exotic, or Muslims and Japanese crave blonds. Every race/ethnic group has it's own Mandingo-like theme going on. I think we can be honest about that. Besides, these women are not people to Tiger; they are simply trophies, like a moose head on the wall, or a notch in the belt, and that's when they aren't just a tool to get his freak on....and then leave.
Besides, Black Ladies, that Forbidden Fruit thing works in reverse, too. I know plenty of good white men who would fall for a good black woman in a heartbeat, so why fixate on why Tiger doesn't seem to want you as merely one of his concubines?
Right now, even with all his money, all his stamina, and his apparently-humongous tallywhacker, I wouldn't want to be Tiger Woods at all. He's been exposed; his deepest, most personal secrets are being aired in the public domain. His wife has grounds for both divorce and extortion. There's people laughing at him for his plight, and his choice of women. The Press (such as it is) is at his door 24/7. He's probably mad as hell at himself (not for cheating, because I think his ego really is that inflated, but for getting caught). I'd be frightened shitless that the worst is yet to come, if I were him.
And he's probably right about that. There could be a baby mama out there, somewhere...
Start praying, Tiger, and let this be a lesson to you about keeping your pants on.
I mean, as if hating Tiger Woods for being rich beyond all his true relevance wasn't enough, now you have to hear he's hung like a bear and has the stamina of a wolverine.
There are probably hundreds of bimbos lining up right now to expose ever more of Tiger's dirty laundry. I have no sympathy whatsoever. We've all fucked up at one time or another, and I can remember very few people being sympathetic to me when I did it, so I figure I'm just passing on a great American tradition of pointing and jumping up and down, while adding nothing constructive or redemptive to the conversation.
I'm laughing by balls off at him, though. And that's before we get to the S&M allegations.
I find Tiger's so-called taste in mistresses somewhat strange, but comprehensible. They all seem to have the same qualities about them; they're convenient, they make themselves so, they all seem to believe they're just a heartbeat away from becoming the next Mrs. Woods (which makes them stupid), they're absolute dingbats with obvious self-esteem problems, complete with flashing lights and blaring sirens..
Tiger made the mistake most super-wealthy men with power issues and wandering penises make; they screw whatever comes to hand...as it were. And much of what comes to hand is actually thrown at them by virtue of their power or fame, by women who usually are dumb as a post (easy to take advantage of), suffering from some form of mental defect (they're needy and desperate), or who know exactly what they're doing and will milk it for personal gain the second you show a sign of weakness (the most dangerous ones of all). The Powerful Male decides that whatever their actual motivation, they are simply a place he can park his dick when he wants to, and that they can later be discarded, sent packing or paid off whenever he's done with them. What does he care? They are simply subjects to him; they are something that he desires and can easily have. Lesser beings who's proper place is to worship and serve him. He has no real respect or feelings for them. The hair pulling and domination thing this latest woman talks about is a classic example; it's all about having and exercising power over another.
In this regard, at least, there is little difference between Tiger Woods, and say, Henry VIII, except that none of the 'Other Women' have been killed for becoming suddenly inconvenient.
Last night, I was watching Geraldo on Fox News, and there was an interesting segment about the reaction of black women to the Tiger Woods scandal, particularly, insofar as all of Tiger's mistresses appear to be white women. Black women seem to be feeling left out. "How come Tiger has no black bimbos?" they want to know.
Actually, I think they do know...and it still makes them jealous. But ladies, really, just what are you jealous of? You should be jealous of someone this shallow, that knowingly engages in an affair with a married man, and then gets herself a lawyer afterwards? You should be jealous of a woman who pours her heart out to the New York Post in a manner that describes her as little more than a handy sperm receptacle and convenient object of abuse? You're jealous of a bunch of women who are so down on themselves that they have to steal another woman's husband and bask in the glow of his fame in order to feel good about themselves -- and then get unceremoniously dumped, or exposed to public ridicule for it?
Successful black men go for the Forbidden Fruit of White Women to symbolize their rise in what's perceived as a racist society, just as Successful White Men hunt down Asian women to symbolize their conquest of the exotic, or Muslims and Japanese crave blonds. Every race/ethnic group has it's own Mandingo-like theme going on. I think we can be honest about that. Besides, these women are not people to Tiger; they are simply trophies, like a moose head on the wall, or a notch in the belt, and that's when they aren't just a tool to get his freak on....and then leave.
Besides, Black Ladies, that Forbidden Fruit thing works in reverse, too. I know plenty of good white men who would fall for a good black woman in a heartbeat, so why fixate on why Tiger doesn't seem to want you as merely one of his concubines?
Right now, even with all his money, all his stamina, and his apparently-humongous tallywhacker, I wouldn't want to be Tiger Woods at all. He's been exposed; his deepest, most personal secrets are being aired in the public domain. His wife has grounds for both divorce and extortion. There's people laughing at him for his plight, and his choice of women. The Press (such as it is) is at his door 24/7. He's probably mad as hell at himself (not for cheating, because I think his ego really is that inflated, but for getting caught). I'd be frightened shitless that the worst is yet to come, if I were him.
And he's probably right about that. There could be a baby mama out there, somewhere...
Start praying, Tiger, and let this be a lesson to you about keeping your pants on.
Changing the Rules As You Go...
The Democratic National Committee (a.k.a The Politburo) is considering changing it's primary schedule and processes in the hopes of 'improving' the method by which it nominates a Presidential candidate.
Because, you know, the old system was soooo wildly successful. If I were The Great Hopenchanger, I'd be outraged and insulted by the implication.
You can read about it, here. (Credit to CNN).
They claim that now is the time to change the system because...they don't expect a challenger to Obama for the 2012 primary season. Yeah, right.
I'll bet there's a whole mess of folks in the DNC right now who are absolutely flabbergasted that Hillary didn't win, and the reasons she didn't win need to be fixed, pronto, so that she can win next time. They want more control over the caucus system (which Obama dominated and abused), they want to settle the dispute about which states vote when (Michigan could have propelled Hillary, except that primary didn't count...and then it did, but then only partially...), and they want a winner take all system (because Obama somehow managed to still garner more delegates in several states that Hillary actually won).
Things are going to get very interesting over on the other side. I wonder when the last time a sitting Secretary of State ran against a Sitting Placeholder....err...President? Probably sometime back in the 1800's, for sure. It should be interesting to listen to Hillary use the Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders...I was a loyal to my Furher and Country...") when in the first debate about foreign policy she is asked to explain why she followed the Administration Line when her new diametrically-opposed-primary-focus-group-tested foreign policy philosophy first gets trotted out.
Because, you know, the old system was soooo wildly successful. If I were The Great Hopenchanger, I'd be outraged and insulted by the implication.
You can read about it, here. (Credit to CNN).
They claim that now is the time to change the system because...they don't expect a challenger to Obama for the 2012 primary season. Yeah, right.
I'll bet there's a whole mess of folks in the DNC right now who are absolutely flabbergasted that Hillary didn't win, and the reasons she didn't win need to be fixed, pronto, so that she can win next time. They want more control over the caucus system (which Obama dominated and abused), they want to settle the dispute about which states vote when (Michigan could have propelled Hillary, except that primary didn't count...and then it did, but then only partially...), and they want a winner take all system (because Obama somehow managed to still garner more delegates in several states that Hillary actually won).
Things are going to get very interesting over on the other side. I wonder when the last time a sitting Secretary of State ran against a Sitting Placeholder....err...President? Probably sometime back in the 1800's, for sure. It should be interesting to listen to Hillary use the Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders...I was a loyal to my Furher and Country...") when in the first debate about foreign policy she is asked to explain why she followed the Administration Line when her new diametrically-opposed-primary-focus-group-tested foreign policy philosophy first gets trotted out.
But it's Not Like the Press is Biased or Something...
The Politico runs this little thing this morning about the travails of one Mara Liasson, a correspondent for National Public Radio, and staple of Fox News. Ms. (Mrs?) Liasson has been asked by NPR to re-consider her relationship with Fox News because, according to NPR, Fox is little more than a bullhorn for the Republican Party. This is a charge which was first floated by Anita Dunn (devotee of Mao and Mother Theresa), once President Obama's Communications Director, and by that asshole Obama sends out every afternoon to speak a steady stream of crapspeak...what the hell is his name again? Oh yeah, Robert Gibbs.
Now, the good folks at NPR hint that this whole 're-evaluation' thing is merely something Mara should do as a matter of journalistic integrity, but it's clear they wish her to sever her ties with Fox entirely, and there is a veiled hint of intimidation. One gets the impression that here is an implied threat.
Which is laughable. Because if NPR thinks it has as much clout, money, power or influence than Fox News, they're smoking something funny. If given a choice between being under contract to Fox or NPR, which to you seems the better career move?
I wonder, did they have the same conversation with Juan Williams? I would wonder which liberal taboos such action would violate, but given the history of the last election, it's obvious that liberals would rather stick it to a woman (figuratively) than to a black man, as black men are higher up on the victimhood scale. (NOTE: That was sarcasm. I happen to personally like both Williams and Liasson on TV. I find them to be at least honest and earnest correspondents).
Far from criticizing Fox for spouting the Republican line, perhaps NPR ought to be looking at it's own behavior for obvious signs of fascism. It is doing exactly what it accuses (falsely) it's opponents of doing, and doesn't recognize the obvious hypocrisy.
I'd say shame on NPR, but liberals (small 'l' intentional) never display that capacity.
Now, the good folks at NPR hint that this whole 're-evaluation' thing is merely something Mara should do as a matter of journalistic integrity, but it's clear they wish her to sever her ties with Fox entirely, and there is a veiled hint of intimidation. One gets the impression that here is an implied threat.
Which is laughable. Because if NPR thinks it has as much clout, money, power or influence than Fox News, they're smoking something funny. If given a choice between being under contract to Fox or NPR, which to you seems the better career move?
I wonder, did they have the same conversation with Juan Williams? I would wonder which liberal taboos such action would violate, but given the history of the last election, it's obvious that liberals would rather stick it to a woman (figuratively) than to a black man, as black men are higher up on the victimhood scale. (NOTE: That was sarcasm. I happen to personally like both Williams and Liasson on TV. I find them to be at least honest and earnest correspondents).
Far from criticizing Fox for spouting the Republican line, perhaps NPR ought to be looking at it's own behavior for obvious signs of fascism. It is doing exactly what it accuses (falsely) it's opponents of doing, and doesn't recognize the obvious hypocrisy.
I'd say shame on NPR, but liberals (small 'l' intentional) never display that capacity.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
And Now For Something Completely Different...
Something positive! Can't have you thinking I'm all a rainy day, can I?
I have four nephews, all my only sister's sons (They are 13, 11, 8 and 4). I have always taken all the time I could to be 'there' for them. Teaching them all the things that somehow it falls upon an uncle to teach them by some unwritten law -- mostly the things that makes their mother cringe. But, I figure, screw her; someone has to teach young boys the joys of kitchen-cabinet chemistry, belching, slingshots, the really neat things you can do to an anthill with a magnifying glass and model glue, and of course, dirty jokes. It's their parent's job to make sure they learn to brush their teeth, watch their language and do their homework, and all that boring stuff, right? Someone has to show them how to be Boys before they become Men and have the weight of the world settle upon their shoulders with...ewww...responsibility.
And there I have been, all these years, in a position of both Authority (defined as "Now, guys, don't do this without me around, okay? Your father needs the garage to remain standing, and I'm a Professional.") and awe. Yes, awe. You never forget the look of incredulous wonder that crosses a young boy's face when he's first discovered that, yes indeed, farts can be set alight by a experienced man with a barbecue lighter, nerves of steel, and the proper technique.
Okay, so I've never really grown up. I like to sometimes pretend that I have, but let's face it, Men -- we never really do. I'm just a 10-year old with a 38 waist and a mustache. Most men are. We just pretend otherwise so that girls will like us, and stuff.
But, the youngest nephew, all of 4-years old, has really knocked me for a loop. He's my shadow (in much the same way that the eldest was when he was little), and several times a week, I get that afternoon phone call:
"Uncle...will come over and play with me?" It's delivered in a small, pitiful voice that screams loneliness, or maybe he's already learned that I'm a sucker and just won't say no, but pours it on thick, just in case. It's an ego stroke, I'll admit. Besides, I figure it's my duty, and more often than not, it's fun.
Usually, I get invited over to play Geotrax or Thomas the Tank Engine (he loves trains), and the routine involves me building the tracks, and then we act out the script of the DVD's of those programs that's he's just watched (he has an absolutely amazing memory for the details). He directs me and tells me what's happened in the little scenario, and I do what he tells me, and eventually, we have re-enacted the entire episode, every word, action and detail, and then it's time to go on to whatever other activity his short little attention span demands.
But recently he's been big on games. He'll sit still for a long session of games. Board games, card games, dice games. We run the gamut from Monopoly (suitably modified for a 4-yr old attention span; we just go around the board and whoever goes to jail three times wins all the money), to the classics of Chutes and Ladders, Old Maid, Go Fish, Yahtzee and even our special version of Poker. We laugh, we joke, he cheats. Oh, how he cheats! Like a democrat! He's sharp about it, even sly, too. And there's always an explanation of why he should be allowed to cheat whenever I call him out on it (gently and always with a smile) which is curiously lucid, and you just have to allow it because, well, that was a pretty great mental formulation for a four year old to make!
And it struck me just today, during a game of Poker-Keno, that I am watching the development of a little brain. A tiny person is taking shape, just across the table from me. Up close and personal. I was dumbstruck just as soon as I realized it, and by just how subtle the process is unless you pay very close attention to it. A month ago, he couldn't be bothered to count (although he could do so, at least to 25, always skipping 16, for some reason), and now he does so with eagerness. He couldn't discern the difference between a heart and a diamond, and now he corrects me when I mistake a club for a spade. I've watched him count pips on dice and then carefully and deliberately count out the corresponding spaces on the board with a serious precision. He comments on my strategy, and then even explains his own. He laughs when he climbs ladders, and giggles when I slide down, down, down the chutes. He boasts when he wins, and then explains how he came up with the masterstroke that finally sent me into a deadly tailspin ending in humiliating defeat (wink, wink). He announces grandly, "the winner of this game is the Champion of the World!", and does the inevitable Victory Dance before exclaiming "Let's play again!".
And then I laugh. Something I all too rarely do, nowadays. It's at times like this that I'm reminded that there are still things to wonder about in this world, and to laugh at, and they don't all have to involve bodily functions, table-top explosions or the death of a Kennedy, and that perhaps, I spend too much time spewing venom at the world instead of being appreciative for the little things. So, I want to thank my little nephew, although he may never ever read this, for giving me, I think, far more joy, and certainly more to think about, than I think I can ever repay.
I have four nephews, all my only sister's sons (They are 13, 11, 8 and 4). I have always taken all the time I could to be 'there' for them. Teaching them all the things that somehow it falls upon an uncle to teach them by some unwritten law -- mostly the things that makes their mother cringe. But, I figure, screw her; someone has to teach young boys the joys of kitchen-cabinet chemistry, belching, slingshots, the really neat things you can do to an anthill with a magnifying glass and model glue, and of course, dirty jokes. It's their parent's job to make sure they learn to brush their teeth, watch their language and do their homework, and all that boring stuff, right? Someone has to show them how to be Boys before they become Men and have the weight of the world settle upon their shoulders with...ewww...responsibility.
And there I have been, all these years, in a position of both Authority (defined as "Now, guys, don't do this without me around, okay? Your father needs the garage to remain standing, and I'm a Professional.") and awe. Yes, awe. You never forget the look of incredulous wonder that crosses a young boy's face when he's first discovered that, yes indeed, farts can be set alight by a experienced man with a barbecue lighter, nerves of steel, and the proper technique.
Okay, so I've never really grown up. I like to sometimes pretend that I have, but let's face it, Men -- we never really do. I'm just a 10-year old with a 38 waist and a mustache. Most men are. We just pretend otherwise so that girls will like us, and stuff.
But, the youngest nephew, all of 4-years old, has really knocked me for a loop. He's my shadow (in much the same way that the eldest was when he was little), and several times a week, I get that afternoon phone call:
"Uncle...will come over and play with me?" It's delivered in a small, pitiful voice that screams loneliness, or maybe he's already learned that I'm a sucker and just won't say no, but pours it on thick, just in case. It's an ego stroke, I'll admit. Besides, I figure it's my duty, and more often than not, it's fun.
Usually, I get invited over to play Geotrax or Thomas the Tank Engine (he loves trains), and the routine involves me building the tracks, and then we act out the script of the DVD's of those programs that's he's just watched (he has an absolutely amazing memory for the details). He directs me and tells me what's happened in the little scenario, and I do what he tells me, and eventually, we have re-enacted the entire episode, every word, action and detail, and then it's time to go on to whatever other activity his short little attention span demands.
But recently he's been big on games. He'll sit still for a long session of games. Board games, card games, dice games. We run the gamut from Monopoly (suitably modified for a 4-yr old attention span; we just go around the board and whoever goes to jail three times wins all the money), to the classics of Chutes and Ladders, Old Maid, Go Fish, Yahtzee and even our special version of Poker. We laugh, we joke, he cheats. Oh, how he cheats! Like a democrat! He's sharp about it, even sly, too. And there's always an explanation of why he should be allowed to cheat whenever I call him out on it (gently and always with a smile) which is curiously lucid, and you just have to allow it because, well, that was a pretty great mental formulation for a four year old to make!
And it struck me just today, during a game of Poker-Keno, that I am watching the development of a little brain. A tiny person is taking shape, just across the table from me. Up close and personal. I was dumbstruck just as soon as I realized it, and by just how subtle the process is unless you pay very close attention to it. A month ago, he couldn't be bothered to count (although he could do so, at least to 25, always skipping 16, for some reason), and now he does so with eagerness. He couldn't discern the difference between a heart and a diamond, and now he corrects me when I mistake a club for a spade. I've watched him count pips on dice and then carefully and deliberately count out the corresponding spaces on the board with a serious precision. He comments on my strategy, and then even explains his own. He laughs when he climbs ladders, and giggles when I slide down, down, down the chutes. He boasts when he wins, and then explains how he came up with the masterstroke that finally sent me into a deadly tailspin ending in humiliating defeat (wink, wink). He announces grandly, "the winner of this game is the Champion of the World!", and does the inevitable Victory Dance before exclaiming "Let's play again!".
And then I laugh. Something I all too rarely do, nowadays. It's at times like this that I'm reminded that there are still things to wonder about in this world, and to laugh at, and they don't all have to involve bodily functions, table-top explosions or the death of a Kennedy, and that perhaps, I spend too much time spewing venom at the world instead of being appreciative for the little things. So, I want to thank my little nephew, although he may never ever read this, for giving me, I think, far more joy, and certainly more to think about, than I think I can ever repay.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
You're All Racists...
Leave it to the New York Times to publish a steaming load of horse crap disguised as an editorial.
The aptly named Charles M. Blow, wrote this, and it's overwhelming message is:
America is still a racist country. It's why, even with the elevation of a black man to the highest elected office, the plight of American blacks has not improved. It doesn't mean to be, but it can't help itself. Obama was supposed to hook us (blacks) up, but instead he pays attention to you white people -- who have a love/hate relationship with him which will invariably poison race relations in this country for many years to come, giving American blacks even more excuses not to work and succeed. Blacks are being victimized by one of their own (Obama) for the sake of white folks, and because white folk's racism is such a powerful, subliminal force that it can even make a good black man forget what color his skin is -- but then again, it's not like Obama was really one of us, what with that bi-racial crap that y'all lapped up -- so what could you expect?
Oh, and by the way; America is a racist nation.
He begins with this piece of crap, describing the Reign of Obama:
"So far, it’s been mixed. Blacks are living a tale of two Americas — one of the ascension of the first black president with the cultural capital that accrues; the other of a collapsing quality of life and amplified racial tensions, while supporting a president who is loath to even acknowledge their pain, let alone commiserate in it."
Translation: Obama is not "authentically" black. He doesn't understand what it is to be black, really. Raised by white people, educated in elite, white schools, Obama doesn't understand the 'hood. He cannot communicate with us because he is not one of us. This is the argument that a Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton would have used against Obama a decade ago (in much the same way they used it against Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, et. al.), the only difference this time is that Barack Obama actually managed to win an election, something even they never believed could happen. Then, of course, he was always black (so much so that his half-white heritage was never mentioned again after the election). Until he wasn't. Why isn't he? Try this one:
"Last year, blacks dared to dream anew, envisioning a future in which Obama’s election would be the catalyst for an era of prosperity and more racial harmony. Now that the election’s afterglow has nearly faded, the hysteria of hope is being ground against the hard stone of reality. Things have not gotten better. In many ways, they’ve gotten worse."
Translation: Where's the reparations I was promised, dammit? Obama hasn't given anything to black people, Mr. Blow says. Of course, policies like Cash For Clunkers, Porkulus and Onmibus, all the Mortgage renegotiation schemes, propping up unionized labor with Government funds, all the Health Care nonsense, are, arguably, policies that were specifically aimed at the black community. They failed of their purpose because of the realistic limitations of government power in a free society, and because they were fundamentally bad policies (although the jury is still out on Healthcare). They were designed to hand out benefits quickly, before anyone would notice they were welfare-by-another-name.
But, what makes Mr. Blow believe blacks are actually entitled to anything? I mean, other than 50 years of white liberal excuse-making and mollycoddling, and all the patronizing bullshit of several generations of so-called "Civil Rights Leaders"? Worse, what makes him think they're entitled to anything at a time when the productive class is losing it's security?
According to Mr. Blow, Mr. Obama has been stopped dead in his otherwise-well-meaning tracks by the spectre of racism (hey, wait! I thought it was because he didn't understand black people?). Obama will never get a chance to 'do' for the black community because America is a racist country that doesn't care about the black community. In fact, American racism runs so deep and is such a pervasive and powerful force that:
"This means that Obama can get away with doing almost nothing to specifically address issues important to African-Americans and instead focus on the white voters he’s losing in droves. "
In any universe other than Mr. Blow's, you could accuse Mr. Obama of being a 'realist'. Of course, Mr. Blow then nullifies his own nonsensical assertion (again!) when he writes just a few lines later:
"The hard truth is that Obama needs white voters more than he needs black ones. "According to my analysis, even if every black person in America had stayed home on Election Day, Obama would still be president. To a large degree, Obama was elected by white people, some of whom were more able to accept him because he consciously portrayed himself as racially ambiguous."
Nothing like accusing people of racism, Mr. Blow, and then conceding that accusation is groundless. Don't they teach you not to undermine your own arguments within two paragraphs at the Times? Obama wouldn't have been elected without white votes, and his socialist utopia will never come close to realization without them because...guess who he needs to accede to it, and then pay for it? When he says "tax the rich" do you really think he means anything other than "Tax Whitey"?
But having made the accusation of racism in spite of the logical evidence against it, Mr. Blow then goes on to make himself look even more ridiculous:
"In a study to be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences this month, researchers asked subjects to rate images of the president to determine which ones best represented his "true essence." In some of the photos, his skin had been lightened. In others, it had been darkened. The result? The more people identified him with the "whiter" images, the more likely they were to have voted for him, and vice versa."
There's that "Obama isn't really black" theme again. But, really; you didn't just go there, Charles, did you? I was beginning to have sympathy for you, misguided comm-symp that you are, but not any more. I'd tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but it's apparent that it would do no good. After all, you managed to write an opinion piece which contradicts itself every other paragraph, and then took a paycheck from the Times, so shame is not one of your strong suits, is it?
If that was the only rhetorical club in your arsenal, Mr.Blow, and the only message you really wanted to deliver, perhaps you should have saved a lot of newsprint, and maybe even not taken that check from Mr. Sulzberger in his time of need.
The aptly named Charles M. Blow, wrote this, and it's overwhelming message is:
America is still a racist country. It's why, even with the elevation of a black man to the highest elected office, the plight of American blacks has not improved. It doesn't mean to be, but it can't help itself. Obama was supposed to hook us (blacks) up, but instead he pays attention to you white people -- who have a love/hate relationship with him which will invariably poison race relations in this country for many years to come, giving American blacks even more excuses not to work and succeed. Blacks are being victimized by one of their own (Obama) for the sake of white folks, and because white folk's racism is such a powerful, subliminal force that it can even make a good black man forget what color his skin is -- but then again, it's not like Obama was really one of us, what with that bi-racial crap that y'all lapped up -- so what could you expect?
Oh, and by the way; America is a racist nation.
He begins with this piece of crap, describing the Reign of Obama:
"So far, it’s been mixed. Blacks are living a tale of two Americas — one of the ascension of the first black president with the cultural capital that accrues; the other of a collapsing quality of life and amplified racial tensions, while supporting a president who is loath to even acknowledge their pain, let alone commiserate in it."
Translation: Obama is not "authentically" black. He doesn't understand what it is to be black, really. Raised by white people, educated in elite, white schools, Obama doesn't understand the 'hood. He cannot communicate with us because he is not one of us. This is the argument that a Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton would have used against Obama a decade ago (in much the same way they used it against Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, et. al.), the only difference this time is that Barack Obama actually managed to win an election, something even they never believed could happen. Then, of course, he was always black (so much so that his half-white heritage was never mentioned again after the election). Until he wasn't. Why isn't he? Try this one:
"Last year, blacks dared to dream anew, envisioning a future in which Obama’s election would be the catalyst for an era of prosperity and more racial harmony. Now that the election’s afterglow has nearly faded, the hysteria of hope is being ground against the hard stone of reality. Things have not gotten better. In many ways, they’ve gotten worse."
Translation: Where's the reparations I was promised, dammit? Obama hasn't given anything to black people, Mr. Blow says. Of course, policies like Cash For Clunkers, Porkulus and Onmibus, all the Mortgage renegotiation schemes, propping up unionized labor with Government funds, all the Health Care nonsense, are, arguably, policies that were specifically aimed at the black community. They failed of their purpose because of the realistic limitations of government power in a free society, and because they were fundamentally bad policies (although the jury is still out on Healthcare). They were designed to hand out benefits quickly, before anyone would notice they were welfare-by-another-name.
But, what makes Mr. Blow believe blacks are actually entitled to anything? I mean, other than 50 years of white liberal excuse-making and mollycoddling, and all the patronizing bullshit of several generations of so-called "Civil Rights Leaders"? Worse, what makes him think they're entitled to anything at a time when the productive class is losing it's security?
According to Mr. Blow, Mr. Obama has been stopped dead in his otherwise-well-meaning tracks by the spectre of racism (hey, wait! I thought it was because he didn't understand black people?). Obama will never get a chance to 'do' for the black community because America is a racist country that doesn't care about the black community. In fact, American racism runs so deep and is such a pervasive and powerful force that:
"This means that Obama can get away with doing almost nothing to specifically address issues important to African-Americans and instead focus on the white voters he’s losing in droves. "
In any universe other than Mr. Blow's, you could accuse Mr. Obama of being a 'realist'. Of course, Mr. Blow then nullifies his own nonsensical assertion (again!) when he writes just a few lines later:
"The hard truth is that Obama needs white voters more than he needs black ones. "According to my analysis, even if every black person in America had stayed home on Election Day, Obama would still be president. To a large degree, Obama was elected by white people, some of whom were more able to accept him because he consciously portrayed himself as racially ambiguous."
Nothing like accusing people of racism, Mr. Blow, and then conceding that accusation is groundless. Don't they teach you not to undermine your own arguments within two paragraphs at the Times? Obama wouldn't have been elected without white votes, and his socialist utopia will never come close to realization without them because...guess who he needs to accede to it, and then pay for it? When he says "tax the rich" do you really think he means anything other than "Tax Whitey"?
But having made the accusation of racism in spite of the logical evidence against it, Mr. Blow then goes on to make himself look even more ridiculous:
"In a study to be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences this month, researchers asked subjects to rate images of the president to determine which ones best represented his "true essence." In some of the photos, his skin had been lightened. In others, it had been darkened. The result? The more people identified him with the "whiter" images, the more likely they were to have voted for him, and vice versa."
There's that "Obama isn't really black" theme again. But, really; you didn't just go there, Charles, did you? I was beginning to have sympathy for you, misguided comm-symp that you are, but not any more. I'd tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but it's apparent that it would do no good. After all, you managed to write an opinion piece which contradicts itself every other paragraph, and then took a paycheck from the Times, so shame is not one of your strong suits, is it?
If that was the only rhetorical club in your arsenal, Mr.Blow, and the only message you really wanted to deliver, perhaps you should have saved a lot of newsprint, and maybe even not taken that check from Mr. Sulzberger in his time of need.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Global Warming: The Academic Conspiracy...
Unless you've been living under a rock, you have probably heard a thing or two about the "Climategate scandal". I won't link to any articles, since they're all over the place, and many of them are confusing for the layman or uninitiated in the the double-crapspeak of the Global Warming Crowd, but the basic gist is this:
It appears as if a bunch of Climatologists at the University of East Anglia (in Britain) conspired to do one or more of the following:
1. Falsifying/and or deleting temperature data that did not fit their pre-conceived notions or political views, so as to show a steady increase in Global Temperatures when such temperatures were, in fact, either flat lining or falling, indicating a decade of actual global cooling. They have also failed to explain how they prepared or 'modeled' the data for use in their computer models, leading to a suspicion that either the data was tailored to fit the program, or the program tailored to fit the data
2. Deleting data that was the focus of a Freedom of Information Act request, so that it could not be seen or tested by those who requested it, and to hide the fact that the data was incorrect and/or fabricated. According to the scientists in the middle of this mess, that data is easily reproducible, but they refuse to reproduce it because it's too much work to do so.
3. Using their scientific clout in their field to silence dissenters who dared to disagree with them, corrupting the peer-review process which by allowing anyone to test a scientific theory or repeat an experiment to verify results, is vital to the advance of science. Destroying the careers of, or taking actions to publicly embarrass those, who might disagree with you (or worse, prove you are a fraud) is at the very least, bad form, in the context of what these scientists were entrusted with, it's probably criminal.
What, exactly, were they entrusted with?
Why, proving that Man-Made Global Warming exists, that's it a continuing trend, and that it has dire consequences for the entire planet. Oh, and they were the main laboratory providing European Governments, the U.N., the United States Government and a host of alphabet-soup organizations with the information they "needed" to regulate global economies and CO2 (Carbon dioxide) production.
In other words, these are the guys who were going to create the justification for World Government. In fact, one of the Euroweenies who is supposed to be a high muck-a-muck in what passes for government over there, recently bragged that this week's Copenhagen meetings on Global Warming, are the first step in crafting a single world-wide government.
That the data upon which this presumption was based now turns out to be (allegedly) false, I should think they shouldn't be having that meeting. But no, the Global Warming Crowd wouldn't let anything like a massive fraud which undermines the entire foundation of their cause stop them from 'saving the planet' by destroying Western Economies, taxing everything in sight, and having the pretext to push their noses into every aspect of every citizen's life. Of course not!
True believers never give up the ship, even when they've been proven wrong. It's a defect built into liberals, especially (see: Kennedy Assassination, 9/11 Truthers, The CIA brought Crack to the Ghetto, and so forth). Most liberals don't have the same sense God gave a cross-eyed Cocker Spaniel.
There's legislation in the U.S. Senate right now that will pass a Cap-and-Trade regime, which will severely restrict the use of energy for every conceivable purpose, and impose huge fees and taxes upon American business and citizens in the name of 'saving the planet'. Considering that the whole idea of man-made Global Warming is now, at least, severely put into question by the shenanigans of a bunch of politically-motivated professors who's basic experiments cannot be reproduced and verified, perhaps we Americans had better call our dopey Senators and tell them to kill this bill. Like right now.
And then it's time to start this whole "Man is wrecking the planet" stuff again from square one, and to do it right; with transparency, verifiable data, and scientific integrity. If the Warmers are right, then fine, but if they can't prove their hysteria, then they should leave the rest of us alone.
Update: Al Gore is now cancelling personal appearances, beginning with, oddly enough, the Copenhagen Conference.
Pajamas Media has a go at Gore's suddenly-low public profile, and the man himself.
It appears as if a bunch of Climatologists at the University of East Anglia (in Britain) conspired to do one or more of the following:
1. Falsifying/and or deleting temperature data that did not fit their pre-conceived notions or political views, so as to show a steady increase in Global Temperatures when such temperatures were, in fact, either flat lining or falling, indicating a decade of actual global cooling. They have also failed to explain how they prepared or 'modeled' the data for use in their computer models, leading to a suspicion that either the data was tailored to fit the program, or the program tailored to fit the data
2. Deleting data that was the focus of a Freedom of Information Act request, so that it could not be seen or tested by those who requested it, and to hide the fact that the data was incorrect and/or fabricated. According to the scientists in the middle of this mess, that data is easily reproducible, but they refuse to reproduce it because it's too much work to do so.
3. Using their scientific clout in their field to silence dissenters who dared to disagree with them, corrupting the peer-review process which by allowing anyone to test a scientific theory or repeat an experiment to verify results, is vital to the advance of science. Destroying the careers of, or taking actions to publicly embarrass those, who might disagree with you (or worse, prove you are a fraud) is at the very least, bad form, in the context of what these scientists were entrusted with, it's probably criminal.
What, exactly, were they entrusted with?
Why, proving that Man-Made Global Warming exists, that's it a continuing trend, and that it has dire consequences for the entire planet. Oh, and they were the main laboratory providing European Governments, the U.N., the United States Government and a host of alphabet-soup organizations with the information they "needed" to regulate global economies and CO2 (Carbon dioxide) production.
In other words, these are the guys who were going to create the justification for World Government. In fact, one of the Euroweenies who is supposed to be a high muck-a-muck in what passes for government over there, recently bragged that this week's Copenhagen meetings on Global Warming, are the first step in crafting a single world-wide government.
That the data upon which this presumption was based now turns out to be (allegedly) false, I should think they shouldn't be having that meeting. But no, the Global Warming Crowd wouldn't let anything like a massive fraud which undermines the entire foundation of their cause stop them from 'saving the planet' by destroying Western Economies, taxing everything in sight, and having the pretext to push their noses into every aspect of every citizen's life. Of course not!
True believers never give up the ship, even when they've been proven wrong. It's a defect built into liberals, especially (see: Kennedy Assassination, 9/11 Truthers, The CIA brought Crack to the Ghetto, and so forth). Most liberals don't have the same sense God gave a cross-eyed Cocker Spaniel.
There's legislation in the U.S. Senate right now that will pass a Cap-and-Trade regime, which will severely restrict the use of energy for every conceivable purpose, and impose huge fees and taxes upon American business and citizens in the name of 'saving the planet'. Considering that the whole idea of man-made Global Warming is now, at least, severely put into question by the shenanigans of a bunch of politically-motivated professors who's basic experiments cannot be reproduced and verified, perhaps we Americans had better call our dopey Senators and tell them to kill this bill. Like right now.
And then it's time to start this whole "Man is wrecking the planet" stuff again from square one, and to do it right; with transparency, verifiable data, and scientific integrity. If the Warmers are right, then fine, but if they can't prove their hysteria, then they should leave the rest of us alone.
Update: Al Gore is now cancelling personal appearances, beginning with, oddly enough, the Copenhagen Conference.
Pajamas Media has a go at Gore's suddenly-low public profile, and the man himself.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
A New Link...
Some funny stuff from a blog called "Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog", which bills itself as:
"...Reflections from the hard drive of the machine that enables the Voice of the Leader of the Free World..."
I recommend a good, long visit. It was quite enjoyable and it it will be added to the link list, for sure.
"...Reflections from the hard drive of the machine that enables the Voice of the Leader of the Free World..."
I recommend a good, long visit. It was quite enjoyable and it it will be added to the link list, for sure.
They're Complaining?
Here's an article from the New York Observer, in which a bunch of whiny, metrosexual guys are complaining that they are being, wait for it....date raped.
Now, I don't know about you, but when I was a younger man on the New York Social Scene (such as it was in the days of rampant AIDS -- thanks Baby Boomers!), this was something we dreamed about. We'd have given a lung for it. If it ever happened to us, we'd take out full-page ads in the NY Times and brag about over and over and over until your ears bled...hell, we'd remember it for the rest of our lives. Ask any straight man my age (early 40's, and yes, it has happened to me, too) if he would turn down sex if it fell into his lap this way, and the answer you get would be something along the lines of:
a) No! and,
b) Hell No!
But, it seems today's pussy yuppie-wannabe Metrosexual lives in a state of constant fear of just this very phenomenon. Worse, they are creeped out by the thought of a sexually-aggressive woman who does what many men have done for centuries (taken advantage of a drunk) because ... ewww...she may have done the same thing with his friends. Yeah, like that ever really stopped a guy before?
The Cheetah, we're told, preys on a small circle of associates, treating her friends as sexual objects to be taken advantage of, and this causes great consternation and alarm to them (so much that the guys interviewed in the article -- when they aren't really bragging about being pursued by a woman who really, really wants lusty, consequence-free sex, remember to inject a smidgen of manufactured indignation into their tales). Poor bastards; they have chicks jumping their defenseless bones while they happen to be in an inebriated state. Why, I'm simply outraged (not!) at this abuse of an entire generation of young men!
Actually, I'm surprised to find out this many of them might be straight.
But of course, they (the metrosexual pansies) lie. Through their teeth. They love it. The purpose of the article was to not complain about a 'new' social phenomenon -- when I was younger, we had Cheetahs, too. Only we called them 'Sluts', 'Hosemonsters' or 'Slambags' (and far worse) and we didn't have to come up with a name full of groovy-super-clever-slickly-marketable cat connotations that make the allusion to the word 'pussy'. I'm certain that if we were to run unimpeded backwards through history, we'd find the Cheetah in Egypt, Ancient Rome and Angkor Wat, and she'd be pulling the train at Stonehenge, only she'd be called something else.
Usually, that would be...Desperate.
In my own time, my circle of male friends (on the rare occasion we're all assembled) can still make this particular boast; in any gathering, you are assured that at least 25% of the men in the room screwed 'Stephanie' at one time or another (name changed to protect the not-so-innocent). Stephanie was such a hyper-sexually-aggressive girl that the only otherwise-amazing thing about her is that she didn't do all those guys at once, just to save time. It was once said that Stephanie's highest ambition in life was to fuck her way through the telephone book. We'd laugh at that joke...and then secretly wonder what Stephanie was doing right now. You think this sort of thing hasn't happened before?
Far from being traumatized and embarrassed and put-upon by your Cheetah stalker, you guys know you love it, and the purpose of the article is really not to complain about a growing social problem, but to encourage other women to take up the Cheetah lifestyle. Because if there's one thing we know about women, it's this; they'll often believe and take to heart (almost) any shit they read. It's why Cosmopolitan has stayed in business for so long running articles entitled "What He Really Wants in Bed", always written by some chick you wouldn't screw with a stolen dick, and never once are the words "Corned Beef Sandwich and a Cold Beer" mentioned in the same sentence as Oral Sex. Some experts! But I digress...
I'm certain the 'feminists' will be out in force, defending their sisters from this gross portrayal of young 'womyn' as devious, potentially-dangerous, sexual predators...just pay no attention to the 40 years of 'feminist' nonsense that encouraged them to behave that way. In the end, this idea of women behaving rather badly will still be The Man's fault...somehow, someway. Always is. However, the idea that there are men being 'victimized' by these broads is laughable; the article simply yet another expression of a common male fantasy (and a much more common occurrence) which used to be a staple of Penthouse Letters.
Now, I don't know about you, but when I was a younger man on the New York Social Scene (such as it was in the days of rampant AIDS -- thanks Baby Boomers!), this was something we dreamed about. We'd have given a lung for it. If it ever happened to us, we'd take out full-page ads in the NY Times and brag about over and over and over until your ears bled...hell, we'd remember it for the rest of our lives. Ask any straight man my age (early 40's, and yes, it has happened to me, too) if he would turn down sex if it fell into his lap this way, and the answer you get would be something along the lines of:
a) No! and,
b) Hell No!
But, it seems today's pussy yuppie-wannabe Metrosexual lives in a state of constant fear of just this very phenomenon. Worse, they are creeped out by the thought of a sexually-aggressive woman who does what many men have done for centuries (taken advantage of a drunk) because ... ewww...she may have done the same thing with his friends. Yeah, like that ever really stopped a guy before?
The Cheetah, we're told, preys on a small circle of associates, treating her friends as sexual objects to be taken advantage of, and this causes great consternation and alarm to them (so much that the guys interviewed in the article -- when they aren't really bragging about being pursued by a woman who really, really wants lusty, consequence-free sex, remember to inject a smidgen of manufactured indignation into their tales). Poor bastards; they have chicks jumping their defenseless bones while they happen to be in an inebriated state. Why, I'm simply outraged (not!) at this abuse of an entire generation of young men!
Actually, I'm surprised to find out this many of them might be straight.
But of course, they (the metrosexual pansies) lie. Through their teeth. They love it. The purpose of the article was to not complain about a 'new' social phenomenon -- when I was younger, we had Cheetahs, too. Only we called them 'Sluts', 'Hosemonsters' or 'Slambags' (and far worse) and we didn't have to come up with a name full of groovy-super-clever-slickly-marketable cat connotations that make the allusion to the word 'pussy'. I'm certain that if we were to run unimpeded backwards through history, we'd find the Cheetah in Egypt, Ancient Rome and Angkor Wat, and she'd be pulling the train at Stonehenge, only she'd be called something else.
Usually, that would be...Desperate.
In my own time, my circle of male friends (on the rare occasion we're all assembled) can still make this particular boast; in any gathering, you are assured that at least 25% of the men in the room screwed 'Stephanie' at one time or another (name changed to protect the not-so-innocent). Stephanie was such a hyper-sexually-aggressive girl that the only otherwise-amazing thing about her is that she didn't do all those guys at once, just to save time. It was once said that Stephanie's highest ambition in life was to fuck her way through the telephone book. We'd laugh at that joke...and then secretly wonder what Stephanie was doing right now. You think this sort of thing hasn't happened before?
Far from being traumatized and embarrassed and put-upon by your Cheetah stalker, you guys know you love it, and the purpose of the article is really not to complain about a growing social problem, but to encourage other women to take up the Cheetah lifestyle. Because if there's one thing we know about women, it's this; they'll often believe and take to heart (almost) any shit they read. It's why Cosmopolitan has stayed in business for so long running articles entitled "What He Really Wants in Bed", always written by some chick you wouldn't screw with a stolen dick, and never once are the words "Corned Beef Sandwich and a Cold Beer" mentioned in the same sentence as Oral Sex. Some experts! But I digress...
I'm certain the 'feminists' will be out in force, defending their sisters from this gross portrayal of young 'womyn' as devious, potentially-dangerous, sexual predators...just pay no attention to the 40 years of 'feminist' nonsense that encouraged them to behave that way. In the end, this idea of women behaving rather badly will still be The Man's fault...somehow, someway. Always is. However, the idea that there are men being 'victimized' by these broads is laughable; the article simply yet another expression of a common male fantasy (and a much more common occurrence) which used to be a staple of Penthouse Letters.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
More on Autism...
Okay, so I got a bunch of e-mails yesterday (I can't reproduce many of them) about my post on Autism. Most of the responders were frightened by my stunning ignorance on the subject. How dare I say that some diagnoses of Autism are fake? How dare I say that the recent upsurge in the number of cases are really not indicative of a rise in numbers of actual Autistics? How dare I say that if you have an Autistic child that you are a bad parent?
Hey, slow down. First, I never claimed to be an expert. I'm only telling you what I have seen, witnessed and experienced, personally, and that is;
a) There are people who are truly autistic, they need help and support that comes from loving parents, families and healthcare providers who see them as people first, not guinea pigs for supposed Wonder Cures based on faulty science, and of questionable value. They are people, too, you know.
b) There are far more ignorant people claiming their child is autistic because they are poor parents, or they can't bring themselves to face the (personal) shame and embarrassment of having given birth to a genetic mess (why this should be an embarrassment is beyond me), or, they simply can't face the fact that their child may, indeed, have issues; but correcting those issues requires an effort on their part. They'd rather just spend money, and wear the badge of courage (and get the pass) that having a hopelessly 'afflicted' child is supposed to bring you in our greater society. In the meantime, the children suffer horribly, both the truly autistic and those only deemed slightly-autistic-like.
c) There is a tendency, because the problem is more prevalent than it previously was, to diagnose autism in people who show some symptoms (like late talkers, preference for solitude, in some cases seizures or reactions to light) which might appear to be Autism, but in many cases, are indicative of another illness entirely. Because Autism is front-and-center in every one's mind, when a child displays one or more of these symptoms, they are more likely to be labeled Autistic without a more thorough examination, or without eliminating other possibilities before making that diagnosis.
d) The Medical Establishment has a vested interest in finding autism everywhere...ever since the "Awareness" crowd brought it to the government's attention and there's scads of taxpayer money being thrown at it. That's the one problem I have always had with "Awareness" groups; I can promise you that people who have the affliction are aware of it, their families are aware of it, too. So are the physicians and scientists who treat them. The illnesses you champion are not secrets. All you do with your so-called advocacy is to attract the attention of Congress, and all they ever do is throw money at problems. When that much money is floating around devoted to a specific problem, then guess what? That specific problem turns out to be more widespread than was previously know. Why? Because who wants to work for money when you can just get a federal grant that has no strings attached, no oversight, no enforcement provisions, and with no requirement for an actual result to be achieved?
And in the meantime, people who are in need get shafted, and people who aren't afflicted are treated as if they are, and their lives are often irrevocably fucked up because of it.
No, I'm not an expert on Autism, but I do know what I have read and experienced.
And some of you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Hey, slow down. First, I never claimed to be an expert. I'm only telling you what I have seen, witnessed and experienced, personally, and that is;
a) There are people who are truly autistic, they need help and support that comes from loving parents, families and healthcare providers who see them as people first, not guinea pigs for supposed Wonder Cures based on faulty science, and of questionable value. They are people, too, you know.
b) There are far more ignorant people claiming their child is autistic because they are poor parents, or they can't bring themselves to face the (personal) shame and embarrassment of having given birth to a genetic mess (why this should be an embarrassment is beyond me), or, they simply can't face the fact that their child may, indeed, have issues; but correcting those issues requires an effort on their part. They'd rather just spend money, and wear the badge of courage (and get the pass) that having a hopelessly 'afflicted' child is supposed to bring you in our greater society. In the meantime, the children suffer horribly, both the truly autistic and those only deemed slightly-autistic-like.
c) There is a tendency, because the problem is more prevalent than it previously was, to diagnose autism in people who show some symptoms (like late talkers, preference for solitude, in some cases seizures or reactions to light) which might appear to be Autism, but in many cases, are indicative of another illness entirely. Because Autism is front-and-center in every one's mind, when a child displays one or more of these symptoms, they are more likely to be labeled Autistic without a more thorough examination, or without eliminating other possibilities before making that diagnosis.
d) The Medical Establishment has a vested interest in finding autism everywhere...ever since the "Awareness" crowd brought it to the government's attention and there's scads of taxpayer money being thrown at it. That's the one problem I have always had with "Awareness" groups; I can promise you that people who have the affliction are aware of it, their families are aware of it, too. So are the physicians and scientists who treat them. The illnesses you champion are not secrets. All you do with your so-called advocacy is to attract the attention of Congress, and all they ever do is throw money at problems. When that much money is floating around devoted to a specific problem, then guess what? That specific problem turns out to be more widespread than was previously know. Why? Because who wants to work for money when you can just get a federal grant that has no strings attached, no oversight, no enforcement provisions, and with no requirement for an actual result to be achieved?
And in the meantime, people who are in need get shafted, and people who aren't afflicted are treated as if they are, and their lives are often irrevocably fucked up because of it.
No, I'm not an expert on Autism, but I do know what I have read and experienced.
And some of you need to work on your reading comprehension.
How To Lose A War...On a Timetable...
Giving credit where it's due, at least Barrack Hussein Obutthead committed 30,000 of the 40,000 troops that Gen. McChrystal asked for, and then demanded that NATO and Pakistan "do more". That's 30,000 more and one gentle rebuke of our "allies" then I expected, honestly.
It's what was between-the-lines that made me spitting-mad.
General McChrystal now has a timetable for turning Afghanistan into something at least resembling secure (by what means that standard is measured is still undefined), and then he has to come home.
Nothing like telling the enemy when you intend to stop fighting. That's awesome strategy there, Barry.
This war is now irrevocably lost. Obama's heart, despite all his rhetoric, was never in it. It's why he's dithered over requests from his own, hand-picked General. It's why, even when men are being shot at and killed, there has been little talk of victory and a lot of show over the formulation of an 'exit strategy'. The subtle nuances of that speech before the future leaders of the U.S. Army last night was a virtuoso display of what I like to call Noballs-itis.
The excuses that will be used to cover the Administration's behind were trotted out last night. In case you missed them, they are:
* NATO hasn't done 'enough'. (That NATO is incapable of doing anything will conveniently forgotten).
* The Pakistanis haven't done 'enough'. (That Pakistan created the Taliban will be conveniently forgotten).
* We left a 'stable' Afghanistan, and the 'mission accomplished', we left. This will be followed by the paradoxical refrain of "The Afghan government was corrupt, and undermined our efforts." (The fact that the Obama Administration accused Karzai of stealing the election, and called him a crook while standing beside him on his Inauguration Day, will be conveniently forgotten).
* Hey, I sent the troops, but McChrystal still fucked it up. (That McChrystal was Obambi's 'guy', his hand-picked commander, will be conveniently forgotten).
* The strategy was flawed from the beginning, when George Bush started the whole thing. No one could have 'saved' Afghanistan at this late date, no matter how many troops went, since the war in Iraq 'distracted' us from the mission in Afghanistan (That Iraq is largely pacified and it's government is beginning to take over more day-to-day security and military missions, will be conveniently forgotten).
* If you criticize this President, you're a racist. (The race card is always the last resort of a scoundrel).
* It's George Bush's fault. (Didn't you know this already?).
* It's George Bush's fault. (Why do we have to repeat this? You should know by now!).
* Oh, and it's George Bush's fault. (One last time because we like saying it, and the man doesn't defend himself and because no one except Dick Cheney will call us on it.)
Some other details that irked the hell out of me;
The Prezzzident trotting out his best Bill-Clinton-I-Feel-Your-Pain schtick talking about signing letters of condolence, visiting the military hospitals and his once-in-a-lifetime photo-op at Dover AF base, 'honoring' the fallen. How crass. That was thrown in there to silence critics who will claim the man doesn't care about our military.
Well, I'll say it; the man doesn't care about our military.
You can talk all you want about the importance of winning, Barry, but you certainly didn't back that talk up last night. That was schoolyard rhetoric of the kind used by children who want to act tough in front of their friends, but who really are scared to death of an actual fight. You put up the front (the 30,000), but then said the fight has to end before your Momma calls you in for supper...and no punching in the face, okay?
Good luck, General McChrystal. I'm sure things will be nice and quiet for the next 18 months as the Taliban and A'Qeada cause just enough trouble for you to remember them by, biding their time until you leave. I'm sure the Administration during that time will trot out all sorts of charts, PowerPoint presentations and statistics about how 'violence is lower now than in 2008' (just like the last one did in trying to justify it's lack of warfighting), and then everyone comes home.
And six months later, there will be a smoking crater in Chicago. Or Los Angeles. Or Philadelphia.
And all the perpetrators will have worn turbans, trained in Afghanistan, and if any are captured alive they'll be given trials in the Federal Courts, with all the rights and privileges afforded any criminal defendant, and free attorneys.
Barrack Hussein Obutthead will shed some crocodile tears, and then go back to making sure every illegal Mexican in this country has free dental and access to cosmetic butt implants, and how to put a tax on breathing to pay for it, because that's where his heart really is.
It's what was between-the-lines that made me spitting-mad.
General McChrystal now has a timetable for turning Afghanistan into something at least resembling secure (by what means that standard is measured is still undefined), and then he has to come home.
Nothing like telling the enemy when you intend to stop fighting. That's awesome strategy there, Barry.
This war is now irrevocably lost. Obama's heart, despite all his rhetoric, was never in it. It's why he's dithered over requests from his own, hand-picked General. It's why, even when men are being shot at and killed, there has been little talk of victory and a lot of show over the formulation of an 'exit strategy'. The subtle nuances of that speech before the future leaders of the U.S. Army last night was a virtuoso display of what I like to call Noballs-itis.
The excuses that will be used to cover the Administration's behind were trotted out last night. In case you missed them, they are:
* NATO hasn't done 'enough'. (That NATO is incapable of doing anything will conveniently forgotten).
* The Pakistanis haven't done 'enough'. (That Pakistan created the Taliban will be conveniently forgotten).
* We left a 'stable' Afghanistan, and the 'mission accomplished', we left. This will be followed by the paradoxical refrain of "The Afghan government was corrupt, and undermined our efforts." (The fact that the Obama Administration accused Karzai of stealing the election, and called him a crook while standing beside him on his Inauguration Day, will be conveniently forgotten).
* Hey, I sent the troops, but McChrystal still fucked it up. (That McChrystal was Obambi's 'guy', his hand-picked commander, will be conveniently forgotten).
* The strategy was flawed from the beginning, when George Bush started the whole thing. No one could have 'saved' Afghanistan at this late date, no matter how many troops went, since the war in Iraq 'distracted' us from the mission in Afghanistan (That Iraq is largely pacified and it's government is beginning to take over more day-to-day security and military missions, will be conveniently forgotten).
* If you criticize this President, you're a racist. (The race card is always the last resort of a scoundrel).
* It's George Bush's fault. (Didn't you know this already?).
* It's George Bush's fault. (Why do we have to repeat this? You should know by now!).
* Oh, and it's George Bush's fault. (One last time because we like saying it, and the man doesn't defend himself and because no one except Dick Cheney will call us on it.)
Some other details that irked the hell out of me;
The Prezzzident trotting out his best Bill-Clinton-I-Feel-Your-Pain schtick talking about signing letters of condolence, visiting the military hospitals and his once-in-a-lifetime photo-op at Dover AF base, 'honoring' the fallen. How crass. That was thrown in there to silence critics who will claim the man doesn't care about our military.
Well, I'll say it; the man doesn't care about our military.
You can talk all you want about the importance of winning, Barry, but you certainly didn't back that talk up last night. That was schoolyard rhetoric of the kind used by children who want to act tough in front of their friends, but who really are scared to death of an actual fight. You put up the front (the 30,000), but then said the fight has to end before your Momma calls you in for supper...and no punching in the face, okay?
Good luck, General McChrystal. I'm sure things will be nice and quiet for the next 18 months as the Taliban and A'Qeada cause just enough trouble for you to remember them by, biding their time until you leave. I'm sure the Administration during that time will trot out all sorts of charts, PowerPoint presentations and statistics about how 'violence is lower now than in 2008' (just like the last one did in trying to justify it's lack of warfighting), and then everyone comes home.
And six months later, there will be a smoking crater in Chicago. Or Los Angeles. Or Philadelphia.
And all the perpetrators will have worn turbans, trained in Afghanistan, and if any are captured alive they'll be given trials in the Federal Courts, with all the rights and privileges afforded any criminal defendant, and free attorneys.
Barrack Hussein Obutthead will shed some crocodile tears, and then go back to making sure every illegal Mexican in this country has free dental and access to cosmetic butt implants, and how to put a tax on breathing to pay for it, because that's where his heart really is.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Experimenting on Children...
I've just read this over at Ann Althouse's blog concerning treatments for autism.
It's pretty sick. It's bordering on Spanish-Inquisition-sick. Doctor Menegle would approve, I'm sure.
First, a word about autism.
It's a truly debilitating condition...if your parents are convinced that it is. I know a couple of people with autism or Aspberger's Syndrome, and yeah, they are often socially awkward and they can creep you out some if you don't know they have it, and yeah, they can get pretty bad about hurting themselves, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them that a little love and understanding can't help 'fix'. A man I know is a mathematical genius who probably could have been anything he wanted to be -- if he hadn't been treated as if he were 'special'; instead he's spent his life performing low-paying, physical labor. A woman of my (very close) acquaintance was treated by her doctors and parents (and also severely medicated) to the point where she was little more than a bag of skin. Despite the fact that her 'autism' was a misdiagnosis -- that wasn't caught for over 20 years. She, incidentally, is a perfectly-functioning human being who simply needed some encouragement -- and then a personal accomplishment or two -- to figure this out.
I have yet another friend who has an autistic child and all she does is fight tooth-and-nail with her local school board to help create the conditions where her son may simply get a decent primary education without the We Care Brigade letting their good (but entirely misguided) intentions inadvertently pave his road to a personal hell.
Yeah, I get it; different people are afflicted to different extents, and not all autistics are capable of such (for lack of a better word) 'normal' lives. But I wonder how many actually are, or rather, would be, if the words 'autism' didn't evoke the kind of fear and stupidity that they do. I also wonder how many children are being diagnosed as autistics simply because they merely display a symptom of two --- without actually being autistic. It's becoming the Designer Illness du jour for parents with little sense and loads of disposable income.
Of course, once the word 'autism' entered the daily lexicon of most people, it's suddenly found everywhere, and every parent who gets upset because their tyke isn't speaking fluent Japanese by her third birthday is, in part, responsible for it. So are the doctors who simply categorize people without first making certain of a diagnosis because it's easier to tell a parent who is already convinced what they want to hear.
For many people nowadays, children are not a responsibility and a labor of love. They aren't tiny human beings who require love and guidance and life lessons to be taught by an attentive parent . They are a fashion accessory. Having kids is simply what you must do when you can't figure out what to do with your weekends anymore, or worse, they are the key to a whole new social world of Little League, the PTA and the Soccer Mom pre-school set. So, when the kid exhibits some sort of behavior which reflects badly on the parent, there simply must be something wrong with the kid, and the parent will take the little guy to every doctor, and subject him to every imaginable test to prove there must be some reason beyond bad genes and poor parenting skills to explain why Little Bobby hasn't built a Super Hadron Collider in the basement -- even though you bought him the kit for Christmas.
There must be something wrong with him, because the alternative is simply too embarrassing. Usually, the first 'hint' for these overly-sensitive parents is that Jenny hasn't talked by age 2, and Timmy would rather watch Power Rangers than engage in conversation with Mommy, tuning her out. It can't be because Jenny hasn't anything to say, or because Timmy's Mommy hasn't bonded with her child, what with him being left with nannies while she resumed her career, and all.
And so they drag their kids from one doctor to another, unwilling to believe that Doctors A-through-Y made a solid diagnosis of gross 'normality' -- until they find Doctor Z who agrees that 3-year old Sam's seeming inability to accept the basic premises of the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming simply must be a sign of autism.
Of course, Doctor Z is a child behavioral expert, but the fact that maybe she graduated last in her class, maybe after repeating her last year of med school and failing her State Licensing Exam twice, means nothing. She's more than happy to help the over-sensitive Parents realize their Worst Nightmare while taking their cash. Sometimes, Doctor Z has a vested interest in telling you what you're already predisposed to believe, whether it's true or not, whether or not she's competent to make that call.
Which begets fear about inoculations, medication, oxygen chambers and blood transfusions for no apparent reason other than the hope that something 'changes'. What changes they're expecting is beyond me. If your kid is a dope, then too bad. However, if your kid is really ill, or really is autistic, then what the hell are you trying to do? The science on these treatments is sketchy, at best, and any doctor who tells you they understand all the vagaries and mysteries of both genetics and the human brain is a flat-out liar.
In the meantime, children who really do need help are either having real treatments denied or delayed by this witchcraft, or the witchcraft is simply a substitute for what many of these kids really need -- parents who love them and who are willing to devote the time, and display the patience, needed to help them out. They aren't 'sick', they aren't 'abnormal', and yes, many have 'special needs', but the first need on that list is a parent with common sense.
Autism can be a scary thing. I've seen it close up at it's worst. I also know from personal experience that a good many doctors of the behavioral sciences sort are full of shit (six years on the couch for me, hence the name of this blog). But this sort of thing, subjecting your children to what, at first glance appears to be torture based on little more than a personal hope generated by your own vanity, strikes me as barbaric.
For those who have children with severe autism, I'm on your side. Really. I would rather pluck out my own eyeballs than see a child suffer, and would gladly give you everything I have if it eased your pain, and helped your child for as much as five minutes. For those of you who simply can't accept that you're really poor parents and look to this sort of 'medicine' to absolve you of this sin, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves...oh, right; you're incapable of shame, which is why you put your kids through hell in the first place -- to prove their 'abnormality' is really not your fault.
The Doctors who do this sort of thing ought to have their own heads examined.
It's pretty sick. It's bordering on Spanish-Inquisition-sick. Doctor Menegle would approve, I'm sure.
First, a word about autism.
It's a truly debilitating condition...if your parents are convinced that it is. I know a couple of people with autism or Aspberger's Syndrome, and yeah, they are often socially awkward and they can creep you out some if you don't know they have it, and yeah, they can get pretty bad about hurting themselves, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them that a little love and understanding can't help 'fix'. A man I know is a mathematical genius who probably could have been anything he wanted to be -- if he hadn't been treated as if he were 'special'; instead he's spent his life performing low-paying, physical labor. A woman of my (very close) acquaintance was treated by her doctors and parents (and also severely medicated) to the point where she was little more than a bag of skin. Despite the fact that her 'autism' was a misdiagnosis -- that wasn't caught for over 20 years. She, incidentally, is a perfectly-functioning human being who simply needed some encouragement -- and then a personal accomplishment or two -- to figure this out.
I have yet another friend who has an autistic child and all she does is fight tooth-and-nail with her local school board to help create the conditions where her son may simply get a decent primary education without the We Care Brigade letting their good (but entirely misguided) intentions inadvertently pave his road to a personal hell.
Yeah, I get it; different people are afflicted to different extents, and not all autistics are capable of such (for lack of a better word) 'normal' lives. But I wonder how many actually are, or rather, would be, if the words 'autism' didn't evoke the kind of fear and stupidity that they do. I also wonder how many children are being diagnosed as autistics simply because they merely display a symptom of two --- without actually being autistic. It's becoming the Designer Illness du jour for parents with little sense and loads of disposable income.
Of course, once the word 'autism' entered the daily lexicon of most people, it's suddenly found everywhere, and every parent who gets upset because their tyke isn't speaking fluent Japanese by her third birthday is, in part, responsible for it. So are the doctors who simply categorize people without first making certain of a diagnosis because it's easier to tell a parent who is already convinced what they want to hear.
For many people nowadays, children are not a responsibility and a labor of love. They aren't tiny human beings who require love and guidance and life lessons to be taught by an attentive parent . They are a fashion accessory. Having kids is simply what you must do when you can't figure out what to do with your weekends anymore, or worse, they are the key to a whole new social world of Little League, the PTA and the Soccer Mom pre-school set. So, when the kid exhibits some sort of behavior which reflects badly on the parent, there simply must be something wrong with the kid, and the parent will take the little guy to every doctor, and subject him to every imaginable test to prove there must be some reason beyond bad genes and poor parenting skills to explain why Little Bobby hasn't built a Super Hadron Collider in the basement -- even though you bought him the kit for Christmas.
There must be something wrong with him, because the alternative is simply too embarrassing. Usually, the first 'hint' for these overly-sensitive parents is that Jenny hasn't talked by age 2, and Timmy would rather watch Power Rangers than engage in conversation with Mommy, tuning her out. It can't be because Jenny hasn't anything to say, or because Timmy's Mommy hasn't bonded with her child, what with him being left with nannies while she resumed her career, and all.
And so they drag their kids from one doctor to another, unwilling to believe that Doctors A-through-Y made a solid diagnosis of gross 'normality' -- until they find Doctor Z who agrees that 3-year old Sam's seeming inability to accept the basic premises of the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming simply must be a sign of autism.
Of course, Doctor Z is a child behavioral expert, but the fact that maybe she graduated last in her class, maybe after repeating her last year of med school and failing her State Licensing Exam twice, means nothing. She's more than happy to help the over-sensitive Parents realize their Worst Nightmare while taking their cash. Sometimes, Doctor Z has a vested interest in telling you what you're already predisposed to believe, whether it's true or not, whether or not she's competent to make that call.
Which begets fear about inoculations, medication, oxygen chambers and blood transfusions for no apparent reason other than the hope that something 'changes'. What changes they're expecting is beyond me. If your kid is a dope, then too bad. However, if your kid is really ill, or really is autistic, then what the hell are you trying to do? The science on these treatments is sketchy, at best, and any doctor who tells you they understand all the vagaries and mysteries of both genetics and the human brain is a flat-out liar.
In the meantime, children who really do need help are either having real treatments denied or delayed by this witchcraft, or the witchcraft is simply a substitute for what many of these kids really need -- parents who love them and who are willing to devote the time, and display the patience, needed to help them out. They aren't 'sick', they aren't 'abnormal', and yes, many have 'special needs', but the first need on that list is a parent with common sense.
Autism can be a scary thing. I've seen it close up at it's worst. I also know from personal experience that a good many doctors of the behavioral sciences sort are full of shit (six years on the couch for me, hence the name of this blog). But this sort of thing, subjecting your children to what, at first glance appears to be torture based on little more than a personal hope generated by your own vanity, strikes me as barbaric.
For those who have children with severe autism, I'm on your side. Really. I would rather pluck out my own eyeballs than see a child suffer, and would gladly give you everything I have if it eased your pain, and helped your child for as much as five minutes. For those of you who simply can't accept that you're really poor parents and look to this sort of 'medicine' to absolve you of this sin, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves...oh, right; you're incapable of shame, which is why you put your kids through hell in the first place -- to prove their 'abnormality' is really not your fault.
The Doctors who do this sort of thing ought to have their own heads examined.
Reason # 5,128 why Your President is a Dickhead...
Afghanistan. The necessary war, you'll recall.
It's a straightforward process, Barry, really. You say we need to win the war there, the necessary war, not the one of choice -- your words, not mine -- then do something about actually winning it.
Oh, we've seen the photographs, the very serious, dramatic photographs of you speaking with your closest advisers in the Situation Room. Your people are good with manipulation of the media like that -- not like it's hard, you know. The media people would eat one of your turds as a sign of undying fealty and then beg for another, so they'll regurgitate whatever you tell them to. But the dramatic photos, even if they are designed to portray you as a serious, deliberative soul, manage to convey another message altogether. That feeling can be summed up, thus;
What the fuck are you people talking about... still?
This is a war that you say is good and necessary. Your own, hand-picked general says it can be won, but he needs another 40,000 grunts to do it. He says this is a critical time, that the next year spells the difference between victory and defeat -- and you've wasted a third of that time in serious deliberation and posing for West Wing-style head shots. Sorry, but Joe Biden in serious-deliberative-Washington-manufactured-crisis-mode photos just doesn't cut it. It actually is a bit creepy.
Shit or get off the pot, Barry.
Oh, right; you want to get off the pot without making it look like you've gotten off the pot? I got news for you; you're already going to lose House and Senate seats in '10, and you're already a lame duck, one-term President, Nothing short of the Republicans nominating Charles Manson for President in '12 (or one of those back-bencher, milquetoast non-entities they're always extolling the 'Conservative' virtues of, like Pawlenty or Huckabee,and I wouldn't put it past the ridiculously-stupid suits at Republican Central to misread the tea leaves and try that one), is going to save you.
You're also caught by your own rhetoric about 'good' wars and your chaotic, incomprehensible foreign policy wherein you call the guy who's running the joint a crook...and then send the Secretary of State to stand with him at his Inauguration.
Anything to get Hillary out of town and away from the microphones, I guess.
If you want to unilaterally surrender, then man up and do it. I know you want to. I see it in your eyes, Barry. You want to please the Berkeley Faculty Lounge, and Code Pink, and the loony wing of your own party so much, but it makes you look all wimpy and stuff. Even more than when Michelle makes it clear she really wears the pants, and shows off her manly-yet-ever-so-femininely-sculpted pythons. It's not Presidential to look wimpy...except when you're bowing to Saudi Princes and Japanese Emperors, and grovelling before the Iranians and Arab Street, and all that; that's not being wimpy, that's extending a hand in friendship or some other tommyrot.
At least that's how it's spun by the flapping rectums over at (P)MSNBC. That's between soundbites about 'exit strategy'. Only liberals (small 'l' intentional) talk about war in terms of how to finish one before you actually start to fight one. It's why they lose wars, badly, after spending a couple of decades and a few tens of thousands of men (see Vietnam).
Anyway, you will be gone, and then unfortunately, the real deliberative, serious, decision-making people (i.e. Adults) who might actually be prepared for this job will have to undo the damage you've done. With luck, it'll take less than 50 years. With luck, they won't have to suffer the impediment of having to repair the damage from another terrorist attack originating in Afghanistan while they do it. Perhaps, by some miracle, they might even find some money to rebuild the country with after that $12 trillion debt you'll leave them.
I know you really only wanted this job for the perks, but, Dude, seriously, the job entails work and the making of difficult decisions, especially where lives are at stake. That's not a cliche, either. There are people being shot at over there so that we don't have to eat kamikaze airliners over here.
Do the right thing, for the first time your life, Shithead. You don't need Michelle's permission, really.
Either send the boys to the battle or don't -- and then man up and tell the truth about how you arrived at your decision. Don't keep the brave men and women already in Afghanistan in suspense; they have a right to know if help and victory are on the way, or if their Commander-in-Chief has decided to fold up the tent and run away.
It's a straightforward process, Barry, really. You say we need to win the war there, the necessary war, not the one of choice -- your words, not mine -- then do something about actually winning it.
Oh, we've seen the photographs, the very serious, dramatic photographs of you speaking with your closest advisers in the Situation Room. Your people are good with manipulation of the media like that -- not like it's hard, you know. The media people would eat one of your turds as a sign of undying fealty and then beg for another, so they'll regurgitate whatever you tell them to. But the dramatic photos, even if they are designed to portray you as a serious, deliberative soul, manage to convey another message altogether. That feeling can be summed up, thus;
What the fuck are you people talking about... still?
This is a war that you say is good and necessary. Your own, hand-picked general says it can be won, but he needs another 40,000 grunts to do it. He says this is a critical time, that the next year spells the difference between victory and defeat -- and you've wasted a third of that time in serious deliberation and posing for West Wing-style head shots. Sorry, but Joe Biden in serious-deliberative-Washington-manufactured-crisis-mode photos just doesn't cut it. It actually is a bit creepy.
Shit or get off the pot, Barry.
Oh, right; you want to get off the pot without making it look like you've gotten off the pot? I got news for you; you're already going to lose House and Senate seats in '10, and you're already a lame duck, one-term President, Nothing short of the Republicans nominating Charles Manson for President in '12 (or one of those back-bencher, milquetoast non-entities they're always extolling the 'Conservative' virtues of, like Pawlenty or Huckabee,and I wouldn't put it past the ridiculously-stupid suits at Republican Central to misread the tea leaves and try that one), is going to save you.
You're also caught by your own rhetoric about 'good' wars and your chaotic, incomprehensible foreign policy wherein you call the guy who's running the joint a crook...and then send the Secretary of State to stand with him at his Inauguration.
Anything to get Hillary out of town and away from the microphones, I guess.
If you want to unilaterally surrender, then man up and do it. I know you want to. I see it in your eyes, Barry. You want to please the Berkeley Faculty Lounge, and Code Pink, and the loony wing of your own party so much, but it makes you look all wimpy and stuff. Even more than when Michelle makes it clear she really wears the pants, and shows off her manly-yet-ever-so-femininely-sculpted pythons. It's not Presidential to look wimpy...except when you're bowing to Saudi Princes and Japanese Emperors, and grovelling before the Iranians and Arab Street, and all that; that's not being wimpy, that's extending a hand in friendship or some other tommyrot.
At least that's how it's spun by the flapping rectums over at (P)MSNBC. That's between soundbites about 'exit strategy'. Only liberals (small 'l' intentional) talk about war in terms of how to finish one before you actually start to fight one. It's why they lose wars, badly, after spending a couple of decades and a few tens of thousands of men (see Vietnam).
Anyway, you will be gone, and then unfortunately, the real deliberative, serious, decision-making people (i.e. Adults) who might actually be prepared for this job will have to undo the damage you've done. With luck, it'll take less than 50 years. With luck, they won't have to suffer the impediment of having to repair the damage from another terrorist attack originating in Afghanistan while they do it. Perhaps, by some miracle, they might even find some money to rebuild the country with after that $12 trillion debt you'll leave them.
I know you really only wanted this job for the perks, but, Dude, seriously, the job entails work and the making of difficult decisions, especially where lives are at stake. That's not a cliche, either. There are people being shot at over there so that we don't have to eat kamikaze airliners over here.
Do the right thing, for the first time your life, Shithead. You don't need Michelle's permission, really.
Either send the boys to the battle or don't -- and then man up and tell the truth about how you arrived at your decision. Don't keep the brave men and women already in Afghanistan in suspense; they have a right to know if help and victory are on the way, or if their Commander-in-Chief has decided to fold up the tent and run away.
On Tiger Woods...
Methinks I smell a rat...or two.
I mean, first of all, the guy doesn't speak to the cops after he's allegedly pulled from his crumpled Escalade, bleeding and dazed. If there was ever a time to give the police, and the other emergency workers who showed up to help you, some information about how you got into that condition, it was as soon as possible. So far as I know, it's been four days since the 'accident', and Tiger hasn't spoken to the cops. People who have something to hide don't talk to the cops.
Second, I know guys who's first instinct upon seeing a really hot Nordic chick wielding an 8-iron is not to run away. Yeah, I know that's sick. Then again, if you somehow managed to get a Scandinavian angry enough to engage in weapon-brandishing physical violence, you must have really fucked up. These are the Nobel Peace Prize folks, after all. There's got to be a fascinating story behind it all.
Third, you know you're screwed when your alleged paramour skips town (with 500 photographers in tow, conveniently) and finds herself in league with Gloria Allredd. That always scares the hell out of me. And by the way, can this Rachel Uchitel chick do any more posing for the cameras? Every shot in the local papers I've seen of her has her in some sort of model-ly action pose. Always with the pursed lips, too. She's a walking advertisement for...something. Homewrecking? Infidelity? Pretending to be more important than you really are? More likely herpes...but what do I know? All I know is what I see and the feeling it (ahem) arouses; this chick is having way too much fun and is obviously set to milk the rumors for as long as she might be able to make a few bucks. I wonder; what potential public embarrassments must lurk within that dark swamp?
Now, I don't know jack about Tiger Woods as a human being, or do I give a rat's ass for golf, which isn't a sport, isn't a game in the same way Monopoly is, and in my experience, seems to be more of a hobby for men with very low self-esteem, but very fat bank accounts. Likewise, I was sick and tired of the whole Tiger Woods Beatification Project which started it seems like 20 years ago, and was based on the faulty premises that a) black men never played golf before Tiger, and b) that winning a whole mess of golf tournaments while being half-black was the racial equivalent of simultaneously winning the lottery and discovering a cure for AIDS. Like Tiger being really good at a shitty game was somehow a deliverance for an entire population (still!) claiming to be suffering from 400 years of slavery and second-class status, even after nearly 200 years of racial progress. Now we find out that Tiger is a human being and not The Savior, after all -- and one with what must be one helluva story that's just dying to be told.
You just know that A-Rod is, at this very moment, jealous that his own knucklehead-ery has been knocked off the front pages by a guy with less personality (and far more money) than a truckload of wet cardboard.
So much for celebrating diversity, huh?
Not that I really give a crap; I'm just thinking the details must be funny as hell for a guy to crash his SUV in his own driveway...twice...apparently running from the Little Woman, while she chucks golf clubs, and he's so panicked that he can't avoid trees and fire hydrants that he probably knows are there. The image of Tiger Woods -- World's Biggest Pussy -- springs to mind. I'm practically giddy.
After that, I have absolutely no interest in this, ummm, affair. Talk to the cops, Tiger, go through the "I've-made-mistakes-in-my-personal-life-but-I'm-going-to-rehab-and-hope-to-forge-a-stronger-relationship-with-my-family-and-God" speech, and get it over with.
And by the way, what a great advertisement for Cadillac, huh? Have you seen the condition of that Escalade after a pair of (allegedly) 3-MPH crashes? Makes you so proud that you could shit to know the Taxpayer now owns the company that can make that sort of product!
I mean, first of all, the guy doesn't speak to the cops after he's allegedly pulled from his crumpled Escalade, bleeding and dazed. If there was ever a time to give the police, and the other emergency workers who showed up to help you, some information about how you got into that condition, it was as soon as possible. So far as I know, it's been four days since the 'accident', and Tiger hasn't spoken to the cops. People who have something to hide don't talk to the cops.
Second, I know guys who's first instinct upon seeing a really hot Nordic chick wielding an 8-iron is not to run away. Yeah, I know that's sick. Then again, if you somehow managed to get a Scandinavian angry enough to engage in weapon-brandishing physical violence, you must have really fucked up. These are the Nobel Peace Prize folks, after all. There's got to be a fascinating story behind it all.
Third, you know you're screwed when your alleged paramour skips town (with 500 photographers in tow, conveniently) and finds herself in league with Gloria Allredd. That always scares the hell out of me. And by the way, can this Rachel Uchitel chick do any more posing for the cameras? Every shot in the local papers I've seen of her has her in some sort of model-ly action pose. Always with the pursed lips, too. She's a walking advertisement for...something. Homewrecking? Infidelity? Pretending to be more important than you really are? More likely herpes...but what do I know? All I know is what I see and the feeling it (ahem) arouses; this chick is having way too much fun and is obviously set to milk the rumors for as long as she might be able to make a few bucks. I wonder; what potential public embarrassments must lurk within that dark swamp?
Now, I don't know jack about Tiger Woods as a human being, or do I give a rat's ass for golf, which isn't a sport, isn't a game in the same way Monopoly is, and in my experience, seems to be more of a hobby for men with very low self-esteem, but very fat bank accounts. Likewise, I was sick and tired of the whole Tiger Woods Beatification Project which started it seems like 20 years ago, and was based on the faulty premises that a) black men never played golf before Tiger, and b) that winning a whole mess of golf tournaments while being half-black was the racial equivalent of simultaneously winning the lottery and discovering a cure for AIDS. Like Tiger being really good at a shitty game was somehow a deliverance for an entire population (still!) claiming to be suffering from 400 years of slavery and second-class status, even after nearly 200 years of racial progress. Now we find out that Tiger is a human being and not The Savior, after all -- and one with what must be one helluva story that's just dying to be told.
You just know that A-Rod is, at this very moment, jealous that his own knucklehead-ery has been knocked off the front pages by a guy with less personality (and far more money) than a truckload of wet cardboard.
So much for celebrating diversity, huh?
Not that I really give a crap; I'm just thinking the details must be funny as hell for a guy to crash his SUV in his own driveway...twice...apparently running from the Little Woman, while she chucks golf clubs, and he's so panicked that he can't avoid trees and fire hydrants that he probably knows are there. The image of Tiger Woods -- World's Biggest Pussy -- springs to mind. I'm practically giddy.
After that, I have absolutely no interest in this, ummm, affair. Talk to the cops, Tiger, go through the "I've-made-mistakes-in-my-personal-life-but-I'm-going-to-rehab-and-hope-to-forge-a-stronger-relationship-with-my-family-and-God" speech, and get it over with.
And by the way, what a great advertisement for Cadillac, huh? Have you seen the condition of that Escalade after a pair of (allegedly) 3-MPH crashes? Makes you so proud that you could shit to know the Taxpayer now owns the company that can make that sort of product!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)