I saw another of those "you MUST have this drug" commercials today which left me shaking my head. Then again, most of them do. This one is a drug intended to treat people who suffer from Rheumatoid Arthritis, however, the list of possible side-effects makes one wonder if it isn't simply easier to suffer with a stiff joint or two.
Without naming the medication in question, the voice-over warns of the following, possible side-effects:
* Loss of resistance to infections.
* Development of Cancers, especially lymphomas.
* Depending on the other medications you might be taking, adding this one may make you too big a risk to be vaccinated against others, especially if the vaccine is a"live" one (like a flu shot).
* You might develop hepatitis.
* Your chance of heart failure increases.
* You may develop Multiple Sclerosis.
* You might destroy your liver.
* You might come down with Lupus-like symptoms.
* Severe psoriasis is possible.
* The more common side-effects include: nausea, more frequent respiratory infections, abnormal liver function, high blood pressure, sinus infections, numbness and tingling sensations in the extremities.
At what point would you decide that taking this "medicine" is simply not worth the risk? How many people do you think will fork over a shitload of money for a prescription, only to show up in their doctor's office looking for another bunch of meds to counteract these side-effects, and develop another batch of severe side-effects as a result?
How much money do you think goes into developing and marketing a drug like this -- which probably causes more and worse problems than it solves?
How is this medicine? I mean, when I was a kid, the idea of medicine I guess I had formed was that doctors and drugs actually cured things, or at least cured the things it was possible for medical science to cure. Since when has it become standard practice to replace one, usually minor, complaint with a laundry list of severe side-effects and perhaps more painful and fatal problems, and consider it "healing"? Because you know how this goes: I take this drug for my arthritis, and then I need another to ward off the tuberculosis, but that drug causes another problem for which I must get another script, and the next thing you know, I'm taking seven meds, my system is completely fucked up, my liver is failing, I'll have explosive diarrhea for 12 hours a day (that's when my bowels aren't completely blocked, But Jaime Lee Curtis sells a $3 cup of yogurt to fix that!!) -- and I'll still have an achy knee.
But the drug company, doctor and insurance company will all have gotten paid.
If you really want to "reform" medical care in this country, in terms of how it's delivered and how much it costs, you can start here. Expensive, heavily-marketed prescription drugs which purport to improve people's "quality of life" in one area while making them sicker and more miserable in another is NOT medicine. It should be considered criminal.
I blame baby Boomers who are so desperate to achieve the Fountain of Youth in such a Brave New World kind of way that they'll plunk down their hard-earned money (soon to be hard-earned, and extorted by increased government power money of other people) for anything which will save them from the even tiniest inconveniences with which their parents' generation simply accepted as a natural part of life. They used to call it "getting old".
You should get used to the idea that when you're old, nothing works the same again, and no pill will ever change that. In the meantime, I'm wondering how it is that a drug which might actually cause cancer in the process of 'curing' arthritis is able to be sold legally in this country.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
On The Subject of "Libtards"...
I've been using the word a lot as of late. "Libtard" is a hybrid construction of Liberal and Retard, which I use to describe a certain class of people who espouse what, to me anyway, seem to be beliefs, both political and social, which defy any sort of logic.
I'm not certain where it came from. I might have heard someone else use it, or maybe read it somewhere, and so I won't claim progenitorial rights to it. However, my use of it has confused people in certain quarters. Am I hostile to Liberals? To people with some form of mental handicap? Am I one of those "heartless Conservatives" you keep hearing about?
To answer those questions: no, I'm not hostile to Liberals, and by that I mean people who are "Classic Liberals", and not the current usage which is basically a pseudonym for "Communist". As for people with mental handicaps, well, I think I've made it clear; I've had a few of those myself. I don't know of anyone who might be more sympathetic to the trials and tribulations of those who suffer mental harm or defect. As for being a "conservative", well, they wouldn't have me in their club; I think God doesn't exist, I don't give a shit about anyone's sexual proclivities or preferences, and I'm certainly not in favor of free flamethrowers and RPG's for everyone.
Oh, and Rush Limbaugh is not my religion, either.
If I have any "conservative" views, they are simply these: Abortion is bad (I have personal experience in this area), taxes suck -- especially when they are misused to the detriment of the country by self-interested asswipes with tiles like Senator or Congressman -- but are a necessary evil. I don't give a crap if people are poor (if they are poor in the United States, it's their own fault, if elsewhere, then tough shit on you), and I don't believe that any effort on the part of mankind will change the forces that shape our climate, weather or the condition of our planet. The Earth will eventually be destroyed in some cosmic cataclysm, like the kind that initially created it, and there is very little we can do against the vast and mostly-unknown forces the Universe might toss our way. Certainly, when viewed in that way, recycling my soda cans in the appropriately-labeled trashcan will not help one iota.
Besides, fuck the whales; if Darwin was right, they'll evolve and adapt and continue as a species without us.
Now, as to what Libtard means...and how to spot one;
The first sign that you might be confronted by a Libtard is their proclivity to attribute evil intent and absolute power to inanimate objects or entities. Guns/Cigarettes/SUV's/Exxon-Mobil kill people, for example. I could very easily leave a loaded revolver on my dining room table, and I can promise you that so long as no one ever touches it, it will not go off of it's own accord and take out an innocent bystander. No one forces another person to smoke and get cancer. The idea that my neighbor's Lincoln Navigator will ultimately be responsible for killing Tibetan Yak Farmers by causing tsunamis, earthquakes, Cat-5 Hurricanes, or meteor strikes is simply too fanciful to be believed, and is (currently) unprovable by science. The point is to turn everyone into a victim; people are never responsible for their successes and failure, it's always some invisible, indefinable force generated by the evil object that causes something bad to happen.
Incidentally, they can never describe what this force is...but they're positive it's not any sort of God. In any case, people are never responsible for anything, except something bad, but they wouldn't have had the opportunity to be bad if that gun/cigarette/SUV/Exxon-Mobil never existed or were properly controlled.
The second sign that you may be talking with a Libtard is the twisted logical premises they all seem to possess. They might advance the premise that taxes are too low, and then insist that ATM fees are too high. They believe that the best way to ensure that everyone gets an equal result in all endeavors (medical care, education, Law-school enrollments, material wealth, etc.) is not to ensure an equality of opportunity, but rather impose an equality of misery. If my neighbor is a fat-ass, Big-Mac chomping, illiterate, poverty-stricken, unemployable crackhead, the solution is not to encourage him to mend his ways -- and reward him when he does -- but to lower my standard of living until my life is just as miserable as his. And over it all, because they're such enlightened and caring individuals, the Libtards will lord over it to ensure that even the pain is distributed equally.....except for himself. He's entitled to more, and better, because he's smarter and more caring than I am.
The next sign that a Libtard is on the loose is the famous NIMBY Formulation. This postulates that if there is something which gets the Libtard's nose out of joint (homelessness, drug-addiction, rampant crime), then they are entitled to cry and moan and gnash their teeth, and then suggest --and implement -- unworkable solutions that someone else is supposed to pay for and accept responsibility for, and from which She (usually it's women who think this way) should be absolved of all responsibility and any thought of shared sacrifice.
A sure-fire way to identify a Libtard, especially from a distance, is the way in which personality rather than intellect informs his politics and personal views. Men who accomplish very little of actual value, but who have great Charisma, a penchant for destruction and a thirst for raw power (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Barack Obama), are afforded god-like status, while serious, sober, experienced and reasonable folks with actual accomplishments to their name and a desire to protect and defend the rights and dignity of the common man, are all irredeemable, hysterical, lunatic warmongers. George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan are complete morons, but Bill Clinton was the very definition of "Statesman".
Finally, you can identify your (Not-so-friendly) Neighborhood Libtard by how he defines the word "Liberal". To him, "Liberal" really means "Libertine", and a casual and arbitrary sort of Libertinism, at that. This sort of person twists the English language into pretzels in an effort to justify the worst sorts of behavior. So, the word "Choice" doesn't apply to activities he finds objectionable -- owning a gun, spending your own money in a way you see fit, smoking a cigarette, deciding how big a house you want, in other words, people exercising their own free will and subject to the consequences this might bring -- but rather to infanticide as birth control of last resort, and a means to avoid consequences and responsibility. "Marriage" is not a societal institution with great religious, cultural and legal significance -- it's simply a ceremony and a piece of paper. "Rights" only apply to people he sympathizes or allies with, and are things which should be protected when he finds them convenient, but abolished when his political foes attempt to exercise them. "Law" is not a codified system of rules for the protection and betterment of society, it is something to be bent any which way you can in order to get your way, especially if "your way" involves the weakening of polite society for his personal benefit.
That's what a "Libtard" is. I hope we might better understand each other now.
I'm not certain where it came from. I might have heard someone else use it, or maybe read it somewhere, and so I won't claim progenitorial rights to it. However, my use of it has confused people in certain quarters. Am I hostile to Liberals? To people with some form of mental handicap? Am I one of those "heartless Conservatives" you keep hearing about?
To answer those questions: no, I'm not hostile to Liberals, and by that I mean people who are "Classic Liberals", and not the current usage which is basically a pseudonym for "Communist". As for people with mental handicaps, well, I think I've made it clear; I've had a few of those myself. I don't know of anyone who might be more sympathetic to the trials and tribulations of those who suffer mental harm or defect. As for being a "conservative", well, they wouldn't have me in their club; I think God doesn't exist, I don't give a shit about anyone's sexual proclivities or preferences, and I'm certainly not in favor of free flamethrowers and RPG's for everyone.
Oh, and Rush Limbaugh is not my religion, either.
If I have any "conservative" views, they are simply these: Abortion is bad (I have personal experience in this area), taxes suck -- especially when they are misused to the detriment of the country by self-interested asswipes with tiles like Senator or Congressman -- but are a necessary evil. I don't give a crap if people are poor (if they are poor in the United States, it's their own fault, if elsewhere, then tough shit on you), and I don't believe that any effort on the part of mankind will change the forces that shape our climate, weather or the condition of our planet. The Earth will eventually be destroyed in some cosmic cataclysm, like the kind that initially created it, and there is very little we can do against the vast and mostly-unknown forces the Universe might toss our way. Certainly, when viewed in that way, recycling my soda cans in the appropriately-labeled trashcan will not help one iota.
Besides, fuck the whales; if Darwin was right, they'll evolve and adapt and continue as a species without us.
Now, as to what Libtard means...and how to spot one;
The first sign that you might be confronted by a Libtard is their proclivity to attribute evil intent and absolute power to inanimate objects or entities. Guns/Cigarettes/SUV's/Exxon-Mobil kill people, for example. I could very easily leave a loaded revolver on my dining room table, and I can promise you that so long as no one ever touches it, it will not go off of it's own accord and take out an innocent bystander. No one forces another person to smoke and get cancer. The idea that my neighbor's Lincoln Navigator will ultimately be responsible for killing Tibetan Yak Farmers by causing tsunamis, earthquakes, Cat-5 Hurricanes, or meteor strikes is simply too fanciful to be believed, and is (currently) unprovable by science. The point is to turn everyone into a victim; people are never responsible for their successes and failure, it's always some invisible, indefinable force generated by the evil object that causes something bad to happen.
Incidentally, they can never describe what this force is...but they're positive it's not any sort of God. In any case, people are never responsible for anything, except something bad, but they wouldn't have had the opportunity to be bad if that gun/cigarette/SUV/Exxon-Mobil never existed or were properly controlled.
The second sign that you may be talking with a Libtard is the twisted logical premises they all seem to possess. They might advance the premise that taxes are too low, and then insist that ATM fees are too high. They believe that the best way to ensure that everyone gets an equal result in all endeavors (medical care, education, Law-school enrollments, material wealth, etc.) is not to ensure an equality of opportunity, but rather impose an equality of misery. If my neighbor is a fat-ass, Big-Mac chomping, illiterate, poverty-stricken, unemployable crackhead, the solution is not to encourage him to mend his ways -- and reward him when he does -- but to lower my standard of living until my life is just as miserable as his. And over it all, because they're such enlightened and caring individuals, the Libtards will lord over it to ensure that even the pain is distributed equally.....except for himself. He's entitled to more, and better, because he's smarter and more caring than I am.
The next sign that a Libtard is on the loose is the famous NIMBY Formulation. This postulates that if there is something which gets the Libtard's nose out of joint (homelessness, drug-addiction, rampant crime), then they are entitled to cry and moan and gnash their teeth, and then suggest --and implement -- unworkable solutions that someone else is supposed to pay for and accept responsibility for, and from which She (usually it's women who think this way) should be absolved of all responsibility and any thought of shared sacrifice.
A sure-fire way to identify a Libtard, especially from a distance, is the way in which personality rather than intellect informs his politics and personal views. Men who accomplish very little of actual value, but who have great Charisma, a penchant for destruction and a thirst for raw power (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Barack Obama), are afforded god-like status, while serious, sober, experienced and reasonable folks with actual accomplishments to their name and a desire to protect and defend the rights and dignity of the common man, are all irredeemable, hysterical, lunatic warmongers. George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan are complete morons, but Bill Clinton was the very definition of "Statesman".
Finally, you can identify your (Not-so-friendly) Neighborhood Libtard by how he defines the word "Liberal". To him, "Liberal" really means "Libertine", and a casual and arbitrary sort of Libertinism, at that. This sort of person twists the English language into pretzels in an effort to justify the worst sorts of behavior. So, the word "Choice" doesn't apply to activities he finds objectionable -- owning a gun, spending your own money in a way you see fit, smoking a cigarette, deciding how big a house you want, in other words, people exercising their own free will and subject to the consequences this might bring -- but rather to infanticide as birth control of last resort, and a means to avoid consequences and responsibility. "Marriage" is not a societal institution with great religious, cultural and legal significance -- it's simply a ceremony and a piece of paper. "Rights" only apply to people he sympathizes or allies with, and are things which should be protected when he finds them convenient, but abolished when his political foes attempt to exercise them. "Law" is not a codified system of rules for the protection and betterment of society, it is something to be bent any which way you can in order to get your way, especially if "your way" involves the weakening of polite society for his personal benefit.
That's what a "Libtard" is. I hope we might better understand each other now.
Can We Just Shoot the Rest of Them, Too?
And no, that is not an invitation to someone with no horse sense to do just that. It's a rhetorical question, no matter how satisfying the thought may be.
Representative Patrick "Patches" Kennedy (Ignoramus - Rhode Island), son of the Lyin' of the Senate, Teddy the Fatboy Kennedy, took to the floor of the House of Representatives today to deliver a scathing rebuke upon the Enemies of the People.
"Who were those enemies?", you may well ask. The Enemy, according to Patches, is the Press.
And to a certain extent, he's right. The Fourth Estate in recent years has failed this country. It is blinded by ideology, plays by rules they make up as they go along, is lazy and disinterested in the news and reportage which actually affects people's lives. It's brought us Bill Clinton as Victim, George Bush as Draft Dodger, Al Gore as Prophet, Jimmy Carter as Our Collective Conscience, John Edwards as the True Voice of the People, and Barack Obama as Our Savior, only to be proven wrong over and over again. It ignores real reporting -- the discovery and presentation of information the public needs in order to make informed decisions in their everyday lives -- on everything from politics to economics, from medicine to Natural Disaster, and as the Congresscreep rightfully points out, it has singularly failed to adequately fulfill it's responsibilities to a country at War. It manufactures scandals to fit it's tastes, and ignores the real ones which take place out in the open.
And by that I mean it has managed to present the news (in the context of Asshole's speech) on the War on Terror through an extremely narrow lens, highlighting the War as it goes against us when that news fits with it's preconceived notions of the politics and personalities involved -- specifically if the narrative could be spun to bring approbation and shame upon it's political and ideological enemies -- and ignoring it altogether when those enemies are eventually proven right, or at least more prescient.
Now that I've petted Patches, it's time to kick his ass.
His attempt to tell us what we already know, and to feign outrage over it (I'm not certain if he was drunk or high when he gave this speech, but the fake anger was far too easy to see through) is extremely self-serving, and by that, I don't mean to Kennedy himself, but rather to his party. The democratic (small 'd' intentional) party would rather have the Press look at everything except what's actually happening. The Press, I'm sure, would be glad to oblige, but won't because if they did an about-face even the mouthbreathers who consider Jersey Shore to be the highest form of cultural achievement might actually notice. The dems would prefer that anything be on the front page except the following:
Obamacare
Eric Massa
Charlie Rangel
Unemployment
Government Spending
A Rudderless and Clueless White House
Tea Parties
That just starts the list. In fact, dems want these things to go away so fast that they're even wiling to send Patches (a real brain surgeon, that one) out to scream his big, fat coconut off about a War they all insist has been lost since Day One but don't have the guts to defund or stand against. For the last nine years. Especially when it's obvious to even a graduate of a Washington, D.C. Public School that we just might be winning it.
I can understand that. If I were in their position, I might even do it myself. But I think I might have been a little more careful about whom I chose as a messenger. Because if I were Patrick Kennedy, and I had all those skeletons in my family -- and my personal -- closets, I would be very careful about who I might call Irresponsible, Despicable and Shameful.
And just what lurks in Kennedy's closets?
Well, to begin with, his father might have gotten away with vehicular manslaughter, at least, and at worst, depraved indifference to human life and a murder rap. The scion of MY family certainly didn't make his fortune by bootlegging and running with mobsters, nor was he a secret fan of Adolf Hitler and advising the American Government to surrender to the Nazis. My forebears never bought votes, or skewed elections to their personal benefit. They weren't serial adulterers, and so far as I know, none of my ancestors swapped sloppy seconds with their brothers.
Neither were any of my relatives ever found guilty of bludgeoning a teenaged girl to death with a golf club. None of them ever flew a plane they weren't qualified to operate into an ocean they knew was there, killing themselves, their wives and sister-in-laws in the process. None of my relatives ever got drunk and tried to play Bode Miller with a pine forest with predictable results. There are no rapists in my background.
Unlike Patches, I don't have a couple of (purchased-my-way-out-of-them) alleged-DWI's on my record, never spent a day in rehab, and haven't admitted addictions to cocaine, oxycontin and Johnny Walker Black.
I haven't parlayed the mostly-manufactured legacy of two uncles with small-caliber holes in their heads into a political career, using those biographical details to play upon people's sympathies long enough to get their votes and just before they figured out that I don't have any intelligence or talent of my own. I haven't depended upon an (ill-gotten) family fortune to pay for my continued Congressional career, nor (probably) bail me out of every scrape I've ever been in through my own stupidity and sense of entitlement.
When Patches makes the point about people not having the courage to tell the parents of a dead American soldier that their son died for nothing -- and likening it to the experience of Vietnam --I would remind him that his Uncles, the sainted JFK and Bobby, you know; the one's whose legacy he's been able to skate on all these years, were up to their navels in Vietnam and in the escalation of that war. Certainly, he's (conveniently) forgotten that his Dead Uncle's stupidity and flabbiness almost brought the world to the threshold of nuclear annihilation. Over Fidel Castro, of all things.
He also speaks of re-evaluating American priorities so that our "resources" (libspeak for "Middle-class Taxpayers money that can be better used to buy votes from the Lazy, Halt and Stupid") can be better allocated to solve our problems. He then hardly makes mentions of what those problems are, in his opinion. Quite frankly, Mr. Kennedy, the first priority being re-evaluated by most people in this country is how we can get shithead, drunken losers like you out of our government.
In that respect, the Press might actually be useful performing it's primary mission, which is letting the American People know just who the loudmouth assholes are so that we might vote against them.
I'm absolutely sick to death of Kennedys. I've heard about the "Kennedy Mystique" all my life, and I swear, I can't figure it out. What the hell is so mysterious about them? They're all morons, and they've all reached some stage of distinction and notoriety in life because money still talks in some precincts of this country. What they haven't gotten on a talent for bullshit, and the tragic memories of two murdered men, they've simply bought outright. I think we should pass a law that says no one with the surname "Kennedy" should ever be allowed to hold a public office ever again.
Patches clearly demonstrates the enormous damage they've already done to the gene pool, so I think I might have some luck in getting that one passed.
Representative Patrick "Patches" Kennedy (Ignoramus - Rhode Island), son of the Lyin' of the Senate, Teddy the Fatboy Kennedy, took to the floor of the House of Representatives today to deliver a scathing rebuke upon the Enemies of the People.
"Who were those enemies?", you may well ask. The Enemy, according to Patches, is the Press.
And to a certain extent, he's right. The Fourth Estate in recent years has failed this country. It is blinded by ideology, plays by rules they make up as they go along, is lazy and disinterested in the news and reportage which actually affects people's lives. It's brought us Bill Clinton as Victim, George Bush as Draft Dodger, Al Gore as Prophet, Jimmy Carter as Our Collective Conscience, John Edwards as the True Voice of the People, and Barack Obama as Our Savior, only to be proven wrong over and over again. It ignores real reporting -- the discovery and presentation of information the public needs in order to make informed decisions in their everyday lives -- on everything from politics to economics, from medicine to Natural Disaster, and as the Congresscreep rightfully points out, it has singularly failed to adequately fulfill it's responsibilities to a country at War. It manufactures scandals to fit it's tastes, and ignores the real ones which take place out in the open.
And by that I mean it has managed to present the news (in the context of Asshole's speech) on the War on Terror through an extremely narrow lens, highlighting the War as it goes against us when that news fits with it's preconceived notions of the politics and personalities involved -- specifically if the narrative could be spun to bring approbation and shame upon it's political and ideological enemies -- and ignoring it altogether when those enemies are eventually proven right, or at least more prescient.
Now that I've petted Patches, it's time to kick his ass.
His attempt to tell us what we already know, and to feign outrage over it (I'm not certain if he was drunk or high when he gave this speech, but the fake anger was far too easy to see through) is extremely self-serving, and by that, I don't mean to Kennedy himself, but rather to his party. The democratic (small 'd' intentional) party would rather have the Press look at everything except what's actually happening. The Press, I'm sure, would be glad to oblige, but won't because if they did an about-face even the mouthbreathers who consider Jersey Shore to be the highest form of cultural achievement might actually notice. The dems would prefer that anything be on the front page except the following:
Obamacare
Eric Massa
Charlie Rangel
Unemployment
Government Spending
A Rudderless and Clueless White House
Tea Parties
That just starts the list. In fact, dems want these things to go away so fast that they're even wiling to send Patches (a real brain surgeon, that one) out to scream his big, fat coconut off about a War they all insist has been lost since Day One but don't have the guts to defund or stand against. For the last nine years. Especially when it's obvious to even a graduate of a Washington, D.C. Public School that we just might be winning it.
I can understand that. If I were in their position, I might even do it myself. But I think I might have been a little more careful about whom I chose as a messenger. Because if I were Patrick Kennedy, and I had all those skeletons in my family -- and my personal -- closets, I would be very careful about who I might call Irresponsible, Despicable and Shameful.
And just what lurks in Kennedy's closets?
Well, to begin with, his father might have gotten away with vehicular manslaughter, at least, and at worst, depraved indifference to human life and a murder rap. The scion of MY family certainly didn't make his fortune by bootlegging and running with mobsters, nor was he a secret fan of Adolf Hitler and advising the American Government to surrender to the Nazis. My forebears never bought votes, or skewed elections to their personal benefit. They weren't serial adulterers, and so far as I know, none of my ancestors swapped sloppy seconds with their brothers.
Neither were any of my relatives ever found guilty of bludgeoning a teenaged girl to death with a golf club. None of them ever flew a plane they weren't qualified to operate into an ocean they knew was there, killing themselves, their wives and sister-in-laws in the process. None of my relatives ever got drunk and tried to play Bode Miller with a pine forest with predictable results. There are no rapists in my background.
Unlike Patches, I don't have a couple of (purchased-my-way-out-of-them) alleged-DWI's on my record, never spent a day in rehab, and haven't admitted addictions to cocaine, oxycontin and Johnny Walker Black.
I haven't parlayed the mostly-manufactured legacy of two uncles with small-caliber holes in their heads into a political career, using those biographical details to play upon people's sympathies long enough to get their votes and just before they figured out that I don't have any intelligence or talent of my own. I haven't depended upon an (ill-gotten) family fortune to pay for my continued Congressional career, nor (probably) bail me out of every scrape I've ever been in through my own stupidity and sense of entitlement.
When Patches makes the point about people not having the courage to tell the parents of a dead American soldier that their son died for nothing -- and likening it to the experience of Vietnam --I would remind him that his Uncles, the sainted JFK and Bobby, you know; the one's whose legacy he's been able to skate on all these years, were up to their navels in Vietnam and in the escalation of that war. Certainly, he's (conveniently) forgotten that his Dead Uncle's stupidity and flabbiness almost brought the world to the threshold of nuclear annihilation. Over Fidel Castro, of all things.
He also speaks of re-evaluating American priorities so that our "resources" (libspeak for "Middle-class Taxpayers money that can be better used to buy votes from the Lazy, Halt and Stupid") can be better allocated to solve our problems. He then hardly makes mentions of what those problems are, in his opinion. Quite frankly, Mr. Kennedy, the first priority being re-evaluated by most people in this country is how we can get shithead, drunken losers like you out of our government.
In that respect, the Press might actually be useful performing it's primary mission, which is letting the American People know just who the loudmouth assholes are so that we might vote against them.
I'm absolutely sick to death of Kennedys. I've heard about the "Kennedy Mystique" all my life, and I swear, I can't figure it out. What the hell is so mysterious about them? They're all morons, and they've all reached some stage of distinction and notoriety in life because money still talks in some precincts of this country. What they haven't gotten on a talent for bullshit, and the tragic memories of two murdered men, they've simply bought outright. I think we should pass a law that says no one with the surname "Kennedy" should ever be allowed to hold a public office ever again.
Patches clearly demonstrates the enormous damage they've already done to the gene pool, so I think I might have some luck in getting that one passed.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Douchebag of the Week (3/10/10): And the Winner Is...
The Oscars.
This is the first time that the Honneurs de la Douchebag will be not have been bestowed upon a particular individual, but rather upon a cultural phenomenon.
I did not watch the Oscars this year. Again. In fact, I have never watched them of my own free will (I believe the last time I had no choice in the matter, "The English Patient" was the movie everyone creamed over. I can't even begin to imagine how long ago that was. Full disclosure: the only movie nominated that I actually saw was "Inglorious Bastards" which was fun, but not "Lord of the Rings"-great.). If given the choice, I could easily, even thankfully, see myself spending the three hours of the Oscar 'ceremonies' happily on the receiving-end of a root canal. With no anesthetic. And the dentist gaining access to my mouth through my alimentary canal. It would certainly be a much more productive, fulfilling and entertaining use of time.
Because at the end of the day, the Oscars do not celebrate much of anything, in my opinion. There will be some who will disagree and point out that there is an art and skill to acting and filmmaking, and yeah, perhaps there is. But in the grand scheme of things, they aren't arts and skills which make much of a real difference in anyone's life; they don't cure anyone's diseases, they don't advance or improve the human condition, they don't feed the hungry,comfort the lonely, bring dogs and cats closer together.
The ceremony itself is a disgusting display of conspicuous consumption that is heavy on display, loaded with conspicuous and totally all about consumption. It's wickedly over the top. Hours before the actual 'ceremony' are devoted to watching skinny bitches in expensive dresses made by fag designers you've never heard of march up and down a red carpet in full, capitalist-in-red-tooth-and-claw finery; jewels hanging from their ears and navels, the gemstone-encrusted shoes, the hundred-thou dress paired with the million dollar diamond. All gladly and peacock-proudly worn by people who very often speak out forcefully (and ignorantly) about the selfishness and greed of Western, particularly American, civilization with nary a thought as to the poignant hypocrisy on display at that exact moment, and under those exact circumstances.
The Strutting Strumpets are followed about by legions of cameramen and on-air commentators who ask vapid questions that All the World Wants the Answers To (do they? Really? Does anyone really care what Miley Cyrus or Woody Harrelson thinks about anything? And if you do, are you being medicated for it?). The level of coverage can only be compared to what happens with the Super Bowl; I should be surprised to find out that there wasn't some corporate dickhead suggesting that this year's Oscars be shot in Super High Definition, and include Super-Slo-Mo replays of the Red Carpet. There are hours of "pre-game show" for this thing which is nothing more than hours of airtime devoted to complete speculation about every inane detail of the lives and tastes of people who are ultimately blank-slates. We don't devote this much airtime or 'serious' discussion to matters that actually mean something; people will hang on Jennifer Lopez's every insipid word, so long as she stands upon a red carpet wearing a dress that looks like someone attached a shower curtain to at the last minute, but few actually know what the hell their government does or how it does it.
It's a sickening display of self-appointed 'heroes' slapping themselves on the back, and celebrating their own self-absorption in a three-hour orgy of nothingness... With dance numbers. Why, in this day and age, do we still have dance numbers? It's nothing but the "Look-at-Me!" crowd revelling in yet another opportunity to Look-at-Them. Only better dressed.
It's no wonder that the best part of the Oscars (so they say) usually occurs AFTER the ceremonies themselves are all over. That's when the Gay Men come out to tell you all about the fashion faux pas of those who attended. Most of them can get snotty and vicious, but it's really just a reflection of the underlying Gay Vibe of the Oscars; they care so much about what Sandra Bullock wore because all these gay commentators secretly wish they could wear it, too. And not get beat up for it. Any man who complained that so-and-so looked perfectly awful in so-and-so's dress is really quite upset that it doesn't come in a size 15 so that he can play Cinderella, too.
It's apropos that the ceremony in which the 'winners' get a statuette of a naked man clad in gold should be examined in minute and exquisite detail by gay men in an forced, campy approximation of high menstrual dudgeon. It's the most appropriate annual post-mortem to any event yet devised by human beings.
Hollywood still takes itself seriously, but it really shouldn't; it's bailiwick --entertainment, the creation of fantasy and the means of intellectual escape -- have been superseded by the video game, the home computer, On-Demand cable and satelite television, video and audio streaming. Home entertainment is now easier, cheaper and more varied than ever before, and Hollywood ever-less necessary. Like the Flint spearhead, the Chariot, the idea that Sin is the cause of Pestilence, the Horse and Buggy and the Post Office, Hollywood has been made irrelevant by the advance of technology.
And even when there is a movie that makes some money nowadays (like Avatar), it turns out the majority of the action is really CGI-generated apparition, not an actor to be found, and the whole resembles a video game fantasy milleaux more than it does anything else. Technology is making the actor redundant; we live in an age of Na'vi, Shreks, Buzz Lightyears, CGI-generated armies of Orcs, Transformers, Demons, Roman Legionaries, whatever. You don't even need to go "On Location" to film anything anymore; you can just shoot a movie in front of a Green Screen and fill in your scenery later on. Who needs actors, who needs crews of hundreds of highly-paid union hacks when you have computers? And the what the fuck is a Best Boy anyway? It sounds even gayer than Oscar himself.
But, traditions die hard, don't they? And the tradition of self-absorbed, conceited morons who make their wholly-exaggerated and undeserved livings pretending to be other people in expensive garb receiving awards from the other ranks of spoiled rotten pricks, is a tradition that dies even harder.
And in a foretaste of things to come, the broadcast of the Oscars here in New York was held hostage to a dispute over money between Disney, the company which owns the rights to the broadcast, and local cable television systems which pay Disney a fee to retransmit it. Disney felt they were getting short-changed and threatened to withhold the Oscar broadcast from certain cable systems this year...unless they coughed up the cash... cash which comes from the customers who watch the Oscars. In the end, Oscar is not a celebration anymore; it's all about the money.
The Oscars are not only an orgy of ugly vanity, nonsense, political correctness run amok, stupid people given far more deference than they warrant, decadent opulence and waste -- it's a vivid demonstration of corporate extortion.
For being unaware of your Irrelevancy, Stupidity, Inanity, Conceit, Greed and Gayness, I give you, The Oscar Ceremonies, the Douchebag of the Week Award.
Screw the envelope.
This is the first time that the Honneurs de la Douchebag will be not have been bestowed upon a particular individual, but rather upon a cultural phenomenon.
I did not watch the Oscars this year. Again. In fact, I have never watched them of my own free will (I believe the last time I had no choice in the matter, "The English Patient" was the movie everyone creamed over. I can't even begin to imagine how long ago that was. Full disclosure: the only movie nominated that I actually saw was "Inglorious Bastards" which was fun, but not "Lord of the Rings"-great.). If given the choice, I could easily, even thankfully, see myself spending the three hours of the Oscar 'ceremonies' happily on the receiving-end of a root canal. With no anesthetic. And the dentist gaining access to my mouth through my alimentary canal. It would certainly be a much more productive, fulfilling and entertaining use of time.
Because at the end of the day, the Oscars do not celebrate much of anything, in my opinion. There will be some who will disagree and point out that there is an art and skill to acting and filmmaking, and yeah, perhaps there is. But in the grand scheme of things, they aren't arts and skills which make much of a real difference in anyone's life; they don't cure anyone's diseases, they don't advance or improve the human condition, they don't feed the hungry,comfort the lonely, bring dogs and cats closer together.
The ceremony itself is a disgusting display of conspicuous consumption that is heavy on display, loaded with conspicuous and totally all about consumption. It's wickedly over the top. Hours before the actual 'ceremony' are devoted to watching skinny bitches in expensive dresses made by fag designers you've never heard of march up and down a red carpet in full, capitalist-in-red-tooth-and-claw finery; jewels hanging from their ears and navels, the gemstone-encrusted shoes, the hundred-thou dress paired with the million dollar diamond. All gladly and peacock-proudly worn by people who very often speak out forcefully (and ignorantly) about the selfishness and greed of Western, particularly American, civilization with nary a thought as to the poignant hypocrisy on display at that exact moment, and under those exact circumstances.
The Strutting Strumpets are followed about by legions of cameramen and on-air commentators who ask vapid questions that All the World Wants the Answers To (do they? Really? Does anyone really care what Miley Cyrus or Woody Harrelson thinks about anything? And if you do, are you being medicated for it?). The level of coverage can only be compared to what happens with the Super Bowl; I should be surprised to find out that there wasn't some corporate dickhead suggesting that this year's Oscars be shot in Super High Definition, and include Super-Slo-Mo replays of the Red Carpet. There are hours of "pre-game show" for this thing which is nothing more than hours of airtime devoted to complete speculation about every inane detail of the lives and tastes of people who are ultimately blank-slates. We don't devote this much airtime or 'serious' discussion to matters that actually mean something; people will hang on Jennifer Lopez's every insipid word, so long as she stands upon a red carpet wearing a dress that looks like someone attached a shower curtain to at the last minute, but few actually know what the hell their government does or how it does it.
It's a sickening display of self-appointed 'heroes' slapping themselves on the back, and celebrating their own self-absorption in a three-hour orgy of nothingness... With dance numbers. Why, in this day and age, do we still have dance numbers? It's nothing but the "Look-at-Me!" crowd revelling in yet another opportunity to Look-at-Them. Only better dressed.
It's no wonder that the best part of the Oscars (so they say) usually occurs AFTER the ceremonies themselves are all over. That's when the Gay Men come out to tell you all about the fashion faux pas of those who attended. Most of them can get snotty and vicious, but it's really just a reflection of the underlying Gay Vibe of the Oscars; they care so much about what Sandra Bullock wore because all these gay commentators secretly wish they could wear it, too. And not get beat up for it. Any man who complained that so-and-so looked perfectly awful in so-and-so's dress is really quite upset that it doesn't come in a size 15 so that he can play Cinderella, too.
It's apropos that the ceremony in which the 'winners' get a statuette of a naked man clad in gold should be examined in minute and exquisite detail by gay men in an forced, campy approximation of high menstrual dudgeon. It's the most appropriate annual post-mortem to any event yet devised by human beings.
Hollywood still takes itself seriously, but it really shouldn't; it's bailiwick --entertainment, the creation of fantasy and the means of intellectual escape -- have been superseded by the video game, the home computer, On-Demand cable and satelite television, video and audio streaming. Home entertainment is now easier, cheaper and more varied than ever before, and Hollywood ever-less necessary. Like the Flint spearhead, the Chariot, the idea that Sin is the cause of Pestilence, the Horse and Buggy and the Post Office, Hollywood has been made irrelevant by the advance of technology.
And even when there is a movie that makes some money nowadays (like Avatar), it turns out the majority of the action is really CGI-generated apparition, not an actor to be found, and the whole resembles a video game fantasy milleaux more than it does anything else. Technology is making the actor redundant; we live in an age of Na'vi, Shreks, Buzz Lightyears, CGI-generated armies of Orcs, Transformers, Demons, Roman Legionaries, whatever. You don't even need to go "On Location" to film anything anymore; you can just shoot a movie in front of a Green Screen and fill in your scenery later on. Who needs actors, who needs crews of hundreds of highly-paid union hacks when you have computers? And the what the fuck is a Best Boy anyway? It sounds even gayer than Oscar himself.
But, traditions die hard, don't they? And the tradition of self-absorbed, conceited morons who make their wholly-exaggerated and undeserved livings pretending to be other people in expensive garb receiving awards from the other ranks of spoiled rotten pricks, is a tradition that dies even harder.
And in a foretaste of things to come, the broadcast of the Oscars here in New York was held hostage to a dispute over money between Disney, the company which owns the rights to the broadcast, and local cable television systems which pay Disney a fee to retransmit it. Disney felt they were getting short-changed and threatened to withhold the Oscar broadcast from certain cable systems this year...unless they coughed up the cash... cash which comes from the customers who watch the Oscars. In the end, Oscar is not a celebration anymore; it's all about the money.
The Oscars are not only an orgy of ugly vanity, nonsense, political correctness run amok, stupid people given far more deference than they warrant, decadent opulence and waste -- it's a vivid demonstration of corporate extortion.
For being unaware of your Irrelevancy, Stupidity, Inanity, Conceit, Greed and Gayness, I give you, The Oscar Ceremonies, the Douchebag of the Week Award.
Screw the envelope.
Gee, I REALLY Goofed...
My word, it's getting so complicated that one is almost convinced they should just drop the entire thing and retire from the business of thinking altogether. Then again, it's not as if the main player in this little melodrama is exactly the best source of information, even when reporting on his own misdeeds!
The other day, I wrote here that Representative Eric Massa (the New York Congressman accused of fondling his male staffers) was opposed to ObamaCare, opposition which he claims made him a target for the democratic Congressional leadership who then concocted a series of scandals of a true-and-yet-untrue nature -- depending upon whom Massa is talking to that day -- with which to hound him from public office. This is all democratic party revenge, he says, for his having voted against that Health Care Reform (three lies for the price of one).
Massa represents himself as both guardian of the public trust and Innocent victim; he may have been a little rambunctious in letting his sexual peccadilloes come to the fore (always under the influence of alcohol, and it's always explained as heterosexual Gay Play that gets out of hand). He would have you believe that despite the fact that he's so-obviously-not-telling-the-truth-while-bending -over-backwards-to-appear-completely-candid that he opposed ObamaCare with every fibre of his being as an abomination that would bankrupt the American Republic and violate the rights of every man, woman, child and German shepherd on the Continent. Why, Massa almost sounds like a Conservative.
Eric Massa is defending YOU, standing on the ramparts, defying the evil forces of Barack "Skeletor" Obama, and that is why Nancy Pelosi must destroy him!
Why, I even apologized to Mr. Massa right here on this page for initially believing that he had voted in lock-step with the democratic buttholes currently poised to have their bureaucratic noses stuck into my...err...butthole...literally.
Except that isn't an exactly truthful version of events either. Not much of what Massa says is true. And if I may say something in my own defense, since this guy can't keep his stories...ahem...straight, how can I be expected to know everything's on the up-and-up (not that I really cared much to begin with)? He's on both sides of the street with his nonsense; yes, he did engage in homoerotic behavior with other men, most of it unwelcome and severe enough that the victims didn't think it was a joke, and they felt violated enough to file official complaints -- and alcohol is no excuse, Mr. Massa. I mean, all the telling other men that he wants to fuck 'em, and the hair tousling, and the tickle fighting, is NOT just Massa being a fun guy to have at parties. This man has serious issues with his own sexual identity, and certainly with boundaries.
I mean, even when he defends himself, the homoerotic story of a butt-naked-in-a-steamy shower-room Rahm Emmanuel poking him in the chest is what he talks about. The story is supposed to be interpreted as an indication of how far the democrats will go to harass and destroy Massa, and yet it's almost as if he's bragging that Rahm followed him to the shower, and appeared Naked in the Steam With Nary a Towel to be Seen. You can almost hear the playful rattails and giggling from here. Very little testosterone in this story.
Massa doth protest too much; while the story about a naked Rahm in the Congressional shower is supposed to shock and appall us all, to my ears it almost seems like the perfect Harlequin Romance setting... and Massa wants you to know he saw another man naked. It's how he rolls.
It's like when you're in the third grade and there's a little girl who sits across from you in homeroom who sends you little love notes; you secretly love it, you almost want a note from her every day, but you still have to pretend that girls have cooties and are otherwise generally-icky, and put up the front of resistance, or else the other guys won't play with you at recess.
Anyways, the reason why I goofed... again... was that apology. I was willing to believe that Massa's claims had some merit to them, and might even be true, and so I apologized for being too quick to judge. But I was wrong: Massa didn't vote against ObamaCare because it was a violation of the laws of the land, or that it was an expensive monstrosity that wouldn't work, or even that ObamaCare is a low priority given massive unemployment and deficits.
No, Massa voted against ObamaCare because it didn't include a single-payer system. In other words -- he voted against it because it was insufficiently radical and not government-controlled enough.
Well, don't I look foolish? Again?
Maybe not as foolish as a man who's desperately trying hard to control his Inner Butt Pirate (hell, that's not a crime. No one actually gives a crap if you are gay, you know. This is the 21st Century, after all. Just don't donate any blood, okay?), but foolish nonetheless. Perhaps I was so intrigued by the possibility of democrats turning upon one another and tearing each other to pieces in public that I was willing to take Massa's claims at face value? Perhaps.
But I can tell you this much; the more the guy talks, the more entertaining it gets. They ought to put him on TV for an hour a week. It would kick the shit out of American Idol.
The other day, I wrote here that Representative Eric Massa (the New York Congressman accused of fondling his male staffers) was opposed to ObamaCare, opposition which he claims made him a target for the democratic Congressional leadership who then concocted a series of scandals of a true-and-yet-untrue nature -- depending upon whom Massa is talking to that day -- with which to hound him from public office. This is all democratic party revenge, he says, for his having voted against that Health Care Reform (three lies for the price of one).
Massa represents himself as both guardian of the public trust and Innocent victim; he may have been a little rambunctious in letting his sexual peccadilloes come to the fore (always under the influence of alcohol, and it's always explained as heterosexual Gay Play that gets out of hand). He would have you believe that despite the fact that he's so-obviously-not-telling-the-truth-while-bending -over-backwards-to-appear-completely-candid that he opposed ObamaCare with every fibre of his being as an abomination that would bankrupt the American Republic and violate the rights of every man, woman, child and German shepherd on the Continent. Why, Massa almost sounds like a Conservative.
Eric Massa is defending YOU, standing on the ramparts, defying the evil forces of Barack "Skeletor" Obama, and that is why Nancy Pelosi must destroy him!
Why, I even apologized to Mr. Massa right here on this page for initially believing that he had voted in lock-step with the democratic buttholes currently poised to have their bureaucratic noses stuck into my...err...butthole...literally.
Except that isn't an exactly truthful version of events either. Not much of what Massa says is true. And if I may say something in my own defense, since this guy can't keep his stories...ahem...straight, how can I be expected to know everything's on the up-and-up (not that I really cared much to begin with)? He's on both sides of the street with his nonsense; yes, he did engage in homoerotic behavior with other men, most of it unwelcome and severe enough that the victims didn't think it was a joke, and they felt violated enough to file official complaints -- and alcohol is no excuse, Mr. Massa. I mean, all the telling other men that he wants to fuck 'em, and the hair tousling, and the tickle fighting, is NOT just Massa being a fun guy to have at parties. This man has serious issues with his own sexual identity, and certainly with boundaries.
I mean, even when he defends himself, the homoerotic story of a butt-naked-in-a-steamy shower-room Rahm Emmanuel poking him in the chest is what he talks about. The story is supposed to be interpreted as an indication of how far the democrats will go to harass and destroy Massa, and yet it's almost as if he's bragging that Rahm followed him to the shower, and appeared Naked in the Steam With Nary a Towel to be Seen. You can almost hear the playful rattails and giggling from here. Very little testosterone in this story.
Massa doth protest too much; while the story about a naked Rahm in the Congressional shower is supposed to shock and appall us all, to my ears it almost seems like the perfect Harlequin Romance setting... and Massa wants you to know he saw another man naked. It's how he rolls.
It's like when you're in the third grade and there's a little girl who sits across from you in homeroom who sends you little love notes; you secretly love it, you almost want a note from her every day, but you still have to pretend that girls have cooties and are otherwise generally-icky, and put up the front of resistance, or else the other guys won't play with you at recess.
Anyways, the reason why I goofed... again... was that apology. I was willing to believe that Massa's claims had some merit to them, and might even be true, and so I apologized for being too quick to judge. But I was wrong: Massa didn't vote against ObamaCare because it was a violation of the laws of the land, or that it was an expensive monstrosity that wouldn't work, or even that ObamaCare is a low priority given massive unemployment and deficits.
No, Massa voted against ObamaCare because it didn't include a single-payer system. In other words -- he voted against it because it was insufficiently radical and not government-controlled enough.
Well, don't I look foolish? Again?
Maybe not as foolish as a man who's desperately trying hard to control his Inner Butt Pirate (hell, that's not a crime. No one actually gives a crap if you are gay, you know. This is the 21st Century, after all. Just don't donate any blood, okay?), but foolish nonetheless. Perhaps I was so intrigued by the possibility of democrats turning upon one another and tearing each other to pieces in public that I was willing to take Massa's claims at face value? Perhaps.
But I can tell you this much; the more the guy talks, the more entertaining it gets. They ought to put him on TV for an hour a week. It would kick the shit out of American Idol.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Sometimes Life is Just Too Funny...
A self-help author who writes books for bitter single females is now suing her former lover for getting her pregnant and then dumping her.
What's funny about this? Well, nothing really. Except this: the woman, Karen Salmonsohn, is the author of "How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less Using the Secrets of Successful Dog Trainers".
She's also the author of ""How to Succeed in Business Without a Penis". I assume she meant that as in 'not having one physically because of your gender' and not as in 'without having to screw the Boss'.
You think someone has an obvious problem with men here, or what? I know women like this and they harbor a strange psychosis about men; there's a man somewhere in their past who wasn't perfect (he probably wouldn't pay for her nose job, indulge her selfish desires, refused to worship her, or something similar, but always, She Didn't Get Her Way), and she places far too much value upon her vagina (understand Ladies, there are millions of women simply giving it away. This is what Feminism has reduced many of you to. It's no longer the Pearl of Great Price; You can almost get one in Wal-Mart now.). She then learns to use sex as a weapon, a means by which to manipulate the next poor, dumb asshole She comes across into doing what She wants them to do. When Life disappoints her -- as it usually will disappoint a Cast Iron bitch with both an unrealistically-high opinion of herself and a weaponized vagina -- she writes books that the other bitter bitches can read and chuckle and nurse dreams of revenge upon their tormentors over.
These kinds of books are basically a field guide on how to find a complete sucker (i.e. stupid man with no self-esteem) and then fuck him over. There is nothing especially new or creative about it, as women have been writing those sorts of things since the 1960's. No doubt about it, Ladies; the key to future wedded bliss and eternal happiness is to make some poor slob who wouldn't hurt a fly pay for the sins of all the Bad Boys in your life. Bad Boys that you creamed over specifically because they were Bad Boys.
That always works out well for y'all, doesn't it? Anyways...
Judging from the picture in the article, Salmonsohn looks like she'd be an absolute pain in the ass, too. The Prototypical Screaching Bitch. I'm betting I'd have to slug her before the first date was over. At least once. I've never hit a woman in my life, but I can certainly see myself smacking her silly if I had anything to do with her.
What's even stranger about this story is that the pregnancy was brought about by IVF treatments. I guess that would be so that Salmonsohn didn't actually have to do the horizontal mambo with this schmuck, and maybe fuck up her hair and nails. Personally, I think this is a newer version of the Pregnancy Trap for older women to use. She's 49 or 51, I think the article said, and if you set out to get pregnant in order to obligate someone, the traditional methods may not work so well at that advanced age.
Big red flag for me right here:
"...Leff said he'd be "very happy" to start another family, and quickly put his money where his mouth was, popping the question weeks later with a $10,000 Tiffany's engagement ring and volunteering to pay for pricey IVF treatments straighway. The couple met each other's families, and told them they were engaged.
"There were no red flags. None," Salmansohn said.
By November, they'd made ten trips to the fertility clinic together, the suit says, and Leff offered to help her out monetarily and pay for renovations on her Chelsea apartment to make it more "family friendly." Over a six month period, the suit says, Leff "spent lavishly" on Salmansohn, shelling out over $150,000 on vacations, renovations and other assorted odds and ends. "He pursued me very enthusiastically," she said.
Leff also promised to pay all of her medical expenses and everything needed to prepare the baby's room, and said he'd support her in excess of the $150,000 she typically made during the year while she was pregnant and taking care of the baby..."
That's $310,000 before the baby is even born, and from what I can see, most of it's not even for the kid! It's her apartment being renovated, she got the Tiffany Ring, it's her lost potential income being replaced, it's her being taken on vacation and receiving medical care. Reading through that article, one gets the impression that she was negotiating her way through the entire relationship; as if she treated it as some sort of contract of business arrangement; She provides vagina, he provides cash. Sign on the dotted line, please.
I'm sorry ladies, but I don't care if you can make a mean pot roast, juggle chainsaws AND have no gag reflex, but there's a word for women like this. It begins with the letter "C" , and is so crude that even I won't use it. But WHORE will suffice for now.
And there's a word for men who let this kind of thing happen to them:
SUCKER.
Sounds like this guy maybe smartened up before this woman ruined his life and left him destitute. And now she's going to sue him and take more of his money? She's a victim? Yeah, right. But then again, this is New York State, and the courts are notoriously biased in favor of women, particularly where children are concerned.
This woman should be caged, for the protection of other stupid men with lots of money. Permanently. She gives the rest a very bad name.
What's funny about this? Well, nothing really. Except this: the woman, Karen Salmonsohn, is the author of "How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less Using the Secrets of Successful Dog Trainers".
She's also the author of ""How to Succeed in Business Without a Penis". I assume she meant that as in 'not having one physically because of your gender' and not as in 'without having to screw the Boss'.
You think someone has an obvious problem with men here, or what? I know women like this and they harbor a strange psychosis about men; there's a man somewhere in their past who wasn't perfect (he probably wouldn't pay for her nose job, indulge her selfish desires, refused to worship her, or something similar, but always, She Didn't Get Her Way), and she places far too much value upon her vagina (understand Ladies, there are millions of women simply giving it away. This is what Feminism has reduced many of you to. It's no longer the Pearl of Great Price; You can almost get one in Wal-Mart now.). She then learns to use sex as a weapon, a means by which to manipulate the next poor, dumb asshole She comes across into doing what She wants them to do. When Life disappoints her -- as it usually will disappoint a Cast Iron bitch with both an unrealistically-high opinion of herself and a weaponized vagina -- she writes books that the other bitter bitches can read and chuckle and nurse dreams of revenge upon their tormentors over.
These kinds of books are basically a field guide on how to find a complete sucker (i.e. stupid man with no self-esteem) and then fuck him over. There is nothing especially new or creative about it, as women have been writing those sorts of things since the 1960's. No doubt about it, Ladies; the key to future wedded bliss and eternal happiness is to make some poor slob who wouldn't hurt a fly pay for the sins of all the Bad Boys in your life. Bad Boys that you creamed over specifically because they were Bad Boys.
That always works out well for y'all, doesn't it? Anyways...
Judging from the picture in the article, Salmonsohn looks like she'd be an absolute pain in the ass, too. The Prototypical Screaching Bitch. I'm betting I'd have to slug her before the first date was over. At least once. I've never hit a woman in my life, but I can certainly see myself smacking her silly if I had anything to do with her.
What's even stranger about this story is that the pregnancy was brought about by IVF treatments. I guess that would be so that Salmonsohn didn't actually have to do the horizontal mambo with this schmuck, and maybe fuck up her hair and nails. Personally, I think this is a newer version of the Pregnancy Trap for older women to use. She's 49 or 51, I think the article said, and if you set out to get pregnant in order to obligate someone, the traditional methods may not work so well at that advanced age.
Big red flag for me right here:
"...Leff said he'd be "very happy" to start another family, and quickly put his money where his mouth was, popping the question weeks later with a $10,000 Tiffany's engagement ring and volunteering to pay for pricey IVF treatments straighway. The couple met each other's families, and told them they were engaged.
"There were no red flags. None," Salmansohn said.
By November, they'd made ten trips to the fertility clinic together, the suit says, and Leff offered to help her out monetarily and pay for renovations on her Chelsea apartment to make it more "family friendly." Over a six month period, the suit says, Leff "spent lavishly" on Salmansohn, shelling out over $150,000 on vacations, renovations and other assorted odds and ends. "He pursued me very enthusiastically," she said.
Leff also promised to pay all of her medical expenses and everything needed to prepare the baby's room, and said he'd support her in excess of the $150,000 she typically made during the year while she was pregnant and taking care of the baby..."
That's $310,000 before the baby is even born, and from what I can see, most of it's not even for the kid! It's her apartment being renovated, she got the Tiffany Ring, it's her lost potential income being replaced, it's her being taken on vacation and receiving medical care. Reading through that article, one gets the impression that she was negotiating her way through the entire relationship; as if she treated it as some sort of contract of business arrangement; She provides vagina, he provides cash. Sign on the dotted line, please.
I'm sorry ladies, but I don't care if you can make a mean pot roast, juggle chainsaws AND have no gag reflex, but there's a word for women like this. It begins with the letter "C" , and is so crude that even I won't use it. But WHORE will suffice for now.
And there's a word for men who let this kind of thing happen to them:
SUCKER.
Sounds like this guy maybe smartened up before this woman ruined his life and left him destitute. And now she's going to sue him and take more of his money? She's a victim? Yeah, right. But then again, this is New York State, and the courts are notoriously biased in favor of women, particularly where children are concerned.
This woman should be caged, for the protection of other stupid men with lots of money. Permanently. She gives the rest a very bad name.
Monday, March 08, 2010
The Mind Boggles...
Via the Closet Conservative:
New York Chef makes cheese out of wife's breast milk.
I'm a Native New Yorker. I once believed that I had seen everything there was to see, heard everything there was to hear, experienced things that can only be experienced in the grand Metropolis that is the Greatest City in the World.
But this takes the cake. Or cheese, as it were.
I wonder if Mayor Bloomberg, the Master of All We Eat, will have something to say about this?
After all, he's concerned about how much salt, caffeine, sugar, trans fats and all the other icky stuff we consume. To the point where the City government practically looms over the shoulders of every "chef" -- whether it the 17-year-old who constructs my Big Mac, the pushcart vendor who serves my Street Meat, or the friendly folks at Dunkin' Donuts -- to make sure that several layers of bureaucracy stands between me and my enjoyment of whatever smoky/salty/creamy/fatty/sweet bodily poison I freely choose to ingest today. To make sure that I get a hulking heaping of fake moral indignation and a stern lecture from my culinary betters; the self-appointed lunchroom monitors of the Upper East Side.
I'm too stupid to eat, therefore, Mike must save me from myself.
I rather doubt he'll have anything to say, or do, about this guy. He's an artiste, you know. In Bloomberg's World, artistes are not bound by the same rules and conventions the rest of us mouth-breathing slobs are. In fact, I'll bet he has a regular table in that establishment, if only because the cheese now has become a welcome substitute for the breast feeding Hizzonner's Mommy stopped all too soon (I'm betting it was his sixth birthday when she started withholding the teat).
This is disgusting. And I don't care to hear from the artsy-fartsy crowd on this, about how "creative" it is, or worse, from the environMENTALists about how it might even serve as a healthier and environmentally-safer alternative to cow's milk and cheese. Fuck that; this is plain wrong.
New York Chef makes cheese out of wife's breast milk.
I'm a Native New Yorker. I once believed that I had seen everything there was to see, heard everything there was to hear, experienced things that can only be experienced in the grand Metropolis that is the Greatest City in the World.
But this takes the cake. Or cheese, as it were.
I wonder if Mayor Bloomberg, the Master of All We Eat, will have something to say about this?
After all, he's concerned about how much salt, caffeine, sugar, trans fats and all the other icky stuff we consume. To the point where the City government practically looms over the shoulders of every "chef" -- whether it the 17-year-old who constructs my Big Mac, the pushcart vendor who serves my Street Meat, or the friendly folks at Dunkin' Donuts -- to make sure that several layers of bureaucracy stands between me and my enjoyment of whatever smoky/salty/creamy/fatty/sweet bodily poison I freely choose to ingest today. To make sure that I get a hulking heaping of fake moral indignation and a stern lecture from my culinary betters; the self-appointed lunchroom monitors of the Upper East Side.
I'm too stupid to eat, therefore, Mike must save me from myself.
I rather doubt he'll have anything to say, or do, about this guy. He's an artiste, you know. In Bloomberg's World, artistes are not bound by the same rules and conventions the rest of us mouth-breathing slobs are. In fact, I'll bet he has a regular table in that establishment, if only because the cheese now has become a welcome substitute for the breast feeding Hizzonner's Mommy stopped all too soon (I'm betting it was his sixth birthday when she started withholding the teat).
This is disgusting. And I don't care to hear from the artsy-fartsy crowd on this, about how "creative" it is, or worse, from the environMENTALists about how it might even serve as a healthier and environmentally-safer alternative to cow's milk and cheese. Fuck that; this is plain wrong.
I Made a Mistake...
It happens from time to time, and when it does, I try to do the right thing and make a correction.
I assumed that soon-to-resign (if the current reports are right) Representative Eric Massa (Sexual Harasser - New York) was actually in favor of ObamaCare, and that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would run interference for Massa in an effort to keep his vote.
It turns out the Rep. Massa was not in favor of ObamaCare. I'm not certain of the particulars, the whys-and-wherefores of his opposition, but I will make an effort to find out.
The Representative is now suggesting that he has been specifically targeted by Pelosi, Hoyer, et. al., in retaliation for his opposition to the Federal Eyedrops and Bandaids for Brothers plan, with his tormentors going as far as to invent charges with which to smear him.
He then intimates that he did, indeed, suggest that he should bump uglies with a male staffer, but that was in the context of drunken bonhomie and that in the grand scheme of "Dudes being Dudes" that this doesn't really mean anything -- and when it isn't that, it's all about someone getting rabidly politically correct and being unable to recognize a joke when they see one.
Except when it isn't about that. Then it's about Massa being pressured into changing his vote, or to keep his seat (he says he was planning on retiring due to health issues), probably to keep it from going republican. Like Scott Brown, Eric Massa has undergone some form of invisible transformation until he now considers himself to be the deciding vote against ObamaCare, and Pelosi wants his scalp for that reason alone.
Considering that Massa has changed his story eleven times, it's becoming increasingly clear that he probably does have something to hide (we just haven't been privy to all the salacious details...yet). He's all over the place; he's retiring, he's resigning, he's suddenly not doing either, and then he's fight-fight-fightin', and painting himself as a martyr and an innocent victim of a great Left-wing Conspiracy to Enslave the American Republic with Health Insurance.
Whatever.
Eric Massa is still an embarrassment to the people of New York -- no matter what the fine distinctions may be in his case -- and he probably still needs to go for that reason alone. Married men do not proposition other men, or lay hands upon them in familiar fashion unless there is absolutely no question of having this mistaken for a sexual proposition (it's why you can make 'gay' remarks and mimic 'gay' behavior with your closest, manliest friends, but not with Bob the Copier Guy at the Office. Your friends know you and your sense of humor, presumably, Bob doesn't).
The fact that his aides (not AIDS), presumably people who have worked with him for a long period of time and could be expected to know his sense of humor, found his behavior shocking and disturbing enough to file a complaint tells you much. They either know he's on the Down Low, have their doubts, or they just hate his fucking guts enough to destroy his career and reputation.
And none of that has much to do with a Congressional vote at all.
But I was wrong to assume he was in lock step with the socialized medicine crowd, and for that, Representative Massa, I do apologize. I don't claim to be a journalist (like that's even a real profession anymore?) but I really should make certain that what I put here is as close to the truth as I can manage.
Now, about getting around to finally tendering your resignation....
I assumed that soon-to-resign (if the current reports are right) Representative Eric Massa (Sexual Harasser - New York) was actually in favor of ObamaCare, and that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would run interference for Massa in an effort to keep his vote.
It turns out the Rep. Massa was not in favor of ObamaCare. I'm not certain of the particulars, the whys-and-wherefores of his opposition, but I will make an effort to find out.
The Representative is now suggesting that he has been specifically targeted by Pelosi, Hoyer, et. al., in retaliation for his opposition to the Federal Eyedrops and Bandaids for Brothers plan, with his tormentors going as far as to invent charges with which to smear him.
He then intimates that he did, indeed, suggest that he should bump uglies with a male staffer, but that was in the context of drunken bonhomie and that in the grand scheme of "Dudes being Dudes" that this doesn't really mean anything -- and when it isn't that, it's all about someone getting rabidly politically correct and being unable to recognize a joke when they see one.
Except when it isn't about that. Then it's about Massa being pressured into changing his vote, or to keep his seat (he says he was planning on retiring due to health issues), probably to keep it from going republican. Like Scott Brown, Eric Massa has undergone some form of invisible transformation until he now considers himself to be the deciding vote against ObamaCare, and Pelosi wants his scalp for that reason alone.
Considering that Massa has changed his story eleven times, it's becoming increasingly clear that he probably does have something to hide (we just haven't been privy to all the salacious details...yet). He's all over the place; he's retiring, he's resigning, he's suddenly not doing either, and then he's fight-fight-fightin', and painting himself as a martyr and an innocent victim of a great Left-wing Conspiracy to Enslave the American Republic with Health Insurance.
Whatever.
Eric Massa is still an embarrassment to the people of New York -- no matter what the fine distinctions may be in his case -- and he probably still needs to go for that reason alone. Married men do not proposition other men, or lay hands upon them in familiar fashion unless there is absolutely no question of having this mistaken for a sexual proposition (it's why you can make 'gay' remarks and mimic 'gay' behavior with your closest, manliest friends, but not with Bob the Copier Guy at the Office. Your friends know you and your sense of humor, presumably, Bob doesn't).
The fact that his aides (not AIDS), presumably people who have worked with him for a long period of time and could be expected to know his sense of humor, found his behavior shocking and disturbing enough to file a complaint tells you much. They either know he's on the Down Low, have their doubts, or they just hate his fucking guts enough to destroy his career and reputation.
And none of that has much to do with a Congressional vote at all.
But I was wrong to assume he was in lock step with the socialized medicine crowd, and for that, Representative Massa, I do apologize. I don't claim to be a journalist (like that's even a real profession anymore?) but I really should make certain that what I put here is as close to the truth as I can manage.
Now, about getting around to finally tendering your resignation....
Purple Fingers Do Not A Democracy Make...
In re: Iraqi Elections.
The newscasts are making a big deal of this. If you were a supporter of G.W.B., the fact that Iraqis can vote is a sign that the invasion and the death of so many thousands of Americans and allied soldiers was worth it. Iraq is now "on it's way" to becoming a "stable democratic nation" which will "take it's rightful place in the world" and serve as a "shining example to the Muslim world" that pluralistic society and free-market economics is a better system than dictatorial rule of both church and madman.
If you opposed the war., Iraqis flashing dyed fingers is a symbol that Obi-Won Obama can finally fulfill his campaign promise to begin bringing Americans home from an ill-advised foreign adventure that was undertaken on behalf of Haliburton, Big Oil and McDonalds by the Evil Shrubby McBushhitler, and which caused the deaths of millions of innocents (Their innocents somehow still have more moral standing that Our innocents to Lefties). Yet, somehow, Joe Biden can still claim "victory" for a strategy of "stay the course" that his own side bitterly opposed (but somehow couldn't bring themselves to de-fund), in the name of the Great Obambi.
My view is simply this: so fucking what? Your view of democracy is seriously warped if you believe either theory. Democracy,as I've said here many times before, is not like a piece of software; you don't just "install" it and have it run seamlessly after some minor technical troubles and customization. One of the reasons, I think, why American diplomacy often fails in some respects is because people who think this way happen to be in charge of the government, or at least, ensconced within the bureaucracy. We somehow believe that democracy is easily transportable, and therefore, are eager to believe any asshole in a Third-World Shithole who claims to be a Democrat (it's why we keep supporting "Iranian Opposition" groups, and "dissident" Chinese, you know, with no tangible results or even an indication that many people actually believe them or would follow them). There is a belief in the upper eschelons of government that "Inside every ________ is an American dying to get out!".
This is a very poor formulation, which discounts the history and culture of democratic nations.
Because Democracy is a cultural phenomenon, with a 4,000-year old pedigree. It is not just a set of rules which people agree to follow, as it involves much more esoteric features than just The Law and Government. It is a system which has evolved in those 40 centuries to include a bunch of often-mutually-exclusive conventions which have all been modified, tempered, and adjusted by experience. I call these, for lack of a better term, Institutions.
The Institutions required for true democracy are as follows: Secular Rationalism -- the separation of politics, science and economics, and just about every other human endeavor, from the tyranny of religious orthodoxy. The Word of God is not always the final arbiter of what "works" for the greater good of society, particularly when cold, demonstrable experience contradicts the Scripture. A secular-rational society does not dismiss God entirely, but it does diminish the power of religion and superstition when these threaten to narrow the human worldview, deny the impeus towards achievement and discovery, or when they prevent the individual from being included in the Second Institution, which is;
A belief in the Rights of the Individual. All people are born with the assumption of equal capacities, if not actual, equal talents, and equal worth. We are entitled to certain courtesies (rights) by virtue of the fact that we are alive and may contribute, in whatever way we might, to the greater (but never-perfect) communal good. This means that the Individual is born with the right to own property, to enjoy a measure of personal safety against the use of arbitrary power, and to be able to use their talents, skills, and energies for their personal enrichment and growth. For this reason, Systems of Law have evolved from their predecessors --enacted and enforced precisely to protect the exalted status of Church or Monarch, and excuse and justify their arbitrary use of power -- to where they now (theoretically) protect the individual citizen against tyranny. This attribution of rights to the individual brings us to the Third Institution:
Equal Application of the Law. It's all well-and-fine to be free from the use of power of the church and state, and recognized as an individual with rights, but these mean nothing if there is no system within which they can be exercised freely, securely, and with some corresponding responsibilities. This is where the Law and Governments enter the equation, as they are specifically created and empowered by the free citizen for our mutual support and protection. In our own Western culture we have experimented with various forms of government; direct democracy, republics, proportional representation, Socialism and Communism in various forms, Anarchy, Feudalism, Dictatorship, and so forth, but always these systems come up short in some respects, and are continually refined by the application of experience (that is, by the use of secular-rationalist methods being exercised by people enjoying the right to do so without threat of retribution by those in power). One of my heroes, Winston Churchill, once described democracy as "the least-worst system of government yet devised by man..." which tells you that he, at least, thought the experiment was not over.
But, government only really exists to ensure that "The System" is fair, equitable and applied (yes, through use of force, Libertarians!) in a way which ensures that liberty is protected against those who would pervert it, or take it away. The Law is simply one of the more powerful weapons in the arsenal of free peoples, but it, too, is not perfect. It also evolves through a process which is similar to the one which creates governments -- free people, accorded equality, who are able to apply the lessons of experience to it's betterment and refinement. When this requirement is met, you are now ready for the final cornerstone of democracy:
Economic Freedom. This is the ability to exercise your rights to own, trade, sell, and profit from your work, talents, mind, skills and assets. It is the right to pass on your property from one generation to the next without it being taken away (except by reasonable circumstance, like fair taxation for the benefit of the citizenry as a whole) by the use of the overwhelming power of the state. Without the Marketplace, the place where the whole system of secular-rationalism, individual rights, the Law and Government all meet, whether of goods, services or ideas, the system as a whole could never be supported.
Without Economic Freedom, people are reluctant to work. They would refuse to co-operate except in the most extreme of circumstances. They would fight amongst themselves even more than they do now. Without the knowledge that there is some reward (a full belly, a roof over one's head, the ability to afford a minimum of comfort beyond those base requirements), people are not motivated to better themselves, their community, or their country. There must be a system of rewards for work and success (and this, naturally, also requires there be penalties for failure), regulated by fair law and custom, equally applied by governments given the authority to do so by free individuals by mutual consent, and always subject to public audit.
If you do not have those Four Institutions, you cannot have a democracy. If you have no history, no cultural record at all, of these conventions then it doesn't matter how many purple fingers there are, you're only going through the motions.
The real test as to whether voting Iraqis ultimately create anything of lasting value to the world or themselves, is whether or not they manage to establish these institutions on their own, or whether they will continue to be implemented under the cover of American guns for the next few centuries. Because what is passing for "democracy in action" in Iraq is nothing of the sort: Arab nations, and especially Arab nations under the influence of Islam, don't believe in Secular Rationalism, Individual Rights, Equality under the Law, Government by Consent of the Governed, or Economic or Intellectual freedom.
Right now, we might be protecting the next generation of would-be Saddam Husseins who are simply waiting for us to go home so that they can start blowing each other up in earnest in order to re-establish the pre-War status quo. It's what their history and their culture, compels them to do. We'll see if the fledgling "Iraqi Democracy" (and ditto for Afghanistan) manages to survive the removal of the American prop, but I wouldn't bet on it.
In the meantime, let's stop all this nonsense that George W. Bush is now somehow vindicated, or that Barack Obama has, miraculously and vicariously, accomplished something where his efforts were so much in obvious opposition. If memories really are that short -- Because Bush cited WMD's, and Obama was against the War and the Surge that seems to have "won" it --or that fungible, then we have some serious problems here at home to fix.
Note: As for me, my support for the Iraq War was always predicated on a much baser and cruder formulation; anything which promised to kill Muslims in large numbers in the wake of 9/11 was just fine by me. Where I opposed the War was the timid nature in which it was fought; there was less War -- and more Public Relations Campaign with Guns.
Discussion?
The newscasts are making a big deal of this. If you were a supporter of G.W.B., the fact that Iraqis can vote is a sign that the invasion and the death of so many thousands of Americans and allied soldiers was worth it. Iraq is now "on it's way" to becoming a "stable democratic nation" which will "take it's rightful place in the world" and serve as a "shining example to the Muslim world" that pluralistic society and free-market economics is a better system than dictatorial rule of both church and madman.
If you opposed the war., Iraqis flashing dyed fingers is a symbol that Obi-Won Obama can finally fulfill his campaign promise to begin bringing Americans home from an ill-advised foreign adventure that was undertaken on behalf of Haliburton, Big Oil and McDonalds by the Evil Shrubby McBushhitler, and which caused the deaths of millions of innocents (Their innocents somehow still have more moral standing that Our innocents to Lefties). Yet, somehow, Joe Biden can still claim "victory" for a strategy of "stay the course" that his own side bitterly opposed (but somehow couldn't bring themselves to de-fund), in the name of the Great Obambi.
My view is simply this: so fucking what? Your view of democracy is seriously warped if you believe either theory. Democracy,as I've said here many times before, is not like a piece of software; you don't just "install" it and have it run seamlessly after some minor technical troubles and customization. One of the reasons, I think, why American diplomacy often fails in some respects is because people who think this way happen to be in charge of the government, or at least, ensconced within the bureaucracy. We somehow believe that democracy is easily transportable, and therefore, are eager to believe any asshole in a Third-World Shithole who claims to be a Democrat (it's why we keep supporting "Iranian Opposition" groups, and "dissident" Chinese, you know, with no tangible results or even an indication that many people actually believe them or would follow them). There is a belief in the upper eschelons of government that "Inside every ________ is an American dying to get out!".
This is a very poor formulation, which discounts the history and culture of democratic nations.
Because Democracy is a cultural phenomenon, with a 4,000-year old pedigree. It is not just a set of rules which people agree to follow, as it involves much more esoteric features than just The Law and Government. It is a system which has evolved in those 40 centuries to include a bunch of often-mutually-exclusive conventions which have all been modified, tempered, and adjusted by experience. I call these, for lack of a better term, Institutions.
The Institutions required for true democracy are as follows: Secular Rationalism -- the separation of politics, science and economics, and just about every other human endeavor, from the tyranny of religious orthodoxy. The Word of God is not always the final arbiter of what "works" for the greater good of society, particularly when cold, demonstrable experience contradicts the Scripture. A secular-rational society does not dismiss God entirely, but it does diminish the power of religion and superstition when these threaten to narrow the human worldview, deny the impeus towards achievement and discovery, or when they prevent the individual from being included in the Second Institution, which is;
A belief in the Rights of the Individual. All people are born with the assumption of equal capacities, if not actual, equal talents, and equal worth. We are entitled to certain courtesies (rights) by virtue of the fact that we are alive and may contribute, in whatever way we might, to the greater (but never-perfect) communal good. This means that the Individual is born with the right to own property, to enjoy a measure of personal safety against the use of arbitrary power, and to be able to use their talents, skills, and energies for their personal enrichment and growth. For this reason, Systems of Law have evolved from their predecessors --enacted and enforced precisely to protect the exalted status of Church or Monarch, and excuse and justify their arbitrary use of power -- to where they now (theoretically) protect the individual citizen against tyranny. This attribution of rights to the individual brings us to the Third Institution:
Equal Application of the Law. It's all well-and-fine to be free from the use of power of the church and state, and recognized as an individual with rights, but these mean nothing if there is no system within which they can be exercised freely, securely, and with some corresponding responsibilities. This is where the Law and Governments enter the equation, as they are specifically created and empowered by the free citizen for our mutual support and protection. In our own Western culture we have experimented with various forms of government; direct democracy, republics, proportional representation, Socialism and Communism in various forms, Anarchy, Feudalism, Dictatorship, and so forth, but always these systems come up short in some respects, and are continually refined by the application of experience (that is, by the use of secular-rationalist methods being exercised by people enjoying the right to do so without threat of retribution by those in power). One of my heroes, Winston Churchill, once described democracy as "the least-worst system of government yet devised by man..." which tells you that he, at least, thought the experiment was not over.
But, government only really exists to ensure that "The System" is fair, equitable and applied (yes, through use of force, Libertarians!) in a way which ensures that liberty is protected against those who would pervert it, or take it away. The Law is simply one of the more powerful weapons in the arsenal of free peoples, but it, too, is not perfect. It also evolves through a process which is similar to the one which creates governments -- free people, accorded equality, who are able to apply the lessons of experience to it's betterment and refinement. When this requirement is met, you are now ready for the final cornerstone of democracy:
Economic Freedom. This is the ability to exercise your rights to own, trade, sell, and profit from your work, talents, mind, skills and assets. It is the right to pass on your property from one generation to the next without it being taken away (except by reasonable circumstance, like fair taxation for the benefit of the citizenry as a whole) by the use of the overwhelming power of the state. Without the Marketplace, the place where the whole system of secular-rationalism, individual rights, the Law and Government all meet, whether of goods, services or ideas, the system as a whole could never be supported.
Without Economic Freedom, people are reluctant to work. They would refuse to co-operate except in the most extreme of circumstances. They would fight amongst themselves even more than they do now. Without the knowledge that there is some reward (a full belly, a roof over one's head, the ability to afford a minimum of comfort beyond those base requirements), people are not motivated to better themselves, their community, or their country. There must be a system of rewards for work and success (and this, naturally, also requires there be penalties for failure), regulated by fair law and custom, equally applied by governments given the authority to do so by free individuals by mutual consent, and always subject to public audit.
If you do not have those Four Institutions, you cannot have a democracy. If you have no history, no cultural record at all, of these conventions then it doesn't matter how many purple fingers there are, you're only going through the motions.
The real test as to whether voting Iraqis ultimately create anything of lasting value to the world or themselves, is whether or not they manage to establish these institutions on their own, or whether they will continue to be implemented under the cover of American guns for the next few centuries. Because what is passing for "democracy in action" in Iraq is nothing of the sort: Arab nations, and especially Arab nations under the influence of Islam, don't believe in Secular Rationalism, Individual Rights, Equality under the Law, Government by Consent of the Governed, or Economic or Intellectual freedom.
Right now, we might be protecting the next generation of would-be Saddam Husseins who are simply waiting for us to go home so that they can start blowing each other up in earnest in order to re-establish the pre-War status quo. It's what their history and their culture, compels them to do. We'll see if the fledgling "Iraqi Democracy" (and ditto for Afghanistan) manages to survive the removal of the American prop, but I wouldn't bet on it.
In the meantime, let's stop all this nonsense that George W. Bush is now somehow vindicated, or that Barack Obama has, miraculously and vicariously, accomplished something where his efforts were so much in obvious opposition. If memories really are that short -- Because Bush cited WMD's, and Obama was against the War and the Surge that seems to have "won" it --or that fungible, then we have some serious problems here at home to fix.
Note: As for me, my support for the Iraq War was always predicated on a much baser and cruder formulation; anything which promised to kill Muslims in large numbers in the wake of 9/11 was just fine by me. Where I opposed the War was the timid nature in which it was fought; there was less War -- and more Public Relations Campaign with Guns.
Discussion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)