Priorities?
Unfortunately, I cannot link to this story, but boy, would I love to! It is yet another indicator that the End of the World As We Know It is upon us.
In today's Staten Island Advance (suitable for lining birdcages, or for use as kindling), on the front page, above the fold, next to a peevishly-written piece on the beginning of the Republican National Convention, is the following headline:
"Caring For Pets After You're Dead - Cats in woman's will in first case of N.Y. law that allows creation of special trust"
I shit you not.
The story goes on to tell the tale of a woman who had written her will in such a way as to state that one-quarter of her estate was to be left in trust to care for her cats. The article goes on to quote her lawyer (who shall not be named, as he is someone who should be ashamed that he took money to help someone do this, and because I will not help him advertise this 'service') as saying that his client (I'm not including the deceedant's name to save her human relatives the embarassment) had "a number of cats", but he would not specify the exact number of felines she owned. Why this specific information is a) relevant, and b) unable to be given, is beyond me. But then again, reporters often ask stupid questions, and lawyers protect information, no matter how innocuous, better than they do their gonads..
Anyways, it appears that this legal first was ajudicated here on Staten Island (the forgotten borough of New York City -- possibly now for good reason) by Surrogate Court Judge Robert J. Gigante, who had this to say:
"Most people would not know you could do this. The law shows society's acceptance of people's love and concern for animals."
Personally, I think it shows society's acceptance of stupidity, and the legal system's ability to create the most ridiculous crap out of whole cloth. But that's just me. Now, I guess it's true that a person can put whatever they want in their will -- that's their right -- but I have a feeling that when this will was read to the deceased's surviving relatives, they must have puked. Which is probably how this case wound up in the Surrogate Court, I would guess.
Giving Judge Gigante the benefit of the doubt, I'm guessing that if he were a logical man (no reason to think he isn't -- that part about 'most people would not know...' tells me that he probably didn't) he would have chucked this will out, just on general principles. However, there was this little law out there that probably kept him from doing so, and the quote above is not a reflection of his true views, but apply-anywhere-legal-bullshit. Sans that law, he probably would have chucked the whole thing.
Which leads to an interesting question: When the hell did someone write a law concerning this, and by the way, don't our elected officials have anything better to do with their time?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
What'choo Talkin' 'Bout, Barack?
Okay, read the text (and watched the YouTube) of 'The Speech', the one given in front of the faux-Acropolis, amongst the hordes of democratic party cherubim, which was the Ascension of Barack to Heaven, and I have one question....
How much did it cost to have all that fuss made for a speech in which absolutely nothing was said?
"I will give you specifics...." And then there were none. There was a lot of standard boilerplate: soak the rich, soak the Oil Companies, bribe the Unions...
More biographical crap with no context: Okay, we know your grandfather marched with Patton...why is this important? Do you expect that since you've never served that having a relative that did makes you an expert on military affairs or foreign policy?
How about this gem (paraphrased because I'm lazy): "...my grandmother who was a secretary, and who worked her way up to middle management, despite being passed over for promotion because she was a woman..."? Did that mean that your grandmother (VP of a bank, mind you) was discriminated against because she was a woman --- or did your grandmother, who came from humble origins, starting at the bottom, rising to achieve some level of prominence in a bank -- actually achieve the American Dream -- which you then somehow imply was denied to her?
How about that part about men taking responsibility for their children, and fulfilling their obligations as both men and parents? Amazing how you didn't mention what color a great many of those irresponsible and uncaring men are. Hmm, seems to me the African half of your heritage wasn't involved in your life in any meaningful way. Who raised you, Barack? You white mother, your white grandmother and grandfather. How about calling a spade a spade, as it were (no pun intended)? Oh, forgot...according to you and Reverend Wright, black folks can't do anything wrong. And deserve everything.
Points scored for the Iraq thingy. Yeah, the Iraqis want us gone, but that's really only so Maliki can work on becoming the next Saddam. Amazing how when the interests of two self-serving politicians coincide, it's suddenly good politics.
I have watched speeches from Billary, both Obamas, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi this past week. I still haven't heard anyone make a case for Barack Obama beyond "he's new and he's black", and most of the compliments that have been tossed around by the democratic (small 'd' intentional) elder statesmen are of the sort you would usually hear being applied to your retarded cousin -- the one who humps the living room furniture, and eats boogers if you don't keep a very careful watch on him.
What I've seen this past week firmly convinces me that the democrats are going to lose. And they know it. They have a candidate who, by all rights, isn't qualified to be a City Councilman in New York City, let alone a Senator from Illinois. A candidate who can spout platitudes, but then not give them any definition. He is supported by a cast that so obviously have their knives out for him (the Bill and Hillary tag-team of 'vote for him, but remember we warned you' speeches made that obvious), but who have decided that the best thing to do is to go down with the ship, smiling, appearing to be faithfully standing beside their captain as they slip below the waves. Bunch of phonies.
Having invested so much emotion in Barack Obama (and that's all this is -- unbridled emotion), the democrats have decided to chuck reason. All they have left is emotion. They 'feel' that there needs to be 'change'. They 'feel' it's time for the country to elect a black man. They 'feel' that when Barack engages in genuine democratic party gibberish that he's speaking to and for them, and not just at them -- even to the point where what he says doesn't even matter anymore. They will now attempt to 'feel' Barack Obama into office. The concentrated emotions of millions of people do, any democrat will tell you, have a mystic power all their own. If enough people 'feel' something, then it becomes reality, you know.
Of course, when their opposite numbers engage in a similar emotional experiment (except that they refer to with that quaint old expression...what was it? Oh right....'prayer') it's just a bunch of mentally-unbalanced, superstitious people who believe that an invisible spirit will solve all their problems. When they do it, it's a political movement. Go figure.
Only the democrats will come soon to realize, when he loses, that Barack Obama was an invisible spirit, too. The speech was great television, but it was rotten politics.
Okay, read the text (and watched the YouTube) of 'The Speech', the one given in front of the faux-Acropolis, amongst the hordes of democratic party cherubim, which was the Ascension of Barack to Heaven, and I have one question....
How much did it cost to have all that fuss made for a speech in which absolutely nothing was said?
"I will give you specifics...." And then there were none. There was a lot of standard boilerplate: soak the rich, soak the Oil Companies, bribe the Unions...
More biographical crap with no context: Okay, we know your grandfather marched with Patton...why is this important? Do you expect that since you've never served that having a relative that did makes you an expert on military affairs or foreign policy?
How about this gem (paraphrased because I'm lazy): "...my grandmother who was a secretary, and who worked her way up to middle management, despite being passed over for promotion because she was a woman..."? Did that mean that your grandmother (VP of a bank, mind you) was discriminated against because she was a woman --- or did your grandmother, who came from humble origins, starting at the bottom, rising to achieve some level of prominence in a bank -- actually achieve the American Dream -- which you then somehow imply was denied to her?
How about that part about men taking responsibility for their children, and fulfilling their obligations as both men and parents? Amazing how you didn't mention what color a great many of those irresponsible and uncaring men are. Hmm, seems to me the African half of your heritage wasn't involved in your life in any meaningful way. Who raised you, Barack? You white mother, your white grandmother and grandfather. How about calling a spade a spade, as it were (no pun intended)? Oh, forgot...according to you and Reverend Wright, black folks can't do anything wrong. And deserve everything.
Points scored for the Iraq thingy. Yeah, the Iraqis want us gone, but that's really only so Maliki can work on becoming the next Saddam. Amazing how when the interests of two self-serving politicians coincide, it's suddenly good politics.
I have watched speeches from Billary, both Obamas, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi this past week. I still haven't heard anyone make a case for Barack Obama beyond "he's new and he's black", and most of the compliments that have been tossed around by the democratic (small 'd' intentional) elder statesmen are of the sort you would usually hear being applied to your retarded cousin -- the one who humps the living room furniture, and eats boogers if you don't keep a very careful watch on him.
What I've seen this past week firmly convinces me that the democrats are going to lose. And they know it. They have a candidate who, by all rights, isn't qualified to be a City Councilman in New York City, let alone a Senator from Illinois. A candidate who can spout platitudes, but then not give them any definition. He is supported by a cast that so obviously have their knives out for him (the Bill and Hillary tag-team of 'vote for him, but remember we warned you' speeches made that obvious), but who have decided that the best thing to do is to go down with the ship, smiling, appearing to be faithfully standing beside their captain as they slip below the waves. Bunch of phonies.
Having invested so much emotion in Barack Obama (and that's all this is -- unbridled emotion), the democrats have decided to chuck reason. All they have left is emotion. They 'feel' that there needs to be 'change'. They 'feel' it's time for the country to elect a black man. They 'feel' that when Barack engages in genuine democratic party gibberish that he's speaking to and for them, and not just at them -- even to the point where what he says doesn't even matter anymore. They will now attempt to 'feel' Barack Obama into office. The concentrated emotions of millions of people do, any democrat will tell you, have a mystic power all their own. If enough people 'feel' something, then it becomes reality, you know.
Of course, when their opposite numbers engage in a similar emotional experiment (except that they refer to with that quaint old expression...what was it? Oh right....'prayer') it's just a bunch of mentally-unbalanced, superstitious people who believe that an invisible spirit will solve all their problems. When they do it, it's a political movement. Go figure.
Only the democrats will come soon to realize, when he loses, that Barack Obama was an invisible spirit, too. The speech was great television, but it was rotten politics.
Big, Brass Ones...
Back in May of '07, I wrote a poisonous little note here on the relative (de-) merits of one former Senator and ex-Presidential contender named John Edwards (See: John Edwards: The Gift that Keeps on Giving). In that screed, I'd stated, probably for the 1,756th time, that I thought the man was a scumbag and extremely shallow. In my estimation, John Edwards is merely something that keeps a suit from falling to the floor. For all intents and purposes, he might as well be invisible. John Edwards is a liar, a philanderer, a grandstanding-self-interested egomaniac, and worse, a trial attorney. 'Nuff said.
Now, the purpose of that blog was that Edwards, who was busy preaching the endemic and widespread poverty of the blasted American heath (you would have thought this was Uganda or Laos from his rhetoric), was to point out that the man who got $400 haircuts, and who had a $2 mil a year job at a hedge-fund was perhaps not the best advocate for the poor (he certainly had very little in common with them), especially not when he could get people to pay him 55k a pop for a speaking engagement. Which is what really pissed me off, at the time: the University of California (Davis) was paying Edwards 55k to make a speech about poverty -- talk about not being able to see the irony!
Nowadays, Edwards is disgraced, with the revelation of an affair, and the possibility of paternity for an out-of-wedlock birth. His life in American politics, if it wasn't over before (as it should have been) is almost assured now (although most democrats probably consider adultery to be a virtue). But although Edwards may be publicly disgraced, he apparently has no sense of shame, as evidenced by this:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1134374,CST-NWS-edwards29.article
Nice. You can get 55k a speech for talking about something you obviously know nothing about, and then, after you've embarrassed yourself, disgraced your dying wife, and insulted the intelligence of an entire country by having your life displayed in the National Enquirer, you can now ask for 65K...with a straight face. And Barack Obama says this country lacks opportunity?
I couldn't understand it before, but I do now. I know what drives the die-hard democrats who will continue to defend, and pay, this man for the rest of his life. It is the same dialectic at work that brings 80,000 weepy, mind-numbed robots out to stand and cheer when another con-man can stand in front of them and shout "I will now give you specifics" -- and then not give any. And they love him for it, still.
I have finally understood that there are some people in this country (and their numbers seem to be growing) who don't have any sense....at all. They must all eat paint chips.
It is for this growing class of truly stupid people that we have to gone to extremes: we put instructions for use on a can of soup or bottle of shampoo. We must have a warning label on a can of furniture polish that says "do not spray directly into eyes". Or we have to provide government programs to warn people of the dangers of a crushed-glass-rusty-razor-blade diet. But, it seems that no matter how far you go to protect them from themselves, they still find Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas to comfort them, and let them know that being a moron is a virtue they regard highly...or a Mansion-living-expensive-haircut-getting-adultery-committing-super-wealthy-lawyer-who-helped-break-the-health-care-system John Edwards' to pay $65,000 an hour to, to say....what, exactly? Do you actually believe that he can actually say anything still worth listening to?
Back in May of '07, I wrote a poisonous little note here on the relative (de-) merits of one former Senator and ex-Presidential contender named John Edwards (See: John Edwards: The Gift that Keeps on Giving). In that screed, I'd stated, probably for the 1,756th time, that I thought the man was a scumbag and extremely shallow. In my estimation, John Edwards is merely something that keeps a suit from falling to the floor. For all intents and purposes, he might as well be invisible. John Edwards is a liar, a philanderer, a grandstanding-self-interested egomaniac, and worse, a trial attorney. 'Nuff said.
Now, the purpose of that blog was that Edwards, who was busy preaching the endemic and widespread poverty of the blasted American heath (you would have thought this was Uganda or Laos from his rhetoric), was to point out that the man who got $400 haircuts, and who had a $2 mil a year job at a hedge-fund was perhaps not the best advocate for the poor (he certainly had very little in common with them), especially not when he could get people to pay him 55k a pop for a speaking engagement. Which is what really pissed me off, at the time: the University of California (Davis) was paying Edwards 55k to make a speech about poverty -- talk about not being able to see the irony!
Nowadays, Edwards is disgraced, with the revelation of an affair, and the possibility of paternity for an out-of-wedlock birth. His life in American politics, if it wasn't over before (as it should have been) is almost assured now (although most democrats probably consider adultery to be a virtue). But although Edwards may be publicly disgraced, he apparently has no sense of shame, as evidenced by this:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1134374,CST-NWS-edwards29.article
Nice. You can get 55k a speech for talking about something you obviously know nothing about, and then, after you've embarrassed yourself, disgraced your dying wife, and insulted the intelligence of an entire country by having your life displayed in the National Enquirer, you can now ask for 65K...with a straight face. And Barack Obama says this country lacks opportunity?
I couldn't understand it before, but I do now. I know what drives the die-hard democrats who will continue to defend, and pay, this man for the rest of his life. It is the same dialectic at work that brings 80,000 weepy, mind-numbed robots out to stand and cheer when another con-man can stand in front of them and shout "I will now give you specifics" -- and then not give any. And they love him for it, still.
I have finally understood that there are some people in this country (and their numbers seem to be growing) who don't have any sense....at all. They must all eat paint chips.
It is for this growing class of truly stupid people that we have to gone to extremes: we put instructions for use on a can of soup or bottle of shampoo. We must have a warning label on a can of furniture polish that says "do not spray directly into eyes". Or we have to provide government programs to warn people of the dangers of a crushed-glass-rusty-razor-blade diet. But, it seems that no matter how far you go to protect them from themselves, they still find Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas to comfort them, and let them know that being a moron is a virtue they regard highly...or a Mansion-living-expensive-haircut-getting-adultery-committing-super-wealthy-lawyer-who-helped-break-the-health-care-system John Edwards' to pay $65,000 an hour to, to say....what, exactly? Do you actually believe that he can actually say anything still worth listening to?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Out of their Mind (readers)...
Okay...I can't believe I've just read this. Well, yeah, actually, I can believe it. Read this (and my commentary) and see what you think. When we're done, I'l offer you a tale of similar stupidity from my own real-life past!
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/06/18/5910691-sun.html
Okay, a few things to consider here. First, you wonder just what is being produced by Teacher's Colleges in Canada (we know what is being produced here: Potato Salad -- with Union Cards). This incident seems so completely beyond the pale of rational thought, logic, and is of dubious legality (like that matters in Canada anymore? Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had been brought to prosecution, and convicted, on the strength of 'evidence' uncovered by a psychic?). I also question the school administration's sanity. According to the article, it's not even first-hand psychic knowledge; it's someone who went to the psychic, relating what the psychic said.
I can just imagine the scene:
School Idiot: Administrator! Administrator! I have some terrible news!
Chief Idiot: What is it? Is someone distributing Pro-life literature and 'Free Mark Steyn!' t-shirts outside?
School Idiot: No, worse! I've just come from the psychic...and...and...
Chief Idiot: Out with it!
School Idiot: the psychic said that one of our students, whose name had a consonent in it, might be/potentially is/most-certainly-could-be/is-perhaps being sexually abused, by a man somewhere between the ages of 23 and 26, which could be anyone in about 21% of the Canadian population. We must do something!
Chief Idiot: Yes, yes we must! I know; call the authorities! Let the CAS Gestapo handle this. In the meantime, call the child's mother in so that we can ask her difficult questions and embarrass her with a mini-Inquisition, so that we can look all concerned and professional and pro-active...
School Idiot: Right, Fearles Leader!
I especially love this little gem:
"Dr. Lindy Zaretsky, a school board superintendent whose portfolio includes special education, said the school was just following protocol, adding the board is bound by the same legislation (Child and Family Services Act) as the CAS when it comes to suspected neglect or sexual abuse.
"It is clear in all cases that this (information) must be reported," Zaretsky said"
Umm, what exactly is the 'information" you were reporting? That you had a second-hand account from a psychic (notoriously truthful and omniscient souls) that cannot be verified by the victim, but which can be confirmed by what you infer from her behavior? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I wonder: was the child taken off for a medical examination (without a parent's consent) based on such shaky evidence?
"The local CAS won't comment on specific investigations, but said the legislation stipulates that all cases of suspected abuse be reported "if there are reasonable grounds." "
Oh yeah. Whole thing seems perfectly reasonable to me. (/sarcasm).
""The schools are our eyes and ears in the community," said Mary Ballantyne, executive director of the Simcoe County chapter...."
That right there is the first problem; the schools are not there to 'be the eyes and ears of the community'; they are there to educate children. They are not an intelligence agency (it's apparent there are few intelligent people within the system), gathering information on people on behalf of the state. I'm all for protecting children from predatory creeps, physical abuse, and all that, and I understand that a school may play a key role in protecting kids from nasty things, but...one would think that a) educators are educators first, and spies second, and b) that when presented with such flimsy evidence they might exercise a bit of judgement before bringing the apparatus of the state to bear on some poor woman with a sick kid. This is one of those situations where the primary rule that has been obeyed seems to be "Cover thine Ass".
Now, as to an example of this same CYA extremism from my own life;
I used to work for a Japanese company which leased high-end real estate designed specifically to house and support mainframe computer systems. They had this huge building and they rented space out to clients, who would put their systems in the space, and they would either staff the site themselves, or lease service people (like me) from the Company to run it for them. We had one particular space in the building where unexplained noises were a constant. The building might have been settling, it could have been the harmonics of the air conditioning ducts, no one was really sure what, but these noises were constant, and they usually seemed to occur at night; at least the night shift follks were always reporting them (disclaimer: I never heard anything).
Anywho, it wasn't long after these unexplained noises began that many of the same people who were hearing them began to see things as well. I can't recall anyone ever decribing the classic poltergeist; shadowy, in long flowing white gown, chains around wrist and ankles, mouthing "help me' or something like that. But people believed they were seeing things. Especially at night.
Now, that's an important distinction: at night. Without casting aspersions on the people who worked the night shift, it is not uncommon that when you are alone (as they often were in that room), working in a darkened space, in a boring, repetitive job, and bearing in mind that you have already been told of, or experienced for yourself, the odd, unexplained noises, it's not that great a leap to say that you might be predisposed to seeing things. Well, people were. In fact, they were telling others about it.
Which is where I come in, idiot that I am. I was (was? I think I might still be) a wise-ass in my younger days, and having heard all the tales of spirits and apparitions and strange noises, I concocted a tale that (to me at, least!) was an obvioous joke. You had to be a Canadian School Administrator to not get it. It was classic, campfire-ghost-story material; I told a tale of a man who had died in that very room during the construction of the building, and who roamed the hallways, etc, etc, etc. No need to continue further than that -- you get the picture. We all thought it was pretty funny.
Next thing I know, I being called on the carpet. Why? Because the client (a Japanese news-wire service) was demanding that the Company give it a discount on their lease because the space they inhabited 'was haunted'. They had even gone as far as to hire a Shinto priest to enter the space in question and perform an exorcism (many Japanese are far more willing to believe in spirits walking the Earth than westerners. It is part and parcel of Shinto). It would only be a matter of time before all the other Japanese clients in the building demanded something similar. I had been identified as the source of the story (it was re-told by a colleague, who found it funny, to her Japanese counterpart who immediately phoned Tokyo to tell them of potential spiritual trouble in the workplace!). I was now in deep shyte, apparently; the brass was afraid that once one Japanese customer used this as leverage, the remainder would surely follow en masse.
Once it was explained to the Japanese that the rumor of the dead man was a joke, and not intended to be taken literally, the Company then spent several tens of thousands of dollars on recording equipment: cameras, tape machiness, infrared sensors, vibration meters, etc, for the purposes of 'catching' the ghost, or at least, finally identifying the source of the odd nosies which began the entire charade (so far as I know, they never did indentify the source). The Company was going to prove to it's clients that there were no such things as ghosts with unmistakable physical evidence. In addition, it became official policy that if anyone heard or saw what they believed to be ghosts in that particular room, they would be required to fill in a special form describing what they saw. Let me repeat that -- they would be required to report (and you could, presumably, be fired for not reporting) that they had seen a ghost.
If you were dumb enough to report such things, in writing and with your signature on them, the Company would identify you as someone who needed to be watched. But since no one in his right mind would do such a thing, the Company could: a) by the very abscense of such reports prove to it's clients that the problem had been 'addressed' and we could advertize that we go the extra mile for our customers, b) now have proof that you were a complete idiot because you filled one of these reports in, very useful info to have when making staffing decisions, and c) be able to say in a court of law "look Your Honor, we did everything humanly possible to ensure that there were no ghosts or malignant spirits in that room, even going as far as to ask our employees to report everything they saw".
This is the mentality that drives people to believe, and act precipitously on, second-hand information from a psychic.
Okay...I can't believe I've just read this. Well, yeah, actually, I can believe it. Read this (and my commentary) and see what you think. When we're done, I'l offer you a tale of similar stupidity from my own real-life past!
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/06/18/5910691-sun.html
Okay, a few things to consider here. First, you wonder just what is being produced by Teacher's Colleges in Canada (we know what is being produced here: Potato Salad -- with Union Cards). This incident seems so completely beyond the pale of rational thought, logic, and is of dubious legality (like that matters in Canada anymore? Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had been brought to prosecution, and convicted, on the strength of 'evidence' uncovered by a psychic?). I also question the school administration's sanity. According to the article, it's not even first-hand psychic knowledge; it's someone who went to the psychic, relating what the psychic said.
I can just imagine the scene:
School Idiot: Administrator! Administrator! I have some terrible news!
Chief Idiot: What is it? Is someone distributing Pro-life literature and 'Free Mark Steyn!' t-shirts outside?
School Idiot: No, worse! I've just come from the psychic...and...and...
Chief Idiot: Out with it!
School Idiot: the psychic said that one of our students, whose name had a consonent in it, might be/potentially is/most-certainly-could-be/is-perhaps being sexually abused, by a man somewhere between the ages of 23 and 26, which could be anyone in about 21% of the Canadian population. We must do something!
Chief Idiot: Yes, yes we must! I know; call the authorities! Let the CAS Gestapo handle this. In the meantime, call the child's mother in so that we can ask her difficult questions and embarrass her with a mini-Inquisition, so that we can look all concerned and professional and pro-active...
School Idiot: Right, Fearles Leader!
I especially love this little gem:
"Dr. Lindy Zaretsky, a school board superintendent whose portfolio includes special education, said the school was just following protocol, adding the board is bound by the same legislation (Child and Family Services Act) as the CAS when it comes to suspected neglect or sexual abuse.
"It is clear in all cases that this (information) must be reported," Zaretsky said"
Umm, what exactly is the 'information" you were reporting? That you had a second-hand account from a psychic (notoriously truthful and omniscient souls) that cannot be verified by the victim, but which can be confirmed by what you infer from her behavior? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I wonder: was the child taken off for a medical examination (without a parent's consent) based on such shaky evidence?
"The local CAS won't comment on specific investigations, but said the legislation stipulates that all cases of suspected abuse be reported "if there are reasonable grounds." "
Oh yeah. Whole thing seems perfectly reasonable to me. (/sarcasm).
""The schools are our eyes and ears in the community," said Mary Ballantyne, executive director of the Simcoe County chapter...."
That right there is the first problem; the schools are not there to 'be the eyes and ears of the community'; they are there to educate children. They are not an intelligence agency (it's apparent there are few intelligent people within the system), gathering information on people on behalf of the state. I'm all for protecting children from predatory creeps, physical abuse, and all that, and I understand that a school may play a key role in protecting kids from nasty things, but...one would think that a) educators are educators first, and spies second, and b) that when presented with such flimsy evidence they might exercise a bit of judgement before bringing the apparatus of the state to bear on some poor woman with a sick kid. This is one of those situations where the primary rule that has been obeyed seems to be "Cover thine Ass".
Now, as to an example of this same CYA extremism from my own life;
I used to work for a Japanese company which leased high-end real estate designed specifically to house and support mainframe computer systems. They had this huge building and they rented space out to clients, who would put their systems in the space, and they would either staff the site themselves, or lease service people (like me) from the Company to run it for them. We had one particular space in the building where unexplained noises were a constant. The building might have been settling, it could have been the harmonics of the air conditioning ducts, no one was really sure what, but these noises were constant, and they usually seemed to occur at night; at least the night shift follks were always reporting them (disclaimer: I never heard anything).
Anywho, it wasn't long after these unexplained noises began that many of the same people who were hearing them began to see things as well. I can't recall anyone ever decribing the classic poltergeist; shadowy, in long flowing white gown, chains around wrist and ankles, mouthing "help me' or something like that. But people believed they were seeing things. Especially at night.
Now, that's an important distinction: at night. Without casting aspersions on the people who worked the night shift, it is not uncommon that when you are alone (as they often were in that room), working in a darkened space, in a boring, repetitive job, and bearing in mind that you have already been told of, or experienced for yourself, the odd, unexplained noises, it's not that great a leap to say that you might be predisposed to seeing things. Well, people were. In fact, they were telling others about it.
Which is where I come in, idiot that I am. I was (was? I think I might still be) a wise-ass in my younger days, and having heard all the tales of spirits and apparitions and strange noises, I concocted a tale that (to me at, least!) was an obvioous joke. You had to be a Canadian School Administrator to not get it. It was classic, campfire-ghost-story material; I told a tale of a man who had died in that very room during the construction of the building, and who roamed the hallways, etc, etc, etc. No need to continue further than that -- you get the picture. We all thought it was pretty funny.
Next thing I know, I being called on the carpet. Why? Because the client (a Japanese news-wire service) was demanding that the Company give it a discount on their lease because the space they inhabited 'was haunted'. They had even gone as far as to hire a Shinto priest to enter the space in question and perform an exorcism (many Japanese are far more willing to believe in spirits walking the Earth than westerners. It is part and parcel of Shinto). It would only be a matter of time before all the other Japanese clients in the building demanded something similar. I had been identified as the source of the story (it was re-told by a colleague, who found it funny, to her Japanese counterpart who immediately phoned Tokyo to tell them of potential spiritual trouble in the workplace!). I was now in deep shyte, apparently; the brass was afraid that once one Japanese customer used this as leverage, the remainder would surely follow en masse.
Once it was explained to the Japanese that the rumor of the dead man was a joke, and not intended to be taken literally, the Company then spent several tens of thousands of dollars on recording equipment: cameras, tape machiness, infrared sensors, vibration meters, etc, for the purposes of 'catching' the ghost, or at least, finally identifying the source of the odd nosies which began the entire charade (so far as I know, they never did indentify the source). The Company was going to prove to it's clients that there were no such things as ghosts with unmistakable physical evidence. In addition, it became official policy that if anyone heard or saw what they believed to be ghosts in that particular room, they would be required to fill in a special form describing what they saw. Let me repeat that -- they would be required to report (and you could, presumably, be fired for not reporting) that they had seen a ghost.
If you were dumb enough to report such things, in writing and with your signature on them, the Company would identify you as someone who needed to be watched. But since no one in his right mind would do such a thing, the Company could: a) by the very abscense of such reports prove to it's clients that the problem had been 'addressed' and we could advertize that we go the extra mile for our customers, b) now have proof that you were a complete idiot because you filled one of these reports in, very useful info to have when making staffing decisions, and c) be able to say in a court of law "look Your Honor, we did everything humanly possible to ensure that there were no ghosts or malignant spirits in that room, even going as far as to ask our employees to report everything they saw".
This is the mentality that drives people to believe, and act precipitously on, second-hand information from a psychic.
Monday, June 09, 2008
The Dominion of KKKanada
There's been a bit of a brouhaha north of the border these days, in case you did not know. In the matter of the Crucifixion of Mark Steyn, the Dominion of Canada has seen fit to criminalize free speech, not by an act of Parliament, but by the whim of apparatchiks sitting on the tribunals of un-elected Human Rights Commissions --- which is three lies for the price of one.
Steyn is on trial, possibly for his professional life in Canada, because he had the gall to write about Islam, and pissed off some Muslims who used the kangaroo court system of the Human Rights Commissions to punish him. Never mind that some of the complaintants didn't even bother to show up in this court, that it was not governed by the rules of evidence that one normally assumes would be followed in a legal matter, and indeed, even that the HRC itself is full of agent-provocatuers who have invented hate crimes (and evidence for them!) in order to prosecute (and persectue) people with whom they disagree culturally, politically, and so forth. And then they get paid by the government when they 'win' their case (so far, the tribunals are 31-0, amazing how that happened, isn't it?) tax free, plus awards for expenses and "pain and suffering". The biggest recipient thus far is a man named Richard Warman, a former commission member, who to date, appears as a complaintant on almost every complaint sent to the commissions. These courts basically have free reign to destroy folks who don't tow the entire multi-culti, PC-to-the-max line, invent crimes, fabricate evidence, and then be handed money by the government. Those whom they prosecute have little or no recourse to the *real* courts in Canada (the ones that presumably follow the rule of law) and are usually publicly humiliated, bankrupted and shamed.
The HRC has never lost a case. Ever. Mostly because the trials and such are rigged before the defendant ever steps into a courtroom. Legally rigged because of the nature of the commissions themselves, and because of the vague wording of the laws which called them into being. It's made worse by many Canadian's desire to be seen as the most compassionate people on the planet, even if it means they lose their own freedoms while they do it.
Free Speech is dead in Canada. You can bet your bottom dollar that the fascists and commies in this country are salivating at the prospect of creating such an effective weapon against their ideological enemies in this country. With an inexperienced, sympathetic, race-baiting, left-loony Barack Obama at the helm of this nation, they just might be given their lead.
You can click on the Mark Steyn link on this page to get the whole story, but it is obvious that Steyn, and some of his fellow journalists will soon (if they have not already) be declared guilty despite legal precedent and evidence to the contrary.
In solidarity, I have added additional links to my link bar. You can now link to Maclean's magazine (where Steyn is a contibutor), to FreeDominion (a Canadian conservative site), and Five Feet of Fury, written by Kathy Shaidle.
There's been a bit of a brouhaha north of the border these days, in case you did not know. In the matter of the Crucifixion of Mark Steyn, the Dominion of Canada has seen fit to criminalize free speech, not by an act of Parliament, but by the whim of apparatchiks sitting on the tribunals of un-elected Human Rights Commissions --- which is three lies for the price of one.
Steyn is on trial, possibly for his professional life in Canada, because he had the gall to write about Islam, and pissed off some Muslims who used the kangaroo court system of the Human Rights Commissions to punish him. Never mind that some of the complaintants didn't even bother to show up in this court, that it was not governed by the rules of evidence that one normally assumes would be followed in a legal matter, and indeed, even that the HRC itself is full of agent-provocatuers who have invented hate crimes (and evidence for them!) in order to prosecute (and persectue) people with whom they disagree culturally, politically, and so forth. And then they get paid by the government when they 'win' their case (so far, the tribunals are 31-0, amazing how that happened, isn't it?) tax free, plus awards for expenses and "pain and suffering". The biggest recipient thus far is a man named Richard Warman, a former commission member, who to date, appears as a complaintant on almost every complaint sent to the commissions. These courts basically have free reign to destroy folks who don't tow the entire multi-culti, PC-to-the-max line, invent crimes, fabricate evidence, and then be handed money by the government. Those whom they prosecute have little or no recourse to the *real* courts in Canada (the ones that presumably follow the rule of law) and are usually publicly humiliated, bankrupted and shamed.
The HRC has never lost a case. Ever. Mostly because the trials and such are rigged before the defendant ever steps into a courtroom. Legally rigged because of the nature of the commissions themselves, and because of the vague wording of the laws which called them into being. It's made worse by many Canadian's desire to be seen as the most compassionate people on the planet, even if it means they lose their own freedoms while they do it.
Free Speech is dead in Canada. You can bet your bottom dollar that the fascists and commies in this country are salivating at the prospect of creating such an effective weapon against their ideological enemies in this country. With an inexperienced, sympathetic, race-baiting, left-loony Barack Obama at the helm of this nation, they just might be given their lead.
You can click on the Mark Steyn link on this page to get the whole story, but it is obvious that Steyn, and some of his fellow journalists will soon (if they have not already) be declared guilty despite legal precedent and evidence to the contrary.
In solidarity, I have added additional links to my link bar. You can now link to Maclean's magazine (where Steyn is a contibutor), to FreeDominion (a Canadian conservative site), and Five Feet of Fury, written by Kathy Shaidle.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
He's a Lightworker, Apparently...
The beatification of Barack Obama continues:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL
I remember when the media gushed in this way about the Clintons (he was the most brilliant politician who had ever lived, and she was the smartest woman on Earth), but this is just a bit too much. Barack Obama is the Golden Child, apparently. This article makes him sound like the little bald kid in The Golden Child. If you haven't seen that movie, I'll spell it out for you:
Child with otherworldly powers, who is the last hope for mankind, is pursued by demonic forces who seek his death so that a new age of peace cannot be brought forth. Fortunately, Eddie Murphy (some sort of social worker/private detective) is on hand to protect the waif (who doesn't seem particularly motivated to use his incredible powers in his own defense....or for that matter, at all), and screw the attractive Asian broad. They all live happily ever after.
The author of this article must have been thinking of that, and not Barack Obama, the human being. But then again, he writes for a paper in San Francisco, so go figure.
The beatification of Barack Obama continues:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL
I remember when the media gushed in this way about the Clintons (he was the most brilliant politician who had ever lived, and she was the smartest woman on Earth), but this is just a bit too much. Barack Obama is the Golden Child, apparently. This article makes him sound like the little bald kid in The Golden Child. If you haven't seen that movie, I'll spell it out for you:
Child with otherworldly powers, who is the last hope for mankind, is pursued by demonic forces who seek his death so that a new age of peace cannot be brought forth. Fortunately, Eddie Murphy (some sort of social worker/private detective) is on hand to protect the waif (who doesn't seem particularly motivated to use his incredible powers in his own defense....or for that matter, at all), and screw the attractive Asian broad. They all live happily ever after.
The author of this article must have been thinking of that, and not Barack Obama, the human being. But then again, he writes for a paper in San Francisco, so go figure.
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Longest Day...
Today is the anniversary of the Normandy Invasion. D-Day. The Invasion of Europe. The Liberation of France, which would lead, eventually, to the Liberation of All Europe. Sixty-four years ago this day, half-a-million young men were ready to charge into the heart of the defenses of the Nazi regime and within a year of the landings on French soil, would tear it's heart out.
Thousands of men would be killed and wounded on that day in 1944, many would never have the chance for a fair fight, being mowed down or drown by the boatload before they could reach shore. Some would burn to death in their aircraft, others would be killed as they slowly parachuted to earth by alerted defenders. But enough of them stuck, and they advanced, and they triumphed.
The world owes them a debt of gratitude. Those young men, and their counterparts who fought the Italians, and the Japanese in the Pacific, did the world a favor by sacrificing their blood and lives for the benefit of mankind. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo represented the worst that human nature had to offer, and there was no choice to but to fight them and destroy the systems they promulgated. The world would be a much more digusting place than it is now, had the Nazis won.
Thanks, from me, to all you guys who did it, and lived. You were great. To those who gave their lives --- you were magnificent.
Requiesat In Pacem
Today is the anniversary of the Normandy Invasion. D-Day. The Invasion of Europe. The Liberation of France, which would lead, eventually, to the Liberation of All Europe. Sixty-four years ago this day, half-a-million young men were ready to charge into the heart of the defenses of the Nazi regime and within a year of the landings on French soil, would tear it's heart out.
Thousands of men would be killed and wounded on that day in 1944, many would never have the chance for a fair fight, being mowed down or drown by the boatload before they could reach shore. Some would burn to death in their aircraft, others would be killed as they slowly parachuted to earth by alerted defenders. But enough of them stuck, and they advanced, and they triumphed.
The world owes them a debt of gratitude. Those young men, and their counterparts who fought the Italians, and the Japanese in the Pacific, did the world a favor by sacrificing their blood and lives for the benefit of mankind. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo represented the worst that human nature had to offer, and there was no choice to but to fight them and destroy the systems they promulgated. The world would be a much more digusting place than it is now, had the Nazis won.
Thanks, from me, to all you guys who did it, and lived. You were great. To those who gave their lives --- you were magnificent.
Requiesat In Pacem
I Don't Get It...
So, Barack Obama managed to run the clock out against the Hildebeest and garner himself the nomination for the Surrender-Now-Bed-Wetting-Communist party...ooops...democratic party (smalll 'd' intentional). Who woulda thunk it? I guess that's alright; the voters have spoken, sorta-kinda, and well, this is their choice, as it were.
On the other side of the street, the Panty-Bunched-Hysterical-Calvinist-party...ooops...republican party (small 'r' intentional), has managed to weed out the most-worst (yeah, not a word but you get the idea) of the anal-retentive empty suits they threw up for election, ejecting John McCain, Genuine 'merican Hero. The voters have spoken, sorta-kinda, and well, this is their choice, as it were.
It's difficult to get excited when the process produced a result that is so incredibly phucked up...
Appropos the deification of Barack Obama, which started a year ago and now is in full-swing (see this: http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/06/06/a_messiah_in_our_midst), I'm still trying to figure this out. The guy has, like, no experience. Whatsoever. Three years as the junior senator from Illinois is not exactly like having a PhD. It's hardly an internship when you consider the job he's now competing for. But, he does have charisma, of a sort. Well, he would have charisma if her weren't such a liar, and behave in such a transparently-expedient fashion, the way he throws former friends, allies and supporters under the bus when it becomes necessary is almost funny.
Yet, the talking head class and the fawning idiots who drool and faint at Obama rallies will all tell you the same thing: it doesn't matter that he has no curriculum vitae. It doesn't matter if the man has ever managed anything, or anyone, or had any sort of responsibility for something, or whether he actually has read Wealth of Nations and that sort of rubbish; what's important about Barack Obama is that he represents a whole slew of qualities that haven't been in our politics in like...forever. Oh, and he's black. Somehow, the country owes him; Michelle Obama said so.
Okay, fair enough. Make the case that Obama has these mystical qualities. What, exactly, are they?
First on the list is the notion that Obama has "good judgement". I find this difficult to believe, given the revelations about what happened in Obama's house of worship and his inertia over it, his relationship with terrorists, and now, convicted criminals. His indiscretion in telling his faithful Little Red Book Club in San Francisco all about them nasty rednecks in Pennsylvania, with their pathetic penchant for superstition and firearms, forgetting that in this day in age everything he says will, in all likelihood, be recorded...somewhere. Someone will tape it, photograph it, blog it. He should have known better. "Good Judgement", upon further investigation, has nothing to do with actually engaging in an exercise of weighing pro's and con's, evaluating scientific facts, gatherinig multiple sources of reliable information and running them through an organized and logical thought process. No, Obama has "good judgement" simply because he opposed the war. A war we happen to be winning (although I must admit, I wonder for how much longer). Ask an Obama supporter to give a single example of Obama exercising "good judgement" that doesn't have anything to do with the decision to go to war in 2003 -- and not surprisingly -- no one can give you one.
I know, because I've tried. I've asked at least a dozen people --- and a quarter of them had access to Google. Not one could answer me.
Next on the list is that Obama answers this primal call for "change". The exact sort of "change" that people supposedly want isn't ever articulated; it's enough that people "feel" that something needs changing. I've heard this repeated over, and over, and over again by the punditocracy. None seems to question anything, except in any general terms (and then they supply the answers to their own questions -- the good thing about Obama, if you're a pundit, is that he's tabula rasa and you can attribute anything you'd like to him). Just what does "change" mean? What "change" is needed? How is this "change" is to be brought about?
I've seen this dog-and-pony show before...like when Bill Clinton pointed that thumb at the TV cameras, put on his best sympathetic mug, and spoke with that voice, so-full-of-emotion-that-you-thought-he-might-cry and uttered the magic words: "...this election is about one thing; change...". That was in 1992. The change we now apparently need was that change we've already had --- and which Hilary Clinton apparenlty couldn't recreate? Barack Obama has done the impossible; he has out-Clintoned Bill Clinton. I would congratulate Obama on his achievement, but I've just remembered that Bill Clinton made an entire career out of being full of shit. And is still at it. We've seen this routine before and we know how it ends.
Okay, so what else has Obama got going for him? Well, there's always that crud about bridging the racial divide. I'd go into it, but by now the sight of Jeremiah Wright damning America from the pulpit, and Obama's attempts to convince you "that's not what I believe" and "that's not the man I knew 20 years ago", "I wasn't there for that sermon", "I had no idea such things were being said..." notwithstanding, it's simply disgusting that Barack Obama is so obviously willing to excuse black racism, and to use it to his own advantage when it suits him. (He would never have achieved prominence in, nor survived the rough and tumble of Chicago politics without the street cred Rev. Wright gave him, and the base which the congregation represented). I find it even more disgusting that he could be so disingenous when it catches up to him. And let's not forget Michelle Obama's pitiful playing of the victimization card:"...for the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country..." Boo-frickin'-hoo! One hundred-fifty years ago, Mrs. Obama, you wouldn't have been able to attend Princeton, nor your husband permitted to write, let alone write for Harvard Law Review. You might have been let inside, after hours --- to scrub the floor, or work in the kitchens --- but never to study or teach. It seems ot me that America has been pretty good to the both of you, and neither of you knows what real racism is. You certainly would not have been able to run for the Presidency of the United States if this country were as bad as you portray.
Obama bridging a racial divide? Gimme a break!
Now, let's be fair. Obama may be an empty suit, but I don't want to pick just on him. In the interests of fairness, we have to look at John McCain, and be just as critical. Again, ask the questions, and see what sort of answers you get. It's enlightening --- and frightening at the same time.
So, why is John McCain worthy of being President, then?
Well, to begin with, folks will tell you that he's a genuine war hero, and that's just what we need with the country at war. Okay, fair enough. makes some kinda sense, I guess. But then, I started thinking about John McCain's wartime experience.
Without belittling the torment and suffering the Senator endured, his wartime experience boils down simply to this: he was shot down (twice, I believe), and had another aircraft blown up beneath him while still on the deck. He was captured by the North Vietnamese, and held prisoner for five-plus years. We know the narrative, and this experience is supposed to make John McCain the perfect person to run the military and the War on Terror.
Personally, the way I look at it -- we lost in Vietnam. That means John McCain's experience in war is that of a tortured and tormented POW who was on the losing side. What's fairly sad is that at a time when the country is at war, the political class is fairly drenched with men (much like John Kerry) who's great experience of war is defeat. John McCain might very well be an excellent Commander-in-Chief; he might also be a man who has too much to prove (especially to himself) who feels he might have to atone for the failure of his generation to win before the public will for war waned. A similar circumstance surrounds the present war: can the United States keep it going long enough for the Iraqis to secure and run their own country before American will and forebearance runs out?
Okay, so what else has McCain got? Well, he represents a whole slew of them "Conservative principles" -- which is two piles of horsehit for the price of one. Conservatism is dead; it died after a prolonged illness, during which G.W. Bush and a republican-controlled Congress could not enact entitlement reform, could not control federal spending, signed the greatest assault on free-speech in American history into law, used taxpayer money to bail out an industry (the airlines) which is now about to disappear entirely, launched a war which was fought with an (initally) inadquate force and timid tactics, which caused the loss of a great many American lives for no practical gain, outsourced another war in which the greatest enemy of this nation (Usama bin Laden) was allowed to escape, they refuse to enforce immigration law because small-businesses and the hotel and restaurant industries claim they can't survive without illegal labor, and when the greatest natural disaster in American history happened (Hurrican Katrina) right before our eyes -- live, in color, and 24-hours a day -- suddenly discovered they couldn't write a check to help rebuild New Orleans and succor American citizens (it was a budget-buster, you know) --- but they could find the money to build a bridge to a nearly-uninhabited Alaskan island Still, they did manage to appoint two 'conservative' judges to the Supreme Court, and pass a resolution in the middle of the night to keep a vegetable from having her feeding tube removed. They managed to mollify the Right-to-Lifers, and that, basically, is all a 'Conservative' has to do...even when he's being hounded from office for being a closet pedophile or soliciting gay sex in an airport men's room.
Yeah, gimme more of them Conservative principles....
But, they'll tell you, McCain has Obama beat in the "experience department". Sure he does, he's 72 years old, and has spent a third of his life in the Senate. But then again, membership in the United States Senate is sort of like belonging to the Boating Club in college: it isn't really a qualification for anything, but it does put one in touch with the "right sort of people". And after 20 years, McCain probably knows where the bodies are buried, after all, Sentaors love nothing more than to hold hearings and launch investigations, and there should be very few rocks McCain hasn't looked under. But does that translate into the actual accumen to rule? John Kerry thought so, and just as much as his lack of a personality, his two deacdes in the Senate equated to nothing more than three laws with his name on them. Senators aren't expect to do much, you see. It's why so few of them ever become President.
I feel bad for the people of this nation. This is what we've been reduced to. We started this process with something like 20 folks, all revved up and full of piss-and-vinegar, and possessed of the biggest egos one is ever likely to see. This is the result of a year of nonsense: John McCain versus Barack Obama. It's depressing, until one remembers the also-rans: John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter. We won't count the Mike Gravels, Ron Pauls and Rudy Giulianis, since none of them had a realistic chance, but you get the point; you may be depressed at the end result, but considering the material we had to work with...
So, Barack Obama managed to run the clock out against the Hildebeest and garner himself the nomination for the Surrender-Now-Bed-Wetting-Communist party...ooops...democratic party (smalll 'd' intentional). Who woulda thunk it? I guess that's alright; the voters have spoken, sorta-kinda, and well, this is their choice, as it were.
On the other side of the street, the Panty-Bunched-Hysterical-Calvinist-party...ooops...republican party (small 'r' intentional), has managed to weed out the most-worst (yeah, not a word but you get the idea) of the anal-retentive empty suits they threw up for election, ejecting John McCain, Genuine 'merican Hero. The voters have spoken, sorta-kinda, and well, this is their choice, as it were.
It's difficult to get excited when the process produced a result that is so incredibly phucked up...
Appropos the deification of Barack Obama, which started a year ago and now is in full-swing (see this: http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/06/06/a_messiah_in_our_midst), I'm still trying to figure this out. The guy has, like, no experience. Whatsoever. Three years as the junior senator from Illinois is not exactly like having a PhD. It's hardly an internship when you consider the job he's now competing for. But, he does have charisma, of a sort. Well, he would have charisma if her weren't such a liar, and behave in such a transparently-expedient fashion, the way he throws former friends, allies and supporters under the bus when it becomes necessary is almost funny.
Yet, the talking head class and the fawning idiots who drool and faint at Obama rallies will all tell you the same thing: it doesn't matter that he has no curriculum vitae. It doesn't matter if the man has ever managed anything, or anyone, or had any sort of responsibility for something, or whether he actually has read Wealth of Nations and that sort of rubbish; what's important about Barack Obama is that he represents a whole slew of qualities that haven't been in our politics in like...forever. Oh, and he's black. Somehow, the country owes him; Michelle Obama said so.
Okay, fair enough. Make the case that Obama has these mystical qualities. What, exactly, are they?
First on the list is the notion that Obama has "good judgement". I find this difficult to believe, given the revelations about what happened in Obama's house of worship and his inertia over it, his relationship with terrorists, and now, convicted criminals. His indiscretion in telling his faithful Little Red Book Club in San Francisco all about them nasty rednecks in Pennsylvania, with their pathetic penchant for superstition and firearms, forgetting that in this day in age everything he says will, in all likelihood, be recorded...somewhere. Someone will tape it, photograph it, blog it. He should have known better. "Good Judgement", upon further investigation, has nothing to do with actually engaging in an exercise of weighing pro's and con's, evaluating scientific facts, gatherinig multiple sources of reliable information and running them through an organized and logical thought process. No, Obama has "good judgement" simply because he opposed the war. A war we happen to be winning (although I must admit, I wonder for how much longer). Ask an Obama supporter to give a single example of Obama exercising "good judgement" that doesn't have anything to do with the decision to go to war in 2003 -- and not surprisingly -- no one can give you one.
I know, because I've tried. I've asked at least a dozen people --- and a quarter of them had access to Google. Not one could answer me.
Next on the list is that Obama answers this primal call for "change". The exact sort of "change" that people supposedly want isn't ever articulated; it's enough that people "feel" that something needs changing. I've heard this repeated over, and over, and over again by the punditocracy. None seems to question anything, except in any general terms (and then they supply the answers to their own questions -- the good thing about Obama, if you're a pundit, is that he's tabula rasa and you can attribute anything you'd like to him). Just what does "change" mean? What "change" is needed? How is this "change" is to be brought about?
I've seen this dog-and-pony show before...like when Bill Clinton pointed that thumb at the TV cameras, put on his best sympathetic mug, and spoke with that voice, so-full-of-emotion-that-you-thought-he-might-cry and uttered the magic words: "...this election is about one thing; change...". That was in 1992. The change we now apparently need was that change we've already had --- and which Hilary Clinton apparenlty couldn't recreate? Barack Obama has done the impossible; he has out-Clintoned Bill Clinton. I would congratulate Obama on his achievement, but I've just remembered that Bill Clinton made an entire career out of being full of shit. And is still at it. We've seen this routine before and we know how it ends.
Okay, so what else has Obama got going for him? Well, there's always that crud about bridging the racial divide. I'd go into it, but by now the sight of Jeremiah Wright damning America from the pulpit, and Obama's attempts to convince you "that's not what I believe" and "that's not the man I knew 20 years ago", "I wasn't there for that sermon", "I had no idea such things were being said..." notwithstanding, it's simply disgusting that Barack Obama is so obviously willing to excuse black racism, and to use it to his own advantage when it suits him. (He would never have achieved prominence in, nor survived the rough and tumble of Chicago politics without the street cred Rev. Wright gave him, and the base which the congregation represented). I find it even more disgusting that he could be so disingenous when it catches up to him. And let's not forget Michelle Obama's pitiful playing of the victimization card:"...for the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country..." Boo-frickin'-hoo! One hundred-fifty years ago, Mrs. Obama, you wouldn't have been able to attend Princeton, nor your husband permitted to write, let alone write for Harvard Law Review. You might have been let inside, after hours --- to scrub the floor, or work in the kitchens --- but never to study or teach. It seems ot me that America has been pretty good to the both of you, and neither of you knows what real racism is. You certainly would not have been able to run for the Presidency of the United States if this country were as bad as you portray.
Obama bridging a racial divide? Gimme a break!
Now, let's be fair. Obama may be an empty suit, but I don't want to pick just on him. In the interests of fairness, we have to look at John McCain, and be just as critical. Again, ask the questions, and see what sort of answers you get. It's enlightening --- and frightening at the same time.
So, why is John McCain worthy of being President, then?
Well, to begin with, folks will tell you that he's a genuine war hero, and that's just what we need with the country at war. Okay, fair enough. makes some kinda sense, I guess. But then, I started thinking about John McCain's wartime experience.
Without belittling the torment and suffering the Senator endured, his wartime experience boils down simply to this: he was shot down (twice, I believe), and had another aircraft blown up beneath him while still on the deck. He was captured by the North Vietnamese, and held prisoner for five-plus years. We know the narrative, and this experience is supposed to make John McCain the perfect person to run the military and the War on Terror.
Personally, the way I look at it -- we lost in Vietnam. That means John McCain's experience in war is that of a tortured and tormented POW who was on the losing side. What's fairly sad is that at a time when the country is at war, the political class is fairly drenched with men (much like John Kerry) who's great experience of war is defeat. John McCain might very well be an excellent Commander-in-Chief; he might also be a man who has too much to prove (especially to himself) who feels he might have to atone for the failure of his generation to win before the public will for war waned. A similar circumstance surrounds the present war: can the United States keep it going long enough for the Iraqis to secure and run their own country before American will and forebearance runs out?
Okay, so what else has McCain got? Well, he represents a whole slew of them "Conservative principles" -- which is two piles of horsehit for the price of one. Conservatism is dead; it died after a prolonged illness, during which G.W. Bush and a republican-controlled Congress could not enact entitlement reform, could not control federal spending, signed the greatest assault on free-speech in American history into law, used taxpayer money to bail out an industry (the airlines) which is now about to disappear entirely, launched a war which was fought with an (initally) inadquate force and timid tactics, which caused the loss of a great many American lives for no practical gain, outsourced another war in which the greatest enemy of this nation (Usama bin Laden) was allowed to escape, they refuse to enforce immigration law because small-businesses and the hotel and restaurant industries claim they can't survive without illegal labor, and when the greatest natural disaster in American history happened (Hurrican Katrina) right before our eyes -- live, in color, and 24-hours a day -- suddenly discovered they couldn't write a check to help rebuild New Orleans and succor American citizens (it was a budget-buster, you know) --- but they could find the money to build a bridge to a nearly-uninhabited Alaskan island Still, they did manage to appoint two 'conservative' judges to the Supreme Court, and pass a resolution in the middle of the night to keep a vegetable from having her feeding tube removed. They managed to mollify the Right-to-Lifers, and that, basically, is all a 'Conservative' has to do...even when he's being hounded from office for being a closet pedophile or soliciting gay sex in an airport men's room.
Yeah, gimme more of them Conservative principles....
But, they'll tell you, McCain has Obama beat in the "experience department". Sure he does, he's 72 years old, and has spent a third of his life in the Senate. But then again, membership in the United States Senate is sort of like belonging to the Boating Club in college: it isn't really a qualification for anything, but it does put one in touch with the "right sort of people". And after 20 years, McCain probably knows where the bodies are buried, after all, Sentaors love nothing more than to hold hearings and launch investigations, and there should be very few rocks McCain hasn't looked under. But does that translate into the actual accumen to rule? John Kerry thought so, and just as much as his lack of a personality, his two deacdes in the Senate equated to nothing more than three laws with his name on them. Senators aren't expect to do much, you see. It's why so few of them ever become President.
I feel bad for the people of this nation. This is what we've been reduced to. We started this process with something like 20 folks, all revved up and full of piss-and-vinegar, and possessed of the biggest egos one is ever likely to see. This is the result of a year of nonsense: John McCain versus Barack Obama. It's depressing, until one remembers the also-rans: John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter. We won't count the Mike Gravels, Ron Pauls and Rudy Giulianis, since none of them had a realistic chance, but you get the point; you may be depressed at the end result, but considering the material we had to work with...
Friday, January 18, 2008
I Can't Take No More...
If I have to look at any of them again, I am certain to puke.
It begins as soon as one awakens. Turn on the television in the mistaken impression that there's a world out there, in which all sorts of activities are taking place that you should know about, and your mistake is made apparent within ten seconds or so (provided it's not yet another commercial about the expanding prostate which every Baby Boomer male can, apparently, expect); one of THEM shows up on the screen.
THEM is one of the eight, nine, ten, I-don't-know-how-many-I've-lost-count, people who are running for the Office of President of the United States. This is a frightening proposition, particularly if you manage to catch sight of them before your morning coffee. A full 15 seconds of Hillary Clinton might cross your eyes for the rest of the day.
It's getting out of hand. There is nothing that is reported anymore, it seems, that isn't related to this farcical orgy of Look-at-me-ism, or which can be contrived to somehow be construed to be related to it. The 24-hour news cycle ensures that this stuff is talked about, reported, analyzed, debated, expounded, folded, spindled, mutilated, extruded and regurgitated at a rapid and constant pace, and to an inhuman extent. I'm beginning to believe that the news channels wouldn't let you know about a mass murderer on the loose unless the killings took place during a state primary, and then they would trot out some moron to mewl in monotone for 20 minutes on how this might affect voter turnout, and he could postulate about how this might "split the mass-homicide vote". Assuming they didn't get dueling "political consultants" to hurl partisan invective at each other for half an hour.
The political news has fallen victim to the same two horrid, life-sapping phenomena as everything else in America: excess and over-analysis. It's an infinitely more dangerous situation when it's an excess of over-analysis which is the problem, at which point, the Earth may be ready to spin off it's axis and spiral into the sun. Trust me, the networks are so keyed up to do nothing but report everything (because they have all that dead air to fill, and because they don't wish to be accused of not covering something or anybody), that at this moment (Friday, Jan. 18, at 6:11 a.m.) both Fox News and MSNBC have crack reporting teams, ready and raring to go, who will be prepared to report that Mitt Romney farted the very second that it happens. Perhaps they will report the whispered speculation that Romney may have, indeed, possibly farted, but this is not confirmed, until 90 minutes of reporting speculation has gone by before it can be confirmed. Furthermore, they will have a panel of experts conveniently on hand to reassure America that a) Mormons fart just like the rest of us, and b) it smells just as bad as anyone else's. No need to panic, all is normal.
Of course, that fart may cost Romney 3 or 4 points in the polls, but then again, those don't seem to mean anything anymore.
Should such an event occur, the cable networks are prepared with a dizzying array of flashing lights, mind-sickening crawls at the bottom of the screen (which are full of grammatical and spelling errors), flashy graphics, brand-new "swoosh" sound effects, and "Mitt Romney: Gastrointeritis Crisis" music (something sonorous, somber and syncopated), to put right next to the "Breaking News" banner (or would it, in this case, be "Breaking Wind"?).
Is it too much to ask that perhaps, just for a minute, I could hear about something else?
This constant drumbeat of the same nonsense being repetitively recycled makes you want to take a hammer to the TV set --- or perform a do-it-yourself lobotomy with a power drill.
If I have to look at any of them again, I am certain to puke.
It begins as soon as one awakens. Turn on the television in the mistaken impression that there's a world out there, in which all sorts of activities are taking place that you should know about, and your mistake is made apparent within ten seconds or so (provided it's not yet another commercial about the expanding prostate which every Baby Boomer male can, apparently, expect); one of THEM shows up on the screen.
THEM is one of the eight, nine, ten, I-don't-know-how-many-I've-lost-count, people who are running for the Office of President of the United States. This is a frightening proposition, particularly if you manage to catch sight of them before your morning coffee. A full 15 seconds of Hillary Clinton might cross your eyes for the rest of the day.
It's getting out of hand. There is nothing that is reported anymore, it seems, that isn't related to this farcical orgy of Look-at-me-ism, or which can be contrived to somehow be construed to be related to it. The 24-hour news cycle ensures that this stuff is talked about, reported, analyzed, debated, expounded, folded, spindled, mutilated, extruded and regurgitated at a rapid and constant pace, and to an inhuman extent. I'm beginning to believe that the news channels wouldn't let you know about a mass murderer on the loose unless the killings took place during a state primary, and then they would trot out some moron to mewl in monotone for 20 minutes on how this might affect voter turnout, and he could postulate about how this might "split the mass-homicide vote". Assuming they didn't get dueling "political consultants" to hurl partisan invective at each other for half an hour.
The political news has fallen victim to the same two horrid, life-sapping phenomena as everything else in America: excess and over-analysis. It's an infinitely more dangerous situation when it's an excess of over-analysis which is the problem, at which point, the Earth may be ready to spin off it's axis and spiral into the sun. Trust me, the networks are so keyed up to do nothing but report everything (because they have all that dead air to fill, and because they don't wish to be accused of not covering something or anybody), that at this moment (Friday, Jan. 18, at 6:11 a.m.) both Fox News and MSNBC have crack reporting teams, ready and raring to go, who will be prepared to report that Mitt Romney farted the very second that it happens. Perhaps they will report the whispered speculation that Romney may have, indeed, possibly farted, but this is not confirmed, until 90 minutes of reporting speculation has gone by before it can be confirmed. Furthermore, they will have a panel of experts conveniently on hand to reassure America that a) Mormons fart just like the rest of us, and b) it smells just as bad as anyone else's. No need to panic, all is normal.
Of course, that fart may cost Romney 3 or 4 points in the polls, but then again, those don't seem to mean anything anymore.
Should such an event occur, the cable networks are prepared with a dizzying array of flashing lights, mind-sickening crawls at the bottom of the screen (which are full of grammatical and spelling errors), flashy graphics, brand-new "swoosh" sound effects, and "Mitt Romney: Gastrointeritis Crisis" music (something sonorous, somber and syncopated), to put right next to the "Breaking News" banner (or would it, in this case, be "Breaking Wind"?).
Is it too much to ask that perhaps, just for a minute, I could hear about something else?
This constant drumbeat of the same nonsense being repetitively recycled makes you want to take a hammer to the TV set --- or perform a do-it-yourself lobotomy with a power drill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)