There will be no sale of a former convent to the Muslim American Society. For the last two months, the residents of Midland Beach and local supporters have made their opposition to a proposed mosque, to be built on the site of a former Roman Catholic convent, known in no uncertain terms.
Today, the Board of Trustees for St. Margaret Mary's church finally decided that the bad publicity, the damage being done to the reputation of the Archdiocese of New York -- not to mention the very light collection plates -- was finally too much, and the Board declined to complete the sale of the property in question to a bunch of clitoris-cutting,-camel-fucking,-wife-beating-death-worshiping-heathen-terrorists.
The Board can cite concerns over "parking" and "traffic flow" all it wants, but the opposition to this sale has been, I have always felt, the fact that 271 Staten Islanders were killed on September 11th. They weren't killed by Mormons or Buddhists, either; they were murdered by Muslims. Mayor Bloomberg (more on that jerkoff in a second) may have forgotten September 11th, but we haven't.
Naturally, the Muslim American Society did what Muslims do every time they're thwarted, and can't resort to bombs because the Police and Community are watching them: they screamed racism, and released a passive-aggressive statement full of teenaged petulance which basically reads:
Waaaah-waaaah-waaaah-you're-all-racists-waaaah-waaaah-waaah-we'll-kill-you-waaaah-waaaah-waaaah!
I would like to point out to the MAS that:
a) You do realize that you've used the word "Islamophobia" in your own statement? I'm not certain there is another religion on the planet which has spawned a similar word -- probably because it's been centuries since the last Druid, or maybe even Extreme Jainist -- strapped a bomb around his waist and walked into a shopping mall. The fact that such a term even exists ought to tell you that there's something wrong with you people, and that the bigotry you complain about just may be common sense based upon some pretty fucking good evidence that you're liable to kill for no reason that makes sense to a rational human being.
b) "Islam" is not a race, therefore, opposition to Muslims cannot be racist. Stop using that word because it doesn't apply, and the only people who care about the charge of racism are irrationally-guilty white liberals, who are simply frightened little faggots who will surrender to anyone who threatens violence, or even a really bad wedgie.
c) No, it is not a "travesty" that a public official investigated your little group. It was warranted. If you want to avoid future investigations, I suggest you either leave the country, or start turning in your crazy brothers, sons, uncles and fathers who may decide that the solution to all of life's problems involves TNT and 72 virgins. The REAL travesty is that a decade after 9/11, you people are still alive, have the unmitigated balls to live in New York, and make DEMANDS upon a society that has treated you far better than you deserve. If it were me, there would have been mushroom clouds stretching across the horizon from Algiers to Bangladesh on September 12th, and there'd be Gitmos everywhere for the ones who managed to escape.
d) And just for fun: Suck on that, Assholes! You don't get to build a victory monument in this community, and you certainly don't get to build it upon ground which belonged to a rival religion. You may have gotten away with that shit with the Temple Mount and the Hagia Sophia, but not in Midland Beach.
Now, if we could just put an end to the other proposed Islamic Victory Monument, i.e. the 11-story mosque being built at Ground Zero, scheduled to open on September 11th.
Protests against that monstrosity have been ongoing since it was first announced, but construction is still progressing. This mosque would also have probably been stopped dead in it's tracks, except that Mayor Dickwad...errrm...Bloomberg ... and his fancy-pants-Upper-East-Side-Guilded-Commisars have defended the thing since it began. Mayor Douchebag came out and said the other day in defense of this monstrosity (paraphrasing, and I don't have a link) that he didn't think "our brave men and women serving overseas" were fighting to allow religious persecution in America.
Hey, Asshole, I have news for you: "Our brave men and women" are fighting overseas -- in Muslim countries -- because Muslims murdered 3,000 Americans a decade ago. You must remember that incident, right? It was in all the papers. In fact,you sued your predecessor so that you could take charge of the whole rescue/recovery thing, citing the inviolate nature of electoral law -- even if it there was a smoking crater in Battery Park -- the very "inviolate" laws you had overturned last year so that you could run for an illegal third term.
By the way, you got your wish, and guess what? There still hasn't been anything built over the fucking hole where the Towers once stood, and the War is still going on, with no end in sight, despite a President who has promised to surrender at the enemy's earliest convenience. Ten years, who knows how much money and 4,000 dead soldiers later, and what have people like Bloomberg, Bush and Obama accomplished? Zip.
But there IS a Mosque going up next door. Is it just me,or is there something wrong with this picture?
Hey, Mayor McCheese; you do remember a few months ago insisting that the would-be car bomb planted at Times Square couldn't possibly be the work of Muslim terrorists...until it was determined that it was, in fact, the work of a Muslim terrorist? Anything you have to say on the subjects of Islam and Terrorism are bound to be wrong -- based on your track record -- so how about you just shut the fuck up?
I think Mayor Fartsniffer and his airy pronouncements on Wars, Freedoms and Civil Society can be safely ignored. In the meantime, I'm going to take a great deal of satisfaction that somewhere tonight in New York, there's a bunch of Desert-dwelling pieces of shit who will now have to suffer the indignity of metaphorically cleaning the sand out of their collective vagina; The Infidels won one! Oh, the irritation and humiliation!
I will laugh in the face of the first Muslim I see tomorrow, for sure!
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Breitbart,Obama and the Obsession of Race...
T'was only a matter of time before someone made the accusation, but it's especially telling that it should happen to have been made now, in the wake of a scandal that should, once and for all, serve as a lesson to many. I'm paraphrasing it as:
Barack Obama is not Authentically Black.
It's especially damning that this unkind remark should be made by someone who is a legitimate victim of racism, of the politically-concocted kind, but hell, she has an axe to grind.
The charge of not being"authentically Black" is usually the opening gambit in any political battle amongst African-Americans. First you question someones "Blackness" on some sort of invisible scale that Blacks will insist doesn't exist, but which apparently does. Next, someone with some prominence and a following amongst the politically-active black population (wouldn't it be delicious if it were Reverend Wright?)will then ask the question that will be the equivalent of setting off an atom bomb during a spitball fight, and begin the debate in earnest: Is Barack Obama black enough?
It must really suck to be consumed by race in this way, whether you're the NAACP, a Man of the Cloth, or even the President of the United States. The first, self-proclaimed Post-Racial President has been anything but, and his rise has not stopped the Great American Debate on Race -- in fact, it has made it arguably worse. His whole sordid tale is bathed in the light of race; Race has enabled his meteoric rise, and it's about to play a major part in his downfall.
Obama's rise is largely the result of a democratic party which decided, that within it's pantheon of perennial victims, that Race still Trumps Gender, and although I do hate to day this, given the reality of what a desperate American electorate has wrought, Hillary Clinton was, literally, the lesser of three evils, in retrospect, and probably would have been President of the United States if Libtards didn't cream over the prospect of a (half-) black man in the White House. Because it was all, you know, historical (more like hysterical)...and stuff.
We've seen Obama leap to the defense of people of color against the police on many occasions, ranging from the Professor Gates kerfuffle, to the pre-emptive screams of "Racial Profiling!" vis-a-vis an immigration law that hasn't even gone into effect yet, showing a predilection to believe that American society -- and especially it's police forces -- is fundamentally unfair, and that The Law is yet another tool of The Man to oppress the huddled masses.
He's surrounded himself with people who live, breathe, eat, and shit race 24/7/365, and you know it's true, Eric Holder. Americans are supposed to be "cowards" on the subject of race, therefore the Justice Department should take great pains not to prosecute black criminals when the plaintiffs are white. If Obama doesn't actively support Holder in this stupidity, then his silence on the subject speaks louder than any speech.
Hell, the Obama Administration is so race-conscious that it even allows race to play a part in it's economic decisions, which is probably another reason why this Recovery Summer is little more than a hollow slogan; you would expect responsible leadership, based upon sound economic principles, and instead we get another example of the sort of "equality" most Leftards have in store for us.
Now, as to the players in this little morality tale.
Say what you will about how unequivocally stupid this whole Breitbart Affair is. In my opinion, when I saw the "gotcha" tape on FoxNews the other night, it was obvious to me that it had been edited (the giveaway: Sherrod is basically cut off in mid-sentence after the "damning" quote has been uttered), and that for a guy who claims to do it better than the "Mainstream Media", it appears that Breitbart got sloppy, if only because the edited speech dovetailed nicely with his own thought process. Everyone makes mistakes, and all that, but just look at what the results of his were. If that's what "journalism" is supposed to be, and achieve, then I must have missed the memo.
The after-the-fact excuse that Sherrod was not the point of the tape, but that the reaction to what she said was, well, that's just too lame to believe. The secondary defense, made by Ann Coulter last night, that Breitbart was "set up" is also weak; Breitbart got rolled because Breitbart wanted to be roiled. I have no sympathy for him, and he's yet another "Real" conservative hero (because of the ACORN scandal) who was the toast of the town yesterday, and tomorrow he'll be the solitary source that deranged One-percenters will quote incessantly on FreeRepublic.
I'm sorry to see that happen,because I happen to like Big Government, but it would be well-deserved. I hope Breitbart can work harder and get his credibility back.
The NAACP didn't exactly cover itself in glory, either. In a stunning display of almost Three-Stooges like incompetence, the NAACP not only threw one of it's own under the bus when it had evidence to defend her, it was so busy trying to defend itself against charges of racism in it's self-inflicted you''re-more-racist-than-us pissing match with the Tea Party, that it didn't even bother to think about defending Sherrod.
Here, the NAACP's obsession with race has come back to haunt it, too. What sort of credibility do you give that organization in the wake of this scandal, as if it that credibility wasn't already at an all-time low? The organization lives and dies by the premise that it can openly practice all the overt racism it wants to, while accusing it's enemies of being the worst sort of human beings. That strategy has served it well for four decades now, so there was no reason to change it, except that now every activity in the world takes place before a camera. And sensitive to the idea that freely flinging unfounded accusations of racism should be it's own special preserve, the NAACP moved with indecent haste to protect it's turf by rushing to take the"moral high-ground", and expelling what appeared to be a racist in it's midst, as a public-relations move.
Except that they didn't toss out a racist, and any claim to higher morality is now laughable. The NAACP did great harm to a black woman, and went out of it's way to do so, even though it had evidence of her innocence.
The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is curiously silent. There is a woman publicly wronged, fired by the Department of Agriculture in what was obviously a politically-motivated bit of kabuki theatre, who turns out to be a victim. She tells the story of "political pressure from above" which can only mean someone in the White House is responsible for her firing, and the best Obama can manage to do is to send Tom Vilsack out to fall on his penknife, and Robert Gibbs out to offer a half-assed apology and not answer any questions about what the White House's involvement in the whole sordid affair was.
As of this writing, Barack Obama has not called Sherrod, so far as I know,to offer his personal apology. I rather doubt he ever will. I think he's frightened of the prospect of having to honestly admit mistakes. It's been obvious since Day One: Barack Obama never makes mistakes, Barack Obama never fucks up, Barack Obama never apologizes. Everything is always someone else's fault, every plan would have worked flawlessly if it wasn't for someone else putting up resistance (Republicans, the Rich, Wall Street, George Bush, those who won't "sacrifice", Bitter Gun Clingers, Racists, and so forth). Barack Obama doesn't need to apologize for shit...except for America being mean to Muslim terrorists.
Obama is trapped in the cage of race, too. It consumes his waking thoughts -- hell, it's been the basis for his entire career -- it's at the foundation of all his policies; Health Care, Mortgage Defaults, Cash-for-Clunkers, Automotive Industry takeovers, Financial Reform, Comprehensive Immigration Reform. These were all...ahem...colored by his belief that America needed to be "fundamentally transformed" by a system wherein the wealth would be "spread around". This is simply a form of reverse discrimination dressed up in the golden cloth of "Social Justice", which is a phrase that is supposed to evoke a vision of a higher, nobler purpose, but which just makes me want to vomit.
Barack Obama is not Authentically Black.
It's especially damning that this unkind remark should be made by someone who is a legitimate victim of racism, of the politically-concocted kind, but hell, she has an axe to grind.
The charge of not being"authentically Black" is usually the opening gambit in any political battle amongst African-Americans. First you question someones "Blackness" on some sort of invisible scale that Blacks will insist doesn't exist, but which apparently does. Next, someone with some prominence and a following amongst the politically-active black population (wouldn't it be delicious if it were Reverend Wright?)will then ask the question that will be the equivalent of setting off an atom bomb during a spitball fight, and begin the debate in earnest: Is Barack Obama black enough?
It must really suck to be consumed by race in this way, whether you're the NAACP, a Man of the Cloth, or even the President of the United States. The first, self-proclaimed Post-Racial President has been anything but, and his rise has not stopped the Great American Debate on Race -- in fact, it has made it arguably worse. His whole sordid tale is bathed in the light of race; Race has enabled his meteoric rise, and it's about to play a major part in his downfall.
Obama's rise is largely the result of a democratic party which decided, that within it's pantheon of perennial victims, that Race still Trumps Gender, and although I do hate to day this, given the reality of what a desperate American electorate has wrought, Hillary Clinton was, literally, the lesser of three evils, in retrospect, and probably would have been President of the United States if Libtards didn't cream over the prospect of a (half-) black man in the White House. Because it was all, you know, historical (more like hysterical)...and stuff.
We've seen Obama leap to the defense of people of color against the police on many occasions, ranging from the Professor Gates kerfuffle, to the pre-emptive screams of "Racial Profiling!" vis-a-vis an immigration law that hasn't even gone into effect yet, showing a predilection to believe that American society -- and especially it's police forces -- is fundamentally unfair, and that The Law is yet another tool of The Man to oppress the huddled masses.
He's surrounded himself with people who live, breathe, eat, and shit race 24/7/365, and you know it's true, Eric Holder. Americans are supposed to be "cowards" on the subject of race, therefore the Justice Department should take great pains not to prosecute black criminals when the plaintiffs are white. If Obama doesn't actively support Holder in this stupidity, then his silence on the subject speaks louder than any speech.
Hell, the Obama Administration is so race-conscious that it even allows race to play a part in it's economic decisions, which is probably another reason why this Recovery Summer is little more than a hollow slogan; you would expect responsible leadership, based upon sound economic principles, and instead we get another example of the sort of "equality" most Leftards have in store for us.
Now, as to the players in this little morality tale.
Say what you will about how unequivocally stupid this whole Breitbart Affair is. In my opinion, when I saw the "gotcha" tape on FoxNews the other night, it was obvious to me that it had been edited (the giveaway: Sherrod is basically cut off in mid-sentence after the "damning" quote has been uttered), and that for a guy who claims to do it better than the "Mainstream Media", it appears that Breitbart got sloppy, if only because the edited speech dovetailed nicely with his own thought process. Everyone makes mistakes, and all that, but just look at what the results of his were. If that's what "journalism" is supposed to be, and achieve, then I must have missed the memo.
The after-the-fact excuse that Sherrod was not the point of the tape, but that the reaction to what she said was, well, that's just too lame to believe. The secondary defense, made by Ann Coulter last night, that Breitbart was "set up" is also weak; Breitbart got rolled because Breitbart wanted to be roiled. I have no sympathy for him, and he's yet another "Real" conservative hero (because of the ACORN scandal) who was the toast of the town yesterday, and tomorrow he'll be the solitary source that deranged One-percenters will quote incessantly on FreeRepublic.
I'm sorry to see that happen,because I happen to like Big Government, but it would be well-deserved. I hope Breitbart can work harder and get his credibility back.
The NAACP didn't exactly cover itself in glory, either. In a stunning display of almost Three-Stooges like incompetence, the NAACP not only threw one of it's own under the bus when it had evidence to defend her, it was so busy trying to defend itself against charges of racism in it's self-inflicted you''re-more-racist-than-us pissing match with the Tea Party, that it didn't even bother to think about defending Sherrod.
Here, the NAACP's obsession with race has come back to haunt it, too. What sort of credibility do you give that organization in the wake of this scandal, as if it that credibility wasn't already at an all-time low? The organization lives and dies by the premise that it can openly practice all the overt racism it wants to, while accusing it's enemies of being the worst sort of human beings. That strategy has served it well for four decades now, so there was no reason to change it, except that now every activity in the world takes place before a camera. And sensitive to the idea that freely flinging unfounded accusations of racism should be it's own special preserve, the NAACP moved with indecent haste to protect it's turf by rushing to take the"moral high-ground", and expelling what appeared to be a racist in it's midst, as a public-relations move.
Except that they didn't toss out a racist, and any claim to higher morality is now laughable. The NAACP did great harm to a black woman, and went out of it's way to do so, even though it had evidence of her innocence.
The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is curiously silent. There is a woman publicly wronged, fired by the Department of Agriculture in what was obviously a politically-motivated bit of kabuki theatre, who turns out to be a victim. She tells the story of "political pressure from above" which can only mean someone in the White House is responsible for her firing, and the best Obama can manage to do is to send Tom Vilsack out to fall on his penknife, and Robert Gibbs out to offer a half-assed apology and not answer any questions about what the White House's involvement in the whole sordid affair was.
As of this writing, Barack Obama has not called Sherrod, so far as I know,to offer his personal apology. I rather doubt he ever will. I think he's frightened of the prospect of having to honestly admit mistakes. It's been obvious since Day One: Barack Obama never makes mistakes, Barack Obama never fucks up, Barack Obama never apologizes. Everything is always someone else's fault, every plan would have worked flawlessly if it wasn't for someone else putting up resistance (Republicans, the Rich, Wall Street, George Bush, those who won't "sacrifice", Bitter Gun Clingers, Racists, and so forth). Barack Obama doesn't need to apologize for shit...except for America being mean to Muslim terrorists.
Obama is trapped in the cage of race, too. It consumes his waking thoughts -- hell, it's been the basis for his entire career -- it's at the foundation of all his policies; Health Care, Mortgage Defaults, Cash-for-Clunkers, Automotive Industry takeovers, Financial Reform, Comprehensive Immigration Reform. These were all...ahem...colored by his belief that America needed to be "fundamentally transformed" by a system wherein the wealth would be "spread around". This is simply a form of reverse discrimination dressed up in the golden cloth of "Social Justice", which is a phrase that is supposed to evoke a vision of a higher, nobler purpose, but which just makes me want to vomit.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Two Birds, One Stone...For Mother Earth...
I had an idea yesterday. That by itself would be news, but this one was so exquisitely clever, that I had to take the time to fully think-through the implications before committing it to....errm...electronic paper.
Two of the biggest problems in modern America are the runaway Welfare State, and a heaving mass of over-emotional, regressively-adolescent, tushy-clenched, panty-bunched, thumbsuckers who clamor for the American People and Government to live up to their "responsibilities" to help save Gaia. Now,I generally don't go in for this environMENTAL nonsense, because the people who espouse it are typically dumber and thicker than a sack of dog shit passed through a constipated daschund, but I figured that if I could find a way to make some of them just a little bit happier, they wouldn't carry on like a bunch of menstrual wolverines, and my ears would get a rest.
The Earth-firsters are all hot to limit the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. They are also mightily upset with mankind's mass-consumption habits, and the effects and demands these make upon Nature. The Greenie Meanies also have a wild hair up their collective asses about a concept they call "sustainability" -- a theory which totally contradicts Human Nature, but if I have this right, postulates that Man can live a "balanced" life in which he does not take from Nature more than he needs to survive (to more extreme advocates, this means the very barest of necessities, soap not being on this list of vitals for many, unfortunately), while doing his level best to ensure that Nature is tended so as to ensure "renewability" (i.e. eat an apple, plant an apple tree).
The Watermelons (Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside) are also pretty ticked off at governments which subsidize/promote certain industries which are known to be harmful to the environment; Big Oil, Detroit, the Mining Industry, Big Agriculture, and Big Pharma, and either demand that governments regulate these industries right out of existence, or tax the shit out of them to fund "Green Initiatives", which usually concern Community Gardens, lots of Macrame and Pot, and at least one Cherokee Drum Circle.
But, usually going Green in any endeavor is typically so expensive (because Green efforts are usually inefficient and based upon the primacy of physical labor over the messy by-products of mechanization), that governments that aren't actually Socialist (like Spain), and which aren't part-and-parcel of the environMENTAList movement (a plan for world Socialism without the need for violent revolution) themselves, typically split the difference; practicing what appears to be laissez-faire capitalism with a strong streak of authoritarian taxation and regulation running through it. The best of both worlds: governments can collect taxes on productive enterprises, and still burnish their environMENTAL street cred by claiming to have "tough" regulations on The X Industry, because a) capitalism still works better than Socialism any day of the week, and b) it's cheaper to pay lip service to Watermelons than to actually Go Green.
So, how to reconcile all these seemingly-contradictory requirements in a smooth-running program that both saves the American taxpayer absolute tons of cash, while doing our part to preserve the Natural world? Easy.
I call it "Welfare Reform for Mother Earth". How can anyone in his right mind object to something that incorporates both the ultra-conservative and ultra-libtard in the same phrase?
Here's how it works:
There are tens of millions of people in the United States right now who have never worked a day in their lives, and who have never picked up anything heavier than their Food Stamp booklet, or Rent Subsidy check, -- except perhaps a crackpipe, or an illegal Glock with the serial numbers filed off. These people do no productive work at all; in fact, they are paid not to. This makes them both a net negative to both the taxpayer, and The Planet. It's expensive to give money to people who don't even grow their own food, or weave baskets, and just as expensive to support the massive army of State and Federal Employees who exist solely to provide these goldbricks with "benefits".That's even before we consider the economic costs of increased police protection, failings schools, substance abuse programs, AIDS, jails, public housing, chronic unemployment, and so forth.
And if that weren't bad enough, they're all breathing, farting and belching, releasing deadly Carbon Dioxide, Methane and other Greenhouse Gasses into the atmosphere, and not buying any carbon credits to offset any of it. Some of the products "The Poor" spend their apportioned money upon do come from renewable sources (Marijuana plants, Opium poppies, Coca leaf, the various grains that make up Malt Liquor), they are also as likely to spend as much, or more, of that cash in imitation of the crass consumerism of their economic betters -- cell phones, cable television, KFC, Ripple, hollowpoint bullets, Grillz, and oversized-gold-plated rims -- not to mention that many of these people fall into the category of "Morbidly Obese", which means that they are probably ingesting more calories in one day than an African or Asian peasant eats in a month, and have children at Malthusian levels that one day will bring us all to the brink of starvation.
So,I suggest that in order to save the world, Welfare should be made Illegal everywhere in America, and these payments cease immediately. That way, we could stop giving money away to social reprobates, and fire entire regiments of government employees who make more and do even less than those they "serve". Why, we'll save so much money that we can even afford to be a bit generous, and give some of that new-found cash to the EnvironMENTALists themselves, so that they can fund all sorts of touchy-feely-makes-ya-feel-good-but-is-ultimately-useless programs to "raise awareness", and advocate on behalf of special light bulbs, promote vegetarianism, and maybe even pay for their beloved Community Gardens, or even a windmill or two someplace.
"But Matt", you may ask, "what about all those people you now threw off the Welfare rolls and the Government payroll; what are they supposed to?" I thought that one through!
Unfortunately, after a while, some of them are going to die. This is unavoidable, but we can console ourselves that -- by their deaths -- they are no longer polluting either the Planet, nor Civil Society. Some will actually decide right then and there to turn their lives around, and give up the Welfare Gangsta lifestyle and go legit. Of course, most of those will probably find jobs at the lowest end of the economic scale,having no skills or education, but that's not a problem, either; the "Sustainable" lifestyle more or less entails making do with the barest necessities as your duty to Mother Gaia. Don't think of yourself as "working poor"; think of yourself more as "Good Global Citizen".
Of course those who don't have the courtesy to die, or who decide not to become Good Global Citizens will still be around -- if only because they are able to extort or steal enough to keep themselves alive -- and unrepentant, if not down-right dangerous. The solution to this is one which any Green would immediately recognize as the Holy Grail, as it were, of the EnvironMENTAL movement.
We will set up special National Parks given completely over to rampant, untended Nature in all it's splendor and glory. As we arrest and otherwise detain those who've managed to stay in their state of ill favor, they will be tagged with microchips (so that we can track them and shoot them if they try to escape, with lead-free bullets, of course -- lead poisons streams and fish! ). They will be released into these parks with nothing but their own wits, where they will have to re-learn all the survival skills our ancient ancestors once possessed, but which we have forgotten. Once released into the Wild, they can be studied in great detail by EnvironMENTALists who will one day want to emulate these lucky few, and return to Nature themselves, and who will need to learn all they can from the inmates successes and failures in experimenting with strange foliage as toilet paper, or in discovering which tree beetles, toads, and small lizards are safe to eat.
A true Garden of Eden, in the best Noble Savage tradition. I wonder what Al Gore would think of my ideas? He got a Nobel Prize, you know?
If only....
Two of the biggest problems in modern America are the runaway Welfare State, and a heaving mass of over-emotional, regressively-adolescent, tushy-clenched, panty-bunched, thumbsuckers who clamor for the American People and Government to live up to their "responsibilities" to help save Gaia. Now,I generally don't go in for this environMENTAL nonsense, because the people who espouse it are typically dumber and thicker than a sack of dog shit passed through a constipated daschund, but I figured that if I could find a way to make some of them just a little bit happier, they wouldn't carry on like a bunch of menstrual wolverines, and my ears would get a rest.
The Earth-firsters are all hot to limit the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. They are also mightily upset with mankind's mass-consumption habits, and the effects and demands these make upon Nature. The Greenie Meanies also have a wild hair up their collective asses about a concept they call "sustainability" -- a theory which totally contradicts Human Nature, but if I have this right, postulates that Man can live a "balanced" life in which he does not take from Nature more than he needs to survive (to more extreme advocates, this means the very barest of necessities, soap not being on this list of vitals for many, unfortunately), while doing his level best to ensure that Nature is tended so as to ensure "renewability" (i.e. eat an apple, plant an apple tree).
The Watermelons (Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside) are also pretty ticked off at governments which subsidize/promote certain industries which are known to be harmful to the environment; Big Oil, Detroit, the Mining Industry, Big Agriculture, and Big Pharma, and either demand that governments regulate these industries right out of existence, or tax the shit out of them to fund "Green Initiatives", which usually concern Community Gardens, lots of Macrame and Pot, and at least one Cherokee Drum Circle.
But, usually going Green in any endeavor is typically so expensive (because Green efforts are usually inefficient and based upon the primacy of physical labor over the messy by-products of mechanization), that governments that aren't actually Socialist (like Spain), and which aren't part-and-parcel of the environMENTAList movement (a plan for world Socialism without the need for violent revolution) themselves, typically split the difference; practicing what appears to be laissez-faire capitalism with a strong streak of authoritarian taxation and regulation running through it. The best of both worlds: governments can collect taxes on productive enterprises, and still burnish their environMENTAL street cred by claiming to have "tough" regulations on The X Industry, because a) capitalism still works better than Socialism any day of the week, and b) it's cheaper to pay lip service to Watermelons than to actually Go Green.
So, how to reconcile all these seemingly-contradictory requirements in a smooth-running program that both saves the American taxpayer absolute tons of cash, while doing our part to preserve the Natural world? Easy.
I call it "Welfare Reform for Mother Earth". How can anyone in his right mind object to something that incorporates both the ultra-conservative and ultra-libtard in the same phrase?
Here's how it works:
There are tens of millions of people in the United States right now who have never worked a day in their lives, and who have never picked up anything heavier than their Food Stamp booklet, or Rent Subsidy check, -- except perhaps a crackpipe, or an illegal Glock with the serial numbers filed off. These people do no productive work at all; in fact, they are paid not to. This makes them both a net negative to both the taxpayer, and The Planet. It's expensive to give money to people who don't even grow their own food, or weave baskets, and just as expensive to support the massive army of State and Federal Employees who exist solely to provide these goldbricks with "benefits".That's even before we consider the economic costs of increased police protection, failings schools, substance abuse programs, AIDS, jails, public housing, chronic unemployment, and so forth.
And if that weren't bad enough, they're all breathing, farting and belching, releasing deadly Carbon Dioxide, Methane and other Greenhouse Gasses into the atmosphere, and not buying any carbon credits to offset any of it. Some of the products "The Poor" spend their apportioned money upon do come from renewable sources (Marijuana plants, Opium poppies, Coca leaf, the various grains that make up Malt Liquor), they are also as likely to spend as much, or more, of that cash in imitation of the crass consumerism of their economic betters -- cell phones, cable television, KFC, Ripple, hollowpoint bullets, Grillz, and oversized-gold-plated rims -- not to mention that many of these people fall into the category of "Morbidly Obese", which means that they are probably ingesting more calories in one day than an African or Asian peasant eats in a month, and have children at Malthusian levels that one day will bring us all to the brink of starvation.
So,I suggest that in order to save the world, Welfare should be made Illegal everywhere in America, and these payments cease immediately. That way, we could stop giving money away to social reprobates, and fire entire regiments of government employees who make more and do even less than those they "serve". Why, we'll save so much money that we can even afford to be a bit generous, and give some of that new-found cash to the EnvironMENTALists themselves, so that they can fund all sorts of touchy-feely-makes-ya-feel-good-but-is-ultimately-useless programs to "raise awareness", and advocate on behalf of special light bulbs, promote vegetarianism, and maybe even pay for their beloved Community Gardens, or even a windmill or two someplace.
"But Matt", you may ask, "what about all those people you now threw off the Welfare rolls and the Government payroll; what are they supposed to?" I thought that one through!
Unfortunately, after a while, some of them are going to die. This is unavoidable, but we can console ourselves that -- by their deaths -- they are no longer polluting either the Planet, nor Civil Society. Some will actually decide right then and there to turn their lives around, and give up the Welfare Gangsta lifestyle and go legit. Of course, most of those will probably find jobs at the lowest end of the economic scale,having no skills or education, but that's not a problem, either; the "Sustainable" lifestyle more or less entails making do with the barest necessities as your duty to Mother Gaia. Don't think of yourself as "working poor"; think of yourself more as "Good Global Citizen".
Of course those who don't have the courtesy to die, or who decide not to become Good Global Citizens will still be around -- if only because they are able to extort or steal enough to keep themselves alive -- and unrepentant, if not down-right dangerous. The solution to this is one which any Green would immediately recognize as the Holy Grail, as it were, of the EnvironMENTAL movement.
We will set up special National Parks given completely over to rampant, untended Nature in all it's splendor and glory. As we arrest and otherwise detain those who've managed to stay in their state of ill favor, they will be tagged with microchips (so that we can track them and shoot them if they try to escape, with lead-free bullets, of course -- lead poisons streams and fish! ). They will be released into these parks with nothing but their own wits, where they will have to re-learn all the survival skills our ancient ancestors once possessed, but which we have forgotten. Once released into the Wild, they can be studied in great detail by EnvironMENTALists who will one day want to emulate these lucky few, and return to Nature themselves, and who will need to learn all they can from the inmates successes and failures in experimenting with strange foliage as toilet paper, or in discovering which tree beetles, toads, and small lizards are safe to eat.
A true Garden of Eden, in the best Noble Savage tradition. I wonder what Al Gore would think of my ideas? He got a Nobel Prize, you know?
If only....
I Get The Nicest Hate Mail...
...it's usually addressed "Dear Fascist, Homophobe, Right-wing, Racist, Co*cksucker", and gets considerably more vile from there. The typical e-mail usually begins by questioning my sanity (Duh! You did take note of just what this blog is called, didn't you?), and then continues with a litany of pap psychological diagnoses on everything from my toilet training, to my latent homosexual desires. Why, I never knew there were so many budding Freud's out there!
I don't mind it one bit. I'm beyond the point of actually giving a shit what other people think about me. I can't please everyone, so I don't even try to. What you see is what you get; deal with it. If you can show me where I'm wrong, then do so. Until then, I'm right, and I can say whatever I want to. So there.
The funniest part of the entire exercise is that people who seem to consider themselves my intellectual and moral superiors are completely unaware that most decent e-mail programs come with built-in spelling and grammar checkers. It's also a good laugh when someone begins a paragraph of complete and utter Multi-culti drivel with "I learned in my sociology class..."
If you take Sociology, hell, if you are a Sociologist, you're probably a panty-bunched, bed-wetting pussy who's really only interested in finding out why all the other children in school beat the snot out of you daily and took your lunch money. The same way most psychiatrists really only took psychology to find out what was wrong with themselves.
Anywho, it seems that something I wrote over the weekend stung a particular group of mouth-breathing Libtards especially hard; it was about a Washington Post OpEd writer suggesting that there should be a Black Tea Party.
I got just about what you'd expect to get if you had written something like that; most objected to the condescending tone, and a few were really animated about my use of certain"racially-charged" words, like "slave". I do warn people who come here that what you're about to read here will probably offend most decent people, and that I make no apologies for it, at all. I don't have to: this is America. You don't have to agree with me (Hell, I expect most people not to!), and you don't have to like it, but I have every right to say it.
But the biggest rhetorical question I got was "Who do you think you are, telling Black People they can't have their own Tea Party if they want one?" And that's where they lose me.
Where did I say that Blacks can't have their own Tea Party (as if I had that power? If I did, I wouldn't be sitting here writing a blog, I can tell you!)? I merely suggested (in "racially insensitive" language, mind you) that perhaps instead of forming another Tea Party, that more Blacks perhaps give the present one a try, first. That the idea, as postulated in the OpEd, was perhaps...ahem...colored...by the propaganda of the democratic party and the NAACP, in which the attempt is made to paint the Tea Party as a bunch of sheet-wearin' rednecks all set for a necktie party. That charge is patently false; there may be some people within the ranks who actually do think that way, and there are fringe groups that do think that way which have attached themselves to the Tea Party -- in much the same way that Anarchists will show up at Pro-Abortion rallies, or when The Nation of Islam shows up at Peace Protests; wherever there's a crowd that attracts attention, you often get the worst sort showing up who have absolutely no real connection to the thing. They're there for the Press.
The point I was making, perhaps badly (or maybe I should have used smaller, less "racially-charged and insensitive" words?) is that the second you put Black/Italian/Gay/Chinese in front of something, you have fundamentally altered it's nature and intent. The Tea Party, as I understand it (I am not a member) is basically a collection of citizens, from all walks of life and political persuasions, who have gathered under the same banner for a particular purpose which transcends race; they are pissed off about how the Federal Government works, or rather doesn't work. They are sick and tired of a class of politicians which has taken it upon themselves to be the arbiters of all that is good for us, and which has decided that we -- The People -- are of no account when it comes to fundamental questions of how we are to be governed, by whom, to what ultimate purpose, and how it is to be enacted and paid for.
It is a Political Class which has forgotten that their mandate comes from The People, and which increasingly operates under the impression that it can assume more and more power, at greater expense, and at exponentially decreasing levels of efficacy, as it sees fit, and for it's own purposes. In most regards, it's not even about dem and repub, liberal and conservative; those labels are no longer descriptive or operable, and don't even convey any sense of distinction between the two parties anymore. Republicans are just as likely to rule over an explosive growth in the power and scope of Government as Democrats are to abuse the police powers created in the wake of 9/11 -- and in both cases, the Rights of the The People who pay for the entire structure are steadily eroded -- despite pleas by the one for the cause of Freedom, and promises by the other that they exist to defend The Common Man.
In this regard, the Tea Party really stands for the Common Citizen in his fight against Leviathan. It seeks to bring this Beast low by changing the culture of Washington, D.C. by means of the vote and by bringing Public Opinion to bear. That should be a common cause between Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Gays, Feminists, Stockbrokers, Bus Drivers, Doctors, Construction Workers, Mothers, Fathers and your pet Airedale. We're all, literally, in the same boat; Washington, D.C., when the time comes, will forget such petty distinctions as race, sex, profession, sexual-orientation, and your favorite flavor of ice cream, and will finally make us all truly equal in the only way ion which only government can; equally miserable, equally impoverished, equally frustrated, equally oppressed.
The fight against this can only be won by good,well-meaning people coming together in defense of our common Citizenship and Heritage. The second you start peeling off sections, be they Black, Dog-Owners, or Fishermen, the whole thing comes to a screeching halt as the areas of common agreement become entangled with the individual pet peeves of specific groups. When that happens, you'll only get more Democrat and Republican parties in minature, atomized along various, esoteric lines and fighting with one another --and not their common enemy.
That is EXACTLY what both parties want to see happen to the Tea Party, because it sends the dissenters back into their ranks out of frustration, or disagreement upon a single (probably minor) issue, and then the current process can continue: the same class of abject assholes which has brought us to our current state of affairs stays in power, lessons unlearnt, even more determined to put the screws to us so as to prevent another manifestation of discontent from ever rearing it's ugly head again.
So,if you want to form a Black Tea Party, go right ahead -- you'll only be helping to retain the status-quo, and your lot in life will only be the worse for it. But if you can put aside Black-and-White for three seconds in favor of the label American Citizen, then maybe things can truly change for the better.
For everyone.
I don't mind it one bit. I'm beyond the point of actually giving a shit what other people think about me. I can't please everyone, so I don't even try to. What you see is what you get; deal with it. If you can show me where I'm wrong, then do so. Until then, I'm right, and I can say whatever I want to. So there.
The funniest part of the entire exercise is that people who seem to consider themselves my intellectual and moral superiors are completely unaware that most decent e-mail programs come with built-in spelling and grammar checkers. It's also a good laugh when someone begins a paragraph of complete and utter Multi-culti drivel with "I learned in my sociology class..."
If you take Sociology, hell, if you are a Sociologist, you're probably a panty-bunched, bed-wetting pussy who's really only interested in finding out why all the other children in school beat the snot out of you daily and took your lunch money. The same way most psychiatrists really only took psychology to find out what was wrong with themselves.
Anywho, it seems that something I wrote over the weekend stung a particular group of mouth-breathing Libtards especially hard; it was about a Washington Post OpEd writer suggesting that there should be a Black Tea Party.
I got just about what you'd expect to get if you had written something like that; most objected to the condescending tone, and a few were really animated about my use of certain"racially-charged" words, like "slave". I do warn people who come here that what you're about to read here will probably offend most decent people, and that I make no apologies for it, at all. I don't have to: this is America. You don't have to agree with me (Hell, I expect most people not to!), and you don't have to like it, but I have every right to say it.
But the biggest rhetorical question I got was "Who do you think you are, telling Black People they can't have their own Tea Party if they want one?" And that's where they lose me.
Where did I say that Blacks can't have their own Tea Party (as if I had that power? If I did, I wouldn't be sitting here writing a blog, I can tell you!)? I merely suggested (in "racially insensitive" language, mind you) that perhaps instead of forming another Tea Party, that more Blacks perhaps give the present one a try, first. That the idea, as postulated in the OpEd, was perhaps...ahem...colored...by the propaganda of the democratic party and the NAACP, in which the attempt is made to paint the Tea Party as a bunch of sheet-wearin' rednecks all set for a necktie party. That charge is patently false; there may be some people within the ranks who actually do think that way, and there are fringe groups that do think that way which have attached themselves to the Tea Party -- in much the same way that Anarchists will show up at Pro-Abortion rallies, or when The Nation of Islam shows up at Peace Protests; wherever there's a crowd that attracts attention, you often get the worst sort showing up who have absolutely no real connection to the thing. They're there for the Press.
The point I was making, perhaps badly (or maybe I should have used smaller, less "racially-charged and insensitive" words?) is that the second you put Black/Italian/Gay/Chinese in front of something, you have fundamentally altered it's nature and intent. The Tea Party, as I understand it (I am not a member) is basically a collection of citizens, from all walks of life and political persuasions, who have gathered under the same banner for a particular purpose which transcends race; they are pissed off about how the Federal Government works, or rather doesn't work. They are sick and tired of a class of politicians which has taken it upon themselves to be the arbiters of all that is good for us, and which has decided that we -- The People -- are of no account when it comes to fundamental questions of how we are to be governed, by whom, to what ultimate purpose, and how it is to be enacted and paid for.
It is a Political Class which has forgotten that their mandate comes from The People, and which increasingly operates under the impression that it can assume more and more power, at greater expense, and at exponentially decreasing levels of efficacy, as it sees fit, and for it's own purposes. In most regards, it's not even about dem and repub, liberal and conservative; those labels are no longer descriptive or operable, and don't even convey any sense of distinction between the two parties anymore. Republicans are just as likely to rule over an explosive growth in the power and scope of Government as Democrats are to abuse the police powers created in the wake of 9/11 -- and in both cases, the Rights of the The People who pay for the entire structure are steadily eroded -- despite pleas by the one for the cause of Freedom, and promises by the other that they exist to defend The Common Man.
In this regard, the Tea Party really stands for the Common Citizen in his fight against Leviathan. It seeks to bring this Beast low by changing the culture of Washington, D.C. by means of the vote and by bringing Public Opinion to bear. That should be a common cause between Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Gays, Feminists, Stockbrokers, Bus Drivers, Doctors, Construction Workers, Mothers, Fathers and your pet Airedale. We're all, literally, in the same boat; Washington, D.C., when the time comes, will forget such petty distinctions as race, sex, profession, sexual-orientation, and your favorite flavor of ice cream, and will finally make us all truly equal in the only way ion which only government can; equally miserable, equally impoverished, equally frustrated, equally oppressed.
The fight against this can only be won by good,well-meaning people coming together in defense of our common Citizenship and Heritage. The second you start peeling off sections, be they Black, Dog-Owners, or Fishermen, the whole thing comes to a screeching halt as the areas of common agreement become entangled with the individual pet peeves of specific groups. When that happens, you'll only get more Democrat and Republican parties in minature, atomized along various, esoteric lines and fighting with one another --and not their common enemy.
That is EXACTLY what both parties want to see happen to the Tea Party, because it sends the dissenters back into their ranks out of frustration, or disagreement upon a single (probably minor) issue, and then the current process can continue: the same class of abject assholes which has brought us to our current state of affairs stays in power, lessons unlearnt, even more determined to put the screws to us so as to prevent another manifestation of discontent from ever rearing it's ugly head again.
So,if you want to form a Black Tea Party, go right ahead -- you'll only be helping to retain the status-quo, and your lot in life will only be the worse for it. But if you can put aside Black-and-White for three seconds in favor of the label American Citizen, then maybe things can truly change for the better.
For everyone.
Of Joe Biden and Irish Setters...
RE: Joe's prognostication vis-a-vis mid-term elections.
Joe tells dimwit activists and the select morons at Nancy Pelosi's fundraiser not to worry; the democrats (small 'd' intentional) will handily beat the snot out of those republicans (small 'r' intentional) and keep control of the government, because President Obambi ain't done giving us all the full measure of ass rape he has planned for us, a good old-fashioned buggering, the likes of which Joe and his cronies believe, deep in their black little hearts, we're all just clamoring for.
When I read that (paraphrased) statement, I finally remembered just who...more like just what...Joe Biden reminds me of.
I remembered when I was a child, and my uncle owned an Irish Setter. She was a great dog; cute as hell, playful, affectionate, gentle, loyal. She was an over-grown puppy, always ready and eager to play, with this great, big, clumsy sort of gait. Plenty of energy, and at the first sign of children, the dog would jump up and down (usually falling to the floor at least once in the process), running around in circles, her tail wagging and her tongue hanging out of the side of her mouth, usually with a string of drool hanging off of it. She would then rush off across the house to get her favorite toy, which invariably, was a tennis ball.
This was the dog's way of saying "Hey, spend several hours tossing this piece of shit so that I can chase it, crash into all the furniture, bang my head a few times on the coffee table, and bring it back to ya, okay?"
And, of course, we did. We were kids, and the sight of a big, gawky dog pouncing left,right and sideways and running head-first into the Lay-Z-Boy was great fun. We'd laugh for hours. Eventually, however, the game would take a cruel turn -- we'd get bored after a bit, and children can often be cruel without meaning to be so -- and the rules of the game would change.
We'd start psyching the dog out, and only pretend to toss the tennis ball. We'd make the throwing motion, the dog would follow with eager eyes, but the ball would never be released and would instead be quickly buried in an armpit; a bit of sleight-of-hand that dog fell for every time. The dog would then dutifully run from pillar-to-post, sniffing here and there, sticking her nose under the sofa, digging behind the couch, running from room-to-room in search of a tennis ball that she was never going to find.
She was diligent. She was determined. She would search for that stupid ball for hours, single-minded. You could not fault her effort, nor her work ethic. She would literally spend the rest of the day searching high-and-low for that tennis ball until some other thought pushed it right out of her head, like feeding time, or the whimper in front of the door that meant "Take me out: I have to pop a squat".
Once, I played that trick on that dog, and I swear; she went to sleep that evening, and the first thing the following morning, she was still looking for that tennis ball. Eventually, keeping the tennis ball away from the dog lost it's lustre, too, and became needlessly mean, so we'd give in and let her have it again. And she'd lie right there in front of you , gnawing at the tennis ball as if it were a T-bone -- the Huntress Enjoying Her Kill --and we'd pet her and tell her she was a good girl ,and give her a nice belly-rub.
I loved that dog, and I miss her (Seana finally succumbed to old age one day. She just lay down one evening and never get up again).
Joe reminds me of Seana; you can't doubt his earnestness and eagerness to please. He's determined, even to the point of being preoccupied by his single thought, oblivious to anything other than finding that tennis ball (or, in this case, the cause of rallying the troops on behalf of an Administration that half the people in the country disapprove of strongly, while the other half is deeply disappointed in it).
Joe has the same qualities as Seana: in his own way, he's a lovable doofus, too, who sometimes just doesn't realize that his quest is Quixotic, and that we're all having a good laugh at his expense. The only difference, I'd say, is that Joe probably doesn't whimper at the front door when he has to take a dump. He doesn't look housebroken to me.
But you can almost picture him doing so.
Joe tells dimwit activists and the select morons at Nancy Pelosi's fundraiser not to worry; the democrats (small 'd' intentional) will handily beat the snot out of those republicans (small 'r' intentional) and keep control of the government, because President Obambi ain't done giving us all the full measure of ass rape he has planned for us, a good old-fashioned buggering, the likes of which Joe and his cronies believe, deep in their black little hearts, we're all just clamoring for.
When I read that (paraphrased) statement, I finally remembered just who...more like just what...Joe Biden reminds me of.
I remembered when I was a child, and my uncle owned an Irish Setter. She was a great dog; cute as hell, playful, affectionate, gentle, loyal. She was an over-grown puppy, always ready and eager to play, with this great, big, clumsy sort of gait. Plenty of energy, and at the first sign of children, the dog would jump up and down (usually falling to the floor at least once in the process), running around in circles, her tail wagging and her tongue hanging out of the side of her mouth, usually with a string of drool hanging off of it. She would then rush off across the house to get her favorite toy, which invariably, was a tennis ball.
This was the dog's way of saying "Hey, spend several hours tossing this piece of shit so that I can chase it, crash into all the furniture, bang my head a few times on the coffee table, and bring it back to ya, okay?"
And, of course, we did. We were kids, and the sight of a big, gawky dog pouncing left,right and sideways and running head-first into the Lay-Z-Boy was great fun. We'd laugh for hours. Eventually, however, the game would take a cruel turn -- we'd get bored after a bit, and children can often be cruel without meaning to be so -- and the rules of the game would change.
We'd start psyching the dog out, and only pretend to toss the tennis ball. We'd make the throwing motion, the dog would follow with eager eyes, but the ball would never be released and would instead be quickly buried in an armpit; a bit of sleight-of-hand that dog fell for every time. The dog would then dutifully run from pillar-to-post, sniffing here and there, sticking her nose under the sofa, digging behind the couch, running from room-to-room in search of a tennis ball that she was never going to find.
She was diligent. She was determined. She would search for that stupid ball for hours, single-minded. You could not fault her effort, nor her work ethic. She would literally spend the rest of the day searching high-and-low for that tennis ball until some other thought pushed it right out of her head, like feeding time, or the whimper in front of the door that meant "Take me out: I have to pop a squat".
Once, I played that trick on that dog, and I swear; she went to sleep that evening, and the first thing the following morning, she was still looking for that tennis ball. Eventually, keeping the tennis ball away from the dog lost it's lustre, too, and became needlessly mean, so we'd give in and let her have it again. And she'd lie right there in front of you , gnawing at the tennis ball as if it were a T-bone -- the Huntress Enjoying Her Kill --and we'd pet her and tell her she was a good girl ,and give her a nice belly-rub.
I loved that dog, and I miss her (Seana finally succumbed to old age one day. She just lay down one evening and never get up again).
Joe reminds me of Seana; you can't doubt his earnestness and eagerness to please. He's determined, even to the point of being preoccupied by his single thought, oblivious to anything other than finding that tennis ball (or, in this case, the cause of rallying the troops on behalf of an Administration that half the people in the country disapprove of strongly, while the other half is deeply disappointed in it).
Joe has the same qualities as Seana: in his own way, he's a lovable doofus, too, who sometimes just doesn't realize that his quest is Quixotic, and that we're all having a good laugh at his expense. The only difference, I'd say, is that Joe probably doesn't whimper at the front door when he has to take a dump. He doesn't look housebroken to me.
But you can almost picture him doing so.
Just Wonderin'...
For some reason, my Blogger AdSense stats are upgefuckt (that's a technical term which means "tits up"). if anyone else out there is encountering AdSense trouble, could you please let me know before make a douche out of myself and complain about something that's a known issue, or which Blogger announced before hand and that I might have missed?
Thanks much!
Thanks much!
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Be Careful What You Ask For, Part 4,257...
To those of you who got all hot and bothered by Scott Brown, and his "real conservative values", I'm wondering why it is you've all gone suddenly and mysteriously silent?
Oh right...because Brown's vote ultimately meant nothing vis-a-vis ObamaCare, and within three weeks of taking office, Brown suddenly revealed himself as a JAP (Just Another Politician). That took all the wind out of the We-Heart-Scott-Brown sails.
If there's one thing that can be said of "Real"Conservatives, it's that they're at their most gullible when a presented with a crisis, real or manufactured. In this regard,they suffer from the same mental illness as most Lefties do; they'll buy any crap at all if it's presented a s threat to the Republic, a repudiation of the Founders, or has a religious tint to it, in the same way that Libtards fall for outdated notions of "fairness" and"it's for the Children...". That illness causes them to react emotionally instead of with reason, and that's why they bought all the crap about Scott Brown's "Real Conservative Credentials" hook, line and sinker.
Brown's only real value to the Right was as a vote against ObamaCare, and the dems made him irrelevant to the process by finding an illegal means of getting that passed.
After being made irrelevant, Brown quickly conformed to herd behavior of the rest of the RINOS (Republicans In Name Only). He jumps on the democratic party band wagon when it suits his purposes as much as anyone else. The lesson of Scott Brown to the Republican Voter is this: The more desperate the perceived need, the easier it is for "Real" Conservatives to swallow anything that's presented to them the right way: the right buzzwords (tax cuts, small government, family values, et. al.), lots of family snapshots, make as many "Founding Father" references as you can, make sure you say "God" twice every paragraph. If Barack Obama was marketed to the American people as a Transformational Figure, then Scott Brown was pushed as no less than a Savior of the Republic, a would-be Brutus to Barack Obama's Caesar.
Historically, Brutus was the last to stab Caesar --in the back -- and only after a dozen or so other men had already mortally wounded the Dictator. His contribution was mostly symbolic, and ultimately, pointless.
The truth of the thing is that Scott Brown won because a) Ghengis Khan with a bad rash could have beaten Martha Coakley, b) After TARP, people would have gladly tarred-and-feathered any "establishment" republican who ran against Coakley, and perhaps even Coakley herself, and c) the Public Mood was (and still is) "Throw the Bums Out!". Short of massacring his own children with a chain saw on national television, Scott Brown was almost an automatic in that kind of climate (spare me the come-from-behind-victory bullshit. Coakley was such a bad candidate that she lost it more than he won it). These same factors were in play, to varying degrees, in the Governor's Races in New Jersey and Virginia, and it's easy for the GOP Upper-Crust to assume a landslide victory in November based on these three races.
But those who would do so might be making a major mistake; Brown didn't win because he's A conservative, he won because he beat a bad candidate. Christie was a definite improvement over Corzine, but then again, I could have run with the slogan"Ebola in Every Household!" and beat Corzine handily. Virginia's gubernatorial race took place in the direct aftermath of TARP, Porkulus, and ObamaCare -- just when public outrage was getting into full-swing. In those three cases, the Republican was simply the only obvious choice, and in two, simply the lesser of two evils.
That "Throw the Bums Out!" mentality applies equally to BOTH parties, provided there's a viable alternative, which is why the Tea Party, more than the GOP or Dimwits, will really decide who stays, who goes, and where the New Blood gets injected. The GOP had better not get cocky, because it has so little to get cocky about; where it wins, it will do so largely by default, where there is no competition or a weak democrat. Pol Pot would probably still beat half the R's on the ticket this fall in this electoral climate. But anyway, back to Mr. Brown...
Brown's plaintive cry of "Why do I always have to be the one to work with the democrats? Bipartisanship is a two-way street, you know?" tells you all you really need to know about Scott Brown and his brand of Conservatism and just where his head really is at -- Brown would rather conciliate and come to terms with the Lefty fringe, than see them removed -- and that's exactly what no one noticed when Brown was being pushed as the Indispensable Man, the American Values Posterboy.
Pragmatism is a good thing, but not when you're talking about the very continuance of democracy and freedoms, themselves. Bi-partisanship in this day and age is simply siding with the avowed enemies of all good men; the democratic (small 'd' intentional) party.
I may have issues with "Real" conservatives, but I still consider myself conservative where it counts on most issues. If Scott Brown-style Conservatism is something to be celebrated, then I must have missed the memo. If it's not in vogue anymore because of his subsequent actions, then do me a favor and stop rubber-stamping the Flavor-of-the-Week as the Next Reagan. It seriously sucks to listen to you whine and bitch after your Champion-of-the-Week suddenly shows his true colors and you realize that you were lied to.
Caveat Emptor, something about counting chickens, and all that. Of course, the worst of you will descend deeper into psychosis because you got played on Brown; every candidate this fall will be subjected to a series of litmus tests so severe that many a good person shan't survive the process. The object will be on finding the "Perfect" Conservatives, rather then "the Best Available Conservatives". It's predictable -- like when Muslims lose wars and blame it on a lack of piety -- "Real" Conservatives blame defeat on a lack of orthodoxy (a quality they despise in Libtards, by the way), and the response is the same; more fervor, less thought.
Yeah, that always works. I'd rather look the other way when a "Real" Conservative tells me that This Guy is"one of us", because I've learned that people who garner that imprimatur from out of nowhere only do so because they hold the"right" position on whatever happens to be the crisis-du-jour, and because the same Regal Personages said they were worthy of it: usually Anne Coulter. I love Anne dearly, but she was all hot for Scott Brown, and if I recall, Mike Pence was supposed to be the New Reagan like eight years ago, which tells you all you need to know about her record in picking winners.
Oh right...because Brown's vote ultimately meant nothing vis-a-vis ObamaCare, and within three weeks of taking office, Brown suddenly revealed himself as a JAP (Just Another Politician). That took all the wind out of the We-Heart-Scott-Brown sails.
If there's one thing that can be said of "Real"Conservatives, it's that they're at their most gullible when a presented with a crisis, real or manufactured. In this regard,they suffer from the same mental illness as most Lefties do; they'll buy any crap at all if it's presented a s threat to the Republic, a repudiation of the Founders, or has a religious tint to it, in the same way that Libtards fall for outdated notions of "fairness" and"it's for the Children...". That illness causes them to react emotionally instead of with reason, and that's why they bought all the crap about Scott Brown's "Real Conservative Credentials" hook, line and sinker.
Brown's only real value to the Right was as a vote against ObamaCare, and the dems made him irrelevant to the process by finding an illegal means of getting that passed.
After being made irrelevant, Brown quickly conformed to herd behavior of the rest of the RINOS (Republicans In Name Only). He jumps on the democratic party band wagon when it suits his purposes as much as anyone else. The lesson of Scott Brown to the Republican Voter is this: The more desperate the perceived need, the easier it is for "Real" Conservatives to swallow anything that's presented to them the right way: the right buzzwords (tax cuts, small government, family values, et. al.), lots of family snapshots, make as many "Founding Father" references as you can, make sure you say "God" twice every paragraph. If Barack Obama was marketed to the American people as a Transformational Figure, then Scott Brown was pushed as no less than a Savior of the Republic, a would-be Brutus to Barack Obama's Caesar.
Historically, Brutus was the last to stab Caesar --in the back -- and only after a dozen or so other men had already mortally wounded the Dictator. His contribution was mostly symbolic, and ultimately, pointless.
The truth of the thing is that Scott Brown won because a) Ghengis Khan with a bad rash could have beaten Martha Coakley, b) After TARP, people would have gladly tarred-and-feathered any "establishment" republican who ran against Coakley, and perhaps even Coakley herself, and c) the Public Mood was (and still is) "Throw the Bums Out!". Short of massacring his own children with a chain saw on national television, Scott Brown was almost an automatic in that kind of climate (spare me the come-from-behind-victory bullshit. Coakley was such a bad candidate that she lost it more than he won it). These same factors were in play, to varying degrees, in the Governor's Races in New Jersey and Virginia, and it's easy for the GOP Upper-Crust to assume a landslide victory in November based on these three races.
But those who would do so might be making a major mistake; Brown didn't win because he's A conservative, he won because he beat a bad candidate. Christie was a definite improvement over Corzine, but then again, I could have run with the slogan"Ebola in Every Household!" and beat Corzine handily. Virginia's gubernatorial race took place in the direct aftermath of TARP, Porkulus, and ObamaCare -- just when public outrage was getting into full-swing. In those three cases, the Republican was simply the only obvious choice, and in two, simply the lesser of two evils.
That "Throw the Bums Out!" mentality applies equally to BOTH parties, provided there's a viable alternative, which is why the Tea Party, more than the GOP or Dimwits, will really decide who stays, who goes, and where the New Blood gets injected. The GOP had better not get cocky, because it has so little to get cocky about; where it wins, it will do so largely by default, where there is no competition or a weak democrat. Pol Pot would probably still beat half the R's on the ticket this fall in this electoral climate. But anyway, back to Mr. Brown...
Brown's plaintive cry of "Why do I always have to be the one to work with the democrats? Bipartisanship is a two-way street, you know?" tells you all you really need to know about Scott Brown and his brand of Conservatism and just where his head really is at -- Brown would rather conciliate and come to terms with the Lefty fringe, than see them removed -- and that's exactly what no one noticed when Brown was being pushed as the Indispensable Man, the American Values Posterboy.
Pragmatism is a good thing, but not when you're talking about the very continuance of democracy and freedoms, themselves. Bi-partisanship in this day and age is simply siding with the avowed enemies of all good men; the democratic (small 'd' intentional) party.
I may have issues with "Real" conservatives, but I still consider myself conservative where it counts on most issues. If Scott Brown-style Conservatism is something to be celebrated, then I must have missed the memo. If it's not in vogue anymore because of his subsequent actions, then do me a favor and stop rubber-stamping the Flavor-of-the-Week as the Next Reagan. It seriously sucks to listen to you whine and bitch after your Champion-of-the-Week suddenly shows his true colors and you realize that you were lied to.
Caveat Emptor, something about counting chickens, and all that. Of course, the worst of you will descend deeper into psychosis because you got played on Brown; every candidate this fall will be subjected to a series of litmus tests so severe that many a good person shan't survive the process. The object will be on finding the "Perfect" Conservatives, rather then "the Best Available Conservatives". It's predictable -- like when Muslims lose wars and blame it on a lack of piety -- "Real" Conservatives blame defeat on a lack of orthodoxy (a quality they despise in Libtards, by the way), and the response is the same; more fervor, less thought.
Yeah, that always works. I'd rather look the other way when a "Real" Conservative tells me that This Guy is"one of us", because I've learned that people who garner that imprimatur from out of nowhere only do so because they hold the"right" position on whatever happens to be the crisis-du-jour, and because the same Regal Personages said they were worthy of it: usually Anne Coulter. I love Anne dearly, but she was all hot for Scott Brown, and if I recall, Mike Pence was supposed to be the New Reagan like eight years ago, which tells you all you need to know about her record in picking winners.
Separate But Equal Tea Parties?
Sophia Nelson in the Washington Post proposes the creation of a Black Tea Party. She claims to support the Tea Party's objectives, but dislikes the "racist" element within the Tea Party.
Firstly, there is no proof of endemic racism within the Tea Party itself; there are, no doubt, individuals who attach themselves to the movement who are racist, but the Tea Party does it's best to police them, and the accusations of racism that Ms. Nelson makes in this opinion piece are largely simply recycled democratic party talking points -- without a shred of evidence to make them credible.
Sophia then ruminates upon the viability of a Black Tea Party, using as a foundation for this thought the conversation at a dinner party (one apparently attended by only Black People). While all engaged seem to come to differing levels of consensus about the righteousness of the Tea Party Cause, they do so in a rather peculiar way which seems to imply that Blacks should join A Tea Party because it would benefit them more than the current devotion to the Democratic Party, BUT they should take pains not to be seen as being part of this particular Tea Party.
In this conversation, we find the Black Lawyer who's concern is Unemployed Black Folks, rather than the more generic Unemployed People, who damns the traditional Black Advocacy groups for their ineffectiveness and political posturing (he's right, but yawn). We also catch a glimpse of the Black Congressional Aide, who makes the obvious point that people are "hurting in this economy" but who still can't stop herself from categorizing the Hurt as"Blacks" Whites" and "Hispanics". Then follows the lulu of them all, when another conversant chimes in that there should be a "Rainbow Coalition Tea Party", evoking visions of Jesse Jackson, racial hucksterism, and extortion.
Rule of thumb: if you ever want to be part of an efficient, effective and beneficent organization, do not Take Jesse Jackson's organization as your blueprint. Rainbow/PUSH does little except keep Jesse rich and relevant, and the crumbs he distributes are just enough keep everyone else in line. If Jesse had a vowel at the end of his surname, there would be a Federal Prosecutor with a RICO indictment in hand on his doorstep, weekly.
Reading this, you get the general impression that even when it comes to finding a supposed "non-racial" solution to the problems of overreaching government, high taxation, economic dislocation, the author (and her friends) still think in terms of Race first, which is antithetical to the Tea Party's approach which is to consider the concept of American Citizen Before All . The idea of the racially-neutral nature of Tea Party quite literally does not register with her, except as a passing statistic thrown out as filler, no doubt. I think Ms. Nelson comes from a generation in which"diversity" is a good thing -- so long as Whites are excluded. If the Tea Party is a good idea, then join the Tea Party, Sophia; You don't need to start a new one because it's not "Black" enough.
Your argument for not jumping in with both feet is basically "I would join it, except there's some yucky white people in it". Well, the Tea Party does it's best to rid itself of those elements, so why wouldn't you want to help them do it, and help improve an organization which you say increasing shares your own views?
You're no better than the NAACP that you criticize, preferring to rail against that which is difficult instead of making an effort to change or improve it. You might enjoy some success and score a blow for true equality -- if you applied your energy to ensuring the Tea Party was Citizen-oriented and not Race-oriented, and that the worst elements were eliminated from it.
But that would leave you open to charges of being a Race Traitor, Uncle Tom, or not"Authentically Black" -- whatever the fuck that means -- and this, above all is what you wish to avoid; you want all the benefits of Conservatism without being branded a Conservative by your fellow Blacks who haven't realized the 1960's are over, and haven't discovered that the Welfare State is a dinosaur we can no longer afford to feed. The only way to soften the blow then, is to be a BLACK Tea Party, with nary a white face in sight, so that no one can accuse you of being a tool of the Republican Party, brainwashed, bribed, or otherwise tainted by association with White Conservatives when you...ahem...join the Dark Side.
Talk about cowardice!
Unless, of course, there's another motive altogether, and you see yourself as a potential leader of a nascent Black Tea Party and are just floating a trial balloon toward this end? What better way to garner laurels and get that coveted face time on the Sunday Talk Shows, the better to flog that book of yours, eh? The Black Sarah Palin? Serious people actually do things, Ms. Nelson, unserious ones write Dear-Diary-Entries-in-a-16-year-old-motif on serious subjects, adding only a slight and irrelevant detail (in this case, race) for the Washington Post, and call themselves "professional writers".
Do you wish to do what is right --not only for yourself, but for Black Folks, in general -- or do you want to be a slave (yes, I said it) to old-fashioned notions of solidarity that are increasingly archaic, and even unhealthy, and which cause you to even view questions of self-interest and personal freedom through the prism of race? If you can't answer that brutally frank question to your own satisfaction, then wasting newsprint broadcasting your contrived, internalized, junior-high-school-level-semi-drama is nothing less than teenaged narcissism disguised as journalism.
Your choice may be distasteful for a variety of personal reasons, Ms.Nelson, but it's not a terribly hard one to make.
Firstly, there is no proof of endemic racism within the Tea Party itself; there are, no doubt, individuals who attach themselves to the movement who are racist, but the Tea Party does it's best to police them, and the accusations of racism that Ms. Nelson makes in this opinion piece are largely simply recycled democratic party talking points -- without a shred of evidence to make them credible.
Sophia then ruminates upon the viability of a Black Tea Party, using as a foundation for this thought the conversation at a dinner party (one apparently attended by only Black People). While all engaged seem to come to differing levels of consensus about the righteousness of the Tea Party Cause, they do so in a rather peculiar way which seems to imply that Blacks should join A Tea Party because it would benefit them more than the current devotion to the Democratic Party, BUT they should take pains not to be seen as being part of this particular Tea Party.
In this conversation, we find the Black Lawyer who's concern is Unemployed Black Folks, rather than the more generic Unemployed People, who damns the traditional Black Advocacy groups for their ineffectiveness and political posturing (he's right, but yawn). We also catch a glimpse of the Black Congressional Aide, who makes the obvious point that people are "hurting in this economy" but who still can't stop herself from categorizing the Hurt as"Blacks" Whites" and "Hispanics". Then follows the lulu of them all, when another conversant chimes in that there should be a "Rainbow Coalition Tea Party", evoking visions of Jesse Jackson, racial hucksterism, and extortion.
Rule of thumb: if you ever want to be part of an efficient, effective and beneficent organization, do not Take Jesse Jackson's organization as your blueprint. Rainbow/PUSH does little except keep Jesse rich and relevant, and the crumbs he distributes are just enough keep everyone else in line. If Jesse had a vowel at the end of his surname, there would be a Federal Prosecutor with a RICO indictment in hand on his doorstep, weekly.
Reading this, you get the general impression that even when it comes to finding a supposed "non-racial" solution to the problems of overreaching government, high taxation, economic dislocation, the author (and her friends) still think in terms of Race first, which is antithetical to the Tea Party's approach which is to consider the concept of American Citizen Before All . The idea of the racially-neutral nature of Tea Party quite literally does not register with her, except as a passing statistic thrown out as filler, no doubt. I think Ms. Nelson comes from a generation in which"diversity" is a good thing -- so long as Whites are excluded. If the Tea Party is a good idea, then join the Tea Party, Sophia; You don't need to start a new one because it's not "Black" enough.
Your argument for not jumping in with both feet is basically "I would join it, except there's some yucky white people in it". Well, the Tea Party does it's best to rid itself of those elements, so why wouldn't you want to help them do it, and help improve an organization which you say increasing shares your own views?
You're no better than the NAACP that you criticize, preferring to rail against that which is difficult instead of making an effort to change or improve it. You might enjoy some success and score a blow for true equality -- if you applied your energy to ensuring the Tea Party was Citizen-oriented and not Race-oriented, and that the worst elements were eliminated from it.
But that would leave you open to charges of being a Race Traitor, Uncle Tom, or not"Authentically Black" -- whatever the fuck that means -- and this, above all is what you wish to avoid; you want all the benefits of Conservatism without being branded a Conservative by your fellow Blacks who haven't realized the 1960's are over, and haven't discovered that the Welfare State is a dinosaur we can no longer afford to feed. The only way to soften the blow then, is to be a BLACK Tea Party, with nary a white face in sight, so that no one can accuse you of being a tool of the Republican Party, brainwashed, bribed, or otherwise tainted by association with White Conservatives when you...ahem...join the Dark Side.
Talk about cowardice!
Unless, of course, there's another motive altogether, and you see yourself as a potential leader of a nascent Black Tea Party and are just floating a trial balloon toward this end? What better way to garner laurels and get that coveted face time on the Sunday Talk Shows, the better to flog that book of yours, eh? The Black Sarah Palin? Serious people actually do things, Ms. Nelson, unserious ones write Dear-Diary-Entries-in-a-16-year-old-motif on serious subjects, adding only a slight and irrelevant detail (in this case, race) for the Washington Post, and call themselves "professional writers".
Do you wish to do what is right --not only for yourself, but for Black Folks, in general -- or do you want to be a slave (yes, I said it) to old-fashioned notions of solidarity that are increasingly archaic, and even unhealthy, and which cause you to even view questions of self-interest and personal freedom through the prism of race? If you can't answer that brutally frank question to your own satisfaction, then wasting newsprint broadcasting your contrived, internalized, junior-high-school-level-semi-drama is nothing less than teenaged narcissism disguised as journalism.
Your choice may be distasteful for a variety of personal reasons, Ms.Nelson, but it's not a terribly hard one to make.
America's Ruling Class
If you read nothing else this weekend, you should read this in the American Spectator about America's Ruling Class.
It's long,and in places a bit thick, but it's pretty accurate and enlightening, and worth the effort required to get through it. I promise!
It's long,and in places a bit thick, but it's pretty accurate and enlightening, and worth the effort required to get through it. I promise!
Friday, July 16, 2010
You Can't Make This Up...
To keep a 16-year-old girl from being sexually promiscuous, a male relative had oral sex with her.
You have to be in a pretty brazen and unique category of Asshole to try this one out on the cops. I do soooo hope this moron gets himself a real nice boyfriend in prison. By the way, was I the only one who noticed the Muslim first name on the perp, and immediately made the connection between pious hypocrisy and pedophilia?
But we don't only have naughty uncles here on this verdant isle, no, no,no! We have our own version of the sexy female teacher/predator...except that this one isn't so sexy, and has somehow only managed to generate a controversy that people are still talking about 5 years after the fact.
You'll be happy to know that the Board of Education -- that most August and Sober body --has just decided that it's actions in suspending this teacher, rather than firing her, were correct. Nevermind the fact that getting a teacher fired, regardless of offense, in this City is next to impossible. I suppose we should be grateful the woman just decided to quit, eventually.
But, the sordid saga doesn't end there! Now we learn that this teacher has dropped her budding pedophilia -- for a career as a professional gambler -- and she has garnered a great deal of public sympathy. I'm not sure why, but this five-year-old tale has resurfaced in the papers here for nearly a week, now. It's pathetic.
You have to be in a pretty brazen and unique category of Asshole to try this one out on the cops. I do soooo hope this moron gets himself a real nice boyfriend in prison. By the way, was I the only one who noticed the Muslim first name on the perp, and immediately made the connection between pious hypocrisy and pedophilia?
But we don't only have naughty uncles here on this verdant isle, no, no,no! We have our own version of the sexy female teacher/predator...except that this one isn't so sexy, and has somehow only managed to generate a controversy that people are still talking about 5 years after the fact.
You'll be happy to know that the Board of Education -- that most August and Sober body --has just decided that it's actions in suspending this teacher, rather than firing her, were correct. Nevermind the fact that getting a teacher fired, regardless of offense, in this City is next to impossible. I suppose we should be grateful the woman just decided to quit, eventually.
But, the sordid saga doesn't end there! Now we learn that this teacher has dropped her budding pedophilia -- for a career as a professional gambler -- and she has garnered a great deal of public sympathy. I'm not sure why, but this five-year-old tale has resurfaced in the papers here for nearly a week, now. It's pathetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)