An excellent blog post from Steve Sailer about why it is Liberals can never win an argument on facts, reason, and logic, and instead resort to tears and name calling.
Mostly, it's because they're all little crybaby, bed-wetting, thumb-sucking momma's boys who wear purty pink panties that have a tendency to get bunched every five minutes. It's the legacy of feminism and multi-culturalism that the once- Male Virtues of Free Thinking and Intellectual Acuity have been downgraded, and our political discourse has suffered greatly for it.
It's the primary reason why we got saddled with Nancy Pelosis, Hillary Clintons, Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes, and Barack Obamas, because to tell the indisputable truth about anything is to hurt someone's feelings, and therefore, make any salient point null-and-void in the minds of the truly brain dead.
This helps explain a lot of what has been happening in American society and politics for the last 30 years, at least.
Enjoy.
Showing posts with label Panty-bunched. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Panty-bunched. Show all posts
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Dear Food Nazis, Part II...
You know, the quality of life here in New York city has suffered greatly ever since someone decided it was a good idea to listen, and to take seriously, the mental diarrhea of a class of effete snobs.
Led by our Mayor-for-as-long-as-he-can-continue-to-pay-for-the-position, or as I like to refer to him, Reichsfuhrer Bloomdouche, this class of pantybunched little bedwetters have taken what was once a vibrant and delightful city, and turned it into a sterile preserve of their own, one which is now beginning to take on the character which is a reflection of their collective souls.
It's all so Brave New World.
The city looks modern, it appears to still be hip and happenin', it still has the outward aura of being New York, the Big Apple that Toddlin' Town, but this is surface glitz; just beneath all the new smoked glass and white concrete, below the thin veneer of sophistication which still clings to New York like barnacles to a rusted hull, lay a city with a weakening pulse, it's strength and dynamism sapped by a bunch of mostly-transplanted dickheads whose biggest wish in Life is to avoid seeing, hearing, doing, or allowing to exist anything that threatens to burst their bubble of self-generated conceit, and the phony, aloof, egotistic, haughty, dominated-by-affectation lifestyle that comes with it.
Brooklyn hot dog vendor chased from neighborhood by overbearing pompous asses.
Led by our Mayor-for-as-long-as-he-can-continue-to-pay-for-the-position, or as I like to refer to him, Reichsfuhrer Bloomdouche, this class of pantybunched little bedwetters have taken what was once a vibrant and delightful city, and turned it into a sterile preserve of their own, one which is now beginning to take on the character which is a reflection of their collective souls.
It's all so Brave New World.
The city looks modern, it appears to still be hip and happenin', it still has the outward aura of being New York, the Big Apple that Toddlin' Town, but this is surface glitz; just beneath all the new smoked glass and white concrete, below the thin veneer of sophistication which still clings to New York like barnacles to a rusted hull, lay a city with a weakening pulse, it's strength and dynamism sapped by a bunch of mostly-transplanted dickheads whose biggest wish in Life is to avoid seeing, hearing, doing, or allowing to exist anything that threatens to burst their bubble of self-generated conceit, and the phony, aloof, egotistic, haughty, dominated-by-affectation lifestyle that comes with it.
Brooklyn hot dog vendor chased from neighborhood by overbearing pompous asses.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
"It's Obama's fault people want to believe he's Muslim"
So sayeth the Washington Post.
The Post ought to be careful: if you say anything is Obama's fault, the Obamatards call you a racist. When they do, just use the same retort I do:
I'm not a racist; I hate Obama's White Half, too!
I have an issue with that word "want": it is impregnated with accusation. It implies that people have a psychological disorder that compels them to think in a way that is contrary to reality. Get rid of the word "want". Secondly, I don't think Obama has any religious convictions whatsoever. I think he uses religion (or has used it) in the same way he's used a teleprompter; it's a tool that he trots out as needed.
The idea that a guy spent 17 years in a pew with Reverend Wright and never heard the "Kill Whitey" rhetoric, the "Bloodsucking Jew" routine, or the Black Separatist nonsense? That's a load of crap, and the idea that we're supposed to take him at his word when he says he didn't know, defies logic. Either he went in there and fell asleep every Sunday for 17 years, or he knows damned well what was being said in that church. He either agrees with it, or it went in one ear and out the other.
But Reverend Wright and his church, I think, were never more than camouflage. Barack Obama, the Community Organizer, could never become Barack Obama, The Politician, without that church. It gave him"street cred". It gave him a political base. Sitting in that pew every Sunday or 17 years was just the price Obama had to pay to get where he was going. Did he believe in anything Wright had to say? Your guess is as good as mine, and mine is something along the lines of "yeah, yeah, yeah, get to the Amen, Rev! I wanna get out of this suit! I wouldn't even be here if my wife didn't make me come!".
Which brings us to my second thought on Obama and religion: I think he only attended Wright's church because Michelle initially made him, but only afterwards found it politically convenient to stay there.
This explains why Obama was so casual about tossing Reverend Wright overboard when he needed to do it: the need for that mantle of religion was gone. Barack Obama was now able to stand or fall on his own. His 17 years as cuckoo in the nest had now come to an end. He no longer needed the Black Church -- he was already at the threshold of the White House.
If you doubt that Barack Obama uses religion as a smokescreen, to bamboozle you into thinking he's this-that-or-the-other, consider this: after nearly two years in office, the once-highly-publicized Obama search fora "new church" mysteriously came to an end. No church was ever found. The Obama's are never seen entering or leaving a place of worship (probably because they're too busy taking separate, weekly vacations), they don't even use it in one of those Potemkin parenting displays where they drool about the moral virtues and how they're important to the raising of the Obama Girls.
Or, maybe this is closer to the truth: The Real Reason Why Obama Supports Reverend Wright.
Next thought:
Who gives a fuck what he is? (Besides incompetent, corrupt, unprepared, and wrong on just about everything).It is my considered opinion that people who give a crap about such things are laboring under a severe disability. And yeah, I know the argument; someone will undoubtedly e-mail me and say (paraphrased in best Goober voice) "If'n a man ain't got no faith, how'd yer s'pect him ta be trustworthy?". To which I respond: "I don't, Jethro; he's a fucking human being and a politician, which means he's a douchebag, and lying every time his lips move -- including during the Lord's Prayer."
I can list all the "men of faith" who had neither morals or scruples, but then I would be sitting here for the next 52 years. I rest my case. If this is a subject which consumes your every waking thought, start drinking, please. The real point is to say "He's not one of Us", the "us" being the mouth-breathing Evangelical retards who walk about praying for the end of the world so that they can cash in the Brownie Points they think they're entitled to.
I'm sorry to say that you'll probably be very sadly disappointed when Armageddon arrives.
The argument about Christian/Muslim is ultimately besides the point: Obama is a douche who needs to be voted out of office in 2012, and have the worst of his policies stopped by a republican takeover of Congress in the mid-terms, and that should be all anyone really needs to know or think about.
The Post ought to be careful: if you say anything is Obama's fault, the Obamatards call you a racist. When they do, just use the same retort I do:
I'm not a racist; I hate Obama's White Half, too!
I have an issue with that word "want": it is impregnated with accusation. It implies that people have a psychological disorder that compels them to think in a way that is contrary to reality. Get rid of the word "want". Secondly, I don't think Obama has any religious convictions whatsoever. I think he uses religion (or has used it) in the same way he's used a teleprompter; it's a tool that he trots out as needed.
The idea that a guy spent 17 years in a pew with Reverend Wright and never heard the "Kill Whitey" rhetoric, the "Bloodsucking Jew" routine, or the Black Separatist nonsense? That's a load of crap, and the idea that we're supposed to take him at his word when he says he didn't know, defies logic. Either he went in there and fell asleep every Sunday for 17 years, or he knows damned well what was being said in that church. He either agrees with it, or it went in one ear and out the other.
But Reverend Wright and his church, I think, were never more than camouflage. Barack Obama, the Community Organizer, could never become Barack Obama, The Politician, without that church. It gave him"street cred". It gave him a political base. Sitting in that pew every Sunday or 17 years was just the price Obama had to pay to get where he was going. Did he believe in anything Wright had to say? Your guess is as good as mine, and mine is something along the lines of "yeah, yeah, yeah, get to the Amen, Rev! I wanna get out of this suit! I wouldn't even be here if my wife didn't make me come!".
Which brings us to my second thought on Obama and religion: I think he only attended Wright's church because Michelle initially made him, but only afterwards found it politically convenient to stay there.
This explains why Obama was so casual about tossing Reverend Wright overboard when he needed to do it: the need for that mantle of religion was gone. Barack Obama was now able to stand or fall on his own. His 17 years as cuckoo in the nest had now come to an end. He no longer needed the Black Church -- he was already at the threshold of the White House.
If you doubt that Barack Obama uses religion as a smokescreen, to bamboozle you into thinking he's this-that-or-the-other, consider this: after nearly two years in office, the once-highly-publicized Obama search fora "new church" mysteriously came to an end. No church was ever found. The Obama's are never seen entering or leaving a place of worship (probably because they're too busy taking separate, weekly vacations), they don't even use it in one of those Potemkin parenting displays where they drool about the moral virtues and how they're important to the raising of the Obama Girls.
Or, maybe this is closer to the truth: The Real Reason Why Obama Supports Reverend Wright.
Next thought:
Who gives a fuck what he is? (Besides incompetent, corrupt, unprepared, and wrong on just about everything).It is my considered opinion that people who give a crap about such things are laboring under a severe disability. And yeah, I know the argument; someone will undoubtedly e-mail me and say (paraphrased in best Goober voice) "If'n a man ain't got no faith, how'd yer s'pect him ta be trustworthy?". To which I respond: "I don't, Jethro; he's a fucking human being and a politician, which means he's a douchebag, and lying every time his lips move -- including during the Lord's Prayer."
I can list all the "men of faith" who had neither morals or scruples, but then I would be sitting here for the next 52 years. I rest my case. If this is a subject which consumes your every waking thought, start drinking, please. The real point is to say "He's not one of Us", the "us" being the mouth-breathing Evangelical retards who walk about praying for the end of the world so that they can cash in the Brownie Points they think they're entitled to.
I'm sorry to say that you'll probably be very sadly disappointed when Armageddon arrives.
The argument about Christian/Muslim is ultimately besides the point: Obama is a douche who needs to be voted out of office in 2012, and have the worst of his policies stopped by a republican takeover of Congress in the mid-terms, and that should be all anyone really needs to know or think about.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Bedbug Problem Now Officially Upgraded to Crisis!
This changes everything;
Bedbugs found at Bloomingdales.
Some predictions:
Expect the rich folk to scoff at the treehuggers, whom they formerly loved so much, and demand that Congress allow the reintroduction of DDT in order to drive the vermin from their homes to protect their precious minks and Versace clothes!
Expect to see a lot of stories in the media soon about domestics being discriminated against because of their race and/or immigration status, as the oh-so-sensitive Upper East Side Twits starts firing the cheap, illegal labor that brought this plague into their expensive homes, and which may bring them great social embarrassment.
Expect the words "Guaranteed Bedbug Free" to start popping up in tony department and furniture stores in the very near future.
Expect landfills to start filling up with old mattresses and clothes, leading to the next ecological disaster to be milked for billions by the usual crew.
Remember: nothing is ever a problem until Rich Liberals are directly affected...and then it becomes a crisis demanding swift action!
Bedbugs found at Bloomingdales.
Some predictions:
Expect the rich folk to scoff at the treehuggers, whom they formerly loved so much, and demand that Congress allow the reintroduction of DDT in order to drive the vermin from their homes to protect their precious minks and Versace clothes!
Expect to see a lot of stories in the media soon about domestics being discriminated against because of their race and/or immigration status, as the oh-so-sensitive Upper East Side Twits starts firing the cheap, illegal labor that brought this plague into their expensive homes, and which may bring them great social embarrassment.
Expect the words "Guaranteed Bedbug Free" to start popping up in tony department and furniture stores in the very near future.
Expect landfills to start filling up with old mattresses and clothes, leading to the next ecological disaster to be milked for billions by the usual crew.
Remember: nothing is ever a problem until Rich Liberals are directly affected...and then it becomes a crisis demanding swift action!
Thursday, June 03, 2010
How to Piss An EnviroMENTAList Off...
A Discussion I had this afternoon at the local Starbucks (paraphrased). Because I'm a complete jerk, I sometimes like to yank people's chains when they give me an excuse to do so. Especially deeply-committed numbskulls. My arguments weren't even good ones -- I just threw crap at her in order to piss her off. Although I do have to say, she looked AWESOME in that tight t-shirt!
Earnest Tree Hugger: Good afternoon, Sir. Can I ask you to sign a petition asking Congress to forbid any more offshore oil drilling, in light of the nasty spill in the Gulf of Mexico?
Me: You may ask -- but I'm in favor of drilling for all the oil we can, so that we don't have to buy it from murderous Muslims and South American communists.
ETH: Even if it means destroying our fisheries, and marshlands, not to mention millions of migratory birds?
Me: Oil is taken from the ground every day without destroying fisheries you know. It's almost your fault, and by that I mean people who walk around screaming about "Saving The Three-toed Desert Mosquito" that are complicit in that Gulf Disaster, you know? Besides, don't you care about Arab and South American fisheries? Why don't you try to get them to stop drilling?
ETH (taken slightly aback): All we want is for the Big Oil Companies to be responsible for making certain the environment is protected, and to persuade Mankind to change his ways. What's wrong with that?
Me: Why should Mankind change his ways, and what makes you think most people give a hoot about a bunch of migratory birds? Birds don't pay taxes, you know. And so far as I can see, you're only trying to get ME to change my ways. You aren't petitioning the Saudis or Hugo Chavez, you know, and they drill more oil than we do.
ETH (Getting annoyed with me): If we don't change our ways, if we don't break our addiction to oil, and we continue to treat the environment the way we do, we'll all be dead.
Me (reeling the sucker in): Ah, so if we don't change, we're all dead?
ETH (Heavy sigh): We'll destroy the planet, and then where will we be?
Me: Young Lady, do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?
ETH (non-plussed): Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?
Me (smirking): You make an argument that states if Man does not change -- that is to say EVOLVE and ADAPT to a new way of Life -- that Man will be dead. Why is it that Man is capable of Evolving and Adapting --yet fish, swamp beasts, migratory birds, insects, and so forth, who have been here a lot longer than we have -- are assumed to be unable to do so without your enlightened stewardship, or Congressional action?
ETH (Confused): What does that mean?
Me: It means that no matter what happens Nature recovers -- it always does. Either the Fish and Birds can adapt to oily water -- that is to say Evolve -- or they will die, and Evolution will have been proven. By protecting them by retarding the progress of Man, just might possibly be interfering with their own Natural Development. I mean, if Evolution is the Real Deal, the fish and birds will adapt, right?
ETH (Getting aggravated): But that Oil Spill is not a natural occurrence!!!! We're interfering with Evolution when create catastrophes like that!
Me: Of course it's a natural occurrence. Oil seeps out of the ocean floor every day, and our own process of Adaptation involves the manipulation of Nature. Maybe it doesn't seep out in these quantities, but it still does so all the same; the fish and so forth seem able to handle it.
ETH: That oil wouldn't be gushing out like that if we didn't drill for it! It's poisoning everything!
Me: We're drilling that deep because we're not allowed to drill on land, or closer to shore -- and that's your fault, too, you know. And besides, Crude Oil is made up of natural substances, isn't it?It used to be plants and animals at one time, didn't it? Nature created it, it stands to reason that Nature will figure out how to deal with it without our help.
ETH: So you don't care that we're killing off all life as we know it with this spill?
Me: It's hardly ALL life, you know. And no, I don't wish to live in a world that's poisoned, or has dirty air, or undrinkable water, but what makes you think that anything you can do, or worse, Congress can do, will make anything better?
ETH: Well, we have to try!
Me: Try, yes. But not if it makes us all poor and returns us to the Mud Age. By the way, your cell phone -- made from petroleum products, mined metals, and caustic chemicals -- is ringing, Sweetheart. You going to answer that?
ETH (perturbed): No, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to sign this. So, are you going to sign my petition or not? (She offers me her pen, and the sheet of paper -- made from dead trees -- clipped to her plastic -- made from Oil -- clipboard. I point this all out, she rolls her eyes).
Me: No,I don't think so.
ETH: So, you don't care about that Oil Spill, do you? You have no conception of the damage that's being done to our world, do you?
Me: I care about the Oil Spill, Sunshine. I just don't think a petition to Congress will solve the problem.
ETH (Flushing red): Would you stop calling me "Sweetheart" and "Sunshine"? It's very annoying, and sexist.
Me: No more annoying than someone who enters my personal space while I'm trying to read my newspaper, starts sermonizing, and then sticks a petition in my face.
ETH: I said "Excuse Me".
Me: Okay, so you're a polite, sermonizing petition-pusher.
ETH: So, would you please sign my petition?
Me: You still want me to sign your petition, even though I don't believe in what you're doing and you find me annoying and sexist?
ETH: It's for a good cause. You know, you were right about invading your space, and all. Sorry about that. Would you please sign? We're only trying to Heal the Planet.
Me (Noticing that she's changed tactics and is now patronizing me as a way to get me to do something I don't want to -- as if that will work). No, I don't think so, Cupcake.
ETH (now enraged): STOP CALLING ME PET NAMES! I DON'T LIKE IT!
Me: I'm sorry, Sugarshorts, but I'm not signing today. Have a nice day (cracking his newspaper open again).
ETH (Perhaps about to cry): How can you just sit there?
Me: I was doing so before you bothered me, and will do so after you're gone. There's an entire coffee shop full of people; why are you still picking on me?
(ETH has no answer for this, and storms off to bother someone else. I laugh).
I'm concerned about the Gulf Oil Spill because it's a catastrophe that will deprive people of their livelihoods, cost a shitload of money we don't have to clean up, and yeah, I care about pelicans, too. But the combination of Treehuggers and Government are in large part responsible for this mess, and I don't intend to give either any more power or permission to interfere any more than they already have.
We're now seeing what happens when we pay too much attention to environMENTALists, and give far too much deference -- and power -- to Government.
Earnest Tree Hugger: Good afternoon, Sir. Can I ask you to sign a petition asking Congress to forbid any more offshore oil drilling, in light of the nasty spill in the Gulf of Mexico?
Me: You may ask -- but I'm in favor of drilling for all the oil we can, so that we don't have to buy it from murderous Muslims and South American communists.
ETH: Even if it means destroying our fisheries, and marshlands, not to mention millions of migratory birds?
Me: Oil is taken from the ground every day without destroying fisheries you know. It's almost your fault, and by that I mean people who walk around screaming about "Saving The Three-toed Desert Mosquito" that are complicit in that Gulf Disaster, you know? Besides, don't you care about Arab and South American fisheries? Why don't you try to get them to stop drilling?
ETH (taken slightly aback): All we want is for the Big Oil Companies to be responsible for making certain the environment is protected, and to persuade Mankind to change his ways. What's wrong with that?
Me: Why should Mankind change his ways, and what makes you think most people give a hoot about a bunch of migratory birds? Birds don't pay taxes, you know. And so far as I can see, you're only trying to get ME to change my ways. You aren't petitioning the Saudis or Hugo Chavez, you know, and they drill more oil than we do.
ETH (Getting annoyed with me): If we don't change our ways, if we don't break our addiction to oil, and we continue to treat the environment the way we do, we'll all be dead.
Me (reeling the sucker in): Ah, so if we don't change, we're all dead?
ETH (Heavy sigh): We'll destroy the planet, and then where will we be?
Me: Young Lady, do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?
ETH (non-plussed): Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?
Me (smirking): You make an argument that states if Man does not change -- that is to say EVOLVE and ADAPT to a new way of Life -- that Man will be dead. Why is it that Man is capable of Evolving and Adapting --yet fish, swamp beasts, migratory birds, insects, and so forth, who have been here a lot longer than we have -- are assumed to be unable to do so without your enlightened stewardship, or Congressional action?
ETH (Confused): What does that mean?
Me: It means that no matter what happens Nature recovers -- it always does. Either the Fish and Birds can adapt to oily water -- that is to say Evolve -- or they will die, and Evolution will have been proven. By protecting them by retarding the progress of Man, just might possibly be interfering with their own Natural Development. I mean, if Evolution is the Real Deal, the fish and birds will adapt, right?
ETH (Getting aggravated): But that Oil Spill is not a natural occurrence!!!! We're interfering with Evolution when create catastrophes like that!
Me: Of course it's a natural occurrence. Oil seeps out of the ocean floor every day, and our own process of Adaptation involves the manipulation of Nature. Maybe it doesn't seep out in these quantities, but it still does so all the same; the fish and so forth seem able to handle it.
ETH: That oil wouldn't be gushing out like that if we didn't drill for it! It's poisoning everything!
Me: We're drilling that deep because we're not allowed to drill on land, or closer to shore -- and that's your fault, too, you know. And besides, Crude Oil is made up of natural substances, isn't it?It used to be plants and animals at one time, didn't it? Nature created it, it stands to reason that Nature will figure out how to deal with it without our help.
ETH: So you don't care that we're killing off all life as we know it with this spill?
Me: It's hardly ALL life, you know. And no, I don't wish to live in a world that's poisoned, or has dirty air, or undrinkable water, but what makes you think that anything you can do, or worse, Congress can do, will make anything better?
ETH: Well, we have to try!
Me: Try, yes. But not if it makes us all poor and returns us to the Mud Age. By the way, your cell phone -- made from petroleum products, mined metals, and caustic chemicals -- is ringing, Sweetheart. You going to answer that?
ETH (perturbed): No, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to sign this. So, are you going to sign my petition or not? (She offers me her pen, and the sheet of paper -- made from dead trees -- clipped to her plastic -- made from Oil -- clipboard. I point this all out, she rolls her eyes).
Me: No,I don't think so.
ETH: So, you don't care about that Oil Spill, do you? You have no conception of the damage that's being done to our world, do you?
Me: I care about the Oil Spill, Sunshine. I just don't think a petition to Congress will solve the problem.
ETH (Flushing red): Would you stop calling me "Sweetheart" and "Sunshine"? It's very annoying, and sexist.
Me: No more annoying than someone who enters my personal space while I'm trying to read my newspaper, starts sermonizing, and then sticks a petition in my face.
ETH: I said "Excuse Me".
Me: Okay, so you're a polite, sermonizing petition-pusher.
ETH: So, would you please sign my petition?
Me: You still want me to sign your petition, even though I don't believe in what you're doing and you find me annoying and sexist?
ETH: It's for a good cause. You know, you were right about invading your space, and all. Sorry about that. Would you please sign? We're only trying to Heal the Planet.
Me (Noticing that she's changed tactics and is now patronizing me as a way to get me to do something I don't want to -- as if that will work). No, I don't think so, Cupcake.
ETH (now enraged): STOP CALLING ME PET NAMES! I DON'T LIKE IT!
Me: I'm sorry, Sugarshorts, but I'm not signing today. Have a nice day (cracking his newspaper open again).
ETH (Perhaps about to cry): How can you just sit there?
Me: I was doing so before you bothered me, and will do so after you're gone. There's an entire coffee shop full of people; why are you still picking on me?
(ETH has no answer for this, and storms off to bother someone else. I laugh).
I'm concerned about the Gulf Oil Spill because it's a catastrophe that will deprive people of their livelihoods, cost a shitload of money we don't have to clean up, and yeah, I care about pelicans, too. But the combination of Treehuggers and Government are in large part responsible for this mess, and I don't intend to give either any more power or permission to interfere any more than they already have.
We're now seeing what happens when we pay too much attention to environMENTALists, and give far too much deference -- and power -- to Government.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
On Busybody Moms
Today being Mother's Day, while we're all focused on the sainted ideals of motherhood, I'd like to give those Mothers who deserve it a round of applause; Motherhood is not an easy thing, and the successful mothers (defined as having raised anything that doesn't put safety pins through it's cheeks, doesn't screw daschunds, doesn't go on a killing spree, doesn't live on the public dole, and has at least earned a GED) deserve much credit and respect.
The Unsuccessful Mothers (defined as someone who simply happened to be in the room at conception and carried to term, but otherwise bore no responsibility for or towards her offspring) should be taken out and shot. Of course, that won't happen; to suggest it would have me identified as a sexist, and we know what happens to men who get the "sexist" label -- ugly, mental chicks and militant lesbians will refuse to talk to you, and might even call you names. This rather bizarre form of "punishment" almost invites more sexism, but most women were never exactly noted for their linear thinking skills (oh dear...I've gone and done it again!). I digress...
I would like to reserve a special brand of approbation, however, for a specific class of Mothers. Everyone knows one of these women...and secretly hates them. In fact, we harbor dark dreams about their untimely demise, or perhaps we have disturbing mental pictures about what we'd like to see happen to them (admission; the one I'm thinking about right now is the source of many a snuff dream!). I'm talking about the Busybody Mom.
The Busybody is into everyone else's business and uses her concern for her offspring as her justification. She does this because her own life is probably lacking in purpose beyond her children, or she's horribly stuck in the present, or she just needs a hobby. The worst sort is the Busybody Mom who turns this particularly horrible trait (i.e. annoying others by making impossible and ridiculous demands upon them) into a career.
To illustrate the point, how about a woman who decides that the local library is peddling smut to children, and having gotten no satisfaction by asking the library to engage in an act of unofficial censorship by pulling the "offending" books (or making certain they don't fall into the clutches of children) decides that the best thing to do is to check the books out of the library herself... and then never return them.
Problem solved, right? Well, no. The question of whether or not something is "smut" has already been answered; The Supreme Court of the United States basically said that one woman's "smut" is someone else's "Free Speech", unless it's so outrageous as to cause reasonable people to come to a consensus about it's potentially harmful effects. Now, as to the logic behind stealing library books I suppose it is better than burning them in the public square, but it is theft, and it presupposes that other parents and readers are unable to cope with the implications of a book that someone else has deemed inappropriate for them. She (the thief) presumes to speak for society based upon her own internal belief system. The example she's setting for her children -- that sometimes stealing is okay, so long as you use God or the cause of decency as your justifications -- somehow eludes her in her single-minded quest to make sure her pre-teen daughter doesn't read Judy Blume or something.
Usually these cases (the one above is a true story, incidentally) get some media attention; and the asshole who steals library books manages to turn her personal crusade into a career. She turns her new-found media stature into a gig as an overnight-expert on "smut" and library censorship, and then she gets it in her head to start a Foundation or Council or Commission -- which usually has the word "Family" or "American" in it -- so that dopey religious freaks, or ultra-left-libtards who both see it for the totalitarian organization it's really intended to be -- will fund it to the hilt, depending upon which side of the issue she's on. Thus, her momentary panty-bunching over a book becomes a lucrative career that doesn't result in much of a useful product or service.
This is but one example. There's a host of others, like the woman who continually shows up on FoxNews (Meme Roth. I call her the Sugar Nazi) to decry the outrageous amounts of salt, sugar, caffeine, MSG, cardboard, Styrofoam, rare earths, plankton and non-ferrous metals in everything we eat. This woman drives me absolutely batty because her answer to every question of good nutrition and better public health is either to outlaw something, or to put it under government control. It wouldn't surprise me if she was in favor of registering every Hershey Bar in America as a deadly weapon. She believes that because her ideas about health and eating are superior to everybody else's that the rest of us should be compelled (by law, if necessary) to follow her example.
I'd like to force-feed her Twinkies until her eyes burst from her head, personally.
You can usually tell the Busybody Mom from a distance; she's the one who's overly enthusiastic...about everything...and who is easily carried away by her own (one or more of the following): doubts, fears, ignorance, desire for complete safety, desire for attention, feelings of inadequacy, and total lack of anything more constructive to do. She's all about controlling your life and behavior from a distance for her own satisfaction and comfort. She hides all of this behind a veneer of apparently restless energy which is directed into campaigns "for the children". She's the Stepford Wife on Crusade. She seems reasonable, if over-enthusiastic, but you somehow "know" that behind closed doors she's probably this-close to taking an overdose of sleeping pills, and her husband is probably thinking about his secretary, the chick at the Coffee Shop, or basically anything with breasts and a heartbeat -- and maybe even other men -- so long as it's anyone who isn't his pre-occupied and perhaps-insane wife.
The Busybody Mom typically ruins her child's life in the process of trying to make it better. Mostly because she's a smothering presence. She's not only successful in imparting her neuroses into her own children, but in transferring them to other Mothers who will implant them into their children, too. If that wasn't enough damage done, occasionally these idiots happen to achieve a power far out of proportion to their actual importance, and get a law written, or changed, or even manage to have a government policy redirected to suit their tastes. Because one Mom might have an issue with her child drinking soda, now millions will have to suffer for it as she manages to get the government to put taxes on it, or worse, starts dictating to the soft drink industry what can and can't be in a can of Pepsi. If Pepsi should happen to go bankrupt in the process because they produce an inferior product no one will buy afterwards, or from lawsuits, a "greater good" will still have been served, and "Children" will have been "protected" from "poison".
And the world becomes a little less enjoyable and colorless for the rest of us, but it was never about us in the first place, so who really gives a shit? Nosey Nancy got her way.
The Busybody Mom also can't shut up. About anything. Even things she obviously knows nothing about. Not only is she an "expert" on whatever her pet peeve is, she's an expert on everything else, too, and just can't help but add her two cents to every conversation within earshot. I met one of those yesterday and I'd very much like to crush her skull like a ripe tomato. I'm pretty sure something resembling the jelly-like-seedy-pulpy mess that comes out of a tomato is probably the only thing keeping her own skull from caving in.
This woman's pet peeve was skateboards and scooters. She went on and on about them, telling me how, despite the fact that her child wears a helmet, knee-and-elbow pads, and probably five layers of bubble wrap, he still managed to fall off the skateboard twice, breaking bones in both instances. Instead of realizing the obvious -- her kid is a fucking klutz -- she's been lobbying to get the skateboard and scooter manufacturers to add "safety features" (short of training wheels what safety feature could you put on a skateboard? Seat belts? Air Bags?), but more than anything else, she's been lobbying YouTube to stop allowing people to post their skateboard and scooter videos -- because that's what inspired her son to go out and break his leg and his collarbone.
So, not only is he a klutz, he's probably a moron, too. Imitating the death-defying stunts on YouTube that require a lot of dexterity, nerve, and a high pain threshold is probably not the best use of your time, nor is it a test of genius. But now, according to his Mom, everyone else should have to suffer for it -- those who enjoy skateboarding and scootering, those who watch YouTube, those that design, buy and sell skateboards, scooters and the safety equipment -- all because her son is a fucking retard with less-than-optimum motor skills and no self-preservation instinct. The real solution (take the skateboard away from the kid) might cause him a trauma (and paint her as the bad guy in her child's eyes), and so the only "fair" answer to her dilemma is to fuck up everyone else's life and livelihoods so that her brittle-boned-uncoordinated-would-be-daredevil doesn't have his precious self-esteem damaged. In reality, he will be damaged because he'll be embarrassed and humiliated by a mother who continually overreacts and leaps to his (imagined) defense at the drop of a hat.
You'll be happy to know this particular woman is also an expert on ice hockey, terrorism, heart disease, interior decorating, home improvement and construction, and chemistry, because all of those subjects came up in polite conversation as well, and she always had something to say on them, too. None of it made any sense, but you were expected to take her word as Bible-Truth, in any case. Oh, and she had that vapid, vacant smile, and the most annoying laugh -- being half-screech-half-snort -- that would be considered a justification for murder in about 11 states.
So, to the Busybody Mom, I raise not my Champagne flute in homage, but my middle finger in rebuke to you this Mother's Day. And I would like to remind you that life is much easier for all involved when we all learn to mind our own fucking business.
The Unsuccessful Mothers (defined as someone who simply happened to be in the room at conception and carried to term, but otherwise bore no responsibility for or towards her offspring) should be taken out and shot. Of course, that won't happen; to suggest it would have me identified as a sexist, and we know what happens to men who get the "sexist" label -- ugly, mental chicks and militant lesbians will refuse to talk to you, and might even call you names. This rather bizarre form of "punishment" almost invites more sexism, but most women were never exactly noted for their linear thinking skills (oh dear...I've gone and done it again!). I digress...
I would like to reserve a special brand of approbation, however, for a specific class of Mothers. Everyone knows one of these women...and secretly hates them. In fact, we harbor dark dreams about their untimely demise, or perhaps we have disturbing mental pictures about what we'd like to see happen to them (admission; the one I'm thinking about right now is the source of many a snuff dream!). I'm talking about the Busybody Mom.
The Busybody is into everyone else's business and uses her concern for her offspring as her justification. She does this because her own life is probably lacking in purpose beyond her children, or she's horribly stuck in the present, or she just needs a hobby. The worst sort is the Busybody Mom who turns this particularly horrible trait (i.e. annoying others by making impossible and ridiculous demands upon them) into a career.
To illustrate the point, how about a woman who decides that the local library is peddling smut to children, and having gotten no satisfaction by asking the library to engage in an act of unofficial censorship by pulling the "offending" books (or making certain they don't fall into the clutches of children) decides that the best thing to do is to check the books out of the library herself... and then never return them.
Problem solved, right? Well, no. The question of whether or not something is "smut" has already been answered; The Supreme Court of the United States basically said that one woman's "smut" is someone else's "Free Speech", unless it's so outrageous as to cause reasonable people to come to a consensus about it's potentially harmful effects. Now, as to the logic behind stealing library books I suppose it is better than burning them in the public square, but it is theft, and it presupposes that other parents and readers are unable to cope with the implications of a book that someone else has deemed inappropriate for them. She (the thief) presumes to speak for society based upon her own internal belief system. The example she's setting for her children -- that sometimes stealing is okay, so long as you use God or the cause of decency as your justifications -- somehow eludes her in her single-minded quest to make sure her pre-teen daughter doesn't read Judy Blume or something.
Usually these cases (the one above is a true story, incidentally) get some media attention; and the asshole who steals library books manages to turn her personal crusade into a career. She turns her new-found media stature into a gig as an overnight-expert on "smut" and library censorship, and then she gets it in her head to start a Foundation or Council or Commission -- which usually has the word "Family" or "American" in it -- so that dopey religious freaks, or ultra-left-libtards who both see it for the totalitarian organization it's really intended to be -- will fund it to the hilt, depending upon which side of the issue she's on. Thus, her momentary panty-bunching over a book becomes a lucrative career that doesn't result in much of a useful product or service.
This is but one example. There's a host of others, like the woman who continually shows up on FoxNews (Meme Roth. I call her the Sugar Nazi) to decry the outrageous amounts of salt, sugar, caffeine, MSG, cardboard, Styrofoam, rare earths, plankton and non-ferrous metals in everything we eat. This woman drives me absolutely batty because her answer to every question of good nutrition and better public health is either to outlaw something, or to put it under government control. It wouldn't surprise me if she was in favor of registering every Hershey Bar in America as a deadly weapon. She believes that because her ideas about health and eating are superior to everybody else's that the rest of us should be compelled (by law, if necessary) to follow her example.
I'd like to force-feed her Twinkies until her eyes burst from her head, personally.
You can usually tell the Busybody Mom from a distance; she's the one who's overly enthusiastic...about everything...and who is easily carried away by her own (one or more of the following): doubts, fears, ignorance, desire for complete safety, desire for attention, feelings of inadequacy, and total lack of anything more constructive to do. She's all about controlling your life and behavior from a distance for her own satisfaction and comfort. She hides all of this behind a veneer of apparently restless energy which is directed into campaigns "for the children". She's the Stepford Wife on Crusade. She seems reasonable, if over-enthusiastic, but you somehow "know" that behind closed doors she's probably this-close to taking an overdose of sleeping pills, and her husband is probably thinking about his secretary, the chick at the Coffee Shop, or basically anything with breasts and a heartbeat -- and maybe even other men -- so long as it's anyone who isn't his pre-occupied and perhaps-insane wife.
The Busybody Mom typically ruins her child's life in the process of trying to make it better. Mostly because she's a smothering presence. She's not only successful in imparting her neuroses into her own children, but in transferring them to other Mothers who will implant them into their children, too. If that wasn't enough damage done, occasionally these idiots happen to achieve a power far out of proportion to their actual importance, and get a law written, or changed, or even manage to have a government policy redirected to suit their tastes. Because one Mom might have an issue with her child drinking soda, now millions will have to suffer for it as she manages to get the government to put taxes on it, or worse, starts dictating to the soft drink industry what can and can't be in a can of Pepsi. If Pepsi should happen to go bankrupt in the process because they produce an inferior product no one will buy afterwards, or from lawsuits, a "greater good" will still have been served, and "Children" will have been "protected" from "poison".
And the world becomes a little less enjoyable and colorless for the rest of us, but it was never about us in the first place, so who really gives a shit? Nosey Nancy got her way.
The Busybody Mom also can't shut up. About anything. Even things she obviously knows nothing about. Not only is she an "expert" on whatever her pet peeve is, she's an expert on everything else, too, and just can't help but add her two cents to every conversation within earshot. I met one of those yesterday and I'd very much like to crush her skull like a ripe tomato. I'm pretty sure something resembling the jelly-like-seedy-pulpy mess that comes out of a tomato is probably the only thing keeping her own skull from caving in.
This woman's pet peeve was skateboards and scooters. She went on and on about them, telling me how, despite the fact that her child wears a helmet, knee-and-elbow pads, and probably five layers of bubble wrap, he still managed to fall off the skateboard twice, breaking bones in both instances. Instead of realizing the obvious -- her kid is a fucking klutz -- she's been lobbying to get the skateboard and scooter manufacturers to add "safety features" (short of training wheels what safety feature could you put on a skateboard? Seat belts? Air Bags?), but more than anything else, she's been lobbying YouTube to stop allowing people to post their skateboard and scooter videos -- because that's what inspired her son to go out and break his leg and his collarbone.
So, not only is he a klutz, he's probably a moron, too. Imitating the death-defying stunts on YouTube that require a lot of dexterity, nerve, and a high pain threshold is probably not the best use of your time, nor is it a test of genius. But now, according to his Mom, everyone else should have to suffer for it -- those who enjoy skateboarding and scootering, those who watch YouTube, those that design, buy and sell skateboards, scooters and the safety equipment -- all because her son is a fucking retard with less-than-optimum motor skills and no self-preservation instinct. The real solution (take the skateboard away from the kid) might cause him a trauma (and paint her as the bad guy in her child's eyes), and so the only "fair" answer to her dilemma is to fuck up everyone else's life and livelihoods so that her brittle-boned-uncoordinated-would-be-daredevil doesn't have his precious self-esteem damaged. In reality, he will be damaged because he'll be embarrassed and humiliated by a mother who continually overreacts and leaps to his (imagined) defense at the drop of a hat.
You'll be happy to know this particular woman is also an expert on ice hockey, terrorism, heart disease, interior decorating, home improvement and construction, and chemistry, because all of those subjects came up in polite conversation as well, and she always had something to say on them, too. None of it made any sense, but you were expected to take her word as Bible-Truth, in any case. Oh, and she had that vapid, vacant smile, and the most annoying laugh -- being half-screech-half-snort -- that would be considered a justification for murder in about 11 states.
So, to the Busybody Mom, I raise not my Champagne flute in homage, but my middle finger in rebuke to you this Mother's Day. And I would like to remind you that life is much easier for all involved when we all learn to mind our own fucking business.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Detroit, New York, What's the Diff?
J. Robert Smith at Pajamas Media muses upon the Post Office and a Green Detroit, and it's a cautionary tale for the rest of us.
Mr. Smith shouldn't fool himself into thinking it's only democrats that think this way. Our so-called republican (probably because it was the cheapest label to buy) Mayor of Noo Yawk, Michael Bloomberg -- Patron Saint of Virgin Spinsters and the Perpetually-Pantybunched -- was so convinced that only his divine beneficence could "save" this city from it's looming Wall-Street-induced fiscal crisis that he went out and had the goddamned election laws changed so that he could serve a third term.
And once he'd accomplished re-election -- spending $100 million bucks of his own hard earned coin. At least he had that much decency -- and then winning by a mere 4% over a democratic candidate that ran such a lackluster, torturous, tedious campaign of inanity, inertia and hot air that you would have thought he was the National Spokesperson for Constipation, did Saint Bloomberg turn his considerable talents towards helping New York navigate the current financial crisis?
No.
Did he, perhaps, set about enacting the vital reforms that are needed in this city, which is slowly having it's lifeblood sucked out of it by voracious public unions, a rising crime rate, fleeing businesses, rising unemployment rates, shrinking tax base, unchecked illegal immigration and higher levels of government spending?
Of course not.
Then what, exactly, is he doing?
Trying to pass a law restricting how much salt finds it's way into my food...
That's after, of course, he's already passed laws outlawing transfats, making certain I have all the nutritional information available on my Whopper with Cheese posted at the cash register, and eliminated the serving of sugary drinks in public schools (where they still somehow manage to serve corndogs, pizza and processed chicken nuggets, according to my nephews).
This is the Mayor who's also cordoned off sections of the city that used to be open to vehicular traffic so that now you can walk all the way up Broadway, from Times Square to Central Park on the weekends, assuming you'd want to considering there's a subway available to save you the trouble and shoe leather. It's not as if there's much scenery to enjoy between 42nd and Columbus Circle -- unless you like office towers.
It's the same Mayor who once suggested "congestion pricing" plans by which tolls charged on river crossings to enter the city from the Outer Boroughs would be adjusted by time of day and general level of traffic. The idea was a) to restrict vehicle traffic into the City and thus, clean the air and make traffic flow more smoothly, and b) raise a shitload of money while simultaneously denying the benefits and niceties of the City to those who live in the Outer Boroughs for the benefit of the transplanted Upper East Side libtards.
It's both class and economic warfare, veiled by the pledge of "it's all for the Common Good..".
The City of New York is always on the lookout for a buck; so much so that it inspects your garbage, which had better be thrown in out in clear, see-through plastic bags, and placed in the proper trash receptacle if you wish to avoid a fine greater than that given to speeders, drunk drivers or public urinators (don't ask me how I know that!).
You can no longer smoke in public, assuming you can afford cigarettes; which now average nearly $10 a pack. Michael Bloomberg has succeeded in making crack a cheaper and more attractive alternative to tobacco. In the meantime, the city's poor continue to get fatter and sicker (a steady diet of welfare-funded Twinkies and Fatback will do that to you), and the hospitals ever-more crowded with pregnant illegals with tuberculosis and AIDS, and the Union workers who run them get richer and do less work, and this is why the taxes on cigarettes had to be raised in the first place; to save the hospitals.
At least that's what they said...
The rot started under democrats (I remember the days of Abe Beam, Hugh Carey, Ed Koch and David Dinkins with something less than nostalgia, more like nausea), but then something mysterious happened: some republicans came along -- like Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg -- and they not only did their republican schtick and cut crime and spending (although Bloomberg loves raising taxes), they also carried on some of the stupidity and freedom-choking policies of their predecessors. For Rudy it was mostly about guns, but for St. Mikey it's all about his Upper East Sider friends and their "enlightened" sensibilities.
Blooomberg's fiercely-mextrosexual, self-appointed-Manhattan-elite are the new Lords of the Manor, and we're the serfs.
Now Micheal Bloomberg spends all his time, and his vast fortune, to ensure you're eating arugula and lemon grass and his friends get to walk their fancy, teacup lapdogs in Central Park, or to enjoy the boisterous Open-Air flea markets selling counterfeit goods and authentic West African food poisoning that now dominate Midtown on the weekends, all without having to encounter a taxi, an SUV, or a tourist (unless they have really neat European accents), or worse -- one of the proles from Queens or Staten Island -- while every potential employer flees the city because of crushing tax burdens, regulatory expenses and overpaid Union labor, and the State floats upon a sea of red ink.
The only thing missing from Micheal Bloomberg's New York City is a Bastille for us scum to storm.
And people wonder why nearly a decade after 9/11 there's still a great, big, gaping 19-acre hole in the ground?
In many respects, New York and Detroit are already sister cities.
Mr. Smith shouldn't fool himself into thinking it's only democrats that think this way. Our so-called republican (probably because it was the cheapest label to buy) Mayor of Noo Yawk, Michael Bloomberg -- Patron Saint of Virgin Spinsters and the Perpetually-Pantybunched -- was so convinced that only his divine beneficence could "save" this city from it's looming Wall-Street-induced fiscal crisis that he went out and had the goddamned election laws changed so that he could serve a third term.
And once he'd accomplished re-election -- spending $100 million bucks of his own hard earned coin. At least he had that much decency -- and then winning by a mere 4% over a democratic candidate that ran such a lackluster, torturous, tedious campaign of inanity, inertia and hot air that you would have thought he was the National Spokesperson for Constipation, did Saint Bloomberg turn his considerable talents towards helping New York navigate the current financial crisis?
No.
Did he, perhaps, set about enacting the vital reforms that are needed in this city, which is slowly having it's lifeblood sucked out of it by voracious public unions, a rising crime rate, fleeing businesses, rising unemployment rates, shrinking tax base, unchecked illegal immigration and higher levels of government spending?
Of course not.
Then what, exactly, is he doing?
Trying to pass a law restricting how much salt finds it's way into my food...
That's after, of course, he's already passed laws outlawing transfats, making certain I have all the nutritional information available on my Whopper with Cheese posted at the cash register, and eliminated the serving of sugary drinks in public schools (where they still somehow manage to serve corndogs, pizza and processed chicken nuggets, according to my nephews).
This is the Mayor who's also cordoned off sections of the city that used to be open to vehicular traffic so that now you can walk all the way up Broadway, from Times Square to Central Park on the weekends, assuming you'd want to considering there's a subway available to save you the trouble and shoe leather. It's not as if there's much scenery to enjoy between 42nd and Columbus Circle -- unless you like office towers.
It's the same Mayor who once suggested "congestion pricing" plans by which tolls charged on river crossings to enter the city from the Outer Boroughs would be adjusted by time of day and general level of traffic. The idea was a) to restrict vehicle traffic into the City and thus, clean the air and make traffic flow more smoothly, and b) raise a shitload of money while simultaneously denying the benefits and niceties of the City to those who live in the Outer Boroughs for the benefit of the transplanted Upper East Side libtards.
It's both class and economic warfare, veiled by the pledge of "it's all for the Common Good..".
The City of New York is always on the lookout for a buck; so much so that it inspects your garbage, which had better be thrown in out in clear, see-through plastic bags, and placed in the proper trash receptacle if you wish to avoid a fine greater than that given to speeders, drunk drivers or public urinators (don't ask me how I know that!).
You can no longer smoke in public, assuming you can afford cigarettes; which now average nearly $10 a pack. Michael Bloomberg has succeeded in making crack a cheaper and more attractive alternative to tobacco. In the meantime, the city's poor continue to get fatter and sicker (a steady diet of welfare-funded Twinkies and Fatback will do that to you), and the hospitals ever-more crowded with pregnant illegals with tuberculosis and AIDS, and the Union workers who run them get richer and do less work, and this is why the taxes on cigarettes had to be raised in the first place; to save the hospitals.
At least that's what they said...
The rot started under democrats (I remember the days of Abe Beam, Hugh Carey, Ed Koch and David Dinkins with something less than nostalgia, more like nausea), but then something mysterious happened: some republicans came along -- like Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg -- and they not only did their republican schtick and cut crime and spending (although Bloomberg loves raising taxes), they also carried on some of the stupidity and freedom-choking policies of their predecessors. For Rudy it was mostly about guns, but for St. Mikey it's all about his Upper East Sider friends and their "enlightened" sensibilities.
Blooomberg's fiercely-mextrosexual, self-appointed-Manhattan-elite are the new Lords of the Manor, and we're the serfs.
Now Micheal Bloomberg spends all his time, and his vast fortune, to ensure you're eating arugula and lemon grass and his friends get to walk their fancy, teacup lapdogs in Central Park, or to enjoy the boisterous Open-Air flea markets selling counterfeit goods and authentic West African food poisoning that now dominate Midtown on the weekends, all without having to encounter a taxi, an SUV, or a tourist (unless they have really neat European accents), or worse -- one of the proles from Queens or Staten Island -- while every potential employer flees the city because of crushing tax burdens, regulatory expenses and overpaid Union labor, and the State floats upon a sea of red ink.
The only thing missing from Micheal Bloomberg's New York City is a Bastille for us scum to storm.
And people wonder why nearly a decade after 9/11 there's still a great, big, gaping 19-acre hole in the ground?
In many respects, New York and Detroit are already sister cities.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
In Real Life, He's a Pantybunched Little Girl...
I know no one watches him anymore, but someone really ought to get Keefy Olbermann some help. Being an expert on self-delusional mental illnesses, I recognize all of his symptoms; the yelling, the hyperbole, the forced drama, the hopping up and down on one foot, face screwed into a mask that's half ecstasy-half-the-strain-of-holding-back-a-raging-bladder, like a little boy bursting for a pee.
You tell me if this appears to be a sane man. In total control of his faculties, for sure!
It's bad enough that Keef makes things up, now he has to latch onto things that other people made up, just to continue his act. Because it really IS an act, you know. It has to be: no one could be this clueless and not be in Congress, or even the White House.
Ooops, did I say "White House?". Tut-tut, Keefy might begin calling me a racist and accuse me of only wanting to be surrounded by People...Who...Look...Like...Me! I'm all a-scared, because when Keef comes after you with the racist brand, boy, you know you're really, really gonna get it! He'll call you "racist" all day long, until his voice is gone, and his molded-to-his-plastic-head haircut is all dishevelled. He can keep it up for hours, too; imagine, having to look at THAT FACE; that one that he puts on when he gets all self-righteous and smug, that looks like he's sitting on his vibrator while someone pours lemon juice into an open wound. Why, that's enough to make most men break!
Except that only Keef takes Keef seriously, and the Act is beginning to wear thin. I say "Act" because like most liberals who appear to care more than the rest of us but really don't, they understand basic economics. Keef's checkbook, and the means to continue to buy super-hot girlfriends, depends on The Act. He makes a lot of money doing this bit, entertaining the Libtards with second-grade shtick, and insult comedy about their favorite boogeymen; Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter...Why, if it weren't for people like that, people who are actually journalists, opinionists, and genuine entertainers, Keef wouldn't have anything. He'd be back in Dogpatch doing play-by-play at an American Legion Softball game.
Keef is obsessed with Rush and Bill, et. al.,because he gets paid to be. And the nastier he gets, the more the Libtards love it, and the more he gets paid for it. You really believe that any sane individual actually believes the crap that (P)MSNBC anchors claim to believe? Do you think they would even give voice to such opinions if they didn't get paid a shitload for it? Rachel Maddow, yeah, but that's only because she finds penis frightening and I don't dare delve into that mental chasm without a hardhat with a light on it, and a stout rope. I also detect a strain of jealousy in Keefy, as well, because while Keefy gets paid well, he doesn't get paid O'Reilly Scale, and that means he can't impress the girlies that he has to pay by the hour to be his girlfriend, and he can but only dream of being in the same category as Limbaugh and Coulter.
Here's my own (unprofessional, though it is) psychological profile of Keefy:
* Penis envy
* Mommy Issues
* Pathological liar
* Narcissism
* Often projects his own, secretly-held beliefs onto others
* Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
* Bi-polar disorder
* Anal-retentive
* Monomania
I also wouldn't be surprised if Keefy was a compulsive masturbator, too -- perhaps spending as much as 12 hours a day Waxing the Totem -- and he's probably tried animal butt sex at least...twice. I wouldn't doubt that his mother either refused to breast feed him, or did so thrice-daily until he was at least 8.
But the Act is wearing thin. The over-the-top, 1970's-gotcha-journalism-dramatic-mock-seriousness and sheer shrillness is beginning to instigate the Great American Pucker Factor; where the very sight of Keef makes people try to suck their own assholes back into their own bodies as a measure of disgust. Watching Keef is like pouring salt on a slug. Listening to the constant rant, the manic rave, the vomit-inducing, irrational-leaps-to-something-purporting-to-be-a-conclusion-but-which-are-only-yet-another-spurious-charge-against-someone-Keef-hates, is simply getting to be tiresome.
It's dull and tedious, and even watching Olbermann have a nervous breakdown while he spouts things he obviously doesn't believe, which are totally without merit, and for which he happily takes an inflated paycheck for, is not worth the time or effort. It was once funny, then it became disgusting, and now it's just sad.
Keith Olbermann needs professional help.
Update: Keefy rejects the invitation to see the People of Color in the Tea Party, but insists that some of his best friends are black. Nothing like accusing people of racism without any foundation at all, and then refusing to be corrected by direct evidence. Must be an example of those fine "journalistic standards" they have at (P)MSNBC.
You tell me if this appears to be a sane man. In total control of his faculties, for sure!
It's bad enough that Keef makes things up, now he has to latch onto things that other people made up, just to continue his act. Because it really IS an act, you know. It has to be: no one could be this clueless and not be in Congress, or even the White House.
Ooops, did I say "White House?". Tut-tut, Keefy might begin calling me a racist and accuse me of only wanting to be surrounded by People...Who...Look...Like...Me! I'm all a-scared, because when Keef comes after you with the racist brand, boy, you know you're really, really gonna get it! He'll call you "racist" all day long, until his voice is gone, and his molded-to-his-plastic-head haircut is all dishevelled. He can keep it up for hours, too; imagine, having to look at THAT FACE; that one that he puts on when he gets all self-righteous and smug, that looks like he's sitting on his vibrator while someone pours lemon juice into an open wound. Why, that's enough to make most men break!
Except that only Keef takes Keef seriously, and the Act is beginning to wear thin. I say "Act" because like most liberals who appear to care more than the rest of us but really don't, they understand basic economics. Keef's checkbook, and the means to continue to buy super-hot girlfriends, depends on The Act. He makes a lot of money doing this bit, entertaining the Libtards with second-grade shtick, and insult comedy about their favorite boogeymen; Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter...Why, if it weren't for people like that, people who are actually journalists, opinionists, and genuine entertainers, Keef wouldn't have anything. He'd be back in Dogpatch doing play-by-play at an American Legion Softball game.
Keef is obsessed with Rush and Bill, et. al.,because he gets paid to be. And the nastier he gets, the more the Libtards love it, and the more he gets paid for it. You really believe that any sane individual actually believes the crap that (P)MSNBC anchors claim to believe? Do you think they would even give voice to such opinions if they didn't get paid a shitload for it? Rachel Maddow, yeah, but that's only because she finds penis frightening and I don't dare delve into that mental chasm without a hardhat with a light on it, and a stout rope. I also detect a strain of jealousy in Keefy, as well, because while Keefy gets paid well, he doesn't get paid O'Reilly Scale, and that means he can't impress the girlies that he has to pay by the hour to be his girlfriend, and he can but only dream of being in the same category as Limbaugh and Coulter.
Here's my own (unprofessional, though it is) psychological profile of Keefy:
* Penis envy
* Mommy Issues
* Pathological liar
* Narcissism
* Often projects his own, secretly-held beliefs onto others
* Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
* Bi-polar disorder
* Anal-retentive
* Monomania
I also wouldn't be surprised if Keefy was a compulsive masturbator, too -- perhaps spending as much as 12 hours a day Waxing the Totem -- and he's probably tried animal butt sex at least...twice. I wouldn't doubt that his mother either refused to breast feed him, or did so thrice-daily until he was at least 8.
But the Act is wearing thin. The over-the-top, 1970's-gotcha-journalism-dramatic-mock-seriousness and sheer shrillness is beginning to instigate the Great American Pucker Factor; where the very sight of Keef makes people try to suck their own assholes back into their own bodies as a measure of disgust. Watching Keef is like pouring salt on a slug. Listening to the constant rant, the manic rave, the vomit-inducing, irrational-leaps-to-something-purporting-to-be-a-conclusion-but-which-are-only-yet-another-spurious-charge-against-someone-Keef-hates, is simply getting to be tiresome.
It's dull and tedious, and even watching Olbermann have a nervous breakdown while he spouts things he obviously doesn't believe, which are totally without merit, and for which he happily takes an inflated paycheck for, is not worth the time or effort. It was once funny, then it became disgusting, and now it's just sad.
Keith Olbermann needs professional help.
Update: Keefy rejects the invitation to see the People of Color in the Tea Party, but insists that some of his best friends are black. Nothing like accusing people of racism without any foundation at all, and then refusing to be corrected by direct evidence. Must be an example of those fine "journalistic standards" they have at (P)MSNBC.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Scott Who: 2012?
I do hate to be the one to say "I told you so..." ...but, fuck it! It's just too good to pass up: I fucking told you so! The Exuberance, as Alan Greenspan would have said, was a bit irrational. You should have done a little more research on this guy and asked some important questions first. All that exuberance gone to waste. I'll bet half the Tea Partiers lost their boner for his daughters when they heard the news.
What did you expect? I mean, how much vetting of this guy did you do before you jumped on his bandwagon and christened him a "real" conservative, and started printing the "Brown 2012" posters? Honestly, there was less info on this guy than there was on Barack Obama; many people thought of him as the Second Coming simply because they saw him as both the anti-Ted Kennedy, and as the way to prevent Harry Reid getting that 60th vote without having to resort to murder.
Scott Brown may yet "save" America from the Horrors of Obamacare, if only because stranger things have happened, like when life accidentally evolved from a random mixture of amino acids. Monkeys have been known to bang away at typewriters, and completely by accident, manage to re-create the works of Shakespeare, so the precedent is there certainly. The 60th vote is now irrelevant, in retrospect, it maybe always was: the dems look set to pass Obamacare bit-by-bit -- as earmarks and such buried within appropriations bills with the tactics of "Reconciliation" -- which only requires 51 Senate Votes. Honestly, $15 billion is not even an awful lot of money when you stop to consider that Obama's spending frenzy threatens a $2 trillion deficit, and a trillion a year deficits after that for as long as you care to count. But you have to wonder just how much of that $15 bil is going to Scott Brown's constituents. After all, he promised to be an independent voice for the people of Massachusetts; nowhere did he say he wouldn't vote for a Barack Obama boondoggle, or not take money the Tea Party folks consider taboo if that meant he couldn't do that.
He even repeated that "I will be an independent voice..." routine today, see:
"I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families," Brown said in a statement after the vote. "This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work."
I mean, really, have we become so desperate and some so detached from reality that they were willing to toss their metaphorical panties at any political hunk that spoke the magic words? Because that's what the euphoria over Brown was akin to. You would have thought The Greatest Conservative Since Reagan was elected up there in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, but he's turned out, very quickly to be...gasp!... a Politician.
There's this quote:
"They expected him to be a conservative when he's always been an independent..."He's representing his constituents".
Yeah, and I'll bet he just got struck off a whole shitload of Christmas Card Lists, too. "I'm serving my constituents" is the classic dodge, but I really loved this part:
"...(Willis) compared the mania over Brown to that which surrounded President Obama's campaign, saying that with both, there was an inevitable letdown.Supporters "weren't using their brains, they were using their hearts," she said. "When he didn't turn out to change the world, they felt betrayed."
Ouch, that fucking stings!
Tea Party folks, I'm with ya, really. But you gotta calm down a bit, and unbunch yer panties long enough to actually begin to think about what you do or say before you anoint someone The Next Reagan.
What did you expect? I mean, how much vetting of this guy did you do before you jumped on his bandwagon and christened him a "real" conservative, and started printing the "Brown 2012" posters? Honestly, there was less info on this guy than there was on Barack Obama; many people thought of him as the Second Coming simply because they saw him as both the anti-Ted Kennedy, and as the way to prevent Harry Reid getting that 60th vote without having to resort to murder.
Scott Brown may yet "save" America from the Horrors of Obamacare, if only because stranger things have happened, like when life accidentally evolved from a random mixture of amino acids. Monkeys have been known to bang away at typewriters, and completely by accident, manage to re-create the works of Shakespeare, so the precedent is there certainly. The 60th vote is now irrelevant, in retrospect, it maybe always was: the dems look set to pass Obamacare bit-by-bit -- as earmarks and such buried within appropriations bills with the tactics of "Reconciliation" -- which only requires 51 Senate Votes. Honestly, $15 billion is not even an awful lot of money when you stop to consider that Obama's spending frenzy threatens a $2 trillion deficit, and a trillion a year deficits after that for as long as you care to count. But you have to wonder just how much of that $15 bil is going to Scott Brown's constituents. After all, he promised to be an independent voice for the people of Massachusetts; nowhere did he say he wouldn't vote for a Barack Obama boondoggle, or not take money the Tea Party folks consider taboo if that meant he couldn't do that.
He even repeated that "I will be an independent voice..." routine today, see:
"I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families," Brown said in a statement after the vote. "This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work."
I mean, really, have we become so desperate and some so detached from reality that they were willing to toss their metaphorical panties at any political hunk that spoke the magic words? Because that's what the euphoria over Brown was akin to. You would have thought The Greatest Conservative Since Reagan was elected up there in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, but he's turned out, very quickly to be...gasp!... a Politician.
There's this quote:
"They expected him to be a conservative when he's always been an independent..."He's representing his constituents".
Yeah, and I'll bet he just got struck off a whole shitload of Christmas Card Lists, too. "I'm serving my constituents" is the classic dodge, but I really loved this part:
"...(Willis) compared the mania over Brown to that which surrounded President Obama's campaign, saying that with both, there was an inevitable letdown.Supporters "weren't using their brains, they were using their hearts," she said. "When he didn't turn out to change the world, they felt betrayed."
Ouch, that fucking stings!
Tea Party folks, I'm with ya, really. But you gotta calm down a bit, and unbunch yer panties long enough to actually begin to think about what you do or say before you anoint someone The Next Reagan.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
We Need More Teachers Like This...
Mike Adams explains why all men are created equal...-ly annoying.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
I'll Tell You Why, You Idiot!
Okay, I've gotten a very nasty e-mail from a dissenter, upset over this post. A Liberal Dissenter. I know this because it was a) rank with misspellings, b) a full-throated defense of Barack Obama and a vilification of George W. Bush in words of four letters or less, and c) was apparently written by someone with a 5th grade education (If not a Master Degree from Berkeley), and d) ended with a repeat of the mantra that GW, the CIA, the Illuminati and the Freemasons (you can see where this is going, right?) all planned and executed 9/11 in a grand conspiracy, so that we could steal Arab oil at the behest of the Israeli lobby, yada, yada, yada.
She (it must be a she because no straight man could be this hysterical) contends that Liberals have 'inherited' a fucked-up world and are doing their level-best to un-fuck it, and the Anointed Savior (ordained by Gaia to save mankind, and the planet, by people who think like She does) can't do it if we're all sniping at him, and criticizing his most-holy policies, and are not approaching our problems from the standpoint of love, rather than war. She finishes with a verse of Kumbaya that is so saccharine sweet (and mind-numbingly naive) that only someone who lives in San Francisco could believe it, and which made me physically ill.
That's all well-and-fine. I don't mind a dissenting point of view, I encourage it because I love to argue, and I don't even mind a dissenting point of view that is so divorced from reality, and full of egregious spelling errors, more expletives than even I use, and with more than a few questionable remarks about my parentage. But, for those reasons (and because it would really annoy her), I shan't reprint it. But, I will explain the differences between her vision of the world (and by extension, Barack Obama's, She assumes) and mine.
She lives in a world where consequences don't exist, or worse, they only apply to other people. She lives in a world where She never expects to have to bear the consequences of what She advocates. She lives in a world where power exists to satisfy Her every selfish whim, and to keep that which is unpleasant at arm's length, at any cost. She lives in a world where the illusion of the Noble Martyr, fighting the 'good fight' tilting at windmills (whether the martyr is an ardent communist, the artist, the religious dissenter, or the Islamic Terrorist) is a romantic one. It is the worldview of someone who has never lived a day in the real world and who has never had to fend for Herself. It is the world of the college student who believes she is actually becoming an educated person because She attends a supposed-institution of higher learning, but who will be very disappointed to eventually discover, Sh'se only succeeded in keeping reality at bay for another four, five, seven or fifteen years -- or however long it takes her to finally graduate with such poor spelling and grammatical skills (probably as long as her parent's money holds out).
She lives in a world, along with most Liberals, where concepts such as physical courage, faith, moral certainty, self-sacrifice, are considered anachronistic, at best, and barbaric, at worst. They inhabit a world of supposed-reason in which the only other inhabitants are people who think like they do, where no counter-argument is allowed, and where the people simply parrot the same soft platitudes over and over to each other as a daily affirmation. These are people who, as Orwell once noted, get "Their cookery from Paris, and their politics from Moscow", meaning they are pretentious little twits who believe they are somehow more sophisticated than the rest of us who don't use words like "jingoistic" every five minutes, and they've discovered the naughty 'secret' of Socialism. She lives in a world that is inhabited by people who never expect, nor even truly wish, to ever be in a position of responsibility...for anything....but who nonetheless expect their cares and fears to be catered to by those who will bear the responsibility.
She lives in a world where violence is never the answer. To people like her, the only time violence has any place in society is when you can safely destroy the local McDonald's during a Earth Day 'celebration' without being shot by the police, who have strict instructions not to engage the mob, in any case. Liberals only use, or talk up the threat of violence when they know there is no realistic chance of retaliation.
Because people like you are absolute worms, Missy, the Enemies of this Culture (and yes, they are the enemies of Western Civilization, not just the United States) are smug and confident in their ability to ultimately kill or enslave us all. They look at people like you, and they laugh. They listen to people like you, and they drool over the thought of the power they will one day exercise over us. They like people like you, because you're easily cowed, compliant, willing to submit. You'll make a very good Dhimmi one day, Young Lady.
In the Real World, where I live (not the one on MTV), people like you are just as, if not more dangerous than the terrorists themselves. Because people like you encourage them. You are every Islamofascist's wet dream, Sunshine. Lenin had a nicer name for people like you; he called you Useful Idiots.
Your Messiah is cut from the same cloth, but I still hold out a (slim) hope that reality will invade his bubble in away it hasn't (yet) invaded yours. Given enough time, even the most stubborn liberal eventually grows up...usually when reality smacks them in the mouth. In the meantime, ask yourself this: how many will have to die before Barack Obama (or you) will have that moment of clarity?
Update: Here are the people you're trying to accomodate. (H/T Lumpy Grumpy and Frumpy).
FiveFeetofFury and The Closet Conservative chime in on the Religion of Peace, and it's liberal defenders, on an-almost daily basis.
She (it must be a she because no straight man could be this hysterical) contends that Liberals have 'inherited' a fucked-up world and are doing their level-best to un-fuck it, and the Anointed Savior (ordained by Gaia to save mankind, and the planet, by people who think like She does) can't do it if we're all sniping at him, and criticizing his most-holy policies, and are not approaching our problems from the standpoint of love, rather than war. She finishes with a verse of Kumbaya that is so saccharine sweet (and mind-numbingly naive) that only someone who lives in San Francisco could believe it, and which made me physically ill.
That's all well-and-fine. I don't mind a dissenting point of view, I encourage it because I love to argue, and I don't even mind a dissenting point of view that is so divorced from reality, and full of egregious spelling errors, more expletives than even I use, and with more than a few questionable remarks about my parentage. But, for those reasons (and because it would really annoy her), I shan't reprint it. But, I will explain the differences between her vision of the world (and by extension, Barack Obama's, She assumes) and mine.
She lives in a world where consequences don't exist, or worse, they only apply to other people. She lives in a world where She never expects to have to bear the consequences of what She advocates. She lives in a world where power exists to satisfy Her every selfish whim, and to keep that which is unpleasant at arm's length, at any cost. She lives in a world where the illusion of the Noble Martyr, fighting the 'good fight' tilting at windmills (whether the martyr is an ardent communist, the artist, the religious dissenter, or the Islamic Terrorist) is a romantic one. It is the worldview of someone who has never lived a day in the real world and who has never had to fend for Herself. It is the world of the college student who believes she is actually becoming an educated person because She attends a supposed-institution of higher learning, but who will be very disappointed to eventually discover, Sh'se only succeeded in keeping reality at bay for another four, five, seven or fifteen years -- or however long it takes her to finally graduate with such poor spelling and grammatical skills (probably as long as her parent's money holds out).
She lives in a world, along with most Liberals, where concepts such as physical courage, faith, moral certainty, self-sacrifice, are considered anachronistic, at best, and barbaric, at worst. They inhabit a world of supposed-reason in which the only other inhabitants are people who think like they do, where no counter-argument is allowed, and where the people simply parrot the same soft platitudes over and over to each other as a daily affirmation. These are people who, as Orwell once noted, get "Their cookery from Paris, and their politics from Moscow", meaning they are pretentious little twits who believe they are somehow more sophisticated than the rest of us who don't use words like "jingoistic" every five minutes, and they've discovered the naughty 'secret' of Socialism. She lives in a world that is inhabited by people who never expect, nor even truly wish, to ever be in a position of responsibility...for anything....but who nonetheless expect their cares and fears to be catered to by those who will bear the responsibility.
She lives in a world where violence is never the answer. To people like her, the only time violence has any place in society is when you can safely destroy the local McDonald's during a Earth Day 'celebration' without being shot by the police, who have strict instructions not to engage the mob, in any case. Liberals only use, or talk up the threat of violence when they know there is no realistic chance of retaliation.
Because people like you are absolute worms, Missy, the Enemies of this Culture (and yes, they are the enemies of Western Civilization, not just the United States) are smug and confident in their ability to ultimately kill or enslave us all. They look at people like you, and they laugh. They listen to people like you, and they drool over the thought of the power they will one day exercise over us. They like people like you, because you're easily cowed, compliant, willing to submit. You'll make a very good Dhimmi one day, Young Lady.
In the Real World, where I live (not the one on MTV), people like you are just as, if not more dangerous than the terrorists themselves. Because people like you encourage them. You are every Islamofascist's wet dream, Sunshine. Lenin had a nicer name for people like you; he called you Useful Idiots.
Your Messiah is cut from the same cloth, but I still hold out a (slim) hope that reality will invade his bubble in away it hasn't (yet) invaded yours. Given enough time, even the most stubborn liberal eventually grows up...usually when reality smacks them in the mouth. In the meantime, ask yourself this: how many will have to die before Barack Obama (or you) will have that moment of clarity?
Update: Here are the people you're trying to accomodate. (H/T Lumpy Grumpy and Frumpy).
FiveFeetofFury and The Closet Conservative chime in on the Religion of Peace, and it's liberal defenders, on an-almost daily basis.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Pantybunching...
Regarding all this Sturm und Drang over boys-only basketball and golfing at the White House;
a) So what?
b) Joy Behar needs to get laid; Perhaps there's a dude desperate enough for a green card out there with her name on his privates?
c) The more basketball and golf Obama plays, the less damage he can do to the country. The more basketball and golf he plays, the less time he spends taking his wife out on 'date nights' to Bali at taxpayer expense. The more time Obama spends playing golf and basketball, the less he's on TV, which means far more real information on the so-called news channels.
But the argument is that all the real power brokering in Washington happens on the greens, and that by excluding women, Obama -- another feminist in the Clintonian mode, only without the alleged serial-rapist reputation -- is failing in his duty as, first, the President for All Americans, and second, his duty as a good little lefty, to put the concerns of America's harried and slavishly-oppressed female citizenship front-and-center (get a napkin and clean up after you finish laughing at that last part).
Personally, I don't care who he plays basketball with (it's a game for pansies, anyways), and I care even less about his golf game (a game for even bigger, but somewhat richer and fatter pansies). The idea that the key to power is to ingratiate yourself to the boss on the links is laughable; everyone knows all the best business deals go down in elevators and the Men's Room (no pun intended on the 'go down' part). That simply must be true, because for 20 years during my Wall Street career, I was continually reminded that one never talks business in elevators and Men's Rooms. It was second on the list of Unwritten Rules -- right after "don't let your wife find out about Cindy from the steno pool."
Quite frankly, considering it's Obama, I rather doubt anything of importance -- or even sanity -- is being discussed anywhere, let alone on the golf course. So I rather doubt anyone is being excluded from anything that actually means something.
So, for all you lefty ladies who may find themselves complaining about the re-emergence of the Old Boy's Network, I have to say the following:
a) It can't be an Old Boy's Network, because according to leftist ideology, Black Men aren't allowed into that supposedly-exclusive membership. When you can explain why this once-axiomatic belief is no longer operative without resorting to the words 'feelings', 'cultural' and 'sexism', you might convince me that it's true.
b) Get the fuck off your menstrual cycle and stop whining. Whiners never accomplish anything of lasting value. We only placate you long enough to shut you up, anyway, you know.
c) Bet you wished you voted for Hillary right now? How's all that Hopenchange working out for you?
d) I can just see all those chicks in Afghanistan now, complaining about how they can't get access to Hamid Karzai -- because you can't play golf when you're wrapped in burlap and legally-beaten seven times a day by a husband you share with three other women, and a flock of goats. A little perspective is in order, ladies.
Update: The American Spectator has more on this... and on Maureen Dowd's menstrual howling.
a) So what?
b) Joy Behar needs to get laid; Perhaps there's a dude desperate enough for a green card out there with her name on his privates?
c) The more basketball and golf Obama plays, the less damage he can do to the country. The more basketball and golf he plays, the less time he spends taking his wife out on 'date nights' to Bali at taxpayer expense. The more time Obama spends playing golf and basketball, the less he's on TV, which means far more real information on the so-called news channels.
But the argument is that all the real power brokering in Washington happens on the greens, and that by excluding women, Obama -- another feminist in the Clintonian mode, only without the alleged serial-rapist reputation -- is failing in his duty as, first, the President for All Americans, and second, his duty as a good little lefty, to put the concerns of America's harried and slavishly-oppressed female citizenship front-and-center (get a napkin and clean up after you finish laughing at that last part).
Personally, I don't care who he plays basketball with (it's a game for pansies, anyways), and I care even less about his golf game (a game for even bigger, but somewhat richer and fatter pansies). The idea that the key to power is to ingratiate yourself to the boss on the links is laughable; everyone knows all the best business deals go down in elevators and the Men's Room (no pun intended on the 'go down' part). That simply must be true, because for 20 years during my Wall Street career, I was continually reminded that one never talks business in elevators and Men's Rooms. It was second on the list of Unwritten Rules -- right after "don't let your wife find out about Cindy from the steno pool."
Quite frankly, considering it's Obama, I rather doubt anything of importance -- or even sanity -- is being discussed anywhere, let alone on the golf course. So I rather doubt anyone is being excluded from anything that actually means something.
So, for all you lefty ladies who may find themselves complaining about the re-emergence of the Old Boy's Network, I have to say the following:
a) It can't be an Old Boy's Network, because according to leftist ideology, Black Men aren't allowed into that supposedly-exclusive membership. When you can explain why this once-axiomatic belief is no longer operative without resorting to the words 'feelings', 'cultural' and 'sexism', you might convince me that it's true.
b) Get the fuck off your menstrual cycle and stop whining. Whiners never accomplish anything of lasting value. We only placate you long enough to shut you up, anyway, you know.
c) Bet you wished you voted for Hillary right now? How's all that Hopenchange working out for you?
d) I can just see all those chicks in Afghanistan now, complaining about how they can't get access to Hamid Karzai -- because you can't play golf when you're wrapped in burlap and legally-beaten seven times a day by a husband you share with three other women, and a flock of goats. A little perspective is in order, ladies.
Update: The American Spectator has more on this... and on Maureen Dowd's menstrual howling.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Redefining the Argument...
Conventional wisdom:
"When you're losing an argument, change the subject."
Everyone knows that, of course. But, sometimes, you can change the subject all you want, and the other person in the debate is sharp enough to recognize mere logical evasion, and insists (how rude!) on having the discussion return the to the original subject. Some people are weird like that: they insist on consistency and silly stuff like that.
When that happens, simply changing the subject is not enough to throw off the most tenacious opponent. Now you'll need to bring out the rhetorical big guns. Now you have to redefine the basic premises of the argument. This is a time-tested tactic of propagandists and the apologists for the worst criminals and dictators in the history of mankind.
So, if you oppose a certain President's policies on everything from the War on Terror, to the Economy, or the fake crisis of health care, you are not an independent thinker exercising your faculties, weighing pros and cons to arrive at a rational position. Nor are you a patriotic American taking advantage of your right to dissent and conscience -- like you were in the days when it was cool to protest Vietnam and the Iraq War (Apparently, those were 'bad wars' as opposed to the 'good ones'. Good Wars are defined by who happens to be in favor of them and how little fighting actually occurs). If you oppose corporate welfare for companies who's management obviously failed to read their textbooks in Economics 101, or worse, giving welfare to politically-powerful unions in the form of nationalization of formerly-profitable companies, you must not be very smart or compassionate.
Why, you're incapable of being a rational, thoughtful, politically-savvy person if you oppose those things.
No, opposition to those things now makes you a racist.
Now the terms of the argument have been fundamentally altered. Now, the argument is no longer about inconvenient things like verifiable facts, matters of record, direct quotations, and nonsense like that. It's all about your prejudices -- whether you have any or not (According to all leftists, anyone who disagrees with them automatically has prejudices and questionable thought processes). No muss, no fuss, and it keeps democratic party flapping rectums gainfully employed on (P)MSNBC.
The word racist has now been completely redefined. It had already been thrown about so carelessly for so long that it no longer had much of a meaning, anyway. But the present circumstances we live in have given it a new lease on life, as it were. Now, racism is not the reflexive and irrational hatred of 'the other' based on differences in race; now it's simply principled opposition to a particular individual. Imagine the consequences of that concept!
Since racism has now been redefined to apply only to The Savior, the great and Omniscient Obamatard, the next time I hear a reverend or a rapper throw that word out I shall take great pride in informing them that racism no longer exists; at least as far they understand and define the term. Barack Obama brought some of that Hopenchangey fairy dust of his and changed the meaning of the word 'racism', and by extension, 'racist'. I now reserve the right to call black folk nasty names, attribute to them or expect of them, stereotypical behavior, and offer them all the fried chicken and watermelon I can get my hands on, free from any burden of guilt or shame, and legally and morally protected from their righteous indignation -- if not from an outright ass-kicking.
Thanks to Barack Obama and the democratic party, I can use the N-word freely again!
Because now it's only racism if it means opposition to Obama.
Now, go pick me some cotton and then gimme some soft-shoe, Boy!
Update: Before the hate mail rolls in; I would never behave this way in real life. I'm simply trying to prove a point here, which is that words and ideas have consequences. Perhaps it's about time we stopped throwing the racism tag about so freely and stupidly; it's an issue much bigger than any President and his quest for beatification and elevation to sainthood.
"When you're losing an argument, change the subject."
Everyone knows that, of course. But, sometimes, you can change the subject all you want, and the other person in the debate is sharp enough to recognize mere logical evasion, and insists (how rude!) on having the discussion return the to the original subject. Some people are weird like that: they insist on consistency and silly stuff like that.
When that happens, simply changing the subject is not enough to throw off the most tenacious opponent. Now you'll need to bring out the rhetorical big guns. Now you have to redefine the basic premises of the argument. This is a time-tested tactic of propagandists and the apologists for the worst criminals and dictators in the history of mankind.
So, if you oppose a certain President's policies on everything from the War on Terror, to the Economy, or the fake crisis of health care, you are not an independent thinker exercising your faculties, weighing pros and cons to arrive at a rational position. Nor are you a patriotic American taking advantage of your right to dissent and conscience -- like you were in the days when it was cool to protest Vietnam and the Iraq War (Apparently, those were 'bad wars' as opposed to the 'good ones'. Good Wars are defined by who happens to be in favor of them and how little fighting actually occurs). If you oppose corporate welfare for companies who's management obviously failed to read their textbooks in Economics 101, or worse, giving welfare to politically-powerful unions in the form of nationalization of formerly-profitable companies, you must not be very smart or compassionate.
Why, you're incapable of being a rational, thoughtful, politically-savvy person if you oppose those things.
No, opposition to those things now makes you a racist.
Now the terms of the argument have been fundamentally altered. Now, the argument is no longer about inconvenient things like verifiable facts, matters of record, direct quotations, and nonsense like that. It's all about your prejudices -- whether you have any or not (According to all leftists, anyone who disagrees with them automatically has prejudices and questionable thought processes). No muss, no fuss, and it keeps democratic party flapping rectums gainfully employed on (P)MSNBC.
The word racist has now been completely redefined. It had already been thrown about so carelessly for so long that it no longer had much of a meaning, anyway. But the present circumstances we live in have given it a new lease on life, as it were. Now, racism is not the reflexive and irrational hatred of 'the other' based on differences in race; now it's simply principled opposition to a particular individual. Imagine the consequences of that concept!
Since racism has now been redefined to apply only to The Savior, the great and Omniscient Obamatard, the next time I hear a reverend or a rapper throw that word out I shall take great pride in informing them that racism no longer exists; at least as far they understand and define the term. Barack Obama brought some of that Hopenchangey fairy dust of his and changed the meaning of the word 'racism', and by extension, 'racist'. I now reserve the right to call black folk nasty names, attribute to them or expect of them, stereotypical behavior, and offer them all the fried chicken and watermelon I can get my hands on, free from any burden of guilt or shame, and legally and morally protected from their righteous indignation -- if not from an outright ass-kicking.
Thanks to Barack Obama and the democratic party, I can use the N-word freely again!
Because now it's only racism if it means opposition to Obama.
Now, go pick me some cotton and then gimme some soft-shoe, Boy!
Update: Before the hate mail rolls in; I would never behave this way in real life. I'm simply trying to prove a point here, which is that words and ideas have consequences. Perhaps it's about time we stopped throwing the racism tag about so freely and stupidly; it's an issue much bigger than any President and his quest for beatification and elevation to sainthood.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Janeane Garofalo and Flapping Rectum Syndrome...
Caught this from JammieWearingFool.
Far be it from me to disagree with the worthy personages over at JWF, but in this case, I must.
The main argument against Garofalo in the post is that she's dangerous because there is a segment of the population that might treat something she says seriously. I say let her whine all she wants, for two reasons.
Firstly, what makes you suppose that anyone who counts (Hollywood folk and mentally-constipated left wingers don't count) actually cares about what she has to say? In fact, I'd wager that anyone with a room-temperature IQ who heard that load of nonsense that she unloaded on Bill Maher's show were not nodding in agreement, but either seething with anger or more than likely laughing at her. Yeah, I know the rabid left wing votes and stuff, but mostly, they simply whine. Incessantly. Mostly, they whine about how someone else should do something about whatever their pet peeve happens to be today. Left to their own devices they might make a lot of noise over a subject, but it's far easier to make noise than it is to muster an effort. One thing you can always count on with regards to the Garofalo type is their inability to make any honest, meaningful effort. These are people who live by words and empty, symbolic gestures. It's why they want the government to do everything -- so that they don't have to.
I refer to this sort of person as a 'flapping rectum', in that they're sort of like a really long and ululating fart: lots of noise, perhaps a lingering stench, but in the end, little more than a mess of hot air.
Secondly, African-Americans don't need Janeane Garofalo to provide an excuse for a lack of success. They have the democratic party for that, and when the dimwits fail them in this regard, they have their own legion of apologists, racial hustlers and bomb-throwers to pick up the slack. I'm certain that if you asked a black person, the chances are pretty good that they might actually resent a white girl making a racial argument for anything on their behalf. They have a battalion of inarticulate "reverends" for that, and a Congressional Caucus, after all.
If you're going to make an argument about why your race seems to be failing, it's better that it comes from someone of that race, it appears. Unless you're Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell or Bill Cosby and present what can be construed as a conservative (i.e. common sense) solution to the problems of the African-American community.
Let Janeane Garofalo say whatever she wants, then. It's a pretty safe bet that 95% of the people who can read without their lips moving don't agree with her, or will just ignore her.
And if you're one of those people who absolutely wallow in racial grievances, then you don't really need her help and advice on how to do it better, do you?
Far be it from me to disagree with the worthy personages over at JWF, but in this case, I must.
The main argument against Garofalo in the post is that she's dangerous because there is a segment of the population that might treat something she says seriously. I say let her whine all she wants, for two reasons.
Firstly, what makes you suppose that anyone who counts (Hollywood folk and mentally-constipated left wingers don't count) actually cares about what she has to say? In fact, I'd wager that anyone with a room-temperature IQ who heard that load of nonsense that she unloaded on Bill Maher's show were not nodding in agreement, but either seething with anger or more than likely laughing at her. Yeah, I know the rabid left wing votes and stuff, but mostly, they simply whine. Incessantly. Mostly, they whine about how someone else should do something about whatever their pet peeve happens to be today. Left to their own devices they might make a lot of noise over a subject, but it's far easier to make noise than it is to muster an effort. One thing you can always count on with regards to the Garofalo type is their inability to make any honest, meaningful effort. These are people who live by words and empty, symbolic gestures. It's why they want the government to do everything -- so that they don't have to.
I refer to this sort of person as a 'flapping rectum', in that they're sort of like a really long and ululating fart: lots of noise, perhaps a lingering stench, but in the end, little more than a mess of hot air.
Secondly, African-Americans don't need Janeane Garofalo to provide an excuse for a lack of success. They have the democratic party for that, and when the dimwits fail them in this regard, they have their own legion of apologists, racial hustlers and bomb-throwers to pick up the slack. I'm certain that if you asked a black person, the chances are pretty good that they might actually resent a white girl making a racial argument for anything on their behalf. They have a battalion of inarticulate "reverends" for that, and a Congressional Caucus, after all.
If you're going to make an argument about why your race seems to be failing, it's better that it comes from someone of that race, it appears. Unless you're Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell or Bill Cosby and present what can be construed as a conservative (i.e. common sense) solution to the problems of the African-American community.
Let Janeane Garofalo say whatever she wants, then. It's a pretty safe bet that 95% of the people who can read without their lips moving don't agree with her, or will just ignore her.
And if you're one of those people who absolutely wallow in racial grievances, then you don't really need her help and advice on how to do it better, do you?
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
More Palin...
You have to love National Review Online. It's definitely not the same NR that Mr. Buckley crafted (Rich Lowry somehow evokes the image of short pants and the Headmaster's Office), and that Florence King once graced,although I can never get enough Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn or John Derbyshire, so that it remains a guilty pleasure, if you discount much of the crap that has crept into it's pages in recent years.
But, you really have to love NR when they get naughty and post something thing like this on their website. It is a stirring defense of Sarah Palin and a perhaps more clear-headed exposition of today's 'liberals' and how they operate than anything I've seen in ages. Kudos to David Kahane!
If you don't think this is how so-called liberals really operate, one need look no further than Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, aka Chris Matthew's Token Mouthpiece. He posted this piece of garbage in today's Trib. Whatever they're paying Clarence, I'm certain it's probably enough to just barely avoid the discrimination lawsuit, while still allowing him to pretend he's a journalist.
And here's what Maureen Dowd, the staunch feminist, Bill Clinton Alleged-Rapist Fan-Club President, and bitter sixty-year-old-teen-aged-girl, puked up earlier this week. The piece I've been railing about all week. If it doesn't fairly scream "I'm jealous! Why can't I have what Sarah Palin has? Oh, right: because I'm barely a human being and little more than a life-support system for a vagina that no one wants", I don't know what else does. Perhaps if Maureen stopped talking long enough, she might find someone drunk enough to throw her a mercy bang.
You have to love National Review Online. It's definitely not the same NR that Mr. Buckley crafted (Rich Lowry somehow evokes the image of short pants and the Headmaster's Office), and that Florence King once graced,although I can never get enough Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn or John Derbyshire, so that it remains a guilty pleasure, if you discount much of the crap that has crept into it's pages in recent years.
But, you really have to love NR when they get naughty and post something thing like this on their website. It is a stirring defense of Sarah Palin and a perhaps more clear-headed exposition of today's 'liberals' and how they operate than anything I've seen in ages. Kudos to David Kahane!
If you don't think this is how so-called liberals really operate, one need look no further than Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, aka Chris Matthew's Token Mouthpiece. He posted this piece of garbage in today's Trib. Whatever they're paying Clarence, I'm certain it's probably enough to just barely avoid the discrimination lawsuit, while still allowing him to pretend he's a journalist.
And here's what Maureen Dowd, the staunch feminist, Bill Clinton Alleged-Rapist Fan-Club President, and bitter sixty-year-old-teen-aged-girl, puked up earlier this week. The piece I've been railing about all week. If it doesn't fairly scream "I'm jealous! Why can't I have what Sarah Palin has? Oh, right: because I'm barely a human being and little more than a life-support system for a vagina that no one wants", I don't know what else does. Perhaps if Maureen stopped talking long enough, she might find someone drunk enough to throw her a mercy bang.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Of Feet and Mouths...
Vis-a-vis the recent brouhaha about Governor Sanford of South Carolina and his infidelities and travel habits (More on this later), it was reported, by various sources, that one Senator John Kerry (Moron-Massachusetts) is said to have lamented that it was, indeed, unfortunate that Governor Sarah Palin wasn't the one who left the country.
We're told that the good Senator was just having a jest at the Governor's expense. He meant no harm, 'twas but a jolly good ribbing, and all that, and besides, Chris Matthews found it hysterical (one can assume).
Of course, no one ever accused Sen. Kerry of having either class or intelligence. He makes this joke just a few weeks after Mrs. Palin and her daughters are slandered on the David Letterman show, and after months of democratic 'reporters' and 'bloggers' and 'operatives' and 'concerned citizens' prying into every aspect of the Palin's lives, from who is Trig's real mother to seeking the governor's, and her eldest daughters, gynecological records. They've been taking crap, especially from various vicious precincts on the left (you know, the side of the political spectrum that defends the rights of women so vociferously and diligently?), for a year already. You'd think a gentleman would let up. You'd think a gentleman who fancies himself respectable wouldn't pile on. You'd think someone who knows what it is to have his life examined in minute detail, and who also lost an election, might be somewhat more circumspect.
But John Kerry thinks he's above all that stuff, and is entitled to make jokes at other people's expense. Particularly if that person just happens to be 'on the other side'. Common courtesy and decency (you know, the kind he would most assuredly ask for himself) are out the window. So, not that the governor needs me to defend her, but allow me my shot at the good Senator. All in good fun, you know.
John Kerry is a pompous ass, who's only talent is for marrying the publicly-alcoholic widows of wealthier men (I just know from having seen it on TV, that Ter-ay-ZUH was giving a speech while hammered on the campaign trail at least once. In today's world of journalism, this constitutes 'proof'). If Sen Kerry wants to do something about it, I'll meet him in the dark alley of his choice. But because he's a gutless coward, he'll probably sic a lawyer on me, or use his office to prevent me from getting a government job. That's how punk-ass turds like him operate, isn't it?
And I'd be overjoyed if he left the country, but no one will grant him a visa on the grounds that dreary old dolts who look like Droopy Dog and who selected an even bigger slug (John Edwards) as a running mate are considered liable to lower the national IQ and pollute the atmosphere with smugness and pomposity.
So, I give a great big middle finger to John Kerry; a man so mediocre, he couldn't even beat the swaggering cowboy with no command of the English language! How does it feel to know that you lost to such a man? One that your side was quite convinced, and insistent, was a drooling dunce?
One who will go down in history as one of the greatest liberators of men. God will bless G.W. Bush; the world will soon forget John Kerry.
If I had your record, Senator Buttwipe, I'd shut the fuck up.
Vis-a-vis the recent brouhaha about Governor Sanford of South Carolina and his infidelities and travel habits (More on this later), it was reported, by various sources, that one Senator John Kerry (Moron-Massachusetts) is said to have lamented that it was, indeed, unfortunate that Governor Sarah Palin wasn't the one who left the country.
We're told that the good Senator was just having a jest at the Governor's expense. He meant no harm, 'twas but a jolly good ribbing, and all that, and besides, Chris Matthews found it hysterical (one can assume).
Of course, no one ever accused Sen. Kerry of having either class or intelligence. He makes this joke just a few weeks after Mrs. Palin and her daughters are slandered on the David Letterman show, and after months of democratic 'reporters' and 'bloggers' and 'operatives' and 'concerned citizens' prying into every aspect of the Palin's lives, from who is Trig's real mother to seeking the governor's, and her eldest daughters, gynecological records. They've been taking crap, especially from various vicious precincts on the left (you know, the side of the political spectrum that defends the rights of women so vociferously and diligently?), for a year already. You'd think a gentleman would let up. You'd think a gentleman who fancies himself respectable wouldn't pile on. You'd think someone who knows what it is to have his life examined in minute detail, and who also lost an election, might be somewhat more circumspect.
But John Kerry thinks he's above all that stuff, and is entitled to make jokes at other people's expense. Particularly if that person just happens to be 'on the other side'. Common courtesy and decency (you know, the kind he would most assuredly ask for himself) are out the window. So, not that the governor needs me to defend her, but allow me my shot at the good Senator. All in good fun, you know.
John Kerry is a pompous ass, who's only talent is for marrying the publicly-alcoholic widows of wealthier men (I just know from having seen it on TV, that Ter-ay-ZUH was giving a speech while hammered on the campaign trail at least once. In today's world of journalism, this constitutes 'proof'). If Sen Kerry wants to do something about it, I'll meet him in the dark alley of his choice. But because he's a gutless coward, he'll probably sic a lawyer on me, or use his office to prevent me from getting a government job. That's how punk-ass turds like him operate, isn't it?
And I'd be overjoyed if he left the country, but no one will grant him a visa on the grounds that dreary old dolts who look like Droopy Dog and who selected an even bigger slug (John Edwards) as a running mate are considered liable to lower the national IQ and pollute the atmosphere with smugness and pomposity.
So, I give a great big middle finger to John Kerry; a man so mediocre, he couldn't even beat the swaggering cowboy with no command of the English language! How does it feel to know that you lost to such a man? One that your side was quite convinced, and insistent, was a drooling dunce?
One who will go down in history as one of the greatest liberators of men. God will bless G.W. Bush; the world will soon forget John Kerry.
If I had your record, Senator Buttwipe, I'd shut the fuck up.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Global Warming: Still Crap!
So says this from the American Thinker.
While I don't believe that the bubble of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) needed to be needled (the evidence against it is so overwhelming), apparently some are not as clear-headed about it.
Ultimately, Mankind is doomed. If we don't kill each other off in a nuclear holocaust, the Sun will eventually go Supernova and burn the planet to a cinder. If that doesn't happen, we'll get hit by a comet or asteroid, or some still-evolving germs, viruses or microbes will defeat both our natural defenses and scientific know-how. The Earth's magnetic poles will shift, the continents will drift apart unleashing geologic disaster, or invaders from another galaxy will decide we make yummy snacks. As it stands, scientists know the Moon is drifting away from us at something like 4 cm. a year, which would unleash hell. Doesn't matter: Earth, and all life on it, is ultimately doomed. That is just the nature of both the planet we live on, and the universe in which we live.
There is no saving the planet, which is beyond our power, and there is no saving mankind barring scientific advances that would have to include relatively cheap and easy interplanetary and interstellar travel, which despite Star Trek, is not necessarily within reach at the present. And even then, mankind would be subject to the same forces which threaten this planet and species on any other planet.
In the end, the Global Warming alarmists cannot achieve their stated goal; saving the planet. The issue of whether they can save mankind is still an open question, and in any case, is more involved than just studying the weather in the hopes of changing it. If we consider that the people who advocate the position that the Earth is warming and that in understanding the why and how in order to change it are just as smart as I am, and can apply logic in the same way, then they must also know that they can't 'save' anything. The power to do so is beyond the ability of man, and is presently reserved for the realm of science fiction and religion. Therefore, the stated goal cannot be the actual goal.
The few people I know who believe in AGW all happen to have the same traits. They don't all have the complete gamut of traits, but they share a great many of them. If you listen to them with a critical ear, you begin to find some common threads:
1. They hate human beings - Mostly the crowd who joins PETA, or who shows an unusual empathy for animals, attributing to them human characteristics, or who regard animals as being more noble than man. Their issue is with humanity; they don't understand or comprehend some of the more vile human habits and conventions (war, inhumanity to our fellow men, political discord, and so forth), and so they have arrived at the subconscious solution of wanting us all to be dead so that we'll be less inconvenient to them, or if they arrive at the idea that a dead human race means they can't get a latte at Starbucks when they want one, at least forcing us (through government) to modify our behavior to suit them. They can't stand their fellow man on one level or another, and feel that they are superior enough that they have the right to demand that the rest of mankind conform to their ideas and conventions. Barring willing submission and co-operation to with their 'enlightened' views, we need to be brought to heel by our 'betters' thorough regulation, taxation or force.
2. They hate particular human activities/practices - there's some activity that bothers them on some level. Conspicuous consumption, the practice of organized and established religion, political activity in direct opposition to their personal preferences, are all things that get their dander up. If you drive an ostentatious SUV -- you're an evil polluter. If you own a swimming pool -- you're an evil waster of precious water. If you deny their superiority, or haven't recognized how much they 'care' about polar bears and rising sea levels -- you're an evil polluter. You must be destroyed if you cannot be transformed or brainwashed. They are unable to make the great mental and emotional commitment to "live and let live", because to do so would rob them of the feelings of intellectual and emotional superiority they have bestowed upon themselves.
3. Politics - the great scam of AGW is that if the plans of the Global Warming Set were ever implemented (Kyoto Accords, Cap-and-trade policies, etc) the net effect would be a transfer of wealth from Western nations, the productive ones, to the non-productive ones. That transfer is not affected by outright theft -- robbing Britain to pay Belize would never fly-- but by arresting industrial and scientific progress in the West to allow the rest of the world "to catch up". It's why the largest populations/nations in the world (like India, Indonesia, Sub-Saharan Africa and China) are often exempted from things like the Kyoto Treaty, and why places like the U.S., Japan, and Europe are expected to toe the mark religiously. And to pay for it all. The industrialized world is supposed to expend it's resources in order to provide technology which it ultimately cannot sell (it would be too expensive for anyone to buy), and therefore, would have to be given away, in the name of brotherhood. These policies are really intended to level the economic playing field by arresting progress and taking scarce resources from one front, and shifting them to another -- without recompense or reciprocation -- and will therefore produce an effective system of World-wide Socialism without the need for violent revolution, or without having to lay the intellectual groundwork necessary for it. Socialism would be effected under the guise of 'doing the right thing'. There would be no elections, no resolutions, it would just come into being, without anyone ever having to mention Socialism at all, or without uncovering a world-wide conspiracy which drives it. Science is being co-opted in the name of politics. The idea that this or that would 'save the planet', or 'heal' Mother Earth is just an illusion; it's supposed to make the gullible think that in sacrificing their own personal economic and political well-being that they are achieving some higher, and more laudable goal beyond selfish self-interest. And, of course, it'll all be controlled by some altruistic mechanism, like the U.N. or a cabal of the Enlightened (can you imagine Al Gore in charge of the planet?). All of the other great mind-fucks of history have operated along similar lines; Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, the No-Nukes Movement, the ban on D.D.T., and so forth, have all used similar tactics: fear, envy, and a mushy Kumbaya-feel-goodism and trendy cachet. H.G. Wells and Aldous Huxley made fortunes pimping this sort of stuff, only they called it 'fiction', rather than a Master Plan. Al Gore wants to make it reality...and get rich and famous while he does it. It is, after all, all about them and their feelings of superiority.
4. Global Warming Ideology has taken the Place of Conventional Religion -for some (like me), religion is little more than the expression of an ignorant superstition. Man cannot explain the great questions which vex him (Why do bad things happen to good people? Where did we come from? What happens to us after we die?) and so invents gods, and saints, and spirits and so on, to try to explain them. Eventually, technological progress and scientific discovery disprove religion (then again, religion, like global warming, doesn't really need 'proof' of anything -- only faith, which is a willful surrender of critical faculties), or at least bring into focus logical contradictions which cannot be reconciled. There are some who need the psychological comfort and surety that religion provides, but who reject religion because it does not provide concrete proofs like science does. The logical conclusion is to mix and match the two. Turn science with it's logical methodology into your new religion, without the intellectually-embarrassing need to believe in invisible beings. Faith now gets transferred from the perceived-to-be-fantastical to the perceived-to-be-factual.
I can prove that the idea of human activity altering the planet in such a way as to endanger it is bullshit, at least from the standpoint of global warming on a planet-destroying scale. Geologists and other scientists tell me that the very spot I sit upon while I write this screed was once buried under an ice sheet several miles thick. They say this ice sheet has advanced and retreated, many times in the geologic past, without a single factory or internal-combustion engine spewing one molecule of carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere. That such naturally-occurring global events have been happening sans human activity, and will probably continue long after we and our technology are long gone, and they can point to geologic evidence. It's been proven that the Earth itself has undergone changes in geology, atmosphere and climate all by itself many, many times, again with irrefutable scientific evidence. It has also been postulated that it was possible 'pollution' caused by living things in the ancient past that made the world habitable for the whining pansies who cry about polar bears and SUV's --by pouring billions of tons of oxygen (and nitrogen, and water vapor, and yes, even CO2!) into the atmosphere by the processes of life itself. The science is there, all you have to do is look it up. But then again, if you did, you wouldn't believe in AGW, and these scientists would be out of a job, and the Revolution would never come to be. Certainly, the evidence, such as it is, can be debated, but the AGW brigade doesn't want debate; it wants compliance.
In the end, the arguments about AGW have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the mindsets of two particular subsets of human beings; the insane and the insidious.
So says this from the American Thinker.
While I don't believe that the bubble of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) needed to be needled (the evidence against it is so overwhelming), apparently some are not as clear-headed about it.
Ultimately, Mankind is doomed. If we don't kill each other off in a nuclear holocaust, the Sun will eventually go Supernova and burn the planet to a cinder. If that doesn't happen, we'll get hit by a comet or asteroid, or some still-evolving germs, viruses or microbes will defeat both our natural defenses and scientific know-how. The Earth's magnetic poles will shift, the continents will drift apart unleashing geologic disaster, or invaders from another galaxy will decide we make yummy snacks. As it stands, scientists know the Moon is drifting away from us at something like 4 cm. a year, which would unleash hell. Doesn't matter: Earth, and all life on it, is ultimately doomed. That is just the nature of both the planet we live on, and the universe in which we live.
There is no saving the planet, which is beyond our power, and there is no saving mankind barring scientific advances that would have to include relatively cheap and easy interplanetary and interstellar travel, which despite Star Trek, is not necessarily within reach at the present. And even then, mankind would be subject to the same forces which threaten this planet and species on any other planet.
In the end, the Global Warming alarmists cannot achieve their stated goal; saving the planet. The issue of whether they can save mankind is still an open question, and in any case, is more involved than just studying the weather in the hopes of changing it. If we consider that the people who advocate the position that the Earth is warming and that in understanding the why and how in order to change it are just as smart as I am, and can apply logic in the same way, then they must also know that they can't 'save' anything. The power to do so is beyond the ability of man, and is presently reserved for the realm of science fiction and religion. Therefore, the stated goal cannot be the actual goal.
The few people I know who believe in AGW all happen to have the same traits. They don't all have the complete gamut of traits, but they share a great many of them. If you listen to them with a critical ear, you begin to find some common threads:
1. They hate human beings - Mostly the crowd who joins PETA, or who shows an unusual empathy for animals, attributing to them human characteristics, or who regard animals as being more noble than man. Their issue is with humanity; they don't understand or comprehend some of the more vile human habits and conventions (war, inhumanity to our fellow men, political discord, and so forth), and so they have arrived at the subconscious solution of wanting us all to be dead so that we'll be less inconvenient to them, or if they arrive at the idea that a dead human race means they can't get a latte at Starbucks when they want one, at least forcing us (through government) to modify our behavior to suit them. They can't stand their fellow man on one level or another, and feel that they are superior enough that they have the right to demand that the rest of mankind conform to their ideas and conventions. Barring willing submission and co-operation to with their 'enlightened' views, we need to be brought to heel by our 'betters' thorough regulation, taxation or force.
2. They hate particular human activities/practices - there's some activity that bothers them on some level. Conspicuous consumption, the practice of organized and established religion, political activity in direct opposition to their personal preferences, are all things that get their dander up. If you drive an ostentatious SUV -- you're an evil polluter. If you own a swimming pool -- you're an evil waster of precious water. If you deny their superiority, or haven't recognized how much they 'care' about polar bears and rising sea levels -- you're an evil polluter. You must be destroyed if you cannot be transformed or brainwashed. They are unable to make the great mental and emotional commitment to "live and let live", because to do so would rob them of the feelings of intellectual and emotional superiority they have bestowed upon themselves.
3. Politics - the great scam of AGW is that if the plans of the Global Warming Set were ever implemented (Kyoto Accords, Cap-and-trade policies, etc) the net effect would be a transfer of wealth from Western nations, the productive ones, to the non-productive ones. That transfer is not affected by outright theft -- robbing Britain to pay Belize would never fly-- but by arresting industrial and scientific progress in the West to allow the rest of the world "to catch up". It's why the largest populations/nations in the world (like India, Indonesia, Sub-Saharan Africa and China) are often exempted from things like the Kyoto Treaty, and why places like the U.S., Japan, and Europe are expected to toe the mark religiously. And to pay for it all. The industrialized world is supposed to expend it's resources in order to provide technology which it ultimately cannot sell (it would be too expensive for anyone to buy), and therefore, would have to be given away, in the name of brotherhood. These policies are really intended to level the economic playing field by arresting progress and taking scarce resources from one front, and shifting them to another -- without recompense or reciprocation -- and will therefore produce an effective system of World-wide Socialism without the need for violent revolution, or without having to lay the intellectual groundwork necessary for it. Socialism would be effected under the guise of 'doing the right thing'. There would be no elections, no resolutions, it would just come into being, without anyone ever having to mention Socialism at all, or without uncovering a world-wide conspiracy which drives it. Science is being co-opted in the name of politics. The idea that this or that would 'save the planet', or 'heal' Mother Earth is just an illusion; it's supposed to make the gullible think that in sacrificing their own personal economic and political well-being that they are achieving some higher, and more laudable goal beyond selfish self-interest. And, of course, it'll all be controlled by some altruistic mechanism, like the U.N. or a cabal of the Enlightened (can you imagine Al Gore in charge of the planet?). All of the other great mind-fucks of history have operated along similar lines; Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, the No-Nukes Movement, the ban on D.D.T., and so forth, have all used similar tactics: fear, envy, and a mushy Kumbaya-feel-goodism and trendy cachet. H.G. Wells and Aldous Huxley made fortunes pimping this sort of stuff, only they called it 'fiction', rather than a Master Plan. Al Gore wants to make it reality...and get rich and famous while he does it. It is, after all, all about them and their feelings of superiority.
4. Global Warming Ideology has taken the Place of Conventional Religion -for some (like me), religion is little more than the expression of an ignorant superstition. Man cannot explain the great questions which vex him (Why do bad things happen to good people? Where did we come from? What happens to us after we die?) and so invents gods, and saints, and spirits and so on, to try to explain them. Eventually, technological progress and scientific discovery disprove religion (then again, religion, like global warming, doesn't really need 'proof' of anything -- only faith, which is a willful surrender of critical faculties), or at least bring into focus logical contradictions which cannot be reconciled. There are some who need the psychological comfort and surety that religion provides, but who reject religion because it does not provide concrete proofs like science does. The logical conclusion is to mix and match the two. Turn science with it's logical methodology into your new religion, without the intellectually-embarrassing need to believe in invisible beings. Faith now gets transferred from the perceived-to-be-fantastical to the perceived-to-be-factual.
I can prove that the idea of human activity altering the planet in such a way as to endanger it is bullshit, at least from the standpoint of global warming on a planet-destroying scale. Geologists and other scientists tell me that the very spot I sit upon while I write this screed was once buried under an ice sheet several miles thick. They say this ice sheet has advanced and retreated, many times in the geologic past, without a single factory or internal-combustion engine spewing one molecule of carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere. That such naturally-occurring global events have been happening sans human activity, and will probably continue long after we and our technology are long gone, and they can point to geologic evidence. It's been proven that the Earth itself has undergone changes in geology, atmosphere and climate all by itself many, many times, again with irrefutable scientific evidence. It has also been postulated that it was possible 'pollution' caused by living things in the ancient past that made the world habitable for the whining pansies who cry about polar bears and SUV's --by pouring billions of tons of oxygen (and nitrogen, and water vapor, and yes, even CO2!) into the atmosphere by the processes of life itself. The science is there, all you have to do is look it up. But then again, if you did, you wouldn't believe in AGW, and these scientists would be out of a job, and the Revolution would never come to be. Certainly, the evidence, such as it is, can be debated, but the AGW brigade doesn't want debate; it wants compliance.
In the end, the arguments about AGW have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the mindsets of two particular subsets of human beings; the insane and the insidious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)