It's Official!
It's official: Bill O'Reilly is no longer watchable. At least I say so.
There was a time when Bill actually engaged in journalism and debate. Those days, alas, are all over. While there are segments of O'Reilly's program that do, almost purely by accident, managed to convey information, the remainder is simply given over to shameless self-promotion; of O'Reilly's books, of the personal attacks upon O'Reilly, upon the supposed effect which O'Reilly's program has upon the actions of the powerful. The problem, as I see it, is that Bill has become the center of everything, and the news gets somewhat skewed and often buried.
Want to ensure that you get attention for a trivial issue? Write an editorial which mentions Bill O'Reilly by name; Bill will make reference to it on his show. If you wish a little commentary on your commentary, mention Bill in a negative light --- he'll make you into a personal crusade.
In any case, when your program devotes weekly segments to examining "body language" and, invariably, you as host are having your body language analyzed in the context of your personal appearances with Stephen Colbert, David Letterman and Oprah, it's no longer just an examination of a slightly-interesting semi-science; it's now an advertizement of how visible Bill O'Reilly is, and how far he's risen in the pantheon of...ahem...television personalities. Bill is, perhaps subconciously, measuring himself against the giants in his industry and bragging about his stature, too.
It's pretty sad when the most interesting segments on the show as of late have been the monologues of Dennis Miller.
Speaking of unwatchable television, we come to Glenn Beck. On a good day, Beck is a poor-man's O'Reilly, but he does, in my opinion, have the quality of at least being willing to handle topics in a more than cavalier fashion. He often, I admit, turns me off with his smarmy uber-conservative smugness from time to time, but he does present an entertaining and informative show. Most nights.
Which leads us to what happens to Beck's show when he isn't there. Last night, Beck was replaced by one Michael Smirconish. It's enough to make one pine for O'Reilly.
Smirconish last night, in reference to the Anna Nicole Smith kerfuffle (and can can we please get back to something important on the news nowadays?), made the comment that Ms. Smith's baby daughter is perhaps better off with her mother dead. He delivered this gem of graciousness with an oily assuredness that he was right and justified in being so harshly judgemental, most probably because God contacted him, personally, about this very subject many times through the fillings in his teeth. At least that's impression his expression and evident self-assuredness in making such ridiculous statements gave.
Now, I will admit, the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Smith, and the circumstances surrounding her final days and death all have the typical salacious elements we've come to expect in such cases. However, if the Duke (Non-)Rape case taught us anything, and especially taught those in the responsible media anything, it was not to jump to conclusions. If Mr. Smirconish had irrefutable proof that Ms. Smith was a drug-addicted lowlife (like, say a coroner's report stating she died of an overdose, for example), then perhaps his opinion might be valid. However, we only have circumstantial evidence of Ms. Smith's drug use and the resulting behavior. While a reasonable person might assume, given the evidence, that Ms. Smith was a drug addict incapabpe of raising a child, we have no definitive proof of such.
In that regard, Mr. Smirconish should have kept his big, fat, yapper tightly closed about the woman's personal character and fitness as a parent. However, since Smirconish is one of the self-appointed defenders of 'merican society (i.e. Bible-thumping conservative) he feels he has the right to say whatever he wants, improper or not, because he's been granted the power of the Almighty to judge.
I seem to remember a quote...How did that go, again? Oh, yeah:
"Judge not, lest ye be judged....".
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
Amazing What Constitutes Journalism, These Days...
This is a little blurb to warn you of the panty-bunching psychosis of the bunch over at NewsBusters.org (hyperlink not given, ON PURPOSE).
Not long ago, I was involved in a discussion with one of NewsBuster's regular contributors (regular only in the sense that he posts often. I'm not sure there's anything "regular" about him after that, and no, that is NOT a reference to his sexual orientation). The subject had to do with an offhand remark made by one Meredith Viera (of "Who Wants To be A Millionaire" fame), now a regular on the Today Show (taking Katie Couric's place).
The remark was in reference to a symptom of menopause, i.e. the hot flash. Meredith made this remark, I gather, in the context of making a joke about the guest (a Medical doctor suffering from said hot flashes) who came on to talk about this serious health risk (snicker, snicker), and the grave, deadly threat (I guess) it serves to 'Merican womanhood.
Now, ordinarily, I should think that something like this would escape most people's attention. Evidentally, it did not escape the attention of the nitpickers at NewsBusters.
The remark was made into a conservative websphere cause celebre! Meredith DARED to mention hot flashes on TV? Isn't is just ABSOLUTELY EVIL? Is there no decency anymore? Why hasn't the Lord struck her down for her sin? Oh wail and woe! The end times are nigh!
Well, guess what? They ain't. And while NewBusters continued to hammer away at this tale of depravity for all it was worth, when it was suggested that perhaps, the reporter in question had just a little too much free time on his hands and a very small mind, I was savaged. Well, perhaps savaged is a bit hyperbolic; I was instead reminded that decency was at stake and that without NewsBusters to tell the American people about the hot flash embroglio, the "Mainstream Media" would have ignored it, we'd all be pig-ignorant, and the Earth might spin off it's axis.
God forbid the children heard "hot flashes" and perhaps asked Mother and Father to explain it all (when Pastor Bill might not be conveniently available to offer the right sort of counselling to the family)! Or worse, the public schools might take it upon themselves to explain hot flashes and menopause in the classroom! Imagine that; discuss menopause, but not Jesus! After all, it's all about "the children" isn't it?
Even making mountains out of molehills, evidentally, is all about the children...
What makes this especially delicious is that not a week later, Sean Hannity and others of his ilk were beating the drums loudly over a soon-to-be-released film in which 12-year old actress Dakota Fanning takes part in a simulated rape scene (on record; 12 year girls should have nothing to do with rape, simulated or not) .I'm not sure if NewsBustwers covered that with the same hyperbole (they probably did, I couldn't be bothered to check), but I'm dead certain that NewsBusters didn't go back and review the "hot flash" post and say to themselves "perhaps we've overreacted a bit in light of this new development..."
Of course, they wouldn't. If they didn't make minor incidents into stories, theyd have nothing to post over there on NewsBusters, I'm sure.
One of the disadvantages of the internet, alas, is that anyone capable of typing and holding an opinion at the same time is capable of bringing every petty subject into the light of day, regardless of how ridiculous the issue... or the reporter.
Myself included...
This is a little blurb to warn you of the panty-bunching psychosis of the bunch over at NewsBusters.org (hyperlink not given, ON PURPOSE).
Not long ago, I was involved in a discussion with one of NewsBuster's regular contributors (regular only in the sense that he posts often. I'm not sure there's anything "regular" about him after that, and no, that is NOT a reference to his sexual orientation). The subject had to do with an offhand remark made by one Meredith Viera (of "Who Wants To be A Millionaire" fame), now a regular on the Today Show (taking Katie Couric's place).
The remark was in reference to a symptom of menopause, i.e. the hot flash. Meredith made this remark, I gather, in the context of making a joke about the guest (a Medical doctor suffering from said hot flashes) who came on to talk about this serious health risk (snicker, snicker), and the grave, deadly threat (I guess) it serves to 'Merican womanhood.
Now, ordinarily, I should think that something like this would escape most people's attention. Evidentally, it did not escape the attention of the nitpickers at NewsBusters.
The remark was made into a conservative websphere cause celebre! Meredith DARED to mention hot flashes on TV? Isn't is just ABSOLUTELY EVIL? Is there no decency anymore? Why hasn't the Lord struck her down for her sin? Oh wail and woe! The end times are nigh!
Well, guess what? They ain't. And while NewBusters continued to hammer away at this tale of depravity for all it was worth, when it was suggested that perhaps, the reporter in question had just a little too much free time on his hands and a very small mind, I was savaged. Well, perhaps savaged is a bit hyperbolic; I was instead reminded that decency was at stake and that without NewsBusters to tell the American people about the hot flash embroglio, the "Mainstream Media" would have ignored it, we'd all be pig-ignorant, and the Earth might spin off it's axis.
God forbid the children heard "hot flashes" and perhaps asked Mother and Father to explain it all (when Pastor Bill might not be conveniently available to offer the right sort of counselling to the family)! Or worse, the public schools might take it upon themselves to explain hot flashes and menopause in the classroom! Imagine that; discuss menopause, but not Jesus! After all, it's all about "the children" isn't it?
Even making mountains out of molehills, evidentally, is all about the children...
What makes this especially delicious is that not a week later, Sean Hannity and others of his ilk were beating the drums loudly over a soon-to-be-released film in which 12-year old actress Dakota Fanning takes part in a simulated rape scene (on record; 12 year girls should have nothing to do with rape, simulated or not) .I'm not sure if NewsBustwers covered that with the same hyperbole (they probably did, I couldn't be bothered to check), but I'm dead certain that NewsBusters didn't go back and review the "hot flash" post and say to themselves "perhaps we've overreacted a bit in light of this new development..."
Of course, they wouldn't. If they didn't make minor incidents into stories, theyd have nothing to post over there on NewsBusters, I'm sure.
One of the disadvantages of the internet, alas, is that anyone capable of typing and holding an opinion at the same time is capable of bringing every petty subject into the light of day, regardless of how ridiculous the issue... or the reporter.
Myself included...
I Told You So...
Got into another argument with one of the I-WILL-Hold-My-Breath-Till-Blue-in-The-Face sort of..ahem..conservatives on FR recently, and I finally got at least this one to admit to something none of them ever will. The argument was begun on the premise that a certain Mr. Duncan Hunter, a backbencher Congresscritter, should be the Republican nominee for the Presidency in 2008. Mr. Hunter, so far as I know, has but one rock-solid conservative credential to his name: Ann Coulter said he should be President.
From Ann's luscious lips to God's ear, I guess.
Now, I seem to recall about this time last year, Ann putting her stamp of Conservative approval on another backbencher named Mike Pence for the same office. I similarly recall all the "excitement" generated by this coronation on FR and other conservative sites. I also recall that after a few weeks, Mr. Pence was found to be wanting in the conservative cojones arena, and the buzz that arose from his selection by Ann, quickly fizzled. If I recall, Mr. Pence, in keeping with his name, was Pence-wise and Pound-foolish; i.e. he was profligate spender of government tax revenue. A decided no-no if you wish to call yourself a conservative, you see (although it didn't stop half of the 109th Congress).
But I digress...
Now, so far as I know, Duncan Hunter is a fine and upstanding citizen, an honest representative of the people, and a snazzy dresser. However, I do know that when the prospective republican candidates at this time include the likes of Rudy Guiliani and John McManiac, Mr. Hunter is fighting an uphill battle. McPain at leats gets good press, Rudy is still fondly remembered for is leadershi on September 11th. I would very much like to hear what Mr. Hunter migth have to say, if only in the vain hope thathe might elevate the present political debate above it's current "oh yeah?" schoolyard character. Both McCain and Guiliani, naturally, will have their issues in the primaries, but that was not the gist of the debate.
The gist of the debate was that even if Mr. Hunter was a projected no-show come primary time, no "real" conservative would bend his neck and be "forced" to vote for either McCain or Guiliani. Considering that there aren't, to my knowledge, Republican Death-Squads, frog-marching people to the polls with guns to their heads, I hardly see how anyone is being 'forced' to do anything. There's nothing that says you can't be a republican and not vote for the party's presumptive nominee, although these folks ar ein a bit of a quandry; they will be blamed if a candidate which hasn't mustered up to their skewed visionof the role of government in society doesn;t win. They simply won't vote for someone they don't agree with simply for the sake of party unity. Fair enough. Conversely, they don't take blame for skewing the primary process in the first place by only ensuring that candidates who pass the majority of their litmus tests actually DO get to compete. Like most human beings, even in politics, they want their cake and to eat it to. However, the true reason why either McCain or Guiliani is such an odious choice, is of course, God. Or at least what many of the perpetually panty-bunched on the American right believe to be God's political agenda (notwithstanding all the "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's, spiel). The problem, naturally, revolves around three cultural-conservative bugaboos;
a. Abortion should be illegal in ALL cases (I sorta-kinda agree with them on this point)
b. Gun rights (they need them thar flame throwers and RPG launchers from when the End of Days arrives to protect them from the heathens who won't be saved. Or, in some versions, to actually begin the chaos which will bring the Rapture upon us. Or, in a third version, to start the Second Revolution in which the people of "Fly-Over Country" will have to battle the federal Leviathan which has come under the control of the Fascist Gays with Fashion Sense).
c. The fact that you can say certain four letter words on television without being horsewhipped in public.
I generalize on the third issue, but you get the point; cultural conservatives rail against the coarsening of American society, seemingly remembering a time when everyone went around saying things like "gosh-darn-it!" and "oh pooh-with-sugar-on-top" whenever they were angry or required an interjection intended to convey annoyance. A time, which, incidentally, never existed, except in the milleaux hand-crafted for American conservatives; a world in which it is eternally the 1950's, Leave it to Beaver was entertainment of the highest order, and America was always right, no matter what.
Anyways, when it was pointed out to the misguided individual that the upcoming Presidential race will be less about conservative issues and more about mending Republican fences with the great American political middle, the gentleman (although he did call me a fascist, a marxist and several other, hysterical and totally unrelated-to-the-subject-at-hand names, all of which betrayed a total lack of knowledge of politics and political theory, in general) finally said that none of it mattered to him, because he had "God on his side" and that made him totally and completely correct in his assumptions and assertions. His world view was the only one that counted because it was the only one in which he believed God would agree.
There you go; the total stunting of political deabte, the complete divorce with reality, and the new weapon of the conservative ideologue; just say "God said so", and any debate which you are losing on reason and logic, is ended. No one can answer God, can they? Then again, it's not like God answers us, but that's another issue. The point was to direct the debate in such a way as to prevent adequate response, or, to squash the debate in it's entirety. In the meantime, no information of real value is exchanged, no point of view is expressed by either side which might serve to persuade.
God, apparently, is against Free Speech, too, now. Curious, since most "conservatives" will insist that God granted us our constitutional rights to begin with (you know, that time when Jefferson came down from Montecello with the stone tablets after he spoke to a burning bush (not Bush) for a couple of days). Just like the Catholic Church and it's convoluted and contradictory premise of "Free Will", the American conservative of a certain Jethro-and-Ellie-Mae bent has applied the same hypocrisy to the exercise of a constitutional right. It is both God-given and God-takeneth-away if it is not used in the "proper manner", i.e. in any way that does not reinforce or glorify God's role as Creator of the Universe, Arbiter and Judge of Mankind....Or in Support of Duncan Hunter.
I'm telling you; if you believed the left was off it's rocker (and it is), you should see some of the folks running around calling themselves "Conservatives" these days.
Got into another argument with one of the I-WILL-Hold-My-Breath-Till-Blue-in-The-Face sort of..ahem..conservatives on FR recently, and I finally got at least this one to admit to something none of them ever will. The argument was begun on the premise that a certain Mr. Duncan Hunter, a backbencher Congresscritter, should be the Republican nominee for the Presidency in 2008. Mr. Hunter, so far as I know, has but one rock-solid conservative credential to his name: Ann Coulter said he should be President.
From Ann's luscious lips to God's ear, I guess.
Now, I seem to recall about this time last year, Ann putting her stamp of Conservative approval on another backbencher named Mike Pence for the same office. I similarly recall all the "excitement" generated by this coronation on FR and other conservative sites. I also recall that after a few weeks, Mr. Pence was found to be wanting in the conservative cojones arena, and the buzz that arose from his selection by Ann, quickly fizzled. If I recall, Mr. Pence, in keeping with his name, was Pence-wise and Pound-foolish; i.e. he was profligate spender of government tax revenue. A decided no-no if you wish to call yourself a conservative, you see (although it didn't stop half of the 109th Congress).
But I digress...
Now, so far as I know, Duncan Hunter is a fine and upstanding citizen, an honest representative of the people, and a snazzy dresser. However, I do know that when the prospective republican candidates at this time include the likes of Rudy Guiliani and John McManiac, Mr. Hunter is fighting an uphill battle. McPain at leats gets good press, Rudy is still fondly remembered for is leadershi on September 11th. I would very much like to hear what Mr. Hunter migth have to say, if only in the vain hope thathe might elevate the present political debate above it's current "oh yeah?" schoolyard character. Both McCain and Guiliani, naturally, will have their issues in the primaries, but that was not the gist of the debate.
The gist of the debate was that even if Mr. Hunter was a projected no-show come primary time, no "real" conservative would bend his neck and be "forced" to vote for either McCain or Guiliani. Considering that there aren't, to my knowledge, Republican Death-Squads, frog-marching people to the polls with guns to their heads, I hardly see how anyone is being 'forced' to do anything. There's nothing that says you can't be a republican and not vote for the party's presumptive nominee, although these folks ar ein a bit of a quandry; they will be blamed if a candidate which hasn't mustered up to their skewed visionof the role of government in society doesn;t win. They simply won't vote for someone they don't agree with simply for the sake of party unity. Fair enough. Conversely, they don't take blame for skewing the primary process in the first place by only ensuring that candidates who pass the majority of their litmus tests actually DO get to compete. Like most human beings, even in politics, they want their cake and to eat it to. However, the true reason why either McCain or Guiliani is such an odious choice, is of course, God. Or at least what many of the perpetually panty-bunched on the American right believe to be God's political agenda (notwithstanding all the "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's, spiel). The problem, naturally, revolves around three cultural-conservative bugaboos;
a. Abortion should be illegal in ALL cases (I sorta-kinda agree with them on this point)
b. Gun rights (they need them thar flame throwers and RPG launchers from when the End of Days arrives to protect them from the heathens who won't be saved. Or, in some versions, to actually begin the chaos which will bring the Rapture upon us. Or, in a third version, to start the Second Revolution in which the people of "Fly-Over Country" will have to battle the federal Leviathan which has come under the control of the Fascist Gays with Fashion Sense).
c. The fact that you can say certain four letter words on television without being horsewhipped in public.
I generalize on the third issue, but you get the point; cultural conservatives rail against the coarsening of American society, seemingly remembering a time when everyone went around saying things like "gosh-darn-it!" and "oh pooh-with-sugar-on-top" whenever they were angry or required an interjection intended to convey annoyance. A time, which, incidentally, never existed, except in the milleaux hand-crafted for American conservatives; a world in which it is eternally the 1950's, Leave it to Beaver was entertainment of the highest order, and America was always right, no matter what.
Anyways, when it was pointed out to the misguided individual that the upcoming Presidential race will be less about conservative issues and more about mending Republican fences with the great American political middle, the gentleman (although he did call me a fascist, a marxist and several other, hysterical and totally unrelated-to-the-subject-at-hand names, all of which betrayed a total lack of knowledge of politics and political theory, in general) finally said that none of it mattered to him, because he had "God on his side" and that made him totally and completely correct in his assumptions and assertions. His world view was the only one that counted because it was the only one in which he believed God would agree.
There you go; the total stunting of political deabte, the complete divorce with reality, and the new weapon of the conservative ideologue; just say "God said so", and any debate which you are losing on reason and logic, is ended. No one can answer God, can they? Then again, it's not like God answers us, but that's another issue. The point was to direct the debate in such a way as to prevent adequate response, or, to squash the debate in it's entirety. In the meantime, no information of real value is exchanged, no point of view is expressed by either side which might serve to persuade.
God, apparently, is against Free Speech, too, now. Curious, since most "conservatives" will insist that God granted us our constitutional rights to begin with (you know, that time when Jefferson came down from Montecello with the stone tablets after he spoke to a burning bush (not Bush) for a couple of days). Just like the Catholic Church and it's convoluted and contradictory premise of "Free Will", the American conservative of a certain Jethro-and-Ellie-Mae bent has applied the same hypocrisy to the exercise of a constitutional right. It is both God-given and God-takeneth-away if it is not used in the "proper manner", i.e. in any way that does not reinforce or glorify God's role as Creator of the Universe, Arbiter and Judge of Mankind....Or in Support of Duncan Hunter.
I'm telling you; if you believed the left was off it's rocker (and it is), you should see some of the folks running around calling themselves "Conservatives" these days.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Stupidity: It's What's for Dinner...
Poor John Edwards. He is destined to be remembered, if at all, as the democratic party's answer to Dan Quayle. On a day when Janet Reno sticks her foot in her mouth vis-a-vis terrorism, we now find Mr. Edwards similarly enjoying a podiatric fest with regards to the new democratic party bugaboo: Wal-Mart.
Turns out that while Mr. Edwards chants the party line about how Wal-Mart is unfair to it's workers (who, as far as I know, haven't been chained to their workstations), he's been working the old network to extort (allegedly) a new Sony PlayStation 3 from Wal-Mart. James Lileks has the GREATEST explanation of the whole kerfuffle here:
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks112206.html
However, with reagards to Edwards, and a whole new generation of democrats like him: the old "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" argument lost it's lustre a long time ago. This is the 21st century, for better or worse, and it's very difficult in this day and age to be both a "principled champion of the common man" and a fucking hypocrite at the same time. You are under surveilance 24/7. There are reporters who treat your very words as divine manna fromt he heavens, bloggers who scour the net for reports of what you have said (going all the way back to your position on allowing the Huns to move into Dalmatia as a means of cutting the Roman military budget). You are under constant video surveilance by the media, by YouTube, by any jerk with a cellphone. Why, oh why, is it that when you know this sort of scrutiny is applied to you 24/7/365. do you believe that you can get away with being a hypocrite, a liar , and a moron?
It's either an incredible strain of stupidity, an arrogance beyond the capacity of the rational man to comprehend, or a deep-rooted belief that the "common man" that you "fight" so much for is, at heart, a drooling idiot with an attention span measured in RPM's.
Part of me leans towards the third alternative, because all the evidence points that way. But number two is quite popular amongst the democratic bigwigs, as well.
So, Wal-Mart is a pox upon the land, unless you want something unavailable elsewhere and can twist an arm or two? How convenient.
John Edwards can reliably be expected to be a liar and a cheat (he is, after all, a trial lawyer who made a fortune "channeling the spirits" of dead/disabled children as a courtroom tactic), and now he can add "historical irrelevancy" to his resume. Short of screaming "lesbian" a few times during his debates with Dick Cheney, he has no qualification for anything. Edwards is a confirmed mental and political lightweight, who should just pack it in already.
The American people no longer have any excuse: we have more sources of information, now instantaneously delivered, than any generation in the history of the world. Why we don't use it properly, to sift the thieves and hypocrites,from our political process, for example, is beyond me.
Unless, of course, John Edwards is right, and we're all really just drooling idiots with attention spans measured in RPM's.
Poor John Edwards. He is destined to be remembered, if at all, as the democratic party's answer to Dan Quayle. On a day when Janet Reno sticks her foot in her mouth vis-a-vis terrorism, we now find Mr. Edwards similarly enjoying a podiatric fest with regards to the new democratic party bugaboo: Wal-Mart.
Turns out that while Mr. Edwards chants the party line about how Wal-Mart is unfair to it's workers (who, as far as I know, haven't been chained to their workstations), he's been working the old network to extort (allegedly) a new Sony PlayStation 3 from Wal-Mart. James Lileks has the GREATEST explanation of the whole kerfuffle here:
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks112206.html
However, with reagards to Edwards, and a whole new generation of democrats like him: the old "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" argument lost it's lustre a long time ago. This is the 21st century, for better or worse, and it's very difficult in this day and age to be both a "principled champion of the common man" and a fucking hypocrite at the same time. You are under surveilance 24/7. There are reporters who treat your very words as divine manna fromt he heavens, bloggers who scour the net for reports of what you have said (going all the way back to your position on allowing the Huns to move into Dalmatia as a means of cutting the Roman military budget). You are under constant video surveilance by the media, by YouTube, by any jerk with a cellphone. Why, oh why, is it that when you know this sort of scrutiny is applied to you 24/7/365. do you believe that you can get away with being a hypocrite, a liar , and a moron?
It's either an incredible strain of stupidity, an arrogance beyond the capacity of the rational man to comprehend, or a deep-rooted belief that the "common man" that you "fight" so much for is, at heart, a drooling idiot with an attention span measured in RPM's.
Part of me leans towards the third alternative, because all the evidence points that way. But number two is quite popular amongst the democratic bigwigs, as well.
So, Wal-Mart is a pox upon the land, unless you want something unavailable elsewhere and can twist an arm or two? How convenient.
John Edwards can reliably be expected to be a liar and a cheat (he is, after all, a trial lawyer who made a fortune "channeling the spirits" of dead/disabled children as a courtroom tactic), and now he can add "historical irrelevancy" to his resume. Short of screaming "lesbian" a few times during his debates with Dick Cheney, he has no qualification for anything. Edwards is a confirmed mental and political lightweight, who should just pack it in already.
The American people no longer have any excuse: we have more sources of information, now instantaneously delivered, than any generation in the history of the world. Why we don't use it properly, to sift the thieves and hypocrites,from our political process, for example, is beyond me.
Unless, of course, John Edwards is right, and we're all really just drooling idiots with attention spans measured in RPM's.
Of Feet and Gaping Maws...
I wouldn't have believed it, if I hadn't had seen it. Janet Reno, she of the Seige of Waco and the pre-dawn Raid on Elian Gonzales, had the AUDACITY to criticize the Bush Administration about it's anti-terrorism policies. Said hysterical rant may be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101259_pf.html
Now, what makes this sooo fucking rich is that Janet Reno probably has more blood on her hands than Ted Bundy. If I recall, 80 people died when the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, mysteriously burned to the ground after a 51-day seige by federal agents and local law enforcement. I say "mysteriously" because at the time, Ms. Reno swore on a stack that absolutely NO pyrotechnic or explosive device was used against the Davidians, a statement which was later proven to be false. Those people were burned to death, and whether it was purposely done or not, the FBI and ATF and the rest of them, bear responsibility because they were boneheaded and unimaginative (and I say this depsite the fact that I believe David Koresh to have been guilty as sin of whatever he was accused of, and the Davidians morons for thinking they could long defy the power of the Fed'ral Leviathan). Janet Reno bears responsibility because she was the bonehead's boss.
But that's supposed to be forgotten because, you know, at the end of the whole thing, Janet explained that they had to storm the house because "children were being abused". Unfortunately, they had to be killed in order to save them from further abuse. Fifty-one days after telling the public about the Davidian's vast arsenal of illegal weapons, about what a rotten human being David Koresh was, it was all , in the end, about the children.
Everything in the Clinton Era was "about the children...."
Even Elian's televised kidnapping. It was for his own good, you know. What can you say about someone who takes to the airwaves on a holiday weekend (I believe it was Easter weekend), and announces publicly that although there is a "dispute" between the boy's American family and his obviously-being-controlled-by-Castro father, the US government would take no action with regards to Elian, and would let the courts continue to sort it out?
Of course, when Janet Reno says "do nothing" she really means "we're preparing the stormtroopers".
Behind a cloud of tear gas and extensive use of fire extinguishers, Federal Jackboots stormed the Gonzalez house and found the six year old cowering in a closet, he was taken out at gunpoint, although I remember listening for days as Clinton schills tried to explain how a man photographed with a machine gun pointed in Elian's direction, really didn't have the child at gunpoint.
In my opinion, Janet Reno is an accessory to murder. She is a liar. She is an expert on terrorism simply because she has presided over the use of terrorism right here in the United States and called it "law enforcement". Fact of the matter is that Janet Reno never enforced a law at all (if she had, her boss would have been in prison). Janet Reno is no expert on terrorism, unless that terrorism involves the Federal Government terrorizing it's own citizens.
So, shut the fuck up, Janet!
I wouldn't have believed it, if I hadn't had seen it. Janet Reno, she of the Seige of Waco and the pre-dawn Raid on Elian Gonzales, had the AUDACITY to criticize the Bush Administration about it's anti-terrorism policies. Said hysterical rant may be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101259_pf.html
Now, what makes this sooo fucking rich is that Janet Reno probably has more blood on her hands than Ted Bundy. If I recall, 80 people died when the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, mysteriously burned to the ground after a 51-day seige by federal agents and local law enforcement. I say "mysteriously" because at the time, Ms. Reno swore on a stack that absolutely NO pyrotechnic or explosive device was used against the Davidians, a statement which was later proven to be false. Those people were burned to death, and whether it was purposely done or not, the FBI and ATF and the rest of them, bear responsibility because they were boneheaded and unimaginative (and I say this depsite the fact that I believe David Koresh to have been guilty as sin of whatever he was accused of, and the Davidians morons for thinking they could long defy the power of the Fed'ral Leviathan). Janet Reno bears responsibility because she was the bonehead's boss.
But that's supposed to be forgotten because, you know, at the end of the whole thing, Janet explained that they had to storm the house because "children were being abused". Unfortunately, they had to be killed in order to save them from further abuse. Fifty-one days after telling the public about the Davidian's vast arsenal of illegal weapons, about what a rotten human being David Koresh was, it was all , in the end, about the children.
Everything in the Clinton Era was "about the children...."
Even Elian's televised kidnapping. It was for his own good, you know. What can you say about someone who takes to the airwaves on a holiday weekend (I believe it was Easter weekend), and announces publicly that although there is a "dispute" between the boy's American family and his obviously-being-controlled-by-Castro father, the US government would take no action with regards to Elian, and would let the courts continue to sort it out?
Of course, when Janet Reno says "do nothing" she really means "we're preparing the stormtroopers".
Behind a cloud of tear gas and extensive use of fire extinguishers, Federal Jackboots stormed the Gonzalez house and found the six year old cowering in a closet, he was taken out at gunpoint, although I remember listening for days as Clinton schills tried to explain how a man photographed with a machine gun pointed in Elian's direction, really didn't have the child at gunpoint.
In my opinion, Janet Reno is an accessory to murder. She is a liar. She is an expert on terrorism simply because she has presided over the use of terrorism right here in the United States and called it "law enforcement". Fact of the matter is that Janet Reno never enforced a law at all (if she had, her boss would have been in prison). Janet Reno is no expert on terrorism, unless that terrorism involves the Federal Government terrorizing it's own citizens.
So, shut the fuck up, Janet!
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
I Have My Answers...
With regards to the questions I posed the other day:
*Can Rudy Gulianin get past the God, Guns and Gays Coalition and win a nomination in the Republican party for President of the United States?
Short answer: no. From what I have been reading and chatting about lately, there is but one, slim chance of this happening: Guliani would have to backpeddle on his pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-gun control stances, and then some MIGHT consider voting for him. That fact that this would make the man a hypocrite, plain as day for all to see, matters not. All that those who might consider the possibility wish to see is their personal views justified and approved, and reflected in a candidate who's only virtue then, is that he can beat HillaryAND kow-tow to them. In effect, their problem with Guliani is not so much his views, per se , as it is their belief that ideology must be adhered to, even if it makes you a hypocrite. The PARTY, and it's appearance of ideological purity, is all that matters, and if your own personal peeeve is acknowledged, so much the better.
Then there are those for whom no amount of backpeddling would suffice. Most of these are either principled, thinking people (who could be reasonably expected to be able to smell hypocrisy a mile off) or those perpetually-brain dead masses, that short of a divine intercession, still wouldn't vote for him because their preacher said not to.
The stunning thing about the debate over Rudy and Republicanism is not that the proponents/opponents so easily fall into quantifiable and identifiable categories; it is that there is SO MUCH invested in censorship of Guliani the man, rather than Guliani the governing philosphy.
Rudy Guliani cannot get a fair hearing because:
1. There are some preternaturally disposed (either by religion or ignorance) to believe he has nothing to say,
2. There are those who are actively frightened by the prospect that HE MIGHT have the opportunity to speak at all, and perhaps cause people to think differently, thus threatening cherry-picked parts of conservative ideology. And
3. Those who cannot get past petty distinctions and irrelevancies (He's divorced, he once wore a dress as a gag, he once had gay roommates, etc) to even admit that he MIGHT have something to add to the national debate.
He's not given a fair hearing because certain interests have decided against hearing what he might have to say.... before he says it. This censorship has thus far expressed itself in a series of articles, usually quoting a single far right source (and, as always, a single, democratic agent provacateur. Can't accuse the conservative press of not being "balanced", even when that balance is contrived for political purposes) to insinuate that Guliani's social views negate his political ones. The argument is: he's far too "liberal" socially for you to stand, therefore, he has nothing to say to you that you might like to hear or which might otherwise condition your views.
He might well find himself in the position of being the only person in a hypothetical, crowded theatre, aware of a dangerous and deadly fire, who can't warn his fellow patrons because they insist on clapping their hands over their ears, and can't hear the alarm. If this continues much longer, then the republican party deserves electoral exile. It will simply stagnate because it has refused to listen to any ideas whatsoever, especially those that might be considered heretical.
With regards to the questions I posed the other day:
*Can Rudy Gulianin get past the God, Guns and Gays Coalition and win a nomination in the Republican party for President of the United States?
Short answer: no. From what I have been reading and chatting about lately, there is but one, slim chance of this happening: Guliani would have to backpeddle on his pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-gun control stances, and then some MIGHT consider voting for him. That fact that this would make the man a hypocrite, plain as day for all to see, matters not. All that those who might consider the possibility wish to see is their personal views justified and approved, and reflected in a candidate who's only virtue then, is that he can beat HillaryAND kow-tow to them. In effect, their problem with Guliani is not so much his views, per se , as it is their belief that ideology must be adhered to, even if it makes you a hypocrite. The PARTY, and it's appearance of ideological purity, is all that matters, and if your own personal peeeve is acknowledged, so much the better.
Then there are those for whom no amount of backpeddling would suffice. Most of these are either principled, thinking people (who could be reasonably expected to be able to smell hypocrisy a mile off) or those perpetually-brain dead masses, that short of a divine intercession, still wouldn't vote for him because their preacher said not to.
The stunning thing about the debate over Rudy and Republicanism is not that the proponents/opponents so easily fall into quantifiable and identifiable categories; it is that there is SO MUCH invested in censorship of Guliani the man, rather than Guliani the governing philosphy.
Rudy Guliani cannot get a fair hearing because:
1. There are some preternaturally disposed (either by religion or ignorance) to believe he has nothing to say,
2. There are those who are actively frightened by the prospect that HE MIGHT have the opportunity to speak at all, and perhaps cause people to think differently, thus threatening cherry-picked parts of conservative ideology. And
3. Those who cannot get past petty distinctions and irrelevancies (He's divorced, he once wore a dress as a gag, he once had gay roommates, etc) to even admit that he MIGHT have something to add to the national debate.
He's not given a fair hearing because certain interests have decided against hearing what he might have to say.... before he says it. This censorship has thus far expressed itself in a series of articles, usually quoting a single far right source (and, as always, a single, democratic agent provacateur. Can't accuse the conservative press of not being "balanced", even when that balance is contrived for political purposes) to insinuate that Guliani's social views negate his political ones. The argument is: he's far too "liberal" socially for you to stand, therefore, he has nothing to say to you that you might like to hear or which might otherwise condition your views.
He might well find himself in the position of being the only person in a hypothetical, crowded theatre, aware of a dangerous and deadly fire, who can't warn his fellow patrons because they insist on clapping their hands over their ears, and can't hear the alarm. If this continues much longer, then the republican party deserves electoral exile. It will simply stagnate because it has refused to listen to any ideas whatsoever, especially those that might be considered heretical.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Silly Season Begins...
Last week, it was John McCain. Today, it's Rudolph Guliani.
With the formation of "exploratory committees" the first two potential republican candidates for President in 2008 have stepped forward. I'll put together something later on all of this, but for now, ask yourself the following questions:
1. How does Guliani get past the religious zelots and flamthrowers-for-all crowd, and achieve a nomination in what is, for all intents and purposes, a party machinery dominated by concern for the sensibilities of the Religious Right?
2. How long will it be before John McCain's propensity to self-destruct makes itself apparent?
Seems I have some things to think about....
Last week, it was John McCain. Today, it's Rudolph Guliani.
With the formation of "exploratory committees" the first two potential republican candidates for President in 2008 have stepped forward. I'll put together something later on all of this, but for now, ask yourself the following questions:
1. How does Guliani get past the religious zelots and flamthrowers-for-all crowd, and achieve a nomination in what is, for all intents and purposes, a party machinery dominated by concern for the sensibilities of the Religious Right?
2. How long will it be before John McCain's propensity to self-destruct makes itself apparent?
Seems I have some things to think about....
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Mark This on Your Calendar...
The dingbats are out today. Somehow, the republican electoral loss brought this out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735679/posts
Nostradamus predicted it!
Now, maybe it's just me, but if Nostradamus was really a friggin' genius, then why don't these morons come out of the woodwork with a prophecy BEFORE it's needed? That fact that Nostradumus usually only makes sense in HINDSIGHT does not necessarily mean he had any FORESIGHT.
The dingbats are out today. Somehow, the republican electoral loss brought this out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735679/posts
Nostradamus predicted it!
Now, maybe it's just me, but if Nostradamus was really a friggin' genius, then why don't these morons come out of the woodwork with a prophecy BEFORE it's needed? That fact that Nostradumus usually only makes sense in HINDSIGHT does not necessarily mean he had any FORESIGHT.
It Just Gets Worse...
The 'net is buzzing today with disgruntled Christians mightily upset that the republican party has been handed it's collective ass in the mid-term elections. Mostly, this is understandable; many of the same disgruntled religious masses crying in their Holy Water these last few days feel taken advantage of. They believed that politicians who took their money and votes would somehow act the way they wanted them to, neglecting the inconvenient truths about human nature and the fallibility of man.
But the tenor of much of this self-flagellation is eerily frightening.
The main point being discussed today seems to be that America is being overtaken by an evil cabal of gays, libertines, thieves and minor Anti-Christs who are leading us down the path to utter destruction by the Almighty as punishment for our collective sins. Some are wailing that even more strenuous efforts are required to prevent this (great, just what we need; more self-appointed hall monitors. Oh wait! We elected a bunch of them the other day!), and quite a few more are actively hoping for it (the Rapture crowd). Like the Muslims, defeat to this particular group of Christians, in any sense, is not attributible to rational, logical means, it is ALWAYS a sign of divine indignation. The results, and they are usually grisly results, are our just desserts.
However, the strongest undercurrent of discontent seems to be revolve around a contradiction that can only be ignored oreven understood, if one has faith (i.e. one has given ujp the ability to use his braincells and is willing to be told what to do by someone given that authority by his ability to memorize the bible, chapter and verse).
You see, God created man with free will. Free Will, according to most people's concept of the idea, is that man has the ability to do whatever he pleases, when and how he pleases. God gave him that power. That the worst results of this rampant "I can do what I want" mentality is restrained by mostly-invisble social restraints: it is not conducive to a peaceful, prosperous society to have people running around randomly killing each other, stealing from each other, or abducting each other's wives. Religion restrains such impulses by making them "sinful", attaching a stigma and sense of shame to them with implications in the eyes of God, and "the law" restrains them by raising the prospect of punishment by society as a whole. The same can be said for things that exist in both the religious and legal realms: marriage, for example.
However, it gets a little dicey when you start to apply the concept of God-given-Free Will with the concept of God-given-Rights. Mental gynmastics are now required to make sense of any of it.
So, if God gave man the Free Will to be gay, and the Constitution guarentees the God-given right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", what exactly is the difference or the conflict? God, apparently, has sanctioned both, has he not? Well, OF COURSE NOT, you COMMUNIST! God gave us Free Will only to exercise HIS will, and while God granted your constitutional rights, there's nothing that says he can't revoke them any goddamned time he pleases, or, kill a few million of us in a terrible way to remind us that we are not exercising our Free Will or Rights in a way in which he approves. God can, and will, punish you for taking advantage of a "defect" he built into you in the first place? My, and I thought he was perfect and infallible?
No wonder religious conservatives are mostly unhappy, kill-joy types of folks. How do you reconcile the God-given-Constitutional-Right to Free Speech with God-given-Free Will when the result is someone saying "God doesn't exist", or worse, exercising those rights in such away as to make a mockery of everything else God said? It seems that God gave us the bullets with which to shoot holes in him. You have to choose: is your loyalty to your Creator or to your Country? It has to be either because it can't be both, because very often, they conflict badly.
Now, God can say "Thou shalt not kill", and we are supposed to take that as a rule by which to live, immutible wisdom, an insight which cannot be argued against or trifled with, a gift from the Almighty engraved on stone tablets. No sooner does God pass on this commandment, then the Israelites march into "the Promised Land" and have to kill everyone they find living on that land already. If God can gainsay his own commandment then, then he should be able to gainsay them whenever he wants to, so the religious kook might argue. Killing is, of course, when it can be applied to those who aren't members of the group. So, Jews might kill non-Jews, Muslims can kill whoever they want based on sect and political belief, Christians can kill muslims, and despite the fact that we are "all God's Children", God can sanction this or that bout of killing for his "selected" few whenever he sees fit,or for his own benefit when it comes to "killing the infidel".
If this is in fact true, that God is a hypocrite (or at the very least, a very bad contract writer), then why-oh-why would I have any confidence in him to "save the country" or make the proper decision on who should be saved and who shall be passed on to the torments of Hell? God seems ot be making the rules up as he goes along, changing this to suit his needs, allowing that when it's to his advantage, prohibiting this when he doesn't like it, and in the process, stampeding all over his "gift" of Free Will and his "grant" of Inalienable Rights.
I'll tell you this much: I've already decided that God, if it exists, must be a woman. Because only a woman could make THAT many contradictions and leave that kind of logical chasm and still be convinced of her righteousness,and have others either swallow them whole or throw their hands up in resignation (it's easier to subit than argue). I guess this explains why most Eveangelicals these days believ you can be "re-virginated" if you pray hard enough, huh? To argue for or against is simply too stupid and exhausting because the ground upn which your arguments stand can always be shifted by God the menstrual woman.
So, what becomes in one realm, Americans exercising their constitutionally-guarenteed, God-given rights to being gay or choosing to have an abortion, becomes in another realm the misuse of God's gifts, which he/she/it regularly contradicts, and which are given on condition that they only be used in the "right" (Good Churchkeeping Seal of Approval) way, despite the existance of Free Will?
Ah, yes it all makes sense now.
No wonder we lost the election: look at who we depended upon to vote!
I'm glad I'm an agnostic, because otherwise I'd have a raging heroin habit.
** Discalimer: I neither support the ridiculous notion of "Gay Rights" (what they seek is more rights than the rest of us, to be a protected species, like the Spotted Owl, untouchable by the legal system or the unwritten laws of polite society) or the disgusting process by which human beings are vacuumed from their mother's wombs for the sake of convenience and avoidance of personal responsibility. I simply refuse to be taken in by religious arguments which are contradictory, perposely obfuscatory and espoused by obvious mental patients.
The 'net is buzzing today with disgruntled Christians mightily upset that the republican party has been handed it's collective ass in the mid-term elections. Mostly, this is understandable; many of the same disgruntled religious masses crying in their Holy Water these last few days feel taken advantage of. They believed that politicians who took their money and votes would somehow act the way they wanted them to, neglecting the inconvenient truths about human nature and the fallibility of man.
But the tenor of much of this self-flagellation is eerily frightening.
The main point being discussed today seems to be that America is being overtaken by an evil cabal of gays, libertines, thieves and minor Anti-Christs who are leading us down the path to utter destruction by the Almighty as punishment for our collective sins. Some are wailing that even more strenuous efforts are required to prevent this (great, just what we need; more self-appointed hall monitors. Oh wait! We elected a bunch of them the other day!), and quite a few more are actively hoping for it (the Rapture crowd). Like the Muslims, defeat to this particular group of Christians, in any sense, is not attributible to rational, logical means, it is ALWAYS a sign of divine indignation. The results, and they are usually grisly results, are our just desserts.
However, the strongest undercurrent of discontent seems to be revolve around a contradiction that can only be ignored oreven understood, if one has faith (i.e. one has given ujp the ability to use his braincells and is willing to be told what to do by someone given that authority by his ability to memorize the bible, chapter and verse).
You see, God created man with free will. Free Will, according to most people's concept of the idea, is that man has the ability to do whatever he pleases, when and how he pleases. God gave him that power. That the worst results of this rampant "I can do what I want" mentality is restrained by mostly-invisble social restraints: it is not conducive to a peaceful, prosperous society to have people running around randomly killing each other, stealing from each other, or abducting each other's wives. Religion restrains such impulses by making them "sinful", attaching a stigma and sense of shame to them with implications in the eyes of God, and "the law" restrains them by raising the prospect of punishment by society as a whole. The same can be said for things that exist in both the religious and legal realms: marriage, for example.
However, it gets a little dicey when you start to apply the concept of God-given-Free Will with the concept of God-given-Rights. Mental gynmastics are now required to make sense of any of it.
So, if God gave man the Free Will to be gay, and the Constitution guarentees the God-given right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", what exactly is the difference or the conflict? God, apparently, has sanctioned both, has he not? Well, OF COURSE NOT, you COMMUNIST! God gave us Free Will only to exercise HIS will, and while God granted your constitutional rights, there's nothing that says he can't revoke them any goddamned time he pleases, or, kill a few million of us in a terrible way to remind us that we are not exercising our Free Will or Rights in a way in which he approves. God can, and will, punish you for taking advantage of a "defect" he built into you in the first place? My, and I thought he was perfect and infallible?
No wonder religious conservatives are mostly unhappy, kill-joy types of folks. How do you reconcile the God-given-Constitutional-Right to Free Speech with God-given-Free Will when the result is someone saying "God doesn't exist", or worse, exercising those rights in such away as to make a mockery of everything else God said? It seems that God gave us the bullets with which to shoot holes in him. You have to choose: is your loyalty to your Creator or to your Country? It has to be either because it can't be both, because very often, they conflict badly.
Now, God can say "Thou shalt not kill", and we are supposed to take that as a rule by which to live, immutible wisdom, an insight which cannot be argued against or trifled with, a gift from the Almighty engraved on stone tablets. No sooner does God pass on this commandment, then the Israelites march into "the Promised Land" and have to kill everyone they find living on that land already. If God can gainsay his own commandment then, then he should be able to gainsay them whenever he wants to, so the religious kook might argue. Killing is, of course, when it can be applied to those who aren't members of the group. So, Jews might kill non-Jews, Muslims can kill whoever they want based on sect and political belief, Christians can kill muslims, and despite the fact that we are "all God's Children", God can sanction this or that bout of killing for his "selected" few whenever he sees fit,or for his own benefit when it comes to "killing the infidel".
If this is in fact true, that God is a hypocrite (or at the very least, a very bad contract writer), then why-oh-why would I have any confidence in him to "save the country" or make the proper decision on who should be saved and who shall be passed on to the torments of Hell? God seems ot be making the rules up as he goes along, changing this to suit his needs, allowing that when it's to his advantage, prohibiting this when he doesn't like it, and in the process, stampeding all over his "gift" of Free Will and his "grant" of Inalienable Rights.
I'll tell you this much: I've already decided that God, if it exists, must be a woman. Because only a woman could make THAT many contradictions and leave that kind of logical chasm and still be convinced of her righteousness,and have others either swallow them whole or throw their hands up in resignation (it's easier to subit than argue). I guess this explains why most Eveangelicals these days believ you can be "re-virginated" if you pray hard enough, huh? To argue for or against is simply too stupid and exhausting because the ground upn which your arguments stand can always be shifted by God the menstrual woman.
So, what becomes in one realm, Americans exercising their constitutionally-guarenteed, God-given rights to being gay or choosing to have an abortion, becomes in another realm the misuse of God's gifts, which he/she/it regularly contradicts, and which are given on condition that they only be used in the "right" (Good Churchkeeping Seal of Approval) way, despite the existance of Free Will?
Ah, yes it all makes sense now.
No wonder we lost the election: look at who we depended upon to vote!
I'm glad I'm an agnostic, because otherwise I'd have a raging heroin habit.
** Discalimer: I neither support the ridiculous notion of "Gay Rights" (what they seek is more rights than the rest of us, to be a protected species, like the Spotted Owl, untouchable by the legal system or the unwritten laws of polite society) or the disgusting process by which human beings are vacuumed from their mother's wombs for the sake of convenience and avoidance of personal responsibility. I simply refuse to be taken in by religious arguments which are contradictory, perposely obfuscatory and espoused by obvious mental patients.
This Just In...
The first, I think, documented insinuation of "Christian Voter Intimidation":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735629/posts
So, I guess cries of discrimination are not just for minority democrats anymore, but disappointed social conservatives, who should know better, too.
It's getting to the point where the solution to all of life's little disappoinments is to cry "discrimination" and drag the lawyers into it.
Hell, I haven't won the lottery yet, there must be some nefarious conspiracy at work! Get me a mouthpiece!
The first, I think, documented insinuation of "Christian Voter Intimidation":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735629/posts
So, I guess cries of discrimination are not just for minority democrats anymore, but disappointed social conservatives, who should know better, too.
It's getting to the point where the solution to all of life's little disappoinments is to cry "discrimination" and drag the lawyers into it.
Hell, I haven't won the lottery yet, there must be some nefarious conspiracy at work! Get me a mouthpiece!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)