Some stuff that I had meant to blog about, but forgot or didn't get to.
Professor Hanson reminds us why he's smarter than everyone else...and a snazzy dresser.
This Just In: Even after getting ventillated braincase, JFK is still a fucking slimeball.
Showing posts with label Kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kennedy. Show all posts
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
"The Little Old Man Who Invented Hunger"
Cubans beginning to rethink Communism. What took them so long?
This post coincides nicely with the 50th anniversay of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. To all of you dipshits out there who still continue to worship at the altar of JFK, I say this: John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a gutless coward.
(H/T Instapundit)
This post coincides nicely with the 50th anniversay of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. To all of you dipshits out there who still continue to worship at the altar of JFK, I say this: John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a gutless coward.
(H/T Instapundit)
Friday, January 21, 2011
JFK Is Still, Thankfully, Dead...
JFK and the Madness of the American Left.
From the American Spectator; Interesting read. It has been one of the great mysteries of the last 200 years as to why political violence is almost always perpetrated by those on the Left (the ones who claim to want to bring about a Utopia of peace, plenty and brotherhood), and no one ever notices, or points this out. Mostly because the great majority of people are dimwits, and neither care , nor have the capability to understand the subject.
It's always Conservatives and right-wingers who are vicious, nasty, reactionary brutes, who cling to guns, and want to engage in genocide, and no one corrects this mistaken view of things. The worst murderers in our history were all -- Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Tito, Castro, Lenin --creatures of the Political Left.
To the Left violence cannot be separated from politics, because it's through violence that Leftist politics are advanced. If left to their own devices, most people with the sense to pour piss out of a boot would choose democracy, capitalism and conservatism in a heartbeat, leaving the Left out in the cold. It has to foment violence, invent crises, cause societal disruptions, murder, steal, cheat the electoral process, just to survive.
It also explains why the attempted killing of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona just had to be explained as a political act by various pundits on the Left; because they couldn't conceive of the attempted execution of a democrat as anything but apolitical act, especially because most of them would unquestionably take the opportunity to do the same to a republican.
From the American Spectator; Interesting read. It has been one of the great mysteries of the last 200 years as to why political violence is almost always perpetrated by those on the Left (the ones who claim to want to bring about a Utopia of peace, plenty and brotherhood), and no one ever notices, or points this out. Mostly because the great majority of people are dimwits, and neither care , nor have the capability to understand the subject.
It's always Conservatives and right-wingers who are vicious, nasty, reactionary brutes, who cling to guns, and want to engage in genocide, and no one corrects this mistaken view of things. The worst murderers in our history were all -- Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Tito, Castro, Lenin --creatures of the Political Left.
To the Left violence cannot be separated from politics, because it's through violence that Leftist politics are advanced. If left to their own devices, most people with the sense to pour piss out of a boot would choose democracy, capitalism and conservatism in a heartbeat, leaving the Left out in the cold. It has to foment violence, invent crises, cause societal disruptions, murder, steal, cheat the electoral process, just to survive.
It also explains why the attempted killing of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona just had to be explained as a political act by various pundits on the Left; because they couldn't conceive of the attempted execution of a democrat as anything but apolitical act, especially because most of them would unquestionably take the opportunity to do the same to a republican.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
John Fitzgerald Kennedy is Still Critically Dead...
Yesterday was the anniversary of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States.
I hate all things Kennedy, so you won't get any tears here.
I was struck by the total lack of the usual over-the-top,The-Man-Was-A-God, handwringing, overwrought, tearjerking television extolling the invented virtues and fabricated hagiography of a thoroughly despicable man this year. Typically, the anniversary of this event brings out the very worst in the Libtard-Baby-Boomer media who simply can't help themselves but to sing the praises of their hollow childhood hero, so "tragically" murdered on a street in Dallas.
The "Tragedy" is that John Kennedy had such a large extended family --which would one day infest the American body politic for two generations -- to take advantage of his death so as to steal lucrative jobs they otherwise would never get, as having really big teeth and being the child of an alcoholic are not usually qualifications for a job outside of politics.
I mean, not one documentary. Not one showing of the now-famous Oliver Stone tour-de-bullshit. No interviews with people who were "close" to Kennedy, but who haven't done a damned thing since. No replays of the Zapgruder film. No wall-to-wall conspiracy theorists. Even the History Channel didn't make much of a fuss (and JFK is one of the staples of History Channel programming. JFK and World War Two...guess Ice Road Truckers rates higher than JFK, huh?).
It's been curiously refreshing, from my point of view. I long ago tired of the fake grief, the overdone hero worship, and of course, hearing the stories about "where I was when Kennedy was shot...".
Who gives a shit? He was, in hindsight, one of the worst American Presidents of the 20th Century. After all, look who he picked to succeed him; Lyndon Johnson would be the worst thing to happen to America until the arrival of James Earl Carter made him look like a modern-day Pericles. I would have thought that the advent of Barack Obama would have brought out the sickly-disgusting streak of nostalgia for shallow non-achievers (like JFK) present in the fibre of every Baby Boomer, considering how he makes JFK, LBJ, and Carter combined seem Churchillian by comparison, but I guess they're keeping quiet these days, what with having ruined the economy, academia, the Government, and still hoping to keep the illegal Free Viagra for Seniors program hidden deep inside ObamaCare.
So, no paens to the dead king from the Haight-Ashbury set this year, I guess. The generation behind me probably doesn't even know who JFK was, and if they are aware of him, they probably think he was...like... President during...like... the Civil War...like... the one we like fought against the Germans or Vietnamese, or ...like...whatever, in 1776...to keep...like...black people...like...slaves.
The silence reinforces something I've often thought about; that within 50 years or so, all events are eventually forgotten by the greater mass of people. The lack of the usual television Day of National Mourning this year was perhaps the first sign that the manufactured grief (and history)over that assassination of a mediocre personality whose father bought him the White House is finally becoming a thing of the past.
And that's a good thing.
I hate all things Kennedy, so you won't get any tears here.
I was struck by the total lack of the usual over-the-top,The-Man-Was-A-God, handwringing, overwrought, tearjerking television extolling the invented virtues and fabricated hagiography of a thoroughly despicable man this year. Typically, the anniversary of this event brings out the very worst in the Libtard-Baby-Boomer media who simply can't help themselves but to sing the praises of their hollow childhood hero, so "tragically" murdered on a street in Dallas.
The "Tragedy" is that John Kennedy had such a large extended family --which would one day infest the American body politic for two generations -- to take advantage of his death so as to steal lucrative jobs they otherwise would never get, as having really big teeth and being the child of an alcoholic are not usually qualifications for a job outside of politics.
I mean, not one documentary. Not one showing of the now-famous Oliver Stone tour-de-bullshit. No interviews with people who were "close" to Kennedy, but who haven't done a damned thing since. No replays of the Zapgruder film. No wall-to-wall conspiracy theorists. Even the History Channel didn't make much of a fuss (and JFK is one of the staples of History Channel programming. JFK and World War Two...guess Ice Road Truckers rates higher than JFK, huh?).
It's been curiously refreshing, from my point of view. I long ago tired of the fake grief, the overdone hero worship, and of course, hearing the stories about "where I was when Kennedy was shot...".
Who gives a shit? He was, in hindsight, one of the worst American Presidents of the 20th Century. After all, look who he picked to succeed him; Lyndon Johnson would be the worst thing to happen to America until the arrival of James Earl Carter made him look like a modern-day Pericles. I would have thought that the advent of Barack Obama would have brought out the sickly-disgusting streak of nostalgia for shallow non-achievers (like JFK) present in the fibre of every Baby Boomer, considering how he makes JFK, LBJ, and Carter combined seem Churchillian by comparison, but I guess they're keeping quiet these days, what with having ruined the economy, academia, the Government, and still hoping to keep the illegal Free Viagra for Seniors program hidden deep inside ObamaCare.
So, no paens to the dead king from the Haight-Ashbury set this year, I guess. The generation behind me probably doesn't even know who JFK was, and if they are aware of him, they probably think he was...like... President during...like... the Civil War...like... the one we like fought against the Germans or Vietnamese, or ...like...whatever, in 1776...to keep...like...black people...like...slaves.
The silence reinforces something I've often thought about; that within 50 years or so, all events are eventually forgotten by the greater mass of people. The lack of the usual television Day of National Mourning this year was perhaps the first sign that the manufactured grief (and history)over that assassination of a mediocre personality whose father bought him the White House is finally becoming a thing of the past.
And that's a good thing.
Friday, October 29, 2010
The End of Camelot?
The Last Kennedy may lose.
Dare we hope? Dare we dream? I might consider praying it if could make it so.
The "Kennedy mystique" has long outlived it's usefulness, and has done little more than to ensure that successive generations of slimy little retards with big teeth and a predilection for substance abuse and adultery had jobs bought for them that they were eminently unqualified for. If it wasn't for the fact that JFK was an icon to millions of brain-dead, drug-taking, hippies (in much the same way that FDR became an icon to their parents, an apparent savior who's only real talents were for telling people what they wanted to hear) the legend of John Fitzgerald Kennedy would have died in that limo in Dallas with him.
Here's the (very short) list of JFK's "accomplishments":
* Had several books written for him, which he simply signed his name to.
* Getting his PT Boat cut in half by a Japanese destroyer.
* Using his would-be Nazi-collaborator Daddy's Prohibition-fueled fortune to buy himself a career in politics.
* Marrying a smokin' hawt babe.
* Bringing the world the brink of nuclear annihilation.
* Chickening out at the Bay of Pigs.
* Vietnam
* Getting shot in the head.
JFK, all things considered, was a 1960's version of John McCain...only with charm and a ventilated braincase.
Why he is considered one of the best American Presidents is beyond me. Spare me the crap about his "commitment" to Civil Rights: that was all about avoiding a repeat of the 1960 election where he only managed to beat Nixon by the skin of his teeth. Kennedy needed more votes for the next go-around, and there simply weren't enough White people's votes to buy, or dead Chicagoans, to guarantee victory in '64.
What came after JFK and RFK were simply the dregs of the Kennedy DNA line, and they have polluted the halls of power for far too long. Eventually, the aura attached to a dead Uncle wears off, and people grow up. Or at least their priorities change; the Aging Hippies who creamed for Kennedy are no longer interested in lip-service to equality, Civil Rights, and a dreamy rhetoric about a loftily-idealistic-yet-infantile Utopia; they want free goddamned Viagra and someone to bear the cost of their fast-approaching retirement, now that the home they bought as a retirement vehicle is now basically worthless, and their stock portfolios have been wiped out by their own generation's economic stupidity. They no longer have the time or patience for sentimentality.
The Attachment to All Things Kennedy, under these circumstances, must surely fade, and with it, the stranglehold on both power and stupidity that has rested in the hands of a single (probably-inbred) family for far too long must surely loosen.
If only this would become a Nationwide Phenomenon, and we could do away with all the other political dynasties in America; Coumos, Bushes, Clintons, and so forth. How much better, how much fresher, how much more effective our political system would be (and I mean that in the hope that it would be more responsive, and responsible, to we the citizens who don't belong to the country club set) when it was no longer just "the family business".
Dare we hope? Dare we dream? I might consider praying it if could make it so.
The "Kennedy mystique" has long outlived it's usefulness, and has done little more than to ensure that successive generations of slimy little retards with big teeth and a predilection for substance abuse and adultery had jobs bought for them that they were eminently unqualified for. If it wasn't for the fact that JFK was an icon to millions of brain-dead, drug-taking, hippies (in much the same way that FDR became an icon to their parents, an apparent savior who's only real talents were for telling people what they wanted to hear) the legend of John Fitzgerald Kennedy would have died in that limo in Dallas with him.
Here's the (very short) list of JFK's "accomplishments":
* Had several books written for him, which he simply signed his name to.
* Getting his PT Boat cut in half by a Japanese destroyer.
* Using his would-be Nazi-collaborator Daddy's Prohibition-fueled fortune to buy himself a career in politics.
* Marrying a smokin' hawt babe.
* Bringing the world the brink of nuclear annihilation.
* Chickening out at the Bay of Pigs.
* Vietnam
* Getting shot in the head.
JFK, all things considered, was a 1960's version of John McCain...only with charm and a ventilated braincase.
Why he is considered one of the best American Presidents is beyond me. Spare me the crap about his "commitment" to Civil Rights: that was all about avoiding a repeat of the 1960 election where he only managed to beat Nixon by the skin of his teeth. Kennedy needed more votes for the next go-around, and there simply weren't enough White people's votes to buy, or dead Chicagoans, to guarantee victory in '64.
What came after JFK and RFK were simply the dregs of the Kennedy DNA line, and they have polluted the halls of power for far too long. Eventually, the aura attached to a dead Uncle wears off, and people grow up. Or at least their priorities change; the Aging Hippies who creamed for Kennedy are no longer interested in lip-service to equality, Civil Rights, and a dreamy rhetoric about a loftily-idealistic-yet-infantile Utopia; they want free goddamned Viagra and someone to bear the cost of their fast-approaching retirement, now that the home they bought as a retirement vehicle is now basically worthless, and their stock portfolios have been wiped out by their own generation's economic stupidity. They no longer have the time or patience for sentimentality.
The Attachment to All Things Kennedy, under these circumstances, must surely fade, and with it, the stranglehold on both power and stupidity that has rested in the hands of a single (probably-inbred) family for far too long must surely loosen.
If only this would become a Nationwide Phenomenon, and we could do away with all the other political dynasties in America; Coumos, Bushes, Clintons, and so forth. How much better, how much fresher, how much more effective our political system would be (and I mean that in the hope that it would be more responsive, and responsible, to we the citizens who don't belong to the country club set) when it was no longer just "the family business".
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
They Still Think Al Gore Really Won in 2000, Too....
The New York Times ("All the news that's fit to fake...") regales us with a story about Arizona democrats fuming over "fake" Green Party candidates...who happen to be Homeless* folks recruited by evil republicans...
What does it say about an Arizona democrat if you lose elections to the Homeless*? What does it say about democrats in general, when they have spent decades championing the cause of The Homeless*, only to suggest that The Homeless* have no right to run for political offices that should have gone to democrats because..well...they deserve them.
I mean, aren't The Homeless* citizens, too?
Well, if you're a democrat, apparently not. Everyone knows The Homeless* are simply a club with which to beat republicans over the head when they're in power. But, I digress...
Of course, all the consternation boils down to one thing: the elitist attitude of some democrats, who believe they are entitled to win elections because...they care...and stuff, and that some candidates are more deserving than others, especially those who have patiently awaited their turn while dutifully serving the democratic Party machinery. These small posts are often springboards to better, and more powerful ones, from whence they can really do damage to society and the Republic, and better implement their oppressive brand of utter bullshit. They deserve these posts, many of which are simply sinecures, by virtue of who they are, and what they claim to stand for. You can't let something as trifling as a requirement for a competitive election get in the way of getting a democrat elected to anything.
That a Homeless* person might actually be able to do the job they're trying to get elected to do never seems to enter into the equation, nor does anyone even think about their rights as citizens or to hold public office -- if they somehow find the means to run (I rather doubt you get there on spare change and turning aluminum cans in for recycling).
Now, is it political subterfuge by republicans to pull any douchebag off the street and stick him/her on a ballot in the hopes of splitting the Leftard vote? No more than it is keeping dead democrats on the voter rolls, some who were born in 1825, I guess.
If I remember correctly, in the 2000 Presidential election,The City of Philadelphia (democratic stronghold)reported a 104% turnout by registered voters.
Chicago politics is (in)famous for it's ability to get dead voters to go out and vote for live people. In fact, Chicago democrats don't even try to hide the fact that their elections are rigged.
In the 2000 Senate Elections,Missouri democrats pulled off an even more amazing feat and got live people to vote for a dead man (Mel Carnahan), who's office was mysteriously passed on to his wife Jean when he won, posthumously. I didn't realize one could bequeath a Senate seat to a bereaved widow, did you? I wonder what article of the Constitution that one's in? She was such an effective legislator, and such a memorable personality, that I doubt that even anyone in her own family -- let alone the state of Missouri, and certainly not many nationally -- remembers just who the fuck she was.
In the 2000 Presidential Election, it was common knowledge that Al Gore's minions went out, scooped up every elderly person not circling the bowl,every welfare recipient and illegal alien they could find, bussed them to the polls, provided them with lunch, and even told them to "Pick #2" . The only reason this did not achieve the desired result, is that Gore was actually #3 on most ballots, hence all the hullabaloo about chads, scuff marks and divining "voter intent", and fucking lawsuits.
Every year, we hear stories of people handing out cigarettes and cash to the Homeless* to go and vote for certain candidates, or tires being slashed or vehicles vandalized to keep republicans from bringing their voters to the polls. Gunshots, Molotov cocktails through campaign-office windows, destruction of campaign signs, are election-year staple stories for most newspapers and local news channels, and the perpetrators of these acts typically turn out to be democrats.
John F. Kennedy became a senator because his father hired a man with the same name as JFK's opponent, and got him on the ballot, and in such fashion split the vote in Kennedy's favor. That bit of subterfuge eventually led that incredible douchebag to the Oval Office.
The point being, that if anyone knows a thing or two about voter fraud and political subterfuge, it would be a democrat. While I'm not for subverting the political process in any way, and would cheer the day when elections in America were truly fair, I find it uproariously funny to listen to democrats squeal when they are beaten at their own game, and with their own tactics.
* The Homeless live in refrigerator boxes, subway tunnels, abandoned buildings, mental institutions, and publicly-funded shelters. They are not so much"Homeless" as they are "people without a permanent address". Notice that under a democratic party regime, no one is talking about those who used to have a permanent address, but no longer do because they lost their job and defaulted on the mortgage...
What does it say about an Arizona democrat if you lose elections to the Homeless*? What does it say about democrats in general, when they have spent decades championing the cause of The Homeless*, only to suggest that The Homeless* have no right to run for political offices that should have gone to democrats because..well...they deserve them.
I mean, aren't The Homeless* citizens, too?
Well, if you're a democrat, apparently not. Everyone knows The Homeless* are simply a club with which to beat republicans over the head when they're in power. But, I digress...
Of course, all the consternation boils down to one thing: the elitist attitude of some democrats, who believe they are entitled to win elections because...they care...and stuff, and that some candidates are more deserving than others, especially those who have patiently awaited their turn while dutifully serving the democratic Party machinery. These small posts are often springboards to better, and more powerful ones, from whence they can really do damage to society and the Republic, and better implement their oppressive brand of utter bullshit. They deserve these posts, many of which are simply sinecures, by virtue of who they are, and what they claim to stand for. You can't let something as trifling as a requirement for a competitive election get in the way of getting a democrat elected to anything.
That a Homeless* person might actually be able to do the job they're trying to get elected to do never seems to enter into the equation, nor does anyone even think about their rights as citizens or to hold public office -- if they somehow find the means to run (I rather doubt you get there on spare change and turning aluminum cans in for recycling).
Now, is it political subterfuge by republicans to pull any douchebag off the street and stick him/her on a ballot in the hopes of splitting the Leftard vote? No more than it is keeping dead democrats on the voter rolls, some who were born in 1825, I guess.
If I remember correctly, in the 2000 Presidential election,The City of Philadelphia (democratic stronghold)reported a 104% turnout by registered voters.
Chicago politics is (in)famous for it's ability to get dead voters to go out and vote for live people. In fact, Chicago democrats don't even try to hide the fact that their elections are rigged.
In the 2000 Senate Elections,Missouri democrats pulled off an even more amazing feat and got live people to vote for a dead man (Mel Carnahan), who's office was mysteriously passed on to his wife Jean when he won, posthumously. I didn't realize one could bequeath a Senate seat to a bereaved widow, did you? I wonder what article of the Constitution that one's in? She was such an effective legislator, and such a memorable personality, that I doubt that even anyone in her own family -- let alone the state of Missouri, and certainly not many nationally -- remembers just who the fuck she was.
In the 2000 Presidential Election, it was common knowledge that Al Gore's minions went out, scooped up every elderly person not circling the bowl,every welfare recipient and illegal alien they could find, bussed them to the polls, provided them with lunch, and even told them to "Pick #2" . The only reason this did not achieve the desired result, is that Gore was actually #3 on most ballots, hence all the hullabaloo about chads, scuff marks and divining "voter intent", and fucking lawsuits.
Every year, we hear stories of people handing out cigarettes and cash to the Homeless* to go and vote for certain candidates, or tires being slashed or vehicles vandalized to keep republicans from bringing their voters to the polls. Gunshots, Molotov cocktails through campaign-office windows, destruction of campaign signs, are election-year staple stories for most newspapers and local news channels, and the perpetrators of these acts typically turn out to be democrats.
John F. Kennedy became a senator because his father hired a man with the same name as JFK's opponent, and got him on the ballot, and in such fashion split the vote in Kennedy's favor. That bit of subterfuge eventually led that incredible douchebag to the Oval Office.
The point being, that if anyone knows a thing or two about voter fraud and political subterfuge, it would be a democrat. While I'm not for subverting the political process in any way, and would cheer the day when elections in America were truly fair, I find it uproariously funny to listen to democrats squeal when they are beaten at their own game, and with their own tactics.
* The Homeless live in refrigerator boxes, subway tunnels, abandoned buildings, mental institutions, and publicly-funded shelters. They are not so much"Homeless" as they are "people without a permanent address". Notice that under a democratic party regime, no one is talking about those who used to have a permanent address, but no longer do because they lost their job and defaulted on the mortgage...
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Another Tree Hugging Dickwad Dumps Wife, Film at 11...
This time it's a Kennedy, and there's a lot of alcohol involved, as usual.
What the story doesn't make clear is why Mary Kennedy drinks (probably because that would be too obvious a question to ask: what is it with Kennedy women and booze?), and of ocurse, they leave the best part for the very last sentence:
"Bobby and Mary married on a ship on the Hudson River in April 1994, just a few weeks after he divorced first wife, Emily Black."
I'm surprised that it lasted this long, and amazed that she didn't try to continue a long-standing Kennedy family tradition, and make arrangements for her sanctimonious douchebag of a husband's head to be ventilated. How hard could it be? Kennedy men practically attract bullets, when they're not Alpha-maling themselves into trees at high speed, or into the drink.
If this story follows the predictable track, we'll be hearing about the mistress or the alleged sexual assault within a fortnight.
What the story doesn't make clear is why Mary Kennedy drinks (probably because that would be too obvious a question to ask: what is it with Kennedy women and booze?), and of ocurse, they leave the best part for the very last sentence:
"Bobby and Mary married on a ship on the Hudson River in April 1994, just a few weeks after he divorced first wife, Emily Black."
I'm surprised that it lasted this long, and amazed that she didn't try to continue a long-standing Kennedy family tradition, and make arrangements for her sanctimonious douchebag of a husband's head to be ventilated. How hard could it be? Kennedy men practically attract bullets, when they're not Alpha-maling themselves into trees at high speed, or into the drink.
If this story follows the predictable track, we'll be hearing about the mistress or the alleged sexual assault within a fortnight.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
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.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Oliver Stone: Douchebag...
Our Douchebag of the Week is Oliver Stone. Actually, Mr. Stone is one of the finalists in the Douchebag-of-the-Last-Five-Decades-Running competition, primarily on the strength of his abilities to mangle history and then make really bad movies out of it.
(Ed. Note: The Douchebag of the Week Award will now be a staple of this blog. Readers are encouraged to nominate those they believe fit the bill. Just drop a mail with your candidate's name and a link to the event, quote, action, etc, that made your candidate a good bet to win. I will select the winner, who will be announced every Monday morning.).
Stone announced this week that, having exhausted every hippie-centric view of the 1960's, he will now take a crack at the entire 20th Century, and to show you just how bad a historian Mr. Stone is and just what sort of mindset will be making this film, he has this to say about Adolf Hitler:
"...Talking to critics, Stone, a three-times Oscar winner, explained that Hitler had been “an easy scapegoat throughout history” and that his new series would put things into their proper context. “We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good'. [Hitler] is the product of a series of actions,” he noted. “It's cause and effect....”
Just what we need; a therapeutic and forgiving view of Hitler, full of moral relativism, and which is yet another refight of the battle between the "Nature vs. Nuture" branch of psychology. Hitler is not an evil man driven by his personal lunacy, he's a product of his times, yet one more victim of a topsy-turvy world.
When you stop to consider the damage Stone's "historical treatment" films have already done, and here I'm speaking of the hero-worshiping "JFK", and the over-the-top surrealism of "Apocalypse Now" -- with their soft-60's-platitudes and fawning-adorational speeches placed in the mouths of people who never spoke them, the liberties taken with both fact and evidence, the outright misrepresentation of the motivations of both sides of any argument -- I can only imagine what Stone will produce in 10-hours.
Mostly, it should be reminiscent of something you occasionally have to scrape off your shoes.
We'll probably find out that Stalin murdered millions because of an extremely painful ingrown toenail that an American trade embargo prevented from being properly treated. Mao loved to collect teddy bears and hold tea parties, but Eisenhower didn't send Mao a card on Valentine's Day. Pol Pot was a cross-dresser, who wanted nothing more than to star on Broadway, but LBJ and Richard Nixon conspired to keep him in dinner theatre in Phnom Penh. All of them were driven to the acts that sullied their good memories, and ran their good intentions right off the rails (after all, they were socialists and in Stone's world, the Socialists are the heroes. Flawed Heroes, to be certain, but always the Good Guys) by greedy, ignorant, jingoistic Westerners --particularly Americans, and hopefully, Conservatives (even if Stone has to take great pains and twist the truth to portray them as Conservative). None of the true villains is ever responsible.
Murder millions on an industrial scale, deliberately starve millions more, preside over a reign of terror that makes the French Revolution seem like the Elk's Club Annual Picnic, and Stone will find some excuse to let you off the hook. A new generation of Americans which doesn't read, and which doesn't study history, will again learn their lessons from Stone's Movies, and pretty soon, they'll find a reason to excuse Osama Bin Laden...oh wait, they've already done that.
There. I've just saved you 10 hours and $50 bucks. You can thank me later.
The Telegraph has more here.
(Ed. Note: The Douchebag of the Week Award will now be a staple of this blog. Readers are encouraged to nominate those they believe fit the bill. Just drop a mail with your candidate's name and a link to the event, quote, action, etc, that made your candidate a good bet to win. I will select the winner, who will be announced every Monday morning.).
Stone announced this week that, having exhausted every hippie-centric view of the 1960's, he will now take a crack at the entire 20th Century, and to show you just how bad a historian Mr. Stone is and just what sort of mindset will be making this film, he has this to say about Adolf Hitler:
"...Talking to critics, Stone, a three-times Oscar winner, explained that Hitler had been “an easy scapegoat throughout history” and that his new series would put things into their proper context. “We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good'. [Hitler] is the product of a series of actions,” he noted. “It's cause and effect....”
Just what we need; a therapeutic and forgiving view of Hitler, full of moral relativism, and which is yet another refight of the battle between the "Nature vs. Nuture" branch of psychology. Hitler is not an evil man driven by his personal lunacy, he's a product of his times, yet one more victim of a topsy-turvy world.
When you stop to consider the damage Stone's "historical treatment" films have already done, and here I'm speaking of the hero-worshiping "JFK", and the over-the-top surrealism of "Apocalypse Now" -- with their soft-60's-platitudes and fawning-adorational speeches placed in the mouths of people who never spoke them, the liberties taken with both fact and evidence, the outright misrepresentation of the motivations of both sides of any argument -- I can only imagine what Stone will produce in 10-hours.
Mostly, it should be reminiscent of something you occasionally have to scrape off your shoes.
We'll probably find out that Stalin murdered millions because of an extremely painful ingrown toenail that an American trade embargo prevented from being properly treated. Mao loved to collect teddy bears and hold tea parties, but Eisenhower didn't send Mao a card on Valentine's Day. Pol Pot was a cross-dresser, who wanted nothing more than to star on Broadway, but LBJ and Richard Nixon conspired to keep him in dinner theatre in Phnom Penh. All of them were driven to the acts that sullied their good memories, and ran their good intentions right off the rails (after all, they were socialists and in Stone's world, the Socialists are the heroes. Flawed Heroes, to be certain, but always the Good Guys) by greedy, ignorant, jingoistic Westerners --particularly Americans, and hopefully, Conservatives (even if Stone has to take great pains and twist the truth to portray them as Conservative). None of the true villains is ever responsible.
Murder millions on an industrial scale, deliberately starve millions more, preside over a reign of terror that makes the French Revolution seem like the Elk's Club Annual Picnic, and Stone will find some excuse to let you off the hook. A new generation of Americans which doesn't read, and which doesn't study history, will again learn their lessons from Stone's Movies, and pretty soon, they'll find a reason to excuse Osama Bin Laden...oh wait, they've already done that.
There. I've just saved you 10 hours and $50 bucks. You can thank me later.
The Telegraph has more here.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Why Leftists Are Typically Wrong...And Dangerous...
In an effort to explain the mental disorder that manifests itself in leftist politics, I postulate the following:
Lefties really are well-meaning people. At least the foot soldiers are. It is said that the the left is a collection of the well-intentioned, but ill-informed being led by the well-informed but ill-intentioned. There is some truth in this. Your typical Leftie is concerned about...things...They care about...stuff. Ask them to explain their feelings and beliefs, and you'll most often get a mishmash of gobbledeegook which they 'learned' in sociology class, but which makes no sense whatsoever. The Leftist front-liner is a retard (or a college student or aging hippie, which is pretty much the same thing) or a ward of the state. Thinking is not required to be a Leftist, and it isn't their real talent...whining is.
They don't very often don't know why they care, they very often can't explain what they're concerned about, they just know that they are concerned (or believe they should be). It's an emotional compulsion; they are drawn to issues that elicit emotional responses and act accordingly, because being drawn to issues that require thought is apparently too hard. Add the herd mentality (people tend to want to be involved in activities which seem popular within their peer group), and you get the basis for most Lefty-influenced 'movements'.
Once the emotional and pack-mentality aspects take over, Lefties usually get into a bizarre pissing match with one another over who cares more than whom, which leads them into internal conflict (typically of the passive-aggressive sort which involves whispers, rumors, and eventually full-blown public exposure and humiliation of their enemies), and ever-more ridiculous displays of public emotionalism which take the forms of 'symbolism', 'solidarity' and 'support', which lead us to the next problem with Lefties...
None of this is ever directed into an genuinely-meaningful, or even just useful action. Meaningful actions require purpose (which is hard to formulate when your inspiration is emotional and not rational), and useful ones require personal effort. Lefties hate personal efforts because it's much easier to say you care and then demand someone else do something. Someone else must do the work, someone else must make the sacrifice, someone else must pay for whatever they advocate because, dammit, they CARE already!. The Good Lefty, having expended emotion, having made the symbolic-but-empty gesture to show she (it's usually a she, or a metrosexual) cares, believes they've done their part. There are people on the Left who make a living at this; they continue to 'advocate' for their emotionally-inspired-issue-that-will-require-someone-else's-effort-and-money-to-correct. They manage to skim proceeds from it from their brain-dead fellow travelers, and because they can scream loud enough and are politically-connected, from the taxpayer, which brings us to the next problem with Lefties...
They don't understand money. Since many of them don't really work, or worse, work in 'industries' which bring little in the way of positive gain to society (like the arts, media, academia, government, NGO's and so forth) they don't understand economics. They don't earn their livings doing something that involves the marketplace, they are handed the excess that the more productive society creates. This leads them to make several basic mistakes when discussing economic issues. The first is that wealth (they euphemistically call it 'resources') are finite. All resources, money, oil, air, water, food, raw materials of a thousand sorts, are always finite. It's why they can shout about 'peak oil', and the 'population bomb' and it's been the driving force behind socialism, communism and now the environmental movement. The second is that 'government' has money of it's own, independent of the taxpayer.
Since all resources are finite, Lefties are free to believe in a mystical unit of wealth which they refer to as 'the fair share'. They cannot tell you how much a 'fair share' is, only that everyone is entitled to one and those who typically do the least and add the least, are somehow entitled to a bigger 'fair share' than the productive who actually make the shares in the first place. When this sort of lopsided economics (wealth exists in finite quantities, everyone gets a fair share, some pigs are more equal than others) is applied in real life, you get a welfare state of entitlement programs which bankrupts a nation, and which requires ever-more oppressive taxation to support (which only certain non-Leftie-approved castes will have to pay. They always exempt themselves because while they may be economically retarded, they ain't stupid). Of course, Lefties never apply this sort of economic lunacy to their own finances. Which leads us to the next problem with Lefties, which is...
Screaming hypocrisy about wealth. They claim to despise wealth, to despise the people who possess it as thieves and rapists who have stolen it from 'the people', rather than earned it through hard work and intelligence. But, the ranks of the left are full of some of the richest people on the planet; George Soros, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Bill and Hillary Clinton, The Kennedys, John Kerry, all stalwart defenders of the downtrodden, have bank accounts the average working stiff can only look upon with envy. In many cases, they came into possession of this wealth by less-than-honest means; the Kennedy's built their fortune on Prohibition, George Soros was a Nazi Collaborator, John Kerry simply marries wealthy widows, Al Gore takes advantage of the mentally-challenged. The ever-expanding list of the glitterati that often act as surrogates, advocates and role-models for the left, the actors and actresses in Hollywood, the musical artist who advocates this or that policy, the athlete who couldn't tie his own shoes without a government program, are also good examples of this; they earn their living from practices and activities which involve the extraction of wealth from those who earn or create it. They are prime examples of a movement made up of people who add little of lasting value to society while taking as much as they possibly can from it. The Leftie screams about the money given to Wall Street bankers, calling it unfair and wasteful, yet never bats an eyelash at a guy who gets $100 million from another rich guy to hit a baseball, or to make a movie. Usually because the first is a minority (there's that 'some pigs are more equal than others' thing), or an artist (which means jack shit to anyone with half a brain).
Those people can be forgiven their hypocrisy because they give the Lefties the attention they crave. That's the real problem with the Left; it's full of needy, clingy, annoying people who crave constant attention. These people give them hope that someone takes them seriously -- all the while stealing money and votes with the classic strategy of un-anchored emotionalism, empty symbolism and making all things 'someone else's' problem. Until now, that is.
Now the Lefties have gotten wise to the scam, and they're angry. They've finally seen that their Paragons were little more than charlatans and they demand that that they get what they've been wanting for the last 100 years. It's why they rioted in Copenhagen, it's why Howard Dean opened a can of Whoop-Ass on Harry Reid on Health Care; They've waited for Communism long enough.
Because at root, this is what all the Leftist nonsense of the last century has been about; World Communism. They've dressed themselves up as 'Progressives", they've insinuated themselves into the fights for Equality, Social Justice and Civil Rights, they are at the vanguard of the Environmental movement. They believe (still) that communism can work. They believe that Communism will (finally) bring 'peace' to the planet. They believe that Communism will 'save' mankind (from what, they can't exactly tell you). Which leads us to the biggest problem with Leftists...
Despite all the evidence that everything they espouse usually fails, spectacularly, they keep trying. They believe that communism has failed not because it is a flawed system which takes all incentive out of the individual, and thus, society, but because we just haven't found the right communists to run the World State yet. All Communism will do is make us all equally miserable; Lefties more than others because they are not especially well-known for enduring discomfort and suffering... especially when it's their own.
The Left looks at Barack Obama and the current American Congress, and they believe they have, finally, found the right communists. But this bunch haven't moved quickly enough for the Left's tastes, and thus, all the brouhaha and infighting. This is just the beginning of a shitstorm that will, we can hope, finally expose this bunch of hacks for what they really are in a way that it will be impossible to mistake.
Lefties really are well-meaning people. At least the foot soldiers are. It is said that the the left is a collection of the well-intentioned, but ill-informed being led by the well-informed but ill-intentioned. There is some truth in this. Your typical Leftie is concerned about...things...They care about...stuff. Ask them to explain their feelings and beliefs, and you'll most often get a mishmash of gobbledeegook which they 'learned' in sociology class, but which makes no sense whatsoever. The Leftist front-liner is a retard (or a college student or aging hippie, which is pretty much the same thing) or a ward of the state. Thinking is not required to be a Leftist, and it isn't their real talent...whining is.
They don't very often don't know why they care, they very often can't explain what they're concerned about, they just know that they are concerned (or believe they should be). It's an emotional compulsion; they are drawn to issues that elicit emotional responses and act accordingly, because being drawn to issues that require thought is apparently too hard. Add the herd mentality (people tend to want to be involved in activities which seem popular within their peer group), and you get the basis for most Lefty-influenced 'movements'.
Once the emotional and pack-mentality aspects take over, Lefties usually get into a bizarre pissing match with one another over who cares more than whom, which leads them into internal conflict (typically of the passive-aggressive sort which involves whispers, rumors, and eventually full-blown public exposure and humiliation of their enemies), and ever-more ridiculous displays of public emotionalism which take the forms of 'symbolism', 'solidarity' and 'support', which lead us to the next problem with Lefties...
None of this is ever directed into an genuinely-meaningful, or even just useful action. Meaningful actions require purpose (which is hard to formulate when your inspiration is emotional and not rational), and useful ones require personal effort. Lefties hate personal efforts because it's much easier to say you care and then demand someone else do something. Someone else must do the work, someone else must make the sacrifice, someone else must pay for whatever they advocate because, dammit, they CARE already!. The Good Lefty, having expended emotion, having made the symbolic-but-empty gesture to show she (it's usually a she, or a metrosexual) cares, believes they've done their part. There are people on the Left who make a living at this; they continue to 'advocate' for their emotionally-inspired-issue-that-will-require-someone-else's-effort-and-money-to-correct. They manage to skim proceeds from it from their brain-dead fellow travelers, and because they can scream loud enough and are politically-connected, from the taxpayer, which brings us to the next problem with Lefties...
They don't understand money. Since many of them don't really work, or worse, work in 'industries' which bring little in the way of positive gain to society (like the arts, media, academia, government, NGO's and so forth) they don't understand economics. They don't earn their livings doing something that involves the marketplace, they are handed the excess that the more productive society creates. This leads them to make several basic mistakes when discussing economic issues. The first is that wealth (they euphemistically call it 'resources') are finite. All resources, money, oil, air, water, food, raw materials of a thousand sorts, are always finite. It's why they can shout about 'peak oil', and the 'population bomb' and it's been the driving force behind socialism, communism and now the environmental movement. The second is that 'government' has money of it's own, independent of the taxpayer.
Since all resources are finite, Lefties are free to believe in a mystical unit of wealth which they refer to as 'the fair share'. They cannot tell you how much a 'fair share' is, only that everyone is entitled to one and those who typically do the least and add the least, are somehow entitled to a bigger 'fair share' than the productive who actually make the shares in the first place. When this sort of lopsided economics (wealth exists in finite quantities, everyone gets a fair share, some pigs are more equal than others) is applied in real life, you get a welfare state of entitlement programs which bankrupts a nation, and which requires ever-more oppressive taxation to support (which only certain non-Leftie-approved castes will have to pay. They always exempt themselves because while they may be economically retarded, they ain't stupid). Of course, Lefties never apply this sort of economic lunacy to their own finances. Which leads us to the next problem with Lefties, which is...
Screaming hypocrisy about wealth. They claim to despise wealth, to despise the people who possess it as thieves and rapists who have stolen it from 'the people', rather than earned it through hard work and intelligence. But, the ranks of the left are full of some of the richest people on the planet; George Soros, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Bill and Hillary Clinton, The Kennedys, John Kerry, all stalwart defenders of the downtrodden, have bank accounts the average working stiff can only look upon with envy. In many cases, they came into possession of this wealth by less-than-honest means; the Kennedy's built their fortune on Prohibition, George Soros was a Nazi Collaborator, John Kerry simply marries wealthy widows, Al Gore takes advantage of the mentally-challenged. The ever-expanding list of the glitterati that often act as surrogates, advocates and role-models for the left, the actors and actresses in Hollywood, the musical artist who advocates this or that policy, the athlete who couldn't tie his own shoes without a government program, are also good examples of this; they earn their living from practices and activities which involve the extraction of wealth from those who earn or create it. They are prime examples of a movement made up of people who add little of lasting value to society while taking as much as they possibly can from it. The Leftie screams about the money given to Wall Street bankers, calling it unfair and wasteful, yet never bats an eyelash at a guy who gets $100 million from another rich guy to hit a baseball, or to make a movie. Usually because the first is a minority (there's that 'some pigs are more equal than others' thing), or an artist (which means jack shit to anyone with half a brain).
Those people can be forgiven their hypocrisy because they give the Lefties the attention they crave. That's the real problem with the Left; it's full of needy, clingy, annoying people who crave constant attention. These people give them hope that someone takes them seriously -- all the while stealing money and votes with the classic strategy of un-anchored emotionalism, empty symbolism and making all things 'someone else's' problem. Until now, that is.
Now the Lefties have gotten wise to the scam, and they're angry. They've finally seen that their Paragons were little more than charlatans and they demand that that they get what they've been wanting for the last 100 years. It's why they rioted in Copenhagen, it's why Howard Dean opened a can of Whoop-Ass on Harry Reid on Health Care; They've waited for Communism long enough.
Because at root, this is what all the Leftist nonsense of the last century has been about; World Communism. They've dressed themselves up as 'Progressives", they've insinuated themselves into the fights for Equality, Social Justice and Civil Rights, they are at the vanguard of the Environmental movement. They believe (still) that communism can work. They believe that Communism will (finally) bring 'peace' to the planet. They believe that Communism will 'save' mankind (from what, they can't exactly tell you). Which leads us to the biggest problem with Leftists...
Despite all the evidence that everything they espouse usually fails, spectacularly, they keep trying. They believe that communism has failed not because it is a flawed system which takes all incentive out of the individual, and thus, society, but because we just haven't found the right communists to run the World State yet. All Communism will do is make us all equally miserable; Lefties more than others because they are not especially well-known for enduring discomfort and suffering... especially when it's their own.
The Left looks at Barack Obama and the current American Congress, and they believe they have, finally, found the right communists. But this bunch haven't moved quickly enough for the Left's tastes, and thus, all the brouhaha and infighting. This is just the beginning of a shitstorm that will, we can hope, finally expose this bunch of hacks for what they really are in a way that it will be impossible to mistake.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
And Now For Something Completely Different...
Something positive! Can't have you thinking I'm all a rainy day, can I?
I have four nephews, all my only sister's sons (They are 13, 11, 8 and 4). I have always taken all the time I could to be 'there' for them. Teaching them all the things that somehow it falls upon an uncle to teach them by some unwritten law -- mostly the things that makes their mother cringe. But, I figure, screw her; someone has to teach young boys the joys of kitchen-cabinet chemistry, belching, slingshots, the really neat things you can do to an anthill with a magnifying glass and model glue, and of course, dirty jokes. It's their parent's job to make sure they learn to brush their teeth, watch their language and do their homework, and all that boring stuff, right? Someone has to show them how to be Boys before they become Men and have the weight of the world settle upon their shoulders with...ewww...responsibility.
And there I have been, all these years, in a position of both Authority (defined as "Now, guys, don't do this without me around, okay? Your father needs the garage to remain standing, and I'm a Professional.") and awe. Yes, awe. You never forget the look of incredulous wonder that crosses a young boy's face when he's first discovered that, yes indeed, farts can be set alight by a experienced man with a barbecue lighter, nerves of steel, and the proper technique.
Okay, so I've never really grown up. I like to sometimes pretend that I have, but let's face it, Men -- we never really do. I'm just a 10-year old with a 38 waist and a mustache. Most men are. We just pretend otherwise so that girls will like us, and stuff.
But, the youngest nephew, all of 4-years old, has really knocked me for a loop. He's my shadow (in much the same way that the eldest was when he was little), and several times a week, I get that afternoon phone call:
"Uncle...will come over and play with me?" It's delivered in a small, pitiful voice that screams loneliness, or maybe he's already learned that I'm a sucker and just won't say no, but pours it on thick, just in case. It's an ego stroke, I'll admit. Besides, I figure it's my duty, and more often than not, it's fun.
Usually, I get invited over to play Geotrax or Thomas the Tank Engine (he loves trains), and the routine involves me building the tracks, and then we act out the script of the DVD's of those programs that's he's just watched (he has an absolutely amazing memory for the details). He directs me and tells me what's happened in the little scenario, and I do what he tells me, and eventually, we have re-enacted the entire episode, every word, action and detail, and then it's time to go on to whatever other activity his short little attention span demands.
But recently he's been big on games. He'll sit still for a long session of games. Board games, card games, dice games. We run the gamut from Monopoly (suitably modified for a 4-yr old attention span; we just go around the board and whoever goes to jail three times wins all the money), to the classics of Chutes and Ladders, Old Maid, Go Fish, Yahtzee and even our special version of Poker. We laugh, we joke, he cheats. Oh, how he cheats! Like a democrat! He's sharp about it, even sly, too. And there's always an explanation of why he should be allowed to cheat whenever I call him out on it (gently and always with a smile) which is curiously lucid, and you just have to allow it because, well, that was a pretty great mental formulation for a four year old to make!
And it struck me just today, during a game of Poker-Keno, that I am watching the development of a little brain. A tiny person is taking shape, just across the table from me. Up close and personal. I was dumbstruck just as soon as I realized it, and by just how subtle the process is unless you pay very close attention to it. A month ago, he couldn't be bothered to count (although he could do so, at least to 25, always skipping 16, for some reason), and now he does so with eagerness. He couldn't discern the difference between a heart and a diamond, and now he corrects me when I mistake a club for a spade. I've watched him count pips on dice and then carefully and deliberately count out the corresponding spaces on the board with a serious precision. He comments on my strategy, and then even explains his own. He laughs when he climbs ladders, and giggles when I slide down, down, down the chutes. He boasts when he wins, and then explains how he came up with the masterstroke that finally sent me into a deadly tailspin ending in humiliating defeat (wink, wink). He announces grandly, "the winner of this game is the Champion of the World!", and does the inevitable Victory Dance before exclaiming "Let's play again!".
And then I laugh. Something I all too rarely do, nowadays. It's at times like this that I'm reminded that there are still things to wonder about in this world, and to laugh at, and they don't all have to involve bodily functions, table-top explosions or the death of a Kennedy, and that perhaps, I spend too much time spewing venom at the world instead of being appreciative for the little things. So, I want to thank my little nephew, although he may never ever read this, for giving me, I think, far more joy, and certainly more to think about, than I think I can ever repay.
I have four nephews, all my only sister's sons (They are 13, 11, 8 and 4). I have always taken all the time I could to be 'there' for them. Teaching them all the things that somehow it falls upon an uncle to teach them by some unwritten law -- mostly the things that makes their mother cringe. But, I figure, screw her; someone has to teach young boys the joys of kitchen-cabinet chemistry, belching, slingshots, the really neat things you can do to an anthill with a magnifying glass and model glue, and of course, dirty jokes. It's their parent's job to make sure they learn to brush their teeth, watch their language and do their homework, and all that boring stuff, right? Someone has to show them how to be Boys before they become Men and have the weight of the world settle upon their shoulders with...ewww...responsibility.
And there I have been, all these years, in a position of both Authority (defined as "Now, guys, don't do this without me around, okay? Your father needs the garage to remain standing, and I'm a Professional.") and awe. Yes, awe. You never forget the look of incredulous wonder that crosses a young boy's face when he's first discovered that, yes indeed, farts can be set alight by a experienced man with a barbecue lighter, nerves of steel, and the proper technique.
Okay, so I've never really grown up. I like to sometimes pretend that I have, but let's face it, Men -- we never really do. I'm just a 10-year old with a 38 waist and a mustache. Most men are. We just pretend otherwise so that girls will like us, and stuff.
But, the youngest nephew, all of 4-years old, has really knocked me for a loop. He's my shadow (in much the same way that the eldest was when he was little), and several times a week, I get that afternoon phone call:
"Uncle...will come over and play with me?" It's delivered in a small, pitiful voice that screams loneliness, or maybe he's already learned that I'm a sucker and just won't say no, but pours it on thick, just in case. It's an ego stroke, I'll admit. Besides, I figure it's my duty, and more often than not, it's fun.
Usually, I get invited over to play Geotrax or Thomas the Tank Engine (he loves trains), and the routine involves me building the tracks, and then we act out the script of the DVD's of those programs that's he's just watched (he has an absolutely amazing memory for the details). He directs me and tells me what's happened in the little scenario, and I do what he tells me, and eventually, we have re-enacted the entire episode, every word, action and detail, and then it's time to go on to whatever other activity his short little attention span demands.
But recently he's been big on games. He'll sit still for a long session of games. Board games, card games, dice games. We run the gamut from Monopoly (suitably modified for a 4-yr old attention span; we just go around the board and whoever goes to jail three times wins all the money), to the classics of Chutes and Ladders, Old Maid, Go Fish, Yahtzee and even our special version of Poker. We laugh, we joke, he cheats. Oh, how he cheats! Like a democrat! He's sharp about it, even sly, too. And there's always an explanation of why he should be allowed to cheat whenever I call him out on it (gently and always with a smile) which is curiously lucid, and you just have to allow it because, well, that was a pretty great mental formulation for a four year old to make!
And it struck me just today, during a game of Poker-Keno, that I am watching the development of a little brain. A tiny person is taking shape, just across the table from me. Up close and personal. I was dumbstruck just as soon as I realized it, and by just how subtle the process is unless you pay very close attention to it. A month ago, he couldn't be bothered to count (although he could do so, at least to 25, always skipping 16, for some reason), and now he does so with eagerness. He couldn't discern the difference between a heart and a diamond, and now he corrects me when I mistake a club for a spade. I've watched him count pips on dice and then carefully and deliberately count out the corresponding spaces on the board with a serious precision. He comments on my strategy, and then even explains his own. He laughs when he climbs ladders, and giggles when I slide down, down, down the chutes. He boasts when he wins, and then explains how he came up with the masterstroke that finally sent me into a deadly tailspin ending in humiliating defeat (wink, wink). He announces grandly, "the winner of this game is the Champion of the World!", and does the inevitable Victory Dance before exclaiming "Let's play again!".
And then I laugh. Something I all too rarely do, nowadays. It's at times like this that I'm reminded that there are still things to wonder about in this world, and to laugh at, and they don't all have to involve bodily functions, table-top explosions or the death of a Kennedy, and that perhaps, I spend too much time spewing venom at the world instead of being appreciative for the little things. So, I want to thank my little nephew, although he may never ever read this, for giving me, I think, far more joy, and certainly more to think about, than I think I can ever repay.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Ted Kennedy Dead: Hell Prepares for New Management.
I'm not actually happy that Senator Kennedy is dead. It does not give me any glee to know that someone has died, even if I did hate his fucking guts. I celebrated the announcement of the Senator's death for about thirty-five seconds until I realized that Barack Obama will now wave Teddy's bloody shirt much in the way that Jesse Jacka$$ waved MLK's; in a shameless attempt to guilt America into accepting his SS-approved "healthcare" "plan".
I'll admit, I'm not a fan of the Kennedys. Never have been, never will be. It's my considered opinion that JFK was a sham who didn't give a shit about Civil Rights, except that it was an issue that could be mined for votes. I count his accomplishments as bagging Jackie O, getting Daddy to buy him an election, shtupping Marilyn, and getting his head blown off. Between those highlights, the record is grim; Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, getting bullied by Kruschev in Paris, just to reel off the prime cuts.
As for Bobby, he was John Edwards before there was John Edwards. His greatest accomplishment; getting his brother's sloppy seconds and riding his brother's coattails. He was a nasty little snot who hid it well.
Don't get me started on the Father, who was a bootlegger with mafia connections, who wanted to appease the Nazis and get the British to surrender to Hitler, and then used the odiously-obtained family fortune to corrupt the American political system for the benefit of his family.
As for the rest of the clan, it seems to me that the only real talent any of them has ever displayed is the ability to kill themselves in the most spectacular and simultaneously ridiculous ways. How many people can say they had a relative who died while playing football on skis? How many of you have a brother-in-law who flew himself, your sister and an innocent bystander right into the Atlantic Ocean in the dead of night while displaying that famous Kennedy "risk-taking" persona? That Kennedy trait is simply spun by the media as the alpha-male buried inside every Kennedy man that occasionally gets the best of them. The truth is more like they manage to kill themselves in such sporting fashion because intelligence is apparently not a trait Kennedys were bred for. Those incidents, where a Kennedy man is dead through his own painfully-stupid action and lack of foresight, is eerily reminiscent of my days in the South; you knew someone was about to get hurt as soon as your heard someone shout "Hey ,Y'all! Check this out..."
There really is no difference between Hyannisport and HeeHaw, is there?
I shan't forget the Kennedy criminals (either blood relatives or related by marriage), accused rapists, convicted murderers, baby-sitter-molesters and so forth. And the Useless Mouth Branch of the family which trades on the family name shamelessly for no one's benefit but their own. That means you Kathleen Kennedy-Townshend, Patrick, and Joseph P. You're all about as useful as a condom in a convent.
Now the so-called "Lion of the Senate", the former alcoholic, accused-murderer, alleged accessory-after-the-fact-to-a-rape, the profligate taxpayer dollar waster, the faux-liberal, the false Catholic, the alleged wife-abusing fat sack of Senatorial windbag shit is gone.
I shan't muster a single tear, and I didn't watch a single minute of that over-the-top funeral coverage. A pompous asshole died; not anyone important.
I'll admit, I'm not a fan of the Kennedys. Never have been, never will be. It's my considered opinion that JFK was a sham who didn't give a shit about Civil Rights, except that it was an issue that could be mined for votes. I count his accomplishments as bagging Jackie O, getting Daddy to buy him an election, shtupping Marilyn, and getting his head blown off. Between those highlights, the record is grim; Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, getting bullied by Kruschev in Paris, just to reel off the prime cuts.
As for Bobby, he was John Edwards before there was John Edwards. His greatest accomplishment; getting his brother's sloppy seconds and riding his brother's coattails. He was a nasty little snot who hid it well.
Don't get me started on the Father, who was a bootlegger with mafia connections, who wanted to appease the Nazis and get the British to surrender to Hitler, and then used the odiously-obtained family fortune to corrupt the American political system for the benefit of his family.
As for the rest of the clan, it seems to me that the only real talent any of them has ever displayed is the ability to kill themselves in the most spectacular and simultaneously ridiculous ways. How many people can say they had a relative who died while playing football on skis? How many of you have a brother-in-law who flew himself, your sister and an innocent bystander right into the Atlantic Ocean in the dead of night while displaying that famous Kennedy "risk-taking" persona? That Kennedy trait is simply spun by the media as the alpha-male buried inside every Kennedy man that occasionally gets the best of them. The truth is more like they manage to kill themselves in such sporting fashion because intelligence is apparently not a trait Kennedys were bred for. Those incidents, where a Kennedy man is dead through his own painfully-stupid action and lack of foresight, is eerily reminiscent of my days in the South; you knew someone was about to get hurt as soon as your heard someone shout "Hey ,Y'all! Check this out..."
There really is no difference between Hyannisport and HeeHaw, is there?
I shan't forget the Kennedy criminals (either blood relatives or related by marriage), accused rapists, convicted murderers, baby-sitter-molesters and so forth. And the Useless Mouth Branch of the family which trades on the family name shamelessly for no one's benefit but their own. That means you Kathleen Kennedy-Townshend, Patrick, and Joseph P. You're all about as useful as a condom in a convent.
Now the so-called "Lion of the Senate", the former alcoholic, accused-murderer, alleged accessory-after-the-fact-to-a-rape, the profligate taxpayer dollar waster, the faux-liberal, the false Catholic, the alleged wife-abusing fat sack of Senatorial windbag shit is gone.
I shan't muster a single tear, and I didn't watch a single minute of that over-the-top funeral coverage. A pompous asshole died; not anyone important.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Huh?
Ted Kennedy to be knighted? What kind of crap is this? Has the Queen of England lost her mind? I can think of no one who is more the antithesis of the knightly code of chivalry than Ted Kennedy. I can think of no one who deserves this honor less, given the man's history. However, the Queen has been asked to bestow a knighthood upon Teddy for...well, no one can quite explain it.
But there are some folks who can explain why it shouldn't happen.
Here's one, courtesy of the UK's Daily Mail.
And Ed Anger of the WeeklyWorldNews chimes in, as well.
Ted Kennedy to be knighted? What kind of crap is this? Has the Queen of England lost her mind? I can think of no one who is more the antithesis of the knightly code of chivalry than Ted Kennedy. I can think of no one who deserves this honor less, given the man's history. However, the Queen has been asked to bestow a knighthood upon Teddy for...well, no one can quite explain it.
But there are some folks who can explain why it shouldn't happen.
Here's one, courtesy of the UK's Daily Mail.
And Ed Anger of the WeeklyWorldNews chimes in, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)