An excellent blog post from Steve Sailer about why it is Liberals can never win an argument on facts, reason, and logic, and instead resort to tears and name calling.
Mostly, it's because they're all little crybaby, bed-wetting, thumb-sucking momma's boys who wear purty pink panties that have a tendency to get bunched every five minutes. It's the legacy of feminism and multi-culturalism that the once- Male Virtues of Free Thinking and Intellectual Acuity have been downgraded, and our political discourse has suffered greatly for it.
It's the primary reason why we got saddled with Nancy Pelosis, Hillary Clintons, Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes, and Barack Obamas, because to tell the indisputable truth about anything is to hurt someone's feelings, and therefore, make any salient point null-and-void in the minds of the truly brain dead.
This helps explain a lot of what has been happening in American society and politics for the last 30 years, at least.
Enjoy.
Showing posts with label Whining Pansies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whining Pansies. Show all posts
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Monday, October 10, 2011
Straight from the Horse's Ass: Mormons are a 'Cult'...
I’ve said it before many times on these pages; it’s something that should be obvious to anyone with enough brain cells to breathe without mechanical assistance: Evangelical Christians are amongst the most obnoxious of douchebags in America today.
It’s also been said on these very pages that the biggest obstacle in Mitt Romney’s road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is his Mormon Faith. When the subjects of ‘Evangelical’ and ‘Mormon’ collide, the resulting stupidity is usually one-way, and serves as a warning that maybe we shouldn’t be too hasty about banning abortion on demand, just yet.
It’s also been said on these very pages that the biggest obstacle in Mitt Romney’s road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is his Mormon Faith. When the subjects of ‘Evangelical’ and ‘Mormon’ collide, the resulting stupidity is usually one-way, and serves as a warning that maybe we shouldn’t be too hasty about banning abortion on demand, just yet.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
115 Reasons Why Liberals Suck...
It's time to dust this one off again. I do it from time to time as the need becomes apparent, or because something occurs which reminds me of these time-honored maxims. Yesterday, that occurrence was the purchase of a gallon of milk.
So, there I am on the way home from the supermarket when I came upon the local gas station while waiting to cross the street. I took a look at the sign where the prices for a gallon of gas are posted, and saw that unleaded regular is going for $4.07 per gallon in this neck of the woods. Expensive, indeed. And then I thought about all the news coverage lately about those high prices, and about how all the rage these days is 'to go after' Big Oil for their 'price gouging' which 'hurts The Poor disproportionately', and then I remembered something:
I had just paid $4.59 for a gallon of fucking milk.
And then three seemingly random thoughts popped into my head:
A. Apparently it's quite acceptable to investigate and threaten Big Oil for charging exorbitant prices for what might be considered a luxury item, but why isn't anyone looking into Big Dairy for charging an outrageous price for a goddamned necessity?
B. What a curious convention that our 'Poor' have personal automobiles, and that they are, presumably, commuting to work with them. I figure if they're going to a job in a private automobile they ain't exactly poor in the same way as, say, someone living in Soweto, Mumbai, or Kabul would be considered Poor.
It would seem our notions of poverty have gone upscale; we must have the only poverty-stricken population on Planet Earth commuting to a job in a private automobile. I guess it would be an even-greater crime if they didn't have anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, and a six-speaker sound system?
C. Didn't President Frequent-Flyer-Miles pretty much promise us that under his steady hand gasoline prices would skyrocket? Isn't this, like, the only campaign pledge he's actually kept?
And then I figured out what was really going on; the hysteria over 'price gouging' and punishing Big Oil was, once again, just the Libtards at Work. And then that old maxim popped into my head about Liberals and skewed priorities. It's kabuki theatre intended to distract and mislead people so that they forget that the Libtards are presently presiding over a fucked up economy they vowed to fix, we're saddled with a $14 trillion deficit they refuse to address, ahem... labor under a persistent 9% unemployment rate, rammed a monster Healthcare plan they still can't explain or pay for down our throats, we're going on two years without a Federal Budget, and they have started a third war after complaining vociferously for nearly a decade about two others. Amongst other things.
So, I figured that, once again, it was time to dust off the old 'Reasons Why Liberals Suck' post, add a few new ones, and repost it because people always seem to forget the simple wisdom contained within it. Consider it a public service.
Without further ado, I present "115 Reasons Why Liberals Suck".
(Ed. Note: This list originated in 2003 with 50 reasons why Liberals Suck. It's grown as the years have passed).
1. Liberalism is a movement of the well-intentioned, but ill-informed, led by the well-informed and ill-intentioned.
2. At heart, a liberal is an eternal adolescent, forever in search of escape from conventional morality, consequences and responsibility.
3. Freedom from moral consequence can only be secured by a collectivist, totalitarian state.
4. The Liberal religion worships the twin gods of The Government and The Genitalia.
5. A Liberal believes that psychology is a hard science in the same way that physics and chemistry are hard sciences.
6. Freedom, to a Liberal, refers solely to the freedom of the genitalia.
7. All non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by the Liberal because they contain within them an element of personal responsibility, self-sacrifice, or abstention.
8. Collectivism seeks to eliminate the need for personal responsibility and moral consequence by shifting blame for failure from the individual to "society" or "the System".
9. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the enemy of the Liberal. Because they are clear in their elaboration of both the rights of the Individual and the Powers of Government, both documents must be subverted, re-interpreted, or ignored, as needed.
10. The Liberal hates the United States because it has been the premier guarantor and promoter of individual rights in the history of mankind.
11. All institutions – schools, environMENTAL organizations, Civil Rights Groups, Law courts, Markets, etc., serve no relevant purpose to a Liberal except when they can be made to promote the concept of the collective.
12. Abortion is necessary to guarantee genital freedom and to further erode the concept of personal responsibility, while eliminating future generations of less-desirable human beings.
14. The Liberal must create an atmosphere of perpetual crisis, fear, and envy in order to justify continued collectivist oppression.
15. Religion is the enemy of the Liberal since it promotes morality and responsibility and suggests an authority set above Government.
16. Despite decades of failure, the Liberal clings to his collectivist ideology because it is HIS religion.
17. Liberals seek to dominate any institution that can be used to undermine or eliminate parental rights, such as schools, child-abuse agencies, pediatric associations, etc. and which can be used to turn children into informants for the State against their own parents.
18. The Liberal seeks to sanction and jail those who dare to home school their children, or who have the balls and wherewithal to raise their children in an environment outside of Liberal control or influence.
19. Individual ownership of firearms is the greatest threat to collectivism and the greatest expression of individual rights, therefore, all Liberals despise guns.
20. All freedoms demand responsible behavior. The Liberal despises responsibility, therefore, he despises freedom.
21. A Liberal worships his pantheon of Kennedys, Clintons, Cuomos, Jacksons, Gores and Obamas, for WHO they are, and in spite of WHAT they are.
22. The Liberal despises National Sovereignty, which is a guarantor of individual freedoms.
23. The Liberal promotes international government, such as the United Nations and the European Union, which seek to destroy National Sovereignty. The Soviet Union did not collapse, it merely moved west.
24. The Liberal is obsessed with the idea of centralized control of all human endeavors.
25. Liberals often speak of tolerance but can only tolerate other Liberals.
26. Liberals seek to criminalize any speech promoting responsibility, morality, or individualism as "hate speech" or sedition.
27. To a liberal, the thought cannot be separated from the deed -- unless one of his or her own is thinking or doing it.
28. Environmentalists lie as a matter of course, promoting paranoia based upon verifiable falsehood.
29. A Liberal’s only method of discourse is to insult and discredit all who disagree with him. Failing that, they attempt to draw attention away from the subject at hand by "moving on" and changing the subject.
30. Your freedom is a Liberal’s oppression.
31. Private property and wealth are disgusting and distasteful concepts to a Liberal -- unless they should have more than you do.
32. Liberals hate freedom-loving people with a passion bordering on mania.
33. The Liberal seeks to replace a moral world-view with an emotional one which can be more easily manipulated for political ends.
34. A Liberal claims to "care" for the homeless, mentally ill, lame, lazy and shiftless, but would never invite one of them into their own home.
35. The Liberal typically chooses a career – law, psychology, academic, bureaucrat, "activist", which produces nothing of value and which uses the power of government to extract the wealth of others.
36. Liberal "programs" enrich Liberals and screw the people they were purportedly supposed to help.
37. Liberals despise masculinity, as they view it as a symbol of individual freedom and power.
38. Feminist groups exist to promote lesbianism and socialism and have nothing to do with "equal rights".
39. The EEOC regularly invents incidents of racism and discrimination in order to justify its existence and to promote the collectivist ideals regarding employment and equality-of-outcome-type Liberal programs or thought.
40. Liberals despise suburbs as the manifestation of individual property and prosperity -- but seem to have no such qualms about gentrifying ghettos.
41. Liberals hate marriage and the family because they are institutions that strengthen the bonds between individuals -- leaving no room for collectivism -- and because they are institutions which frown upon immorality.
42. Liberals despise the automobile as a symbol of personal freedom.
43. Other diseases kill far more people, but Liberals are obsessed with AIDS because it is the consequence of promiscuity and immorality.
44. Liberal activities are driven by ego and a need for self-satisfaction. A liberal believes and does the things he does because he must prove that he "cares" more than you do.
45. Liberals thrive on emotion and die by reason.
46. Anything espoused by a Liberal as "for the children" is a direct assault upon your family, your privacy, your wallet and your rights.
47. Liberals have no compunction against using violence, deceit, or oppression if it furthers the collectivist cause.
48. Liberals are elitists who routinely exempt themselves from the very rules and suggested behaviors they impose on everyone else.
49. A Liberal must accept as an article of faith that my gun has killed more people than Ted Kennedy’s car or Janet Reno's ATF and FBI.
50. Liberals believe that Geraldo Rivera, Katie Couric, Dan Rather, and Oprah Winfrey are "journalists".
51. Liberals howl if a "protected" group is offended by speech or action, but will remain dead silent if the offended happen to be any of the following: Christians, White Males, Heterosexuals or Taxpayers.
52. Liberals believe wealth is static and quantifiable, and that that it should be divided equally. So, if I have "too much money", it follows that I must have stolen someone else’s "fair share".
53. Liberals believe that Richard Nixon was a vile criminal but that Stalin, Mao, and Fidel Castro are "progressive" leaders who had only the best of intentions.
54. All Liberal ideologies tend towards worldwide totalitarianism.
55. A Liberal is quite ready to point out misconduct by a member of a group opposed to them, but will routinely excuse even more vile behavior by their own.
56. Liberals are obsessed with the theory of evolution because the alternatives terrify them.
57. A full-time, stay-at-home mother enrages a Liberal.
58. Human life is cheap in a Liberal world.
59. The Liberal routinely changes the definition of a word to suit his purpose. For example, you have the "choice" to abort your unborn children, but not the "choice" of smoking, owning a gun, or buying an SUV.
60. A Liberal cannot conceive of a problem that cannot be solved without Government intervention. Although more often than not, Government Action created the problem in the first place.
61. Hillary Clinton's village is a totalitarian state: it used to be called the Soviet Union.
62. Given the chance, a Liberal would ban the Bible, Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Tom Sawyer as "hate speech".
63. Liberals view people as objects without moral motivation, thus we have the welfare state, abortion rights, etc. Conversely, they view inanimate objects in strictly moral terms, thus they are able to vilify and impart motives to firearms, cigarettes, SUV's, corporations, etc.
64. "Third Way" politics is a new shade of lipstick on the same Socialist pig.
65. Liberals are often intolerant, immature, violent thugs, laboring under the misapprehension that they do what they do for "social and moral causes".
66. The Liberal would sooner pluck out his own eye that to cut a tax.
67. Liberals still believe that Marx was right, despite the evidence to the contrary.
68. Hitler was a Socialist, not a Fascist and certainly NOT a Conservative. (See # 53 and #55).
69. Liberals believe that AIDS kills people because prevention and treatment services are underfunded, and not because people behave irresponsibly.
70. Liberals detest the death penalty, but favor abortion, thus setting up the convoluted idea that it’s okay to save the guilty and kill the innocent.
71. Liberals believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and that doctors are overpaid robber barons.
72. A Liberal believes that gender roles are "imposed by society" and that homosexuality is "normal" behavior.
73. A Liberal believes that business creates oppression and that Government creates wealth.
74. To a Liberal, self-esteem, the concept, is far more important than doing anything to actually earn some.
75. A Liberal regularly engages in symbolism because if he told the truth, no one would listen.
76. Liberals hate the NRA for their defense of the Second Amendment, and praise the ACLU for their perversion of the First .
77. To a Liberal, Taxes are too low and ATM fees are too high.
78. Racial profiling by police departments is wrong, but perfectly acceptable for deciding who gets into Law School.
79. The only difference between a Liberal and a Communist is that a Communist is AWARE of what he is doing.
80. Continued Liberal support for the shiftless, lazy, halt, lame, and crippled is necessary because they are the groups most easily manipulated by fear and envy.
81. Any proposal to build "low-income" housing is applauded by a Liberal, unless, of course, someone chooses to build it on the Upper West Side, or Malibu Beach.
82. In Liberal math, an 8% increase in government spending on any favored program rather than the usual-and-customary 10% increase equates to a 2% "cut" in funding, which somehow always results in someone starving or dying unnecessarily.
83. All of society’s ills can be cured by "education" inside a union-run institution that does no such thing.
84. All Liberals use words like "Ethnocentric", "jingoistic", "homophobic" and "trans-gendered" at least three times a day.
85. All Liberals have a primal urge to refer to any idea that they cannot comprehend -- or merely dislike -- as "sexist", "racist", "homophobic", etc.
86. A Liberal finds it perfectly acceptable to dispense condoms in a public school, but would cry bloody murder if the package had the Ten Commandments printed on it.
87. A Liberal advocates the killing of human beings (abortion) and the preservation of wildlife.
88. A Liberal feels that the only thing wrong with Communist States of the past was NOT that they were founded upon a flawed political ideology and engaged in awful repression, but rather that the results would have been far different if only the RIGHT Communists had been available to run them.
89. A Liberal believes that character doesn’t count...because they very often have none.
90. A Liberal will tell you that the First Amendment protects those that burn a flag, protest at a dead soldier's funeral, or beat up a Tea Party activist, and in the same breath, insist that Rush Limbaugh promotes "hate speech".
91. A Liberal would like to see the National Anthem replaced with the "Two Minutes Hate".
92. Liberals have such high opinions of themselves, their motives, and their ideas, that they would have you believe that the rest of us actually want to live in a world with dirty air and water, hip-deep in starving schoolchildren and dying elderly people..
93. Human nature does not exist to a Liberal, and when it routinely manifests itself, it is routinely ignored, and if possible, legislated and taxed.
94. Liberals view people in the same way a sculptor views a lump of clay, or a block of marble.
95. Liberals believe that man is inherently malleable and that all that’s needed is the proper training of man to enact to collectivist vision of the universe.
96. Loyalty is a concept foreign to most Liberals because it entails responsibility.
97. Ethics can be easily dispensed with in a Liberal world if they conflict with the creation of the collective.
98. Euphemism is the language of a Liberal, and symbolism is his modus operandi. Clarity and actual accomplishments are the enemies of Liberalism because Liberalism thrives on vagueness and the emotional aspects of "struggle".
99. Liberals believe that criminals should have more rights than law-abiding citizens.
100. Liberals routinely invent extra-Constitutional rights in order to further their agenda (i.e. abortion, gender and racial preferences, etc.) and routinely invent "repressed groups" in order to expand the power of the State (i.e. homosexuals, minorities, illegal immigrants, etc.) or to subvert the power of established institutions (i.e. the Church, family, nationalism, etc.).
101. Most Liberals would feel more shame in standing to attention during the National Anthem then they would in stealing from a Poor Box.
102. Socialism works...until you run out of other people's money.
103. A Libtard refuses to acknowledge that anything which breathes, eats, shits and multiplies from the moment of conception is alive. If those are not the most basic functions of Life, I don't know what is.
104. Libtards defend an economic policy which has consisted of taking $1.5 trillion out of the credit markets for bank bailouts and questionable Stimulus plans, keeping the printing presses at the Mint going 24/7/365, debasing the currency through "Quantitative Easing", spending tax dollars that have yet to be collected twice and then borrowing $5 trillion more in order to pay for programs which create no wealth, salable goods or products or private sector jobs, and which do not generate any tax income whatsoever is a responsible plan for 'recovery'.
105. Libtards subsidize poverty and advocate for policies which discourage productive work, denigrate the profit motive and capitalism, and then claim to be the champions and guardians of the very perpetual poverty class they've created.
106. Liberals believe that a man who simply reads the words written by others and fed to him by a teleprompter is the Greatest Orator since Cicero.
107. Government 'investments' are simply transfers of wealth that are intended to dispose of industrial surplus, resources, and labor, without that expenditure ever leading to a rise in real living standards. You could just as easily bake millions of loaves of bread, and then set them on fire to achieve the same effect, but it doesn't have the appearance of true economic activity.
108. Liberals believe that mortgage lenders are 'predatory' and people who don't read contracts or retain legal counsel before they sign on the dotted line are 'victims'.
109. Collective Liberalism promises equality of prosperity, but only produces equality of misery.
110. Liberals are neither Truly Liberal or Democrats; they are shameless LIBERTINES who hate democracy because if given the choice of Collective Totalitarianism and Capitalistic Freedom, the people would select Freedom and Capitalism every time, leaving the Liberal out in the cold and needing to work for a living.
111. Liberals believe that people are incapable of changing their personal circumstances, or improving their lot in Life without an expensive and expansive government bureaucracy to 'help' them do it, usually at the expense of someone else.
112. Liberals believe all wars are evil and unwinnable...unless they start them. Then they're humanitarian efforts intended to promote good ends and altruistic ideals.
113. Liberals believe that when a terrorist is caught only because he fails to detonate his underwear on your flight, or fails to blow up his Pathfinder in Times Square, leaving his keys, cellphone, driver's license and address book behind in the glovebox, that the Homeland Security regime 'worked' to perfection.
114. Liberals believe that Terrorism is not an act of war perpetrated by a sick and violent culture, but rather law enforcement problem to be handled with civilian courts and Miranda rights....unless there's a bump in the polls to be had for shooting a terrorist in the face without a trial.
115. Liberals claim to stand 'for the Little Guy', but once the Little Guy's use as convenient political prop or rhetorical device is over, he is conveniently forgotten again.
UPDATE: You can view the latest update to this post -- 145 Reasons Why Liberals Suck -- HERE.
So, there I am on the way home from the supermarket when I came upon the local gas station while waiting to cross the street. I took a look at the sign where the prices for a gallon of gas are posted, and saw that unleaded regular is going for $4.07 per gallon in this neck of the woods. Expensive, indeed. And then I thought about all the news coverage lately about those high prices, and about how all the rage these days is 'to go after' Big Oil for their 'price gouging' which 'hurts The Poor disproportionately', and then I remembered something:
I had just paid $4.59 for a gallon of fucking milk.
And then three seemingly random thoughts popped into my head:
A. Apparently it's quite acceptable to investigate and threaten Big Oil for charging exorbitant prices for what might be considered a luxury item, but why isn't anyone looking into Big Dairy for charging an outrageous price for a goddamned necessity?
B. What a curious convention that our 'Poor' have personal automobiles, and that they are, presumably, commuting to work with them. I figure if they're going to a job in a private automobile they ain't exactly poor in the same way as, say, someone living in Soweto, Mumbai, or Kabul would be considered Poor.
It would seem our notions of poverty have gone upscale; we must have the only poverty-stricken population on Planet Earth commuting to a job in a private automobile. I guess it would be an even-greater crime if they didn't have anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, and a six-speaker sound system?
C. Didn't President Frequent-Flyer-Miles pretty much promise us that under his steady hand gasoline prices would skyrocket? Isn't this, like, the only campaign pledge he's actually kept?
And then I figured out what was really going on; the hysteria over 'price gouging' and punishing Big Oil was, once again, just the Libtards at Work. And then that old maxim popped into my head about Liberals and skewed priorities. It's kabuki theatre intended to distract and mislead people so that they forget that the Libtards are presently presiding over a fucked up economy they vowed to fix, we're saddled with a $14 trillion deficit they refuse to address, ahem... labor under a persistent 9% unemployment rate, rammed a monster Healthcare plan they still can't explain or pay for down our throats, we're going on two years without a Federal Budget, and they have started a third war after complaining vociferously for nearly a decade about two others. Amongst other things.
So, I figured that, once again, it was time to dust off the old 'Reasons Why Liberals Suck' post, add a few new ones, and repost it because people always seem to forget the simple wisdom contained within it. Consider it a public service.
Without further ado, I present "115 Reasons Why Liberals Suck".
(Ed. Note: This list originated in 2003 with 50 reasons why Liberals Suck. It's grown as the years have passed).
1. Liberalism is a movement of the well-intentioned, but ill-informed, led by the well-informed and ill-intentioned.
2. At heart, a liberal is an eternal adolescent, forever in search of escape from conventional morality, consequences and responsibility.
3. Freedom from moral consequence can only be secured by a collectivist, totalitarian state.
4. The Liberal religion worships the twin gods of The Government and The Genitalia.
5. A Liberal believes that psychology is a hard science in the same way that physics and chemistry are hard sciences.
6. Freedom, to a Liberal, refers solely to the freedom of the genitalia.
7. All non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by the Liberal because they contain within them an element of personal responsibility, self-sacrifice, or abstention.
8. Collectivism seeks to eliminate the need for personal responsibility and moral consequence by shifting blame for failure from the individual to "society" or "the System".
9. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the enemy of the Liberal. Because they are clear in their elaboration of both the rights of the Individual and the Powers of Government, both documents must be subverted, re-interpreted, or ignored, as needed.
10. The Liberal hates the United States because it has been the premier guarantor and promoter of individual rights in the history of mankind.
11. All institutions – schools, environMENTAL organizations, Civil Rights Groups, Law courts, Markets, etc., serve no relevant purpose to a Liberal except when they can be made to promote the concept of the collective.
12. Abortion is necessary to guarantee genital freedom and to further erode the concept of personal responsibility, while eliminating future generations of less-desirable human beings.
14. The Liberal must create an atmosphere of perpetual crisis, fear, and envy in order to justify continued collectivist oppression.
15. Religion is the enemy of the Liberal since it promotes morality and responsibility and suggests an authority set above Government.
16. Despite decades of failure, the Liberal clings to his collectivist ideology because it is HIS religion.
17. Liberals seek to dominate any institution that can be used to undermine or eliminate parental rights, such as schools, child-abuse agencies, pediatric associations, etc. and which can be used to turn children into informants for the State against their own parents.
18. The Liberal seeks to sanction and jail those who dare to home school their children, or who have the balls and wherewithal to raise their children in an environment outside of Liberal control or influence.
19. Individual ownership of firearms is the greatest threat to collectivism and the greatest expression of individual rights, therefore, all Liberals despise guns.
20. All freedoms demand responsible behavior. The Liberal despises responsibility, therefore, he despises freedom.
21. A Liberal worships his pantheon of Kennedys, Clintons, Cuomos, Jacksons, Gores and Obamas, for WHO they are, and in spite of WHAT they are.
22. The Liberal despises National Sovereignty, which is a guarantor of individual freedoms.
23. The Liberal promotes international government, such as the United Nations and the European Union, which seek to destroy National Sovereignty. The Soviet Union did not collapse, it merely moved west.
24. The Liberal is obsessed with the idea of centralized control of all human endeavors.
25. Liberals often speak of tolerance but can only tolerate other Liberals.
26. Liberals seek to criminalize any speech promoting responsibility, morality, or individualism as "hate speech" or sedition.
27. To a liberal, the thought cannot be separated from the deed -- unless one of his or her own is thinking or doing it.
28. Environmentalists lie as a matter of course, promoting paranoia based upon verifiable falsehood.
29. A Liberal’s only method of discourse is to insult and discredit all who disagree with him. Failing that, they attempt to draw attention away from the subject at hand by "moving on" and changing the subject.
30. Your freedom is a Liberal’s oppression.
31. Private property and wealth are disgusting and distasteful concepts to a Liberal -- unless they should have more than you do.
32. Liberals hate freedom-loving people with a passion bordering on mania.
33. The Liberal seeks to replace a moral world-view with an emotional one which can be more easily manipulated for political ends.
34. A Liberal claims to "care" for the homeless, mentally ill, lame, lazy and shiftless, but would never invite one of them into their own home.
35. The Liberal typically chooses a career – law, psychology, academic, bureaucrat, "activist", which produces nothing of value and which uses the power of government to extract the wealth of others.
36. Liberal "programs" enrich Liberals and screw the people they were purportedly supposed to help.
37. Liberals despise masculinity, as they view it as a symbol of individual freedom and power.
38. Feminist groups exist to promote lesbianism and socialism and have nothing to do with "equal rights".
39. The EEOC regularly invents incidents of racism and discrimination in order to justify its existence and to promote the collectivist ideals regarding employment and equality-of-outcome-type Liberal programs or thought.
40. Liberals despise suburbs as the manifestation of individual property and prosperity -- but seem to have no such qualms about gentrifying ghettos.
41. Liberals hate marriage and the family because they are institutions that strengthen the bonds between individuals -- leaving no room for collectivism -- and because they are institutions which frown upon immorality.
42. Liberals despise the automobile as a symbol of personal freedom.
43. Other diseases kill far more people, but Liberals are obsessed with AIDS because it is the consequence of promiscuity and immorality.
44. Liberal activities are driven by ego and a need for self-satisfaction. A liberal believes and does the things he does because he must prove that he "cares" more than you do.
45. Liberals thrive on emotion and die by reason.
46. Anything espoused by a Liberal as "for the children" is a direct assault upon your family, your privacy, your wallet and your rights.
47. Liberals have no compunction against using violence, deceit, or oppression if it furthers the collectivist cause.
48. Liberals are elitists who routinely exempt themselves from the very rules and suggested behaviors they impose on everyone else.
49. A Liberal must accept as an article of faith that my gun has killed more people than Ted Kennedy’s car or Janet Reno's ATF and FBI.
50. Liberals believe that Geraldo Rivera, Katie Couric, Dan Rather, and Oprah Winfrey are "journalists".
51. Liberals howl if a "protected" group is offended by speech or action, but will remain dead silent if the offended happen to be any of the following: Christians, White Males, Heterosexuals or Taxpayers.
52. Liberals believe wealth is static and quantifiable, and that that it should be divided equally. So, if I have "too much money", it follows that I must have stolen someone else’s "fair share".
53. Liberals believe that Richard Nixon was a vile criminal but that Stalin, Mao, and Fidel Castro are "progressive" leaders who had only the best of intentions.
54. All Liberal ideologies tend towards worldwide totalitarianism.
55. A Liberal is quite ready to point out misconduct by a member of a group opposed to them, but will routinely excuse even more vile behavior by their own.
56. Liberals are obsessed with the theory of evolution because the alternatives terrify them.
57. A full-time, stay-at-home mother enrages a Liberal.
58. Human life is cheap in a Liberal world.
59. The Liberal routinely changes the definition of a word to suit his purpose. For example, you have the "choice" to abort your unborn children, but not the "choice" of smoking, owning a gun, or buying an SUV.
60. A Liberal cannot conceive of a problem that cannot be solved without Government intervention. Although more often than not, Government Action created the problem in the first place.
61. Hillary Clinton's village is a totalitarian state: it used to be called the Soviet Union.
62. Given the chance, a Liberal would ban the Bible, Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Tom Sawyer as "hate speech".
63. Liberals view people as objects without moral motivation, thus we have the welfare state, abortion rights, etc. Conversely, they view inanimate objects in strictly moral terms, thus they are able to vilify and impart motives to firearms, cigarettes, SUV's, corporations, etc.
64. "Third Way" politics is a new shade of lipstick on the same Socialist pig.
65. Liberals are often intolerant, immature, violent thugs, laboring under the misapprehension that they do what they do for "social and moral causes".
66. The Liberal would sooner pluck out his own eye that to cut a tax.
67. Liberals still believe that Marx was right, despite the evidence to the contrary.
68. Hitler was a Socialist, not a Fascist and certainly NOT a Conservative. (See # 53 and #55).
69. Liberals believe that AIDS kills people because prevention and treatment services are underfunded, and not because people behave irresponsibly.
70. Liberals detest the death penalty, but favor abortion, thus setting up the convoluted idea that it’s okay to save the guilty and kill the innocent.
71. Liberals believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and that doctors are overpaid robber barons.
72. A Liberal believes that gender roles are "imposed by society" and that homosexuality is "normal" behavior.
73. A Liberal believes that business creates oppression and that Government creates wealth.
74. To a Liberal, self-esteem, the concept, is far more important than doing anything to actually earn some.
75. A Liberal regularly engages in symbolism because if he told the truth, no one would listen.
76. Liberals hate the NRA for their defense of the Second Amendment, and praise the ACLU for their perversion of the First .
77. To a Liberal, Taxes are too low and ATM fees are too high.
78. Racial profiling by police departments is wrong, but perfectly acceptable for deciding who gets into Law School.
79. The only difference between a Liberal and a Communist is that a Communist is AWARE of what he is doing.
80. Continued Liberal support for the shiftless, lazy, halt, lame, and crippled is necessary because they are the groups most easily manipulated by fear and envy.
81. Any proposal to build "low-income" housing is applauded by a Liberal, unless, of course, someone chooses to build it on the Upper West Side, or Malibu Beach.
82. In Liberal math, an 8% increase in government spending on any favored program rather than the usual-and-customary 10% increase equates to a 2% "cut" in funding, which somehow always results in someone starving or dying unnecessarily.
83. All of society’s ills can be cured by "education" inside a union-run institution that does no such thing.
84. All Liberals use words like "Ethnocentric", "jingoistic", "homophobic" and "trans-gendered" at least three times a day.
85. All Liberals have a primal urge to refer to any idea that they cannot comprehend -- or merely dislike -- as "sexist", "racist", "homophobic", etc.
86. A Liberal finds it perfectly acceptable to dispense condoms in a public school, but would cry bloody murder if the package had the Ten Commandments printed on it.
87. A Liberal advocates the killing of human beings (abortion) and the preservation of wildlife.
88. A Liberal feels that the only thing wrong with Communist States of the past was NOT that they were founded upon a flawed political ideology and engaged in awful repression, but rather that the results would have been far different if only the RIGHT Communists had been available to run them.
89. A Liberal believes that character doesn’t count...because they very often have none.
90. A Liberal will tell you that the First Amendment protects those that burn a flag, protest at a dead soldier's funeral, or beat up a Tea Party activist, and in the same breath, insist that Rush Limbaugh promotes "hate speech".
91. A Liberal would like to see the National Anthem replaced with the "Two Minutes Hate".
92. Liberals have such high opinions of themselves, their motives, and their ideas, that they would have you believe that the rest of us actually want to live in a world with dirty air and water, hip-deep in starving schoolchildren and dying elderly people..
93. Human nature does not exist to a Liberal, and when it routinely manifests itself, it is routinely ignored, and if possible, legislated and taxed.
94. Liberals view people in the same way a sculptor views a lump of clay, or a block of marble.
95. Liberals believe that man is inherently malleable and that all that’s needed is the proper training of man to enact to collectivist vision of the universe.
96. Loyalty is a concept foreign to most Liberals because it entails responsibility.
97. Ethics can be easily dispensed with in a Liberal world if they conflict with the creation of the collective.
98. Euphemism is the language of a Liberal, and symbolism is his modus operandi. Clarity and actual accomplishments are the enemies of Liberalism because Liberalism thrives on vagueness and the emotional aspects of "struggle".
99. Liberals believe that criminals should have more rights than law-abiding citizens.
100. Liberals routinely invent extra-Constitutional rights in order to further their agenda (i.e. abortion, gender and racial preferences, etc.) and routinely invent "repressed groups" in order to expand the power of the State (i.e. homosexuals, minorities, illegal immigrants, etc.) or to subvert the power of established institutions (i.e. the Church, family, nationalism, etc.).
101. Most Liberals would feel more shame in standing to attention during the National Anthem then they would in stealing from a Poor Box.
102. Socialism works...until you run out of other people's money.
103. A Libtard refuses to acknowledge that anything which breathes, eats, shits and multiplies from the moment of conception is alive. If those are not the most basic functions of Life, I don't know what is.
104. Libtards defend an economic policy which has consisted of taking $1.5 trillion out of the credit markets for bank bailouts and questionable Stimulus plans, keeping the printing presses at the Mint going 24/7/365, debasing the currency through "Quantitative Easing", spending tax dollars that have yet to be collected twice and then borrowing $5 trillion more in order to pay for programs which create no wealth, salable goods or products or private sector jobs, and which do not generate any tax income whatsoever is a responsible plan for 'recovery'.
105. Libtards subsidize poverty and advocate for policies which discourage productive work, denigrate the profit motive and capitalism, and then claim to be the champions and guardians of the very perpetual poverty class they've created.
106. Liberals believe that a man who simply reads the words written by others and fed to him by a teleprompter is the Greatest Orator since Cicero.
107. Government 'investments' are simply transfers of wealth that are intended to dispose of industrial surplus, resources, and labor, without that expenditure ever leading to a rise in real living standards. You could just as easily bake millions of loaves of bread, and then set them on fire to achieve the same effect, but it doesn't have the appearance of true economic activity.
108. Liberals believe that mortgage lenders are 'predatory' and people who don't read contracts or retain legal counsel before they sign on the dotted line are 'victims'.
109. Collective Liberalism promises equality of prosperity, but only produces equality of misery.
110. Liberals are neither Truly Liberal or Democrats; they are shameless LIBERTINES who hate democracy because if given the choice of Collective Totalitarianism and Capitalistic Freedom, the people would select Freedom and Capitalism every time, leaving the Liberal out in the cold and needing to work for a living.
111. Liberals believe that people are incapable of changing their personal circumstances, or improving their lot in Life without an expensive and expansive government bureaucracy to 'help' them do it, usually at the expense of someone else.
112. Liberals believe all wars are evil and unwinnable...unless they start them. Then they're humanitarian efforts intended to promote good ends and altruistic ideals.
113. Liberals believe that when a terrorist is caught only because he fails to detonate his underwear on your flight, or fails to blow up his Pathfinder in Times Square, leaving his keys, cellphone, driver's license and address book behind in the glovebox, that the Homeland Security regime 'worked' to perfection.
114. Liberals believe that Terrorism is not an act of war perpetrated by a sick and violent culture, but rather law enforcement problem to be handled with civilian courts and Miranda rights....unless there's a bump in the polls to be had for shooting a terrorist in the face without a trial.
115. Liberals claim to stand 'for the Little Guy', but once the Little Guy's use as convenient political prop or rhetorical device is over, he is conveniently forgotten again.
UPDATE: You can view the latest update to this post -- 145 Reasons Why Liberals Suck -- HERE.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
You're Not Special; You're Just Crazy...
Andrea Peyser in the New York Post on Self-mutilation as the ultimate attention getter.
You know you're in trouble when the GLAAD people, in so many backhanded-and-catty words, call you 'fat' and 'insane'.
I don't know Chaz Bono, and don't really care to, so I'm going to make some generalized observations about his/her case. I'm also not a psychiatrist -- I only play one on the Internet, and psychiatry is mostly bullshit, anyway -- so the only way to try to explain this is by applying logic, which already puts me on shaky ground before I even begin.
1. Chaz Bono grew up with famous parents, who were Hippies, and so they were certain to have raised HeShe with some rather strange ideas, most of which probably involved indulging any stupidity Chaz wanted or got involved with. This, you know, builds 'self-esteem', which was all the rage with parents of the time (it was a codeword for 'whatever the kid wants, the kid gets, if it means I'm 'a cool Mom/Dad' -- and keeps the little bastard out of my hair) and which, as a concept, has expanded to become a fucking pox upon Modern Society. We're knee deep in everyones Self-Esteem, but it never seems to occur to anyone who cries about not having any that it's usually earned through achievement, and not granted as a right because you sat through the 30 minute 3rd-grade-level-lecture-and-certificate-ritual at a public school.
Having famous parents, I would imagine, is no picnic. Everyone wants their attention and caters to them, so I wonder if at some point, Chaz felt less like a child, or even a human being, and more like an accessory.
2. Over-indulged children who have retarded/disinterested parents who 'encourage' them to pursue rank stupidity for fear of criticizing or disciplining the little buggers (and thus crushing their fragile self-esteem) become spoiled adults who expect to receive similar treatment from everyone they meet in their adult lives. Because the parents didn't set any boundaries, didn't cater to the child's feelings, and imposed no values upon their little genetic mess, the little bastard soon
a. figures out that it can do whatever the fuck it pleases, and
b. quickly becomes bored with the usual litany of childhood stupidity, and thus, must seek ever more exotic and complicated stupidity as it grows older. The more dramatic and complicated the stupidity, the greater the attraction.
3. Over-indulged children, bereft of values, boundaries, and interested/attentive parents, soon find their way into trouble as a means of getting attention. Often negative attention, because the worse the activity the greater the response from the uninvolved parents. It's all about provoking a response...any response. At heart, all people who fall into this category of insanity are always seeking both the approval and the guidance of, or more accurately a rescue effort by, Mommy and Daddy Dearest.
4. The mollycoddled-yet-still-clamoring-for-parental-attention child soon runs the gamut of anti-social behavior in it's teenaged years, usually starting with smoking, and then progressing to promiscuity, defiance, rebellion, casual use of foul language, a Gothic/Punk stage, body-piercings, perhaps vandalism and petty crime, tattoos, drug and alcohol abuse, and perhaps even several (unserious) suicide attempts, and usually a mixture of All of the Above.. When this fails to bring the attention they truly crave (which is for their parents to start acting like fucking parents and provide some guidance), the activity must become ever more severe, and an even-greater rejection of traditional values which is intended to shock the sensibilities; homosexuality, sexual fetishes, cross-dressing, perhaps a string of abusive relationships (either as bully or victim), and finally, the ultimate shocker: Surgically-aided Self-mutilation with that added bonus of the rejection/warping of traditional gender norms.
Chaz Bono is simply someone who has been crying out for her parents HisHer entire life, probably, and never got the response HeShe desperately craved, and maybe never ever gave voice to. After all, she was most likely handed everything in life, and expected her parents to mystically divine what was in her head; it's how this Game Gets Played, you know. Had Chaz ever come right out and say what HeShe had wanted, and expected, from It's parents, it would have either stopped the gravy-train of over-indulgence dead in it's tracks, or it would have fallen upon deaf ears. HeShe has now entered the Penultimate phase in the attempt to get some attention. Even negative attention. The very last step is a massive overdose and/or a nosedive out a 50th floor window, with a shotgun wound to the head, just for good measure.
And then the Media, because it too, is a collection of mentally-deranged morons, will lead the Nation in the obligatory contrived orgy of manufactured and insincere grief for what amounts to a non-entity who's never accomplished a thing in HisHer life. Three days later, because the public's attention span is shorter than a dwarf at a urinal, we will forget the entire thing. Why does anyone really care, when even HisHer parents didn't, after all? Besides, the new season of Jersey Shore begins tonight.
Until Cher -- predictably -- uses the tragedy to re-launch her career, of course.
I don't pity Chaz Bono and I don't find HimHer even slightly interesting in the least. I regard this sick lump of humanity in the same way one might regard an enema; an unpleasant experience you hope ends rather quickly, with as little stench left behind as possible. I'd rather watch my fingernails grow, or count the blades of grass on my front lawn than to watch It on television. I'm not fascinated by Chaz's orgy of extreme Look-at-Me-ism, and resent the idea that some idiot in television believes that I might be. The one thing I certainly never want to hear is the constant whining of someone who mutilates their body, rejects all the standards of contemporary society, and engages in behavior that is disturbing. destructive and disgusting, cry about 'how hard it is to be Me..."
Especially when the Whiner is the scion of stupid-rich 'entertainers' and ersatz 'cultural icons' of questionable talent, taste, and intelligence, given every advantage in life, and who will, naturally, expect to be held up as some sort of role model by people even dumber than they are.
Before I get the usual round of accusations of being a 'homophobe' and a 'hater, I don't hate people for 'being gay'; I hate people for being stupid and selfish. I've known quite a number of gay people in my lifetime and they all seem to possess the same, often-distasteful, qualities: an insatiable thirst for constant attention and reassurance, and a mistaken belief that 'no one understands me.' You weren't 'born this way', and you're not expressing a 'preference', nor making a 'lifestyle choice'; you're basically telling the rest of us that since we don't recognize your self-professed Greatness that you will shit all over our cherished beliefs and sensibilities as a means of revenge....and getting attention. So fuck off with your nasty e-mails. I've heard it all already.
You know you're in trouble when the GLAAD people, in so many backhanded-and-catty words, call you 'fat' and 'insane'.
I don't know Chaz Bono, and don't really care to, so I'm going to make some generalized observations about his/her case. I'm also not a psychiatrist -- I only play one on the Internet, and psychiatry is mostly bullshit, anyway -- so the only way to try to explain this is by applying logic, which already puts me on shaky ground before I even begin.
1. Chaz Bono grew up with famous parents, who were Hippies, and so they were certain to have raised HeShe with some rather strange ideas, most of which probably involved indulging any stupidity Chaz wanted or got involved with. This, you know, builds 'self-esteem', which was all the rage with parents of the time (it was a codeword for 'whatever the kid wants, the kid gets, if it means I'm 'a cool Mom/Dad' -- and keeps the little bastard out of my hair) and which, as a concept, has expanded to become a fucking pox upon Modern Society. We're knee deep in everyones Self-Esteem, but it never seems to occur to anyone who cries about not having any that it's usually earned through achievement, and not granted as a right because you sat through the 30 minute 3rd-grade-level-lecture-and-certificate-ritual at a public school.
Having famous parents, I would imagine, is no picnic. Everyone wants their attention and caters to them, so I wonder if at some point, Chaz felt less like a child, or even a human being, and more like an accessory.
2. Over-indulged children who have retarded/disinterested parents who 'encourage' them to pursue rank stupidity for fear of criticizing or disciplining the little buggers (and thus crushing their fragile self-esteem) become spoiled adults who expect to receive similar treatment from everyone they meet in their adult lives. Because the parents didn't set any boundaries, didn't cater to the child's feelings, and imposed no values upon their little genetic mess, the little bastard soon
a. figures out that it can do whatever the fuck it pleases, and
b. quickly becomes bored with the usual litany of childhood stupidity, and thus, must seek ever more exotic and complicated stupidity as it grows older. The more dramatic and complicated the stupidity, the greater the attraction.
3. Over-indulged children, bereft of values, boundaries, and interested/attentive parents, soon find their way into trouble as a means of getting attention. Often negative attention, because the worse the activity the greater the response from the uninvolved parents. It's all about provoking a response...any response. At heart, all people who fall into this category of insanity are always seeking both the approval and the guidance of, or more accurately a rescue effort by, Mommy and Daddy Dearest.
4. The mollycoddled-yet-still-clamoring-for-parental-attention child soon runs the gamut of anti-social behavior in it's teenaged years, usually starting with smoking, and then progressing to promiscuity, defiance, rebellion, casual use of foul language, a Gothic/Punk stage, body-piercings, perhaps vandalism and petty crime, tattoos, drug and alcohol abuse, and perhaps even several (unserious) suicide attempts, and usually a mixture of All of the Above.. When this fails to bring the attention they truly crave (which is for their parents to start acting like fucking parents and provide some guidance), the activity must become ever more severe, and an even-greater rejection of traditional values which is intended to shock the sensibilities; homosexuality, sexual fetishes, cross-dressing, perhaps a string of abusive relationships (either as bully or victim), and finally, the ultimate shocker: Surgically-aided Self-mutilation with that added bonus of the rejection/warping of traditional gender norms.
Chaz Bono is simply someone who has been crying out for her parents HisHer entire life, probably, and never got the response HeShe desperately craved, and maybe never ever gave voice to. After all, she was most likely handed everything in life, and expected her parents to mystically divine what was in her head; it's how this Game Gets Played, you know. Had Chaz ever come right out and say what HeShe had wanted, and expected, from It's parents, it would have either stopped the gravy-train of over-indulgence dead in it's tracks, or it would have fallen upon deaf ears. HeShe has now entered the Penultimate phase in the attempt to get some attention. Even negative attention. The very last step is a massive overdose and/or a nosedive out a 50th floor window, with a shotgun wound to the head, just for good measure.
And then the Media, because it too, is a collection of mentally-deranged morons, will lead the Nation in the obligatory contrived orgy of manufactured and insincere grief for what amounts to a non-entity who's never accomplished a thing in HisHer life. Three days later, because the public's attention span is shorter than a dwarf at a urinal, we will forget the entire thing. Why does anyone really care, when even HisHer parents didn't, after all? Besides, the new season of Jersey Shore begins tonight.
Until Cher -- predictably -- uses the tragedy to re-launch her career, of course.
I don't pity Chaz Bono and I don't find HimHer even slightly interesting in the least. I regard this sick lump of humanity in the same way one might regard an enema; an unpleasant experience you hope ends rather quickly, with as little stench left behind as possible. I'd rather watch my fingernails grow, or count the blades of grass on my front lawn than to watch It on television. I'm not fascinated by Chaz's orgy of extreme Look-at-Me-ism, and resent the idea that some idiot in television believes that I might be. The one thing I certainly never want to hear is the constant whining of someone who mutilates their body, rejects all the standards of contemporary society, and engages in behavior that is disturbing. destructive and disgusting, cry about 'how hard it is to be Me..."
Especially when the Whiner is the scion of stupid-rich 'entertainers' and ersatz 'cultural icons' of questionable talent, taste, and intelligence, given every advantage in life, and who will, naturally, expect to be held up as some sort of role model by people even dumber than they are.
Before I get the usual round of accusations of being a 'homophobe' and a 'hater, I don't hate people for 'being gay'; I hate people for being stupid and selfish. I've known quite a number of gay people in my lifetime and they all seem to possess the same, often-distasteful, qualities: an insatiable thirst for constant attention and reassurance, and a mistaken belief that 'no one understands me.' You weren't 'born this way', and you're not expressing a 'preference', nor making a 'lifestyle choice'; you're basically telling the rest of us that since we don't recognize your self-professed Greatness that you will shit all over our cherished beliefs and sensibilities as a means of revenge....and getting attention. So fuck off with your nasty e-mails. I've heard it all already.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
In Defense of the Right to Offend...
Mark Steyn belongs on Mt. Rushmore. Click on the links contained within to gain the full context of the rather impenetrable stupidity on display all over the world, and then ask yourself this question:
How is it that the Western World, the culture that has invented just about everything that is useful or enriching, that fostered the spirit of unfettered free inquiry, ensconced in Law the principle of the fundamental rights of all Men, which first harnessed and then unleashed the energy that makes modern life possible and sustainable, has fallen to this astoundingly low level of petty argument within itself, about it's own validity, accomplishments and worth?
Probably because we live in an age where people freely claim the pretense to an intellect, but possess none of it's actual tools. A steady diet of Post-modernism and multiculturalism will do that to you, you know.
There is no progress, in any sense or meaningful way, without the ability to ask questions -- and thus find answers -- which will eventually offend someone on some level. Offense is a necessary evil if society or science is to ever evolve to another, perhaps freer, more honest, more inclusive, and higher stratum. One is left to wonder just what has been left undiscovered, unexamined, unsaid because someone who would have discussed, examined, or discovered was kept from the initial impulse by the thought "Better not go there; someone might be offended"?
Why is it necessary to punish people who speak things that others don't like? Why is it necessary for people to find ever more ways to whine and wear the mantle of victimhood, even when they have no call to? Why have we divided ourselves by race, sex or sexual preference, religion, political leanings or economic class? When will all the fucking snivelling end? And when can we get back to kicking ass and taking names as a Culture?
I'm reminded of a famous speech, uttered by one of the most offensive people to ever walk the Earth, if the history books are to be believed:
"I am Theoprastus, and greater than those to whom you liken me; I am Theophrastus, and in addition, I am monarcha medicorum and I can prove to you what you cannot prove...I need not don a coat of mail or buckler against you, for you are not learned or experienced enough to refute even a word of mine...As for you, you can defend your kingdom with belly-crawling and flattery. How long do you think this will last? Let me tell you this: every little hair on my neck knows more than you and all your scribes, and my shoe buckles are more learned than your Galen and Avicenna, and my beard has more experience than all your high colleges..."
Who said that?
Why, it was none other than Phillipus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, better known to history as Paracelsus. Who was Paracelsus? He was a chemist, botanist, mathematician, astrologer, theologian, doctor, Ur-psychologist and all-around Royal Pain in the Ass (some believe, wrongly, that his name was the origin of the English word 'Bombast') who invented the modern science of toxicology, and who is one of the Fathers of modern pharmacology and medical diagnostics.
Who was he berating? The medieval medical profession (the Doctors of Physic) of his day who still believed that disease was either caused by an imbalance of 'humors' that could be treated with bloodletting, sweating or purging (which often killed the patient in the process), or who were still attached to the superstitious Christian belief that diseases were the just rewards of a sinful life.
It almost sounds like ObamaCare.
Paracelsus drove his opponents crazy. Many thought him insane (and if you ever read about his life, he just might have been). He was ostracized, attacked, stripped of his posts, bankrupted, persecuted, publicly vilified and humiliated...and he was also RIGHT. He suffered because he dared to speak a truth -- actually, many truths -- that offended, well... basically everyone; the members of his profession, the Church, the Universities of Europe, the Rich and the Powerful.
He died penniless and discredited, an itinerant doctor travelling all over Europe -- on foot -- experimenting, treating the sick and injured for the sake of his belief that he was put on this Earth for just that purpose. He left his few remaining possessions (one legend has it these consisted of his writings, a cloak, and a pair of boots) to the poor. His reputation as a thoroughly disagreeable, arrogant, obnoxious -- and most offensive man -- meant that his methods and discoveries would be denied to medical science for many years after his death by his quite considerable number of intellectual, religious and scientific enemies.
The point? Just because you don't like the messenger, just because you don't like the message, it doesn't necessarily follow that either is wrong, and the message certainly should not go unexamined because it offended someones tender sensibilities, or threatened someones rice bowl. Even a really stupid idea presented by a complete asshole can sometimes reveal some drop of wisdom, if you can manage to strip away the bullshit and keep your feelings in check long enough to examine it.
Truth is truth -- even if it's delivered with a four-letter word, a racial slur, bad joke, or a gratuitous insult -- real or perceived -- attached to it.
All this sensitivity bullshit is leading us towards a less-cohesive, rather than a more-inclusive, society. This will slowly chip away at our veneer of civility and the bonds of friendship, and ultimately destroy what few notions of freedom and democracy -- you know, the remaining freedoms that haven't already been bastardized and destroyed by illiberal Liberals already -- that we might have left.
I really fear to live in such a world, and not only because it will be either really, really boring or exceedingly violent, but because it will be intellectually, artistically and spiritually sterile. What remains of Life after such a thing occurs would be hardly worth living, because the basic right of expression will have been excised from it. No exchange of ideas, no arguments, no jokes, no books, no trade, no art, no music.
All human endeavor would stop right in it's tracks, out of fear of giving offense and the retribution that follows.
How is it that the Western World, the culture that has invented just about everything that is useful or enriching, that fostered the spirit of unfettered free inquiry, ensconced in Law the principle of the fundamental rights of all Men, which first harnessed and then unleashed the energy that makes modern life possible and sustainable, has fallen to this astoundingly low level of petty argument within itself, about it's own validity, accomplishments and worth?
Probably because we live in an age where people freely claim the pretense to an intellect, but possess none of it's actual tools. A steady diet of Post-modernism and multiculturalism will do that to you, you know.
There is no progress, in any sense or meaningful way, without the ability to ask questions -- and thus find answers -- which will eventually offend someone on some level. Offense is a necessary evil if society or science is to ever evolve to another, perhaps freer, more honest, more inclusive, and higher stratum. One is left to wonder just what has been left undiscovered, unexamined, unsaid because someone who would have discussed, examined, or discovered was kept from the initial impulse by the thought "Better not go there; someone might be offended"?
Why is it necessary to punish people who speak things that others don't like? Why is it necessary for people to find ever more ways to whine and wear the mantle of victimhood, even when they have no call to? Why have we divided ourselves by race, sex or sexual preference, religion, political leanings or economic class? When will all the fucking snivelling end? And when can we get back to kicking ass and taking names as a Culture?
I'm reminded of a famous speech, uttered by one of the most offensive people to ever walk the Earth, if the history books are to be believed:
"I am Theoprastus, and greater than those to whom you liken me; I am Theophrastus, and in addition, I am monarcha medicorum and I can prove to you what you cannot prove...I need not don a coat of mail or buckler against you, for you are not learned or experienced enough to refute even a word of mine...As for you, you can defend your kingdom with belly-crawling and flattery. How long do you think this will last? Let me tell you this: every little hair on my neck knows more than you and all your scribes, and my shoe buckles are more learned than your Galen and Avicenna, and my beard has more experience than all your high colleges..."
Who said that?
Why, it was none other than Phillipus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, better known to history as Paracelsus. Who was Paracelsus? He was a chemist, botanist, mathematician, astrologer, theologian, doctor, Ur-psychologist and all-around Royal Pain in the Ass (some believe, wrongly, that his name was the origin of the English word 'Bombast') who invented the modern science of toxicology, and who is one of the Fathers of modern pharmacology and medical diagnostics.
Who was he berating? The medieval medical profession (the Doctors of Physic) of his day who still believed that disease was either caused by an imbalance of 'humors' that could be treated with bloodletting, sweating or purging (which often killed the patient in the process), or who were still attached to the superstitious Christian belief that diseases were the just rewards of a sinful life.
It almost sounds like ObamaCare.
Paracelsus drove his opponents crazy. Many thought him insane (and if you ever read about his life, he just might have been). He was ostracized, attacked, stripped of his posts, bankrupted, persecuted, publicly vilified and humiliated...and he was also RIGHT. He suffered because he dared to speak a truth -- actually, many truths -- that offended, well... basically everyone; the members of his profession, the Church, the Universities of Europe, the Rich and the Powerful.
He died penniless and discredited, an itinerant doctor travelling all over Europe -- on foot -- experimenting, treating the sick and injured for the sake of his belief that he was put on this Earth for just that purpose. He left his few remaining possessions (one legend has it these consisted of his writings, a cloak, and a pair of boots) to the poor. His reputation as a thoroughly disagreeable, arrogant, obnoxious -- and most offensive man -- meant that his methods and discoveries would be denied to medical science for many years after his death by his quite considerable number of intellectual, religious and scientific enemies.
The point? Just because you don't like the messenger, just because you don't like the message, it doesn't necessarily follow that either is wrong, and the message certainly should not go unexamined because it offended someones tender sensibilities, or threatened someones rice bowl. Even a really stupid idea presented by a complete asshole can sometimes reveal some drop of wisdom, if you can manage to strip away the bullshit and keep your feelings in check long enough to examine it.
Truth is truth -- even if it's delivered with a four-letter word, a racial slur, bad joke, or a gratuitous insult -- real or perceived -- attached to it.
All this sensitivity bullshit is leading us towards a less-cohesive, rather than a more-inclusive, society. This will slowly chip away at our veneer of civility and the bonds of friendship, and ultimately destroy what few notions of freedom and democracy -- you know, the remaining freedoms that haven't already been bastardized and destroyed by illiberal Liberals already -- that we might have left.
I really fear to live in such a world, and not only because it will be either really, really boring or exceedingly violent, but because it will be intellectually, artistically and spiritually sterile. What remains of Life after such a thing occurs would be hardly worth living, because the basic right of expression will have been excised from it. No exchange of ideas, no arguments, no jokes, no books, no trade, no art, no music.
All human endeavor would stop right in it's tracks, out of fear of giving offense and the retribution that follows.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Word...
It was Saturday evening, and we're all sitting around the Lunatic's Sister's kitchen table. The cake has just been served, this day being her birthday (Happy Birthday, Dear Sister!). One of my nephews has just called another "retarded", as kids are wont to do.
What happened next was something that sent douchechills down my spine, and produced a violent urge to vomit.
"You know", The Lunatic's Sister says to her child, "you're not supposed to say 'retarded' to people, because it's hurtful. What did they tell you at school about that?"
"Why not?" asks the Lunatic, innocently, wishing he hadn't asked just as soon as the words are uttered, because it has just dawned upon him at that very second that he's about to listen to an explanation of why that word has become verboten that will be long, pointless, and...well...umm....rather retarded.
The Lunatics Sister, after all, is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, he asked for it, the Moron ( I wonder: Am I allowed to use that word, if I apply it only to myself?), and by God, he's gonna hear it -- if only because My Sister sometimes behaves as if she's my Mother, as well. This pisses me off because:
a) I already have a Mother who lectures me (still) while having nothing intelligent or positive to say, and
b) Nothing pisses me off more than being lectured to in that annoying and condescending tone which both Mother and Sister adopt, as if they're talking to a wayward child, with that irritating habit they have of being unable to explain themselves without a lengthy pre-amble, a diversion to a parable which might only be tangentially related to the subject at hand, and that slow and deliberate diction that would make one believe that I'm a retard, too, if you'd ever heard it.
I can hardly wait.
It turns out that a child at my nephew's school is what they now refer to as "mentally-challenged". I happen to know the child in question; he's autistic, and is given to unpredictable outbursts. I disagree, strongly, with the label "mentally-challenged" when applied to the Autistic because of my experiences with several autistic people. I know autistics that would put the greatest mathematicians of history to shame, who hold down important and complicated jobs, or who are capable of doing anything most people could do, infinitely better, and with a level of precision that would give a German engineer a permanent hard-on.
I'm a fanatical believer in the theory that we, the Human Race, would not live in the world we do if it hadn't been for some autistic dude sitting in the back of a cave, spending hours and days flaking away at a pierce of flint to form the perfect spearhead. I believe that some of the greatest scientific, literary and artistic minds in human history were probably autistic, or at least possessed some of the same qualities that we ascribe to autistic people. Autism does not mean"challenged", nor does it mean"stupid". Anyways, back to our story.
So, The School recently had another of it's fund-raiser evenings -- why a public school, supported by tax dollars, requires an almost-continuous series of fundraising drives is a question that no one can adequately answer for me. It seems that while the City and State of New York see fit to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,000 per student per academic year, it does so without buying supplies for the classroom. The money raised, I'm told, often goes to buy the Basics: from art supplies to toilet paper -- and this particular child caused a commotion during the festivities.
This kerfufle caused the parent of another child to remark "I think that kid's retarded" , apparently whispered to another, but still within earshot of the autistic boy's mother. This observation, made by an ignorant clod with no social graces, apparently troubled her to no end because within days there was a PTA meeting where the subject of the word "Retarded" -- and the evil and incorrect applications and connotations connected with it -- became the main subject of intense debate.
Some observations on the 'debate', as it was explained to me;
1. The child in question is NOT retarded, he's autistic. Most people do not make the distinction, or even know the difference. Mother-with-a-Stick-up-Her-Ass wants everyone to know that her son is Autistic and NOT Retarded. In the often-confusing world of politically-correct causes, Autism somehow rates higher than simple Mental Retardation. Angry Mother is offended that someone may have used a word that somehow downgrades her son's condition. Like being Retarded is akin to living in the ghetto to Autism's Gated Community? Autism is to Mercedes what Retarded is to Ford Pinto? By what standard we say that this particular affliction is more worthy or honorable than another is beyond me, and I think my head exploded when I heard this ridiculous 'argument' about a distinction most people are incapable of making without conscious effort.
It all probably has to do with some sort of competition between "Special Needs" childrens' parents for state aid, I'll bet.
2. The word 'retarded' is hurtful, mean-spirited, and damages an already-fragile child's self-esteem, and shouldn't even be used to describe a child who is, you know, actually retarded. Unless, of course, you -- as the parent of a retarded child -- choose to wear your genetic failure as a badge of courage, shout "RETARDED!" at the top of your lungs in order to get to the head of the line at Disneyland, or use your child's affliction to get yourself some charity money, taxpayer funds, special consideration, sympathy, or fake affirmations of your 'courage'. Life, and the vagaries of Genetics, have handed you a veritable Lemon; make Lemonade. Love your child, by all means, but don't expect that others should have to give you a medal or some special accommodation because of his/her condition.
That Society often does so is a matter of courtesy; you don't get to elevate that into a special set of extra-constitutional rights.
3. Henceforth, sayeth the School, the word "retarded" is hereby banned from the vocabulary of all the Inmates..errr...Students...and there will be a 'Zero-Tolerance' policy regarding the use of the word. Penalties are not specifically discussed, but promises are made by the Gods of Education that they will, indeed, be harsh. Just what 'harsh' means in the context of children between the ages of 5 and 10 is an open question. I rather doubt flogging is going to make a comeback, and quite frankly, expulsion would probably do some of the students more benefit than real harm. After all, this is a school which has a janitor with a huge yearly budget, but somehow he's not allowed to spend any of it on cleaning supplies, because parents are constantly being asked to send the children to school with all sorts of anti-bacterial products.
'Zero-Tolerance' policies, mind you, often trip over their own self-defeating logic; if the original argument was over context (as in this case), then the application of the policy must, by it's very nature, also trip all over context. Since no one feels capable, or willing, to make a decision regarding context the easist thing to do is to simply avoid the discussion altogether. One hopes. This is not an enlightened policy: it is an abrogation of responsibility. In the context of educators guiding and shaping young minds, it is a surrender of the intellectual to the emotional, and ultimately serves no one well. This should have served as one of them 'teaching moments' I keep hearing about; why not take the time to instruct the children on the differences between retarded and autistic, stress a little understanding, patience and courtesy, and then tell Mommy-Run-Amok to shut the fuck up and deal, like an adult?
Anyways, I listened to my Sister relate the whole sordid tale, and wanted to reach across the table and strangle the life out of her, because she swallowed the whole 'Zero-Tolerance' nonsense completely, and was determined to enforce it within her own home.
Okay, fine. It's your house and they are your kids, so do what you like, but you have, Dear Sister, missed the Bigger Point (this is, indeed, my Sister's greatest talent, so I'm not entirely surprised). Actually, she's missed a bunch of points.
The first is that a greater mass of people are being punished for the thoughtlessness of another. Some asshole with no class mutters something he shouldn't, and gives offense. In the Old Days when people simply sucked things up and soldiered on -- or just got into a fistfight and solved their problems Mano-a-Mano -- this would have been taken care of immediately, and would not have required a public meeting and a censorship regime.
The Second is that it's kind of ridiculous that one person should be allowed to impose this sort of censorship over hundreds simply because she was offended. How it came to be that we, as a society, began to empower those with often-petty axes to grind is something I often wonder about, and then fervently wish we could reverse with a carefully-planned program of street executions. Unfortunately, there are some people who haven't learned the very simple lesson that Life Sucks, and that on any given day, you will probably be offended at least once, and then there are other people who haven't learned the lesson that once you allow a petty grievance to become a Federal Case -- and then crafted an all-encompassing policy to address that specific grievance -- you've opened the floodgates to all sorts of stupidity.
Today, it's the use of the adjective 'retard' in an offensive context; tomorrow, it'll be wearing a cross or yarmulke to school, wearing certain colors on certain days, a particular item in a bagged lunch, or a student's superior fashion sense which will make someone, somewhere, groan about 'unfairness' and 'offense'.
The simple truth is that the majority of people who inhabit this Blue Marble are dumber than dogshit; addressing their petty concerns in such a sweeping manner only leads to a coarsening and constriction of Life for the rest of us.
The final problem I have with this is that a word, which is perfectly valid and has a meaning outside the context of handicapped children, is being taken away from other children at a point in their educational lives where they are forming the primary abilities they will need to express themselves later in life. They are learning to expand their vocabulary, they are learning the lessons of context and contrast within language. The word 'Retarded', in and of itself, is not offensive; it's an adjective. The only power it has to offend is the power that people choose to give it.
Banning it's use may make Mother-Mind-Everyone-Else's-Business happy, but she has done, I think.a great disservice to the other children in the school. What, for example, would happen if it should turn out that Shakespeare, or perhaps a Great Poet, happened to use the word 'Retarded' in their works? Should we ban Shakespeare? Should we rewrite the entire literature of the Western World so as to remove all the words that are personally offensive to her? What if the word appeared in a scientific treatise? Should we develop a new way to teach sciences with an entirely new and non-offensive terminology?
No sooner did I hear this sorry tale then I went right home and broke out my copy of George Orwell's 1984.
In that tale of Political Correctness run amok, the Protagonist, Winston Smith, is a newspaper reporter (in a sense; what he actually 'reports' is not 'news', but rather Politically Correct lies and a continuous rewriting of history for political puposes) is having a conversation with a colleage who is involved in the recrafting of the English language (called Newspeak in the book).
This collegaue is openly bragging about his work, which is the destruction of words; especially words that have political signifigance. These words must be purged from the lexicon because they can be used to express discontent, to foment counter-revolution, or because they would expose some politically-inconvenient truths that The Party would rather keep hidden or obscured. This colleague postulates that in the future, the English Language will eventually contain but ONE word, and it's meanings and context would be rigidly defined and no other meaning or context could ever be permitted.
The ultimate purpose of the destruction of words was to deprive the people of the ability to communicate with one another, or to express dissent and discontent, as a means of keeping the directing brains of society (The Inner Party, i.e. The Government) in power forever.
Perhaps it is a great leap to make -- from the banning of a word in order to soothe one person's ruffled sensibilities to the loss of ability to express Political Dissent -- but the effect is the same. With each banning of a word, with each narrowing of the scope of thought, with each attack on the individual's right of free expression, we're one step closer to tyranny. Whether it's the tyranny of a panty-bunched school board, a hyper-sensitive Mother, or an overbearing Government, matters not: we're slowly being trained to avoid saying what we feel. When you forbid people from speaking freely -- even inartfully or meanly -- you no longer have the most basic of freedoms.
I can understand why a Mother with a difficult child might be offended by the insensitive comment of a total dipshit; I don't understand why it was that someone gave her the power to remove a word from the vocabulary of hundreds of children -- and though she may not have intended to do this -- given an unelected, and largely unaccountable, school administration the power to limit the way in which people might choose to express themselves.
I also don't understand how it is that my Sister swallowed this dangerous precedent whole without thinking about it's implications. She's not THAT dumb, after all, but perhaps she's just been trained better than I have.
Before I get a flood of e-mail accusing me of being indifferent to the plight of 'challenged' children and harried parents, let me make it clear that I am not without sympathy. Let me also make it clear that your Autistic child's 'limitations' are mostly of your own making, and ultimately speak more about YOU than about HIM. The child in question is a sweet, loving, beautiful little boy -- I know him personally -- and I'm convinced that if you (his Mother) didn't dote on him, and try so hard to 'protect' him, he'd find himself a nice little niche in this society and be far more useful, productive and relevant than a goodly number of so-called 'normal' people.
The first obstacle that you -- as a parent -- have put in his way is to hide the truth from him; that this world is inhabited by thoughtless morons who learned how to whisper in a sawmill, and who have no manners, and now that you've taught him that to get ahead all he has to scream louder and brandish his 'disability' like a club, don't be surprised when he starts doing the same to YOU.
After all, he's not stupid.
I would wager that he's smarter than any ten people you know combined.
I would, however, hope that one day Mommy Dearest might realize what she has done, and how she has behaved, and come to regret it. Unfortunately, when that day comes it'll only be after someone has dictated how she should live her own life in much the same way that she has just dictated that others should live theirs.
Such is human nature.
That's far a more offensive possibility, to me, than someone misapplying the word 'Retard' in a way that you find irritating.
UPDATE: Edited for spelling and grammar. My apologies!
What happened next was something that sent douchechills down my spine, and produced a violent urge to vomit.
"You know", The Lunatic's Sister says to her child, "you're not supposed to say 'retarded' to people, because it's hurtful. What did they tell you at school about that?"
"Why not?" asks the Lunatic, innocently, wishing he hadn't asked just as soon as the words are uttered, because it has just dawned upon him at that very second that he's about to listen to an explanation of why that word has become verboten that will be long, pointless, and...well...umm....rather retarded.
The Lunatics Sister, after all, is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, he asked for it, the Moron ( I wonder: Am I allowed to use that word, if I apply it only to myself?), and by God, he's gonna hear it -- if only because My Sister sometimes behaves as if she's my Mother, as well. This pisses me off because:
a) I already have a Mother who lectures me (still) while having nothing intelligent or positive to say, and
b) Nothing pisses me off more than being lectured to in that annoying and condescending tone which both Mother and Sister adopt, as if they're talking to a wayward child, with that irritating habit they have of being unable to explain themselves without a lengthy pre-amble, a diversion to a parable which might only be tangentially related to the subject at hand, and that slow and deliberate diction that would make one believe that I'm a retard, too, if you'd ever heard it.
I can hardly wait.
It turns out that a child at my nephew's school is what they now refer to as "mentally-challenged". I happen to know the child in question; he's autistic, and is given to unpredictable outbursts. I disagree, strongly, with the label "mentally-challenged" when applied to the Autistic because of my experiences with several autistic people. I know autistics that would put the greatest mathematicians of history to shame, who hold down important and complicated jobs, or who are capable of doing anything most people could do, infinitely better, and with a level of precision that would give a German engineer a permanent hard-on.
I'm a fanatical believer in the theory that we, the Human Race, would not live in the world we do if it hadn't been for some autistic dude sitting in the back of a cave, spending hours and days flaking away at a pierce of flint to form the perfect spearhead. I believe that some of the greatest scientific, literary and artistic minds in human history were probably autistic, or at least possessed some of the same qualities that we ascribe to autistic people. Autism does not mean"challenged", nor does it mean"stupid". Anyways, back to our story.
So, The School recently had another of it's fund-raiser evenings -- why a public school, supported by tax dollars, requires an almost-continuous series of fundraising drives is a question that no one can adequately answer for me. It seems that while the City and State of New York see fit to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,000 per student per academic year, it does so without buying supplies for the classroom. The money raised, I'm told, often goes to buy the Basics: from art supplies to toilet paper -- and this particular child caused a commotion during the festivities.
This kerfufle caused the parent of another child to remark "I think that kid's retarded" , apparently whispered to another, but still within earshot of the autistic boy's mother. This observation, made by an ignorant clod with no social graces, apparently troubled her to no end because within days there was a PTA meeting where the subject of the word "Retarded" -- and the evil and incorrect applications and connotations connected with it -- became the main subject of intense debate.
Some observations on the 'debate', as it was explained to me;
1. The child in question is NOT retarded, he's autistic. Most people do not make the distinction, or even know the difference. Mother-with-a-Stick-up-Her-Ass wants everyone to know that her son is Autistic and NOT Retarded. In the often-confusing world of politically-correct causes, Autism somehow rates higher than simple Mental Retardation. Angry Mother is offended that someone may have used a word that somehow downgrades her son's condition. Like being Retarded is akin to living in the ghetto to Autism's Gated Community? Autism is to Mercedes what Retarded is to Ford Pinto? By what standard we say that this particular affliction is more worthy or honorable than another is beyond me, and I think my head exploded when I heard this ridiculous 'argument' about a distinction most people are incapable of making without conscious effort.
It all probably has to do with some sort of competition between "Special Needs" childrens' parents for state aid, I'll bet.
2. The word 'retarded' is hurtful, mean-spirited, and damages an already-fragile child's self-esteem, and shouldn't even be used to describe a child who is, you know, actually retarded. Unless, of course, you -- as the parent of a retarded child -- choose to wear your genetic failure as a badge of courage, shout "RETARDED!" at the top of your lungs in order to get to the head of the line at Disneyland, or use your child's affliction to get yourself some charity money, taxpayer funds, special consideration, sympathy, or fake affirmations of your 'courage'. Life, and the vagaries of Genetics, have handed you a veritable Lemon; make Lemonade. Love your child, by all means, but don't expect that others should have to give you a medal or some special accommodation because of his/her condition.
That Society often does so is a matter of courtesy; you don't get to elevate that into a special set of extra-constitutional rights.
3. Henceforth, sayeth the School, the word "retarded" is hereby banned from the vocabulary of all the Inmates..errr...Students...and there will be a 'Zero-Tolerance' policy regarding the use of the word. Penalties are not specifically discussed, but promises are made by the Gods of Education that they will, indeed, be harsh. Just what 'harsh' means in the context of children between the ages of 5 and 10 is an open question. I rather doubt flogging is going to make a comeback, and quite frankly, expulsion would probably do some of the students more benefit than real harm. After all, this is a school which has a janitor with a huge yearly budget, but somehow he's not allowed to spend any of it on cleaning supplies, because parents are constantly being asked to send the children to school with all sorts of anti-bacterial products.
'Zero-Tolerance' policies, mind you, often trip over their own self-defeating logic; if the original argument was over context (as in this case), then the application of the policy must, by it's very nature, also trip all over context. Since no one feels capable, or willing, to make a decision regarding context the easist thing to do is to simply avoid the discussion altogether. One hopes. This is not an enlightened policy: it is an abrogation of responsibility. In the context of educators guiding and shaping young minds, it is a surrender of the intellectual to the emotional, and ultimately serves no one well. This should have served as one of them 'teaching moments' I keep hearing about; why not take the time to instruct the children on the differences between retarded and autistic, stress a little understanding, patience and courtesy, and then tell Mommy-Run-Amok to shut the fuck up and deal, like an adult?
Anyways, I listened to my Sister relate the whole sordid tale, and wanted to reach across the table and strangle the life out of her, because she swallowed the whole 'Zero-Tolerance' nonsense completely, and was determined to enforce it within her own home.
Okay, fine. It's your house and they are your kids, so do what you like, but you have, Dear Sister, missed the Bigger Point (this is, indeed, my Sister's greatest talent, so I'm not entirely surprised). Actually, she's missed a bunch of points.
The first is that a greater mass of people are being punished for the thoughtlessness of another. Some asshole with no class mutters something he shouldn't, and gives offense. In the Old Days when people simply sucked things up and soldiered on -- or just got into a fistfight and solved their problems Mano-a-Mano -- this would have been taken care of immediately, and would not have required a public meeting and a censorship regime.
The Second is that it's kind of ridiculous that one person should be allowed to impose this sort of censorship over hundreds simply because she was offended. How it came to be that we, as a society, began to empower those with often-petty axes to grind is something I often wonder about, and then fervently wish we could reverse with a carefully-planned program of street executions. Unfortunately, there are some people who haven't learned the very simple lesson that Life Sucks, and that on any given day, you will probably be offended at least once, and then there are other people who haven't learned the lesson that once you allow a petty grievance to become a Federal Case -- and then crafted an all-encompassing policy to address that specific grievance -- you've opened the floodgates to all sorts of stupidity.
Today, it's the use of the adjective 'retard' in an offensive context; tomorrow, it'll be wearing a cross or yarmulke to school, wearing certain colors on certain days, a particular item in a bagged lunch, or a student's superior fashion sense which will make someone, somewhere, groan about 'unfairness' and 'offense'.
The simple truth is that the majority of people who inhabit this Blue Marble are dumber than dogshit; addressing their petty concerns in such a sweeping manner only leads to a coarsening and constriction of Life for the rest of us.
The final problem I have with this is that a word, which is perfectly valid and has a meaning outside the context of handicapped children, is being taken away from other children at a point in their educational lives where they are forming the primary abilities they will need to express themselves later in life. They are learning to expand their vocabulary, they are learning the lessons of context and contrast within language. The word 'Retarded', in and of itself, is not offensive; it's an adjective. The only power it has to offend is the power that people choose to give it.
Banning it's use may make Mother-Mind-Everyone-Else's-Business happy, but she has done, I think.a great disservice to the other children in the school. What, for example, would happen if it should turn out that Shakespeare, or perhaps a Great Poet, happened to use the word 'Retarded' in their works? Should we ban Shakespeare? Should we rewrite the entire literature of the Western World so as to remove all the words that are personally offensive to her? What if the word appeared in a scientific treatise? Should we develop a new way to teach sciences with an entirely new and non-offensive terminology?
No sooner did I hear this sorry tale then I went right home and broke out my copy of George Orwell's 1984.
In that tale of Political Correctness run amok, the Protagonist, Winston Smith, is a newspaper reporter (in a sense; what he actually 'reports' is not 'news', but rather Politically Correct lies and a continuous rewriting of history for political puposes) is having a conversation with a colleage who is involved in the recrafting of the English language (called Newspeak in the book).
This collegaue is openly bragging about his work, which is the destruction of words; especially words that have political signifigance. These words must be purged from the lexicon because they can be used to express discontent, to foment counter-revolution, or because they would expose some politically-inconvenient truths that The Party would rather keep hidden or obscured. This colleague postulates that in the future, the English Language will eventually contain but ONE word, and it's meanings and context would be rigidly defined and no other meaning or context could ever be permitted.
The ultimate purpose of the destruction of words was to deprive the people of the ability to communicate with one another, or to express dissent and discontent, as a means of keeping the directing brains of society (The Inner Party, i.e. The Government) in power forever.
Perhaps it is a great leap to make -- from the banning of a word in order to soothe one person's ruffled sensibilities to the loss of ability to express Political Dissent -- but the effect is the same. With each banning of a word, with each narrowing of the scope of thought, with each attack on the individual's right of free expression, we're one step closer to tyranny. Whether it's the tyranny of a panty-bunched school board, a hyper-sensitive Mother, or an overbearing Government, matters not: we're slowly being trained to avoid saying what we feel. When you forbid people from speaking freely -- even inartfully or meanly -- you no longer have the most basic of freedoms.
I can understand why a Mother with a difficult child might be offended by the insensitive comment of a total dipshit; I don't understand why it was that someone gave her the power to remove a word from the vocabulary of hundreds of children -- and though she may not have intended to do this -- given an unelected, and largely unaccountable, school administration the power to limit the way in which people might choose to express themselves.
I also don't understand how it is that my Sister swallowed this dangerous precedent whole without thinking about it's implications. She's not THAT dumb, after all, but perhaps she's just been trained better than I have.
Before I get a flood of e-mail accusing me of being indifferent to the plight of 'challenged' children and harried parents, let me make it clear that I am not without sympathy. Let me also make it clear that your Autistic child's 'limitations' are mostly of your own making, and ultimately speak more about YOU than about HIM. The child in question is a sweet, loving, beautiful little boy -- I know him personally -- and I'm convinced that if you (his Mother) didn't dote on him, and try so hard to 'protect' him, he'd find himself a nice little niche in this society and be far more useful, productive and relevant than a goodly number of so-called 'normal' people.
The first obstacle that you -- as a parent -- have put in his way is to hide the truth from him; that this world is inhabited by thoughtless morons who learned how to whisper in a sawmill, and who have no manners, and now that you've taught him that to get ahead all he has to scream louder and brandish his 'disability' like a club, don't be surprised when he starts doing the same to YOU.
After all, he's not stupid.
I would wager that he's smarter than any ten people you know combined.
I would, however, hope that one day Mommy Dearest might realize what she has done, and how she has behaved, and come to regret it. Unfortunately, when that day comes it'll only be after someone has dictated how she should live her own life in much the same way that she has just dictated that others should live theirs.
Such is human nature.
That's far a more offensive possibility, to me, than someone misapplying the word 'Retard' in a way that you find irritating.
UPDATE: Edited for spelling and grammar. My apologies!
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
"Princess Boys"...
This is what happens when you treat your children as a fashion accessory,or project your unfulfilled dreams and aspirations upon them, and you encourage behavior in them for the purposes of writing a freakin' book, because that's easier than working for a living.
You are not a parent; you are a little girl playing at Barbie Dolls...with Penises. Which, I'm led to understand that Barbie's supposedly-hetero-male counterpart, Ken, does not have.
Now, does letting your son wear a dress and forcing him to take ballet classes against his will for your own personal edification produce a well-adjusted child?
Take a look at the potential future mayor of Chicago, and you tell me.
But, I digress...
feel sorry for this little boy, because he obviously has a mother who is a dumbass, and one is left wondering "Where the fuck is this kid's father?", and, "Why hasn't he smacked the shit out of his Baby Momma yet?"
Now, kids go through phases; we all know this. It's quite possible this child will outgrow his passion for pink and purple frilly things. I certainly hope that he does, but it's going to be difficult when his mother is a pretentious moron with a political agenda, and less native intelligence than one normally associates with a garden snail. She's found herself a Golden Goose in our therapeutic culture, and one gets the impression that we have another ersatz "expert" in the making; you know, those people the newsdouches turn to for answers to obscure questions on obscure subjects that no one wants answered, but that some idiot producer thinks would make an awesome "human interest" story.
"Mom" is in the process of making a career for herself out of her child's idiosyncracies. In any context except within the touchy-feely world of the drum-circle-diversity-inclusion industry, this would be called "exploitation".
Watching this video, it's obvious that the mother is little more than this kid's puppet master: she has to encourage the kid to speak (almost like she's giving him permission to do so) when Meredith Viera (damn that woman still looks good after all these years) asks him a question, and then usually ends up answering it for him. Edgar Bergen was a rank amateur compared to this doofus, who should be taken out and shot for the rankest and most egregious child abuse.
Seriously, if your boys are wearing dresses, and it ain't for the school play, or a Halloween costume, and they're above the age of 3; you've got a problem.
Normal parents who recognize their child has a problem take them to doctors, or take corrective action on their own. They don't write look-at-me books and go on the Today Show.
(H/T JammieWearingFool).
You are not a parent; you are a little girl playing at Barbie Dolls...with Penises. Which, I'm led to understand that Barbie's supposedly-hetero-male counterpart, Ken, does not have.
Now, does letting your son wear a dress and forcing him to take ballet classes against his will for your own personal edification produce a well-adjusted child?
Take a look at the potential future mayor of Chicago, and you tell me.
But, I digress...
feel sorry for this little boy, because he obviously has a mother who is a dumbass, and one is left wondering "Where the fuck is this kid's father?", and, "Why hasn't he smacked the shit out of his Baby Momma yet?"
Now, kids go through phases; we all know this. It's quite possible this child will outgrow his passion for pink and purple frilly things. I certainly hope that he does, but it's going to be difficult when his mother is a pretentious moron with a political agenda, and less native intelligence than one normally associates with a garden snail. She's found herself a Golden Goose in our therapeutic culture, and one gets the impression that we have another ersatz "expert" in the making; you know, those people the newsdouches turn to for answers to obscure questions on obscure subjects that no one wants answered, but that some idiot producer thinks would make an awesome "human interest" story.
"Mom" is in the process of making a career for herself out of her child's idiosyncracies. In any context except within the touchy-feely world of the drum-circle-diversity-inclusion industry, this would be called "exploitation".
Watching this video, it's obvious that the mother is little more than this kid's puppet master: she has to encourage the kid to speak (almost like she's giving him permission to do so) when Meredith Viera (damn that woman still looks good after all these years) asks him a question, and then usually ends up answering it for him. Edgar Bergen was a rank amateur compared to this doofus, who should be taken out and shot for the rankest and most egregious child abuse.
Seriously, if your boys are wearing dresses, and it ain't for the school play, or a Halloween costume, and they're above the age of 3; you've got a problem.
Normal parents who recognize their child has a problem take them to doctors, or take corrective action on their own. They don't write look-at-me books and go on the Today Show.
(H/T JammieWearingFool).
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Bedbug Problem Now Officially Upgraded to Crisis!
This changes everything;
Bedbugs found at Bloomingdales.
Some predictions:
Expect the rich folk to scoff at the treehuggers, whom they formerly loved so much, and demand that Congress allow the reintroduction of DDT in order to drive the vermin from their homes to protect their precious minks and Versace clothes!
Expect to see a lot of stories in the media soon about domestics being discriminated against because of their race and/or immigration status, as the oh-so-sensitive Upper East Side Twits starts firing the cheap, illegal labor that brought this plague into their expensive homes, and which may bring them great social embarrassment.
Expect the words "Guaranteed Bedbug Free" to start popping up in tony department and furniture stores in the very near future.
Expect landfills to start filling up with old mattresses and clothes, leading to the next ecological disaster to be milked for billions by the usual crew.
Remember: nothing is ever a problem until Rich Liberals are directly affected...and then it becomes a crisis demanding swift action!
Bedbugs found at Bloomingdales.
Some predictions:
Expect the rich folk to scoff at the treehuggers, whom they formerly loved so much, and demand that Congress allow the reintroduction of DDT in order to drive the vermin from their homes to protect their precious minks and Versace clothes!
Expect to see a lot of stories in the media soon about domestics being discriminated against because of their race and/or immigration status, as the oh-so-sensitive Upper East Side Twits starts firing the cheap, illegal labor that brought this plague into their expensive homes, and which may bring them great social embarrassment.
Expect the words "Guaranteed Bedbug Free" to start popping up in tony department and furniture stores in the very near future.
Expect landfills to start filling up with old mattresses and clothes, leading to the next ecological disaster to be milked for billions by the usual crew.
Remember: nothing is ever a problem until Rich Liberals are directly affected...and then it becomes a crisis demanding swift action!
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
They Still Think Al Gore Really Won in 2000, Too....
The New York Times ("All the news that's fit to fake...") regales us with a story about Arizona democrats fuming over "fake" Green Party candidates...who happen to be Homeless* folks recruited by evil republicans...
What does it say about an Arizona democrat if you lose elections to the Homeless*? What does it say about democrats in general, when they have spent decades championing the cause of The Homeless*, only to suggest that The Homeless* have no right to run for political offices that should have gone to democrats because..well...they deserve them.
I mean, aren't The Homeless* citizens, too?
Well, if you're a democrat, apparently not. Everyone knows The Homeless* are simply a club with which to beat republicans over the head when they're in power. But, I digress...
Of course, all the consternation boils down to one thing: the elitist attitude of some democrats, who believe they are entitled to win elections because...they care...and stuff, and that some candidates are more deserving than others, especially those who have patiently awaited their turn while dutifully serving the democratic Party machinery. These small posts are often springboards to better, and more powerful ones, from whence they can really do damage to society and the Republic, and better implement their oppressive brand of utter bullshit. They deserve these posts, many of which are simply sinecures, by virtue of who they are, and what they claim to stand for. You can't let something as trifling as a requirement for a competitive election get in the way of getting a democrat elected to anything.
That a Homeless* person might actually be able to do the job they're trying to get elected to do never seems to enter into the equation, nor does anyone even think about their rights as citizens or to hold public office -- if they somehow find the means to run (I rather doubt you get there on spare change and turning aluminum cans in for recycling).
Now, is it political subterfuge by republicans to pull any douchebag off the street and stick him/her on a ballot in the hopes of splitting the Leftard vote? No more than it is keeping dead democrats on the voter rolls, some who were born in 1825, I guess.
If I remember correctly, in the 2000 Presidential election,The City of Philadelphia (democratic stronghold)reported a 104% turnout by registered voters.
Chicago politics is (in)famous for it's ability to get dead voters to go out and vote for live people. In fact, Chicago democrats don't even try to hide the fact that their elections are rigged.
In the 2000 Senate Elections,Missouri democrats pulled off an even more amazing feat and got live people to vote for a dead man (Mel Carnahan), who's office was mysteriously passed on to his wife Jean when he won, posthumously. I didn't realize one could bequeath a Senate seat to a bereaved widow, did you? I wonder what article of the Constitution that one's in? She was such an effective legislator, and such a memorable personality, that I doubt that even anyone in her own family -- let alone the state of Missouri, and certainly not many nationally -- remembers just who the fuck she was.
In the 2000 Presidential Election, it was common knowledge that Al Gore's minions went out, scooped up every elderly person not circling the bowl,every welfare recipient and illegal alien they could find, bussed them to the polls, provided them with lunch, and even told them to "Pick #2" . The only reason this did not achieve the desired result, is that Gore was actually #3 on most ballots, hence all the hullabaloo about chads, scuff marks and divining "voter intent", and fucking lawsuits.
Every year, we hear stories of people handing out cigarettes and cash to the Homeless* to go and vote for certain candidates, or tires being slashed or vehicles vandalized to keep republicans from bringing their voters to the polls. Gunshots, Molotov cocktails through campaign-office windows, destruction of campaign signs, are election-year staple stories for most newspapers and local news channels, and the perpetrators of these acts typically turn out to be democrats.
John F. Kennedy became a senator because his father hired a man with the same name as JFK's opponent, and got him on the ballot, and in such fashion split the vote in Kennedy's favor. That bit of subterfuge eventually led that incredible douchebag to the Oval Office.
The point being, that if anyone knows a thing or two about voter fraud and political subterfuge, it would be a democrat. While I'm not for subverting the political process in any way, and would cheer the day when elections in America were truly fair, I find it uproariously funny to listen to democrats squeal when they are beaten at their own game, and with their own tactics.
* The Homeless live in refrigerator boxes, subway tunnels, abandoned buildings, mental institutions, and publicly-funded shelters. They are not so much"Homeless" as they are "people without a permanent address". Notice that under a democratic party regime, no one is talking about those who used to have a permanent address, but no longer do because they lost their job and defaulted on the mortgage...
What does it say about an Arizona democrat if you lose elections to the Homeless*? What does it say about democrats in general, when they have spent decades championing the cause of The Homeless*, only to suggest that The Homeless* have no right to run for political offices that should have gone to democrats because..well...they deserve them.
I mean, aren't The Homeless* citizens, too?
Well, if you're a democrat, apparently not. Everyone knows The Homeless* are simply a club with which to beat republicans over the head when they're in power. But, I digress...
Of course, all the consternation boils down to one thing: the elitist attitude of some democrats, who believe they are entitled to win elections because...they care...and stuff, and that some candidates are more deserving than others, especially those who have patiently awaited their turn while dutifully serving the democratic Party machinery. These small posts are often springboards to better, and more powerful ones, from whence they can really do damage to society and the Republic, and better implement their oppressive brand of utter bullshit. They deserve these posts, many of which are simply sinecures, by virtue of who they are, and what they claim to stand for. You can't let something as trifling as a requirement for a competitive election get in the way of getting a democrat elected to anything.
That a Homeless* person might actually be able to do the job they're trying to get elected to do never seems to enter into the equation, nor does anyone even think about their rights as citizens or to hold public office -- if they somehow find the means to run (I rather doubt you get there on spare change and turning aluminum cans in for recycling).
Now, is it political subterfuge by republicans to pull any douchebag off the street and stick him/her on a ballot in the hopes of splitting the Leftard vote? No more than it is keeping dead democrats on the voter rolls, some who were born in 1825, I guess.
If I remember correctly, in the 2000 Presidential election,The City of Philadelphia (democratic stronghold)reported a 104% turnout by registered voters.
Chicago politics is (in)famous for it's ability to get dead voters to go out and vote for live people. In fact, Chicago democrats don't even try to hide the fact that their elections are rigged.
In the 2000 Senate Elections,Missouri democrats pulled off an even more amazing feat and got live people to vote for a dead man (Mel Carnahan), who's office was mysteriously passed on to his wife Jean when he won, posthumously. I didn't realize one could bequeath a Senate seat to a bereaved widow, did you? I wonder what article of the Constitution that one's in? She was such an effective legislator, and such a memorable personality, that I doubt that even anyone in her own family -- let alone the state of Missouri, and certainly not many nationally -- remembers just who the fuck she was.
In the 2000 Presidential Election, it was common knowledge that Al Gore's minions went out, scooped up every elderly person not circling the bowl,every welfare recipient and illegal alien they could find, bussed them to the polls, provided them with lunch, and even told them to "Pick #2" . The only reason this did not achieve the desired result, is that Gore was actually #3 on most ballots, hence all the hullabaloo about chads, scuff marks and divining "voter intent", and fucking lawsuits.
Every year, we hear stories of people handing out cigarettes and cash to the Homeless* to go and vote for certain candidates, or tires being slashed or vehicles vandalized to keep republicans from bringing their voters to the polls. Gunshots, Molotov cocktails through campaign-office windows, destruction of campaign signs, are election-year staple stories for most newspapers and local news channels, and the perpetrators of these acts typically turn out to be democrats.
John F. Kennedy became a senator because his father hired a man with the same name as JFK's opponent, and got him on the ballot, and in such fashion split the vote in Kennedy's favor. That bit of subterfuge eventually led that incredible douchebag to the Oval Office.
The point being, that if anyone knows a thing or two about voter fraud and political subterfuge, it would be a democrat. While I'm not for subverting the political process in any way, and would cheer the day when elections in America were truly fair, I find it uproariously funny to listen to democrats squeal when they are beaten at their own game, and with their own tactics.
* The Homeless live in refrigerator boxes, subway tunnels, abandoned buildings, mental institutions, and publicly-funded shelters. They are not so much"Homeless" as they are "people without a permanent address". Notice that under a democratic party regime, no one is talking about those who used to have a permanent address, but no longer do because they lost their job and defaulted on the mortgage...
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Al Gore Has Blood on His Hands..
Tree-Huggers Kill Themselves, Do something Al Gore Doesn't Have the Courage to Do Himself.
Give them credit for at least being true to their "code"; if only all the other people who believe that mankind is ruining the planet and that a One-World Socialist State run by the U.N. is the answer to all problems were likewise so committed.
Because, ultimately, this is where EnvironMENTALism leads; to the conclusion that the planet is better off without humans, left to revert to it's pristine and natural state, isn't it? At least for the foot soldiers in the movement. The high-mucky-muck like Al Gore are expected to be thanked and given positions of leadership for advocating policies that will kill millions.
The unfortunate part is that the idiots who believed, the brain-damaged sacks of DNA who were supposed to be parents, decided their children had to die for their stupidity, too. And just like pot-smoking slackers everywhere, they did the job in predictably half-assed fashion; they left one alive. Now, that innocent little girl is an orphan, but frankly, she's a lot better off than if her parents had lived. People who come to the conclusion that murder-suicide is a solution to a problem are truly nuts. This child, at least, will now have a chance to be adopted by normal parents who will give her a normal life, love her, and think of her in terms of a her basic humanity instead of her environMENTAL impact.
Because those so-called parents, I don't believe, ever loved their children. The proof is that they resorted to (attempted) murder in the name of a psuedo-scientific-theory-elevated-into-religion based upon lies. Those weren't children in their minds; those were potential polluters and exploiters of Mother Gaia... they were carbon footprints.
I wonder if Al Gore will sleep soundly tonight knowing that he's promulgating a scam upon people who are mentally weak and in need of psychological help, to the point where murder-suicide seems a reasonable alternative to them? I wonder, if Al Gore now feels like Osama Bin Laden in the sense that his words and deeds on behalf of a crackpot cause, the re-romaticisizing of World Socialism under the guise of a religion, have incited the murder of innocents?
(Note: Yes, that may be a bit hyperbolic, but the analogy holds true. Al Gore would kill millions with his philosophy if it meant he got rich, powerful and could aggrandize himself in the process. Just like Bin Laden, he wants to be seen as the savior of... something, and amply rewarded for his service).
I rather doubt Mr. Gore actually gives a shit. After all, he has a billion dollars, a Nobel Peace Prize, and he gets invited to all the smart parties that he flies in private jets to. In some precincts, he's even taken seriously an dtreated as if he were relevant, almost sage-like. That "legacy" -- the Legacy of Environmental Prophet, even if it will be potentially responsible for the deaths of millions and the economic ruination of millions more -- is a whole lot better than the one he would have had without Global Warming: crybaby, compulsive liar who tried to sue his way into the White House, but who ultimately lost to a man his political compatriots said was a complete and utter dunce.
Selfish bastard.
Give them credit for at least being true to their "code"; if only all the other people who believe that mankind is ruining the planet and that a One-World Socialist State run by the U.N. is the answer to all problems were likewise so committed.
Because, ultimately, this is where EnvironMENTALism leads; to the conclusion that the planet is better off without humans, left to revert to it's pristine and natural state, isn't it? At least for the foot soldiers in the movement. The high-mucky-muck like Al Gore are expected to be thanked and given positions of leadership for advocating policies that will kill millions.
The unfortunate part is that the idiots who believed, the brain-damaged sacks of DNA who were supposed to be parents, decided their children had to die for their stupidity, too. And just like pot-smoking slackers everywhere, they did the job in predictably half-assed fashion; they left one alive. Now, that innocent little girl is an orphan, but frankly, she's a lot better off than if her parents had lived. People who come to the conclusion that murder-suicide is a solution to a problem are truly nuts. This child, at least, will now have a chance to be adopted by normal parents who will give her a normal life, love her, and think of her in terms of a her basic humanity instead of her environMENTAL impact.
Because those so-called parents, I don't believe, ever loved their children. The proof is that they resorted to (attempted) murder in the name of a psuedo-scientific-theory-elevated-into-religion based upon lies. Those weren't children in their minds; those were potential polluters and exploiters of Mother Gaia... they were carbon footprints.
I wonder if Al Gore will sleep soundly tonight knowing that he's promulgating a scam upon people who are mentally weak and in need of psychological help, to the point where murder-suicide seems a reasonable alternative to them? I wonder, if Al Gore now feels like Osama Bin Laden in the sense that his words and deeds on behalf of a crackpot cause, the re-romaticisizing of World Socialism under the guise of a religion, have incited the murder of innocents?
(Note: Yes, that may be a bit hyperbolic, but the analogy holds true. Al Gore would kill millions with his philosophy if it meant he got rich, powerful and could aggrandize himself in the process. Just like Bin Laden, he wants to be seen as the savior of... something, and amply rewarded for his service).
I rather doubt Mr. Gore actually gives a shit. After all, he has a billion dollars, a Nobel Peace Prize, and he gets invited to all the smart parties that he flies in private jets to. In some precincts, he's even taken seriously an dtreated as if he were relevant, almost sage-like. That "legacy" -- the Legacy of Environmental Prophet, even if it will be potentially responsible for the deaths of millions and the economic ruination of millions more -- is a whole lot better than the one he would have had without Global Warming: crybaby, compulsive liar who tried to sue his way into the White House, but who ultimately lost to a man his political compatriots said was a complete and utter dunce.
Selfish bastard.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
In Real Life, He's a Pantybunched Little Girl...
I know no one watches him anymore, but someone really ought to get Keefy Olbermann some help. Being an expert on self-delusional mental illnesses, I recognize all of his symptoms; the yelling, the hyperbole, the forced drama, the hopping up and down on one foot, face screwed into a mask that's half ecstasy-half-the-strain-of-holding-back-a-raging-bladder, like a little boy bursting for a pee.
You tell me if this appears to be a sane man. In total control of his faculties, for sure!
It's bad enough that Keef makes things up, now he has to latch onto things that other people made up, just to continue his act. Because it really IS an act, you know. It has to be: no one could be this clueless and not be in Congress, or even the White House.
Ooops, did I say "White House?". Tut-tut, Keefy might begin calling me a racist and accuse me of only wanting to be surrounded by People...Who...Look...Like...Me! I'm all a-scared, because when Keef comes after you with the racist brand, boy, you know you're really, really gonna get it! He'll call you "racist" all day long, until his voice is gone, and his molded-to-his-plastic-head haircut is all dishevelled. He can keep it up for hours, too; imagine, having to look at THAT FACE; that one that he puts on when he gets all self-righteous and smug, that looks like he's sitting on his vibrator while someone pours lemon juice into an open wound. Why, that's enough to make most men break!
Except that only Keef takes Keef seriously, and the Act is beginning to wear thin. I say "Act" because like most liberals who appear to care more than the rest of us but really don't, they understand basic economics. Keef's checkbook, and the means to continue to buy super-hot girlfriends, depends on The Act. He makes a lot of money doing this bit, entertaining the Libtards with second-grade shtick, and insult comedy about their favorite boogeymen; Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter...Why, if it weren't for people like that, people who are actually journalists, opinionists, and genuine entertainers, Keef wouldn't have anything. He'd be back in Dogpatch doing play-by-play at an American Legion Softball game.
Keef is obsessed with Rush and Bill, et. al.,because he gets paid to be. And the nastier he gets, the more the Libtards love it, and the more he gets paid for it. You really believe that any sane individual actually believes the crap that (P)MSNBC anchors claim to believe? Do you think they would even give voice to such opinions if they didn't get paid a shitload for it? Rachel Maddow, yeah, but that's only because she finds penis frightening and I don't dare delve into that mental chasm without a hardhat with a light on it, and a stout rope. I also detect a strain of jealousy in Keefy, as well, because while Keefy gets paid well, he doesn't get paid O'Reilly Scale, and that means he can't impress the girlies that he has to pay by the hour to be his girlfriend, and he can but only dream of being in the same category as Limbaugh and Coulter.
Here's my own (unprofessional, though it is) psychological profile of Keefy:
* Penis envy
* Mommy Issues
* Pathological liar
* Narcissism
* Often projects his own, secretly-held beliefs onto others
* Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
* Bi-polar disorder
* Anal-retentive
* Monomania
I also wouldn't be surprised if Keefy was a compulsive masturbator, too -- perhaps spending as much as 12 hours a day Waxing the Totem -- and he's probably tried animal butt sex at least...twice. I wouldn't doubt that his mother either refused to breast feed him, or did so thrice-daily until he was at least 8.
But the Act is wearing thin. The over-the-top, 1970's-gotcha-journalism-dramatic-mock-seriousness and sheer shrillness is beginning to instigate the Great American Pucker Factor; where the very sight of Keef makes people try to suck their own assholes back into their own bodies as a measure of disgust. Watching Keef is like pouring salt on a slug. Listening to the constant rant, the manic rave, the vomit-inducing, irrational-leaps-to-something-purporting-to-be-a-conclusion-but-which-are-only-yet-another-spurious-charge-against-someone-Keef-hates, is simply getting to be tiresome.
It's dull and tedious, and even watching Olbermann have a nervous breakdown while he spouts things he obviously doesn't believe, which are totally without merit, and for which he happily takes an inflated paycheck for, is not worth the time or effort. It was once funny, then it became disgusting, and now it's just sad.
Keith Olbermann needs professional help.
Update: Keefy rejects the invitation to see the People of Color in the Tea Party, but insists that some of his best friends are black. Nothing like accusing people of racism without any foundation at all, and then refusing to be corrected by direct evidence. Must be an example of those fine "journalistic standards" they have at (P)MSNBC.
You tell me if this appears to be a sane man. In total control of his faculties, for sure!
It's bad enough that Keef makes things up, now he has to latch onto things that other people made up, just to continue his act. Because it really IS an act, you know. It has to be: no one could be this clueless and not be in Congress, or even the White House.
Ooops, did I say "White House?". Tut-tut, Keefy might begin calling me a racist and accuse me of only wanting to be surrounded by People...Who...Look...Like...Me! I'm all a-scared, because when Keef comes after you with the racist brand, boy, you know you're really, really gonna get it! He'll call you "racist" all day long, until his voice is gone, and his molded-to-his-plastic-head haircut is all dishevelled. He can keep it up for hours, too; imagine, having to look at THAT FACE; that one that he puts on when he gets all self-righteous and smug, that looks like he's sitting on his vibrator while someone pours lemon juice into an open wound. Why, that's enough to make most men break!
Except that only Keef takes Keef seriously, and the Act is beginning to wear thin. I say "Act" because like most liberals who appear to care more than the rest of us but really don't, they understand basic economics. Keef's checkbook, and the means to continue to buy super-hot girlfriends, depends on The Act. He makes a lot of money doing this bit, entertaining the Libtards with second-grade shtick, and insult comedy about their favorite boogeymen; Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter...Why, if it weren't for people like that, people who are actually journalists, opinionists, and genuine entertainers, Keef wouldn't have anything. He'd be back in Dogpatch doing play-by-play at an American Legion Softball game.
Keef is obsessed with Rush and Bill, et. al.,because he gets paid to be. And the nastier he gets, the more the Libtards love it, and the more he gets paid for it. You really believe that any sane individual actually believes the crap that (P)MSNBC anchors claim to believe? Do you think they would even give voice to such opinions if they didn't get paid a shitload for it? Rachel Maddow, yeah, but that's only because she finds penis frightening and I don't dare delve into that mental chasm without a hardhat with a light on it, and a stout rope. I also detect a strain of jealousy in Keefy, as well, because while Keefy gets paid well, he doesn't get paid O'Reilly Scale, and that means he can't impress the girlies that he has to pay by the hour to be his girlfriend, and he can but only dream of being in the same category as Limbaugh and Coulter.
Here's my own (unprofessional, though it is) psychological profile of Keefy:
* Penis envy
* Mommy Issues
* Pathological liar
* Narcissism
* Often projects his own, secretly-held beliefs onto others
* Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
* Bi-polar disorder
* Anal-retentive
* Monomania
I also wouldn't be surprised if Keefy was a compulsive masturbator, too -- perhaps spending as much as 12 hours a day Waxing the Totem -- and he's probably tried animal butt sex at least...twice. I wouldn't doubt that his mother either refused to breast feed him, or did so thrice-daily until he was at least 8.
But the Act is wearing thin. The over-the-top, 1970's-gotcha-journalism-dramatic-mock-seriousness and sheer shrillness is beginning to instigate the Great American Pucker Factor; where the very sight of Keef makes people try to suck their own assholes back into their own bodies as a measure of disgust. Watching Keef is like pouring salt on a slug. Listening to the constant rant, the manic rave, the vomit-inducing, irrational-leaps-to-something-purporting-to-be-a-conclusion-but-which-are-only-yet-another-spurious-charge-against-someone-Keef-hates, is simply getting to be tiresome.
It's dull and tedious, and even watching Olbermann have a nervous breakdown while he spouts things he obviously doesn't believe, which are totally without merit, and for which he happily takes an inflated paycheck for, is not worth the time or effort. It was once funny, then it became disgusting, and now it's just sad.
Keith Olbermann needs professional help.
Update: Keefy rejects the invitation to see the People of Color in the Tea Party, but insists that some of his best friends are black. Nothing like accusing people of racism without any foundation at all, and then refusing to be corrected by direct evidence. Must be an example of those fine "journalistic standards" they have at (P)MSNBC.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Scott Who: 2012?
I do hate to be the one to say "I told you so..." ...but, fuck it! It's just too good to pass up: I fucking told you so! The Exuberance, as Alan Greenspan would have said, was a bit irrational. You should have done a little more research on this guy and asked some important questions first. All that exuberance gone to waste. I'll bet half the Tea Partiers lost their boner for his daughters when they heard the news.
What did you expect? I mean, how much vetting of this guy did you do before you jumped on his bandwagon and christened him a "real" conservative, and started printing the "Brown 2012" posters? Honestly, there was less info on this guy than there was on Barack Obama; many people thought of him as the Second Coming simply because they saw him as both the anti-Ted Kennedy, and as the way to prevent Harry Reid getting that 60th vote without having to resort to murder.
Scott Brown may yet "save" America from the Horrors of Obamacare, if only because stranger things have happened, like when life accidentally evolved from a random mixture of amino acids. Monkeys have been known to bang away at typewriters, and completely by accident, manage to re-create the works of Shakespeare, so the precedent is there certainly. The 60th vote is now irrelevant, in retrospect, it maybe always was: the dems look set to pass Obamacare bit-by-bit -- as earmarks and such buried within appropriations bills with the tactics of "Reconciliation" -- which only requires 51 Senate Votes. Honestly, $15 billion is not even an awful lot of money when you stop to consider that Obama's spending frenzy threatens a $2 trillion deficit, and a trillion a year deficits after that for as long as you care to count. But you have to wonder just how much of that $15 bil is going to Scott Brown's constituents. After all, he promised to be an independent voice for the people of Massachusetts; nowhere did he say he wouldn't vote for a Barack Obama boondoggle, or not take money the Tea Party folks consider taboo if that meant he couldn't do that.
He even repeated that "I will be an independent voice..." routine today, see:
"I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families," Brown said in a statement after the vote. "This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work."
I mean, really, have we become so desperate and some so detached from reality that they were willing to toss their metaphorical panties at any political hunk that spoke the magic words? Because that's what the euphoria over Brown was akin to. You would have thought The Greatest Conservative Since Reagan was elected up there in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, but he's turned out, very quickly to be...gasp!... a Politician.
There's this quote:
"They expected him to be a conservative when he's always been an independent..."He's representing his constituents".
Yeah, and I'll bet he just got struck off a whole shitload of Christmas Card Lists, too. "I'm serving my constituents" is the classic dodge, but I really loved this part:
"...(Willis) compared the mania over Brown to that which surrounded President Obama's campaign, saying that with both, there was an inevitable letdown.Supporters "weren't using their brains, they were using their hearts," she said. "When he didn't turn out to change the world, they felt betrayed."
Ouch, that fucking stings!
Tea Party folks, I'm with ya, really. But you gotta calm down a bit, and unbunch yer panties long enough to actually begin to think about what you do or say before you anoint someone The Next Reagan.
What did you expect? I mean, how much vetting of this guy did you do before you jumped on his bandwagon and christened him a "real" conservative, and started printing the "Brown 2012" posters? Honestly, there was less info on this guy than there was on Barack Obama; many people thought of him as the Second Coming simply because they saw him as both the anti-Ted Kennedy, and as the way to prevent Harry Reid getting that 60th vote without having to resort to murder.
Scott Brown may yet "save" America from the Horrors of Obamacare, if only because stranger things have happened, like when life accidentally evolved from a random mixture of amino acids. Monkeys have been known to bang away at typewriters, and completely by accident, manage to re-create the works of Shakespeare, so the precedent is there certainly. The 60th vote is now irrelevant, in retrospect, it maybe always was: the dems look set to pass Obamacare bit-by-bit -- as earmarks and such buried within appropriations bills with the tactics of "Reconciliation" -- which only requires 51 Senate Votes. Honestly, $15 billion is not even an awful lot of money when you stop to consider that Obama's spending frenzy threatens a $2 trillion deficit, and a trillion a year deficits after that for as long as you care to count. But you have to wonder just how much of that $15 bil is going to Scott Brown's constituents. After all, he promised to be an independent voice for the people of Massachusetts; nowhere did he say he wouldn't vote for a Barack Obama boondoggle, or not take money the Tea Party folks consider taboo if that meant he couldn't do that.
He even repeated that "I will be an independent voice..." routine today, see:
"I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families," Brown said in a statement after the vote. "This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work."
I mean, really, have we become so desperate and some so detached from reality that they were willing to toss their metaphorical panties at any political hunk that spoke the magic words? Because that's what the euphoria over Brown was akin to. You would have thought The Greatest Conservative Since Reagan was elected up there in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, but he's turned out, very quickly to be...gasp!... a Politician.
There's this quote:
"They expected him to be a conservative when he's always been an independent..."He's representing his constituents".
Yeah, and I'll bet he just got struck off a whole shitload of Christmas Card Lists, too. "I'm serving my constituents" is the classic dodge, but I really loved this part:
"...(Willis) compared the mania over Brown to that which surrounded President Obama's campaign, saying that with both, there was an inevitable letdown.Supporters "weren't using their brains, they were using their hearts," she said. "When he didn't turn out to change the world, they felt betrayed."
Ouch, that fucking stings!
Tea Party folks, I'm with ya, really. But you gotta calm down a bit, and unbunch yer panties long enough to actually begin to think about what you do or say before you anoint someone The Next Reagan.
When "A Commitment to Diversity" Kills...
Mark Steyn on Diversity and Murder.
The politically-correct-and-motivated concept of Diversity is not so much a quest towards creating a freer, more-inclusive and more-egalitarian society as much as it is a weapon in the arsenal of those who abhor both freedom and fairness. Diversity is not a tool used to help "oppressed minorities" -- it is a tool used to oppress White Males and extract concessions from them through the manipulation of guilt.
I've seen the effects of "diversity" up close and personal in my business career, and I can say this:
I never had a racist, homophobic, or sexist thought in my head before I was forced to attend sensitivity training. I've never been surrounded by a bigger crowd of whining pansies in all my life. The experience left me wanting to vomit and desperately needing to wash the stupidity off with a Brillo Pad. I became convinced in those 16 hours-over-two-days of Sensitivity Training, that many of my fellow human beings were little better than slugs, and most seriously-retarded slugs at that.
The true effect of all that "diversity" training and lip-service was that several tens of millions of dollars had to be spent, new "executive" positions needed to be created which were little more than sinecures, a great deal of money and effort had to be expended in order to set up Potemkin-like kiosk displays for Kwanzaa and Eid and Samhain. We, as managers, were expected to treat grown people like sensitive little children, smiling through clenched teeth at their often-petty grievances and mental constipation when we wanted to smash some heads like ripe melons. It was done not because the company had any real commitment to racial harmony, but because lawsuits are very expensive things.
"Diversity training" and "a commitment to diversity" are usually the responses of an organization who could care less about an individual's feelings, but needs to appear as if it does in order to keep Je$$e Jackass from busing in protesters to extort a check for Rainbow/PUSH. In the business world, a "Commitment to Diversity" is simply an expense; the cost of doing business, just like paying off politicians or letting the CEO use a gas-guzzling, super-expensive limousine to commute from the Upper West Side to Downtown and back everyday
In other endeavors like the murders at Fort Hood, we see what happens when diversity becomes the overriding goal, rather than the real core mission of defeating terrorism. Major Hassan wasn't a very good officer let alone a halfway-decent psychiatrist, but he did enable some bureaucrat to fill in the "Other" box on a certain form, and that kept the lawyers at bay and the Congressional Oversight Committee off someone's back. The "mission" of "encouraging diversity" became more important than the mission of winning a war against a system which is most certainly the most dedicated to anti-diversity you can ever expect to see in your lifetime.
Fourteen people died horribly at Fort Hood so that some bureaucrat could check "Other". They died because many people who were in a position to stop Hassan before he opened fire were more frightened of the consequences of hurting someone's feelings, or incurring the wrath of the bureaucracy, than they were in doing the right thing.
On Wall Street, you only lose money. In the military, you lose lives. The fact Major Hassan was Muslim became more important than whether or not he was actually on our side.
I think there should be a law that states that anyone who even uses the word "diversity" in the politically-correct sense should be taken out and burnt alive on Pay-Per-View.
The politically-correct-and-motivated concept of Diversity is not so much a quest towards creating a freer, more-inclusive and more-egalitarian society as much as it is a weapon in the arsenal of those who abhor both freedom and fairness. Diversity is not a tool used to help "oppressed minorities" -- it is a tool used to oppress White Males and extract concessions from them through the manipulation of guilt.
I've seen the effects of "diversity" up close and personal in my business career, and I can say this:
I never had a racist, homophobic, or sexist thought in my head before I was forced to attend sensitivity training. I've never been surrounded by a bigger crowd of whining pansies in all my life. The experience left me wanting to vomit and desperately needing to wash the stupidity off with a Brillo Pad. I became convinced in those 16 hours-over-two-days of Sensitivity Training, that many of my fellow human beings were little better than slugs, and most seriously-retarded slugs at that.
The true effect of all that "diversity" training and lip-service was that several tens of millions of dollars had to be spent, new "executive" positions needed to be created which were little more than sinecures, a great deal of money and effort had to be expended in order to set up Potemkin-like kiosk displays for Kwanzaa and Eid and Samhain. We, as managers, were expected to treat grown people like sensitive little children, smiling through clenched teeth at their often-petty grievances and mental constipation when we wanted to smash some heads like ripe melons. It was done not because the company had any real commitment to racial harmony, but because lawsuits are very expensive things.
"Diversity training" and "a commitment to diversity" are usually the responses of an organization who could care less about an individual's feelings, but needs to appear as if it does in order to keep Je$$e Jackass from busing in protesters to extort a check for Rainbow/PUSH. In the business world, a "Commitment to Diversity" is simply an expense; the cost of doing business, just like paying off politicians or letting the CEO use a gas-guzzling, super-expensive limousine to commute from the Upper West Side to Downtown and back everyday
In other endeavors like the murders at Fort Hood, we see what happens when diversity becomes the overriding goal, rather than the real core mission of defeating terrorism. Major Hassan wasn't a very good officer let alone a halfway-decent psychiatrist, but he did enable some bureaucrat to fill in the "Other" box on a certain form, and that kept the lawyers at bay and the Congressional Oversight Committee off someone's back. The "mission" of "encouraging diversity" became more important than the mission of winning a war against a system which is most certainly the most dedicated to anti-diversity you can ever expect to see in your lifetime.
Fourteen people died horribly at Fort Hood so that some bureaucrat could check "Other". They died because many people who were in a position to stop Hassan before he opened fire were more frightened of the consequences of hurting someone's feelings, or incurring the wrath of the bureaucracy, than they were in doing the right thing.
On Wall Street, you only lose money. In the military, you lose lives. The fact Major Hassan was Muslim became more important than whether or not he was actually on our side.
I think there should be a law that states that anyone who even uses the word "diversity" in the politically-correct sense should be taken out and burnt alive on Pay-Per-View.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)