Of Cosmetics and the Porcine...
Just watched Obama's whiny complaint that was supposed to 'explain' the 'lipstick on a pig' comment. After the usual cries of 'this is a distraction' and 'they took it out of context', followed by the de rigeur refrain of 'let's deal with the real issues instead of this phony one' (or words to that effect), Obama went on to once again remind us what's at stake for this country should he succeed in talking a good game all the way to the White House.
You see, Obama never says anything wrong. It's all about context -- and the media and the peasants are simply too stupid to correctly divine his intent, or worse, able to grasp the subtle nuances in his gossamer rhetoric, or somesuch nonsense like that thar. This is the seventy-fifth time (or so it seems) that the man has said something that three days later he has had to either refine, explain, recant, put into focus, revise, reverse, diavow, dissemble about or flat-out lie about.
Was Barack Obama talking about Sarah Palin and making reference to her lipstick joke, while simultaneously attempting to paint her (and McCain, y implication) in an unfavorable light? You betcha! After all (tot he best of my knowledge, Iwill try to post evidence), Joe Biden used the same lipstick line that day (or the day before) -- only no one listens or watched Biden, so no one knew about it. Two people using the same phrase in everyday parlance is mere coincidence. Two people using the same phrase in the context of a political campaign is a strategy.
I suggest that Mr. Obama stop crying about how unfair he's being treated (because he sure as hell isn't), and start to remeber that what he says is important. How he says it is sometimes more important, as much of politics is about perceptions rather than truths. When you make jokes like that, be prepared to get some blowback, and then take it like a man. Michelle is not going to come to your rescue, baseball bat in hand, to beat off the sharks you personally chummed. She probably would, because she apparently is the one who at least has the courage to stand behind the half-assed things that come out of her pie hole. By comparison, she's better prepared for this job, in this regard, than you are.
But, please, stop with the phony sanctimony, already?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Why Baby Boomers Suck, Part II...
With props to the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_end_of_boomer_weirdness.html
The sooner all these folks die or get Alzheimers and start wandering into traffic, the better. Yeah, that was mean, but I'm sick and tired of the "Me Generation" and the stupidity they regurgitate.
With props to the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_end_of_boomer_weirdness.html
The sooner all these folks die or get Alzheimers and start wandering into traffic, the better. Yeah, that was mean, but I'm sick and tired of the "Me Generation" and the stupidity they regurgitate.
I Guess Shoe Leather Must Taste Good...
Someone should tell Joe Biden to shut up. Correction: first, they should tell him to tell the truth, and then shut up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-goes-afte.html
Now, normally, I wouldn't care what Joe Biden said. Caring about what what such a non-entity has to say is really hard work, because you first have to decide for yourself if it's really worth the effort, and if you do, carefully parse what was said.
How about this, Joe: first, stop framing the issue of stem cell research without first admitting the facts.
First fact: no one actually knows how, or if, stem cell research (particularly embryonic stem cell research) will be a medical panacaea. It's only conjectured that it might be.
Second fact: There is a major difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cells research. Make certain you explain the distinction. Republicans do not oppose adult stem cell research, but they do oppose embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because one destroys an embryo, which under normal circumstances, would develop into a person. It might become a living, breathing person, if it were to be implanted into a womb. When you lump the two methods together, you give the impression that opposition to one method implies opposition to all methods. Of course, you know that (you only look stupid), but do it anyway, believing us peasants are too dumb to know the difference.
Third Fact: The main reason democrats (small 'd' intentional) favor embryonic stem cell research is because it provides yet one more reason for unfettered abortion. It's a neat argument to say that the destruction of potential human life is counter-balanced by the possibility that such destruction might cure disease or save lives, but it's a false argument. Simply making the argument that without such potential therapies, someone might die of a horrible disease, ignores the fact that someone is being killed in order to make that possible. This is either true dis-ingenuousness, or demented. Democrats push embryonic stem cell research precisely because it provides a semi-moral cover to help prop up Roe v. Wade, and curries favor with feminazis.
Fourth Fact: There is not a single scientific institute, research lab, medical research facility, anywhere on the globe, that is experimenting with embryonic stem cells, and that where progress has been made with such experiments, it has, thus far, been made with adult stem cells. The idea that embryonic stem cell research is necessary cannot be supported by the data collected thus far, and the argument "well, we know until we actually try" sounds blood-chilling, and says far more about your morality than it does about your concern for the sick. In fact, it makes you sound sick.
Of course, Joe, you also claim to be a Roman Catholic, and were you a true one as opposed to one when it's convenient for you to be, you would know that your Church has characterized stem cell research as being the next best thing to another holocaust (second only to the real, modern holocaust of abortion on demand). That you can take this position, and harpoon your political opponents while doing it, makes you either a liar or an opportunist.
Hardly representative of the 'change' that Barack wants to mandate on us, whether we want it or not.
So, after you manage to, finally, hash out a clear position on this issue which is not so-obviously tainted by the concerns of identity politics and stupidity, you might want to tell the truth.
And then quietly retreat back into the shadows from whence you came.
Someone should tell Joe Biden to shut up. Correction: first, they should tell him to tell the truth, and then shut up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-goes-afte.html
Now, normally, I wouldn't care what Joe Biden said. Caring about what what such a non-entity has to say is really hard work, because you first have to decide for yourself if it's really worth the effort, and if you do, carefully parse what was said.
How about this, Joe: first, stop framing the issue of stem cell research without first admitting the facts.
First fact: no one actually knows how, or if, stem cell research (particularly embryonic stem cell research) will be a medical panacaea. It's only conjectured that it might be.
Second fact: There is a major difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cells research. Make certain you explain the distinction. Republicans do not oppose adult stem cell research, but they do oppose embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because one destroys an embryo, which under normal circumstances, would develop into a person. It might become a living, breathing person, if it were to be implanted into a womb. When you lump the two methods together, you give the impression that opposition to one method implies opposition to all methods. Of course, you know that (you only look stupid), but do it anyway, believing us peasants are too dumb to know the difference.
Third Fact: The main reason democrats (small 'd' intentional) favor embryonic stem cell research is because it provides yet one more reason for unfettered abortion. It's a neat argument to say that the destruction of potential human life is counter-balanced by the possibility that such destruction might cure disease or save lives, but it's a false argument. Simply making the argument that without such potential therapies, someone might die of a horrible disease, ignores the fact that someone is being killed in order to make that possible. This is either true dis-ingenuousness, or demented. Democrats push embryonic stem cell research precisely because it provides a semi-moral cover to help prop up Roe v. Wade, and curries favor with feminazis.
Fourth Fact: There is not a single scientific institute, research lab, medical research facility, anywhere on the globe, that is experimenting with embryonic stem cells, and that where progress has been made with such experiments, it has, thus far, been made with adult stem cells. The idea that embryonic stem cell research is necessary cannot be supported by the data collected thus far, and the argument "well, we know until we actually try" sounds blood-chilling, and says far more about your morality than it does about your concern for the sick. In fact, it makes you sound sick.
Of course, Joe, you also claim to be a Roman Catholic, and were you a true one as opposed to one when it's convenient for you to be, you would know that your Church has characterized stem cell research as being the next best thing to another holocaust (second only to the real, modern holocaust of abortion on demand). That you can take this position, and harpoon your political opponents while doing it, makes you either a liar or an opportunist.
Hardly representative of the 'change' that Barack wants to mandate on us, whether we want it or not.
So, after you manage to, finally, hash out a clear position on this issue which is not so-obviously tainted by the concerns of identity politics and stupidity, you might want to tell the truth.
And then quietly retreat back into the shadows from whence you came.
Always Listen to What They Say...
The old joke goes: "How can you tell when a politician is lying"? The Answer: "His lips are moving". I would like to turn this saw somewhat upside-down:
"How can you tell when Barack Obama is lying"?
"His lips are moving, and what comes out of it has to be explained away as a 'slip of the tongue'".
Hence, this little gem:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/
For the record, I believe that Obama is a Muslim, at least at heart, and that his conversion to a brand of whacky Christianity was simply opportunism, political for the clout it gave him in Chicago electoral politics, and personal, because I believe (but can't prove, alas) that Michelle would never have married him unless he joined her church. That having been said...
We've already seen McPain's gaffes explained to us (by Obama and the democrats) as something akin to the onset of Alzheimers and indicative of a man who's "out of touch". Let''s see if Sarah Palin gets that sort of treatment, too. Notwithstanding that Obama once claimed to have campaigned in '57 states', and that today (or yesterday, I forget which) announced that he was happy to be in 'New Pennsylvania' (maybe one of them extra seven states he's visited), I begin to wonder whether this continual examination of a candidate's gaffes is going to be as productive as the democraps believe it will be.
The old joke goes: "How can you tell when a politician is lying"? The Answer: "His lips are moving". I would like to turn this saw somewhat upside-down:
"How can you tell when Barack Obama is lying"?
"His lips are moving, and what comes out of it has to be explained away as a 'slip of the tongue'".
Hence, this little gem:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/
For the record, I believe that Obama is a Muslim, at least at heart, and that his conversion to a brand of whacky Christianity was simply opportunism, political for the clout it gave him in Chicago electoral politics, and personal, because I believe (but can't prove, alas) that Michelle would never have married him unless he joined her church. That having been said...
We've already seen McPain's gaffes explained to us (by Obama and the democrats) as something akin to the onset of Alzheimers and indicative of a man who's "out of touch". Let''s see if Sarah Palin gets that sort of treatment, too. Notwithstanding that Obama once claimed to have campaigned in '57 states', and that today (or yesterday, I forget which) announced that he was happy to be in 'New Pennsylvania' (maybe one of them extra seven states he's visited), I begin to wonder whether this continual examination of a candidate's gaffes is going to be as productive as the democraps believe it will be.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Important Info?
A genetic researcher in the UK has made a discovery...of sorts. Apparently, if you are a resident of a ocuntry formerly occupied by the Roman Empire, you're more likely to get AIDS. Here's the story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2674993/Britons-may-be-more-vulnerable-to-Aids-due-to-Roman-invasion.html
Hmm, I wonder if that means I should restrict myself to Polish and Russian babes? If they all look anything like this, then perhaps I might:
www.hotforwords.com
I've seen this lady (Marina, from HotforWords) on the O'Reilly Factor a few times, and finally bopped over to her site. I might regret it.
A genetic researcher in the UK has made a discovery...of sorts. Apparently, if you are a resident of a ocuntry formerly occupied by the Roman Empire, you're more likely to get AIDS. Here's the story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2674993/Britons-may-be-more-vulnerable-to-Aids-due-to-Roman-invasion.html
Hmm, I wonder if that means I should restrict myself to Polish and Russian babes? If they all look anything like this, then perhaps I might:
www.hotforwords.com
I've seen this lady (Marina, from HotforWords) on the O'Reilly Factor a few times, and finally bopped over to her site. I might regret it.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)