Archive for June, 2008

Liveblogging Mark Steyn’s Trial

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Multiple installments, by Andrew Coyne, starting here.

H/T to Hector Owen, who adds:

At Coyne’s second post, commenter Douglas quotes former Canadian PM John Diefenbaker:

I am a Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
or free to choose those
who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom
I pledge to uphold
for myself and all mankind.

Canada has slid a fair way down the slippery slope since Diefenbaker came up with that, the Canadian Pledge, in the debates leading to initial passage of Canada’s Bill of Rights.

Americans should be paying more attention to this hearing. This could happen here.

It certainly can. It begins with denial, or willful ignorance, of what exactly a “right” is. If you get to keep it only until it interferes with someone else’s “right,” and then you will be made to involuntarily forfeit it, then it isn’t a right, and never was one to begin with.

Rights are invalidated retroactively. They enter in conflict with each other all the time; and once one right is laid down out of deference to the other, then it never existed as a right in the first place, but instead only as a privilege.

You’ve got the right to speak freely or you’ve got the right to look around and not be offended. For both rights to exist in the same jurisdiction, is an impossibility. And people have the balls to scribble down one of these rights but not the other…because only one of them makes any sense.

If the unwritten one prevails over the written one, then all written rights are meaningless. And yes the same thing can happen down here. Most of the Supreme Court assemblies we have had throughout the years, would have taken the language in HRA section 7.1 and ripped it to shreds. Probably, the people who sit on that bench today, would as well. But this is not a guaranteed thing by any means.

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” — Charles Evans Hughes, 11th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1930-1941)

Don’t Disrespect Me, Shrek

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

The radio guys finally fed me enough GooglFood for me to use my GooglSkilz on this. Up until now, they’ve just been playing the clip, and based on that I went out hunting at least twice over the last month, to no avail.

The lady interrupting (and claiming she isn’t) is Monica Conyers, wife of Congressman John. Her speaking style is much more invigorating than her husband’s; I would suggest it’s the exact opposite. One wonders how the conversations go over the dinner table.

Now that the nugget is found, I still think it’s a little strange that so little has been said about this. And yes, I spent some time in Detroit. So I know, I know…not ranking real high on functional, productive municipal governments.

It’s still a little strange.

She gets her come-uppins, and from an eighth-grader, no less…

I’ve stooped to the level of burning up valuable time arguing with people like this, and I’m unhappy about it because, having graduated from the eighth grade, I should be a more responsible steward of my own time, energy and effort than that. It’s an infinite loop. Just like what you see above. The iron-clad argument is served up…you just said this is wrong, and here you are on tape doing it…and back comes the ricochet. THAT is because HE just got done doing it to ME. Getting a “yes I admit that is wrong” is more difficult than eating jello with chopsticks. And as far as what would lend meaning and purpose to the dialog, the Holy Grail of “I will try to make sure that never happens again” — just forget it.

Must be pretty sweet, running a household on the income of a Congressman plus a high-ranking Detroit City Council member. And neither one of the two of them seem to understand how to communicate verbally. America — what a country.

Teacher Sues Website

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

She wants six million. Via My Pet Jawa

A 60-year-old former teacher at Norfolk Elementary School, Loretta DiAnne Cruse, has filed a civil lawsuit against a blog in Baxter County Circuit Court, alleging defamation.

Cruse seeks $1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

The lawsuit alleges that the web site known as Teacher Smackdown published malicious false statements that damaged her reputation while profiting financially.

It seems to center around one or several allegedly false statements, made in anonymity. To allow anonymous comments is malicious.

There’s a culture war taking place here, one that is much bigger than this particular lawsuit, that is seldom discussed. It’s a war against reputations, both good and bad. Although this particular suit might fail, there will be others…and through them, we’re slowly losing our God-given right to confer with one another about the character and performance of third parties.

To “gossip,” if you will…productively. As in, when we’re called upon to bet our fortunes and our livelihoods on whether an agent is excellent, or merely adequate — and we don’t know it for sure. Gathering what information we can.

Back in the olden days, people had a slang term called “No-Account.” It was roughly synonymous with “Ne’er Do Well” and “Good For Not.” It meant —

1. The person was not accountable to the things he was obliged, and/or had pledged, to do;
2. It was difficult or impossible to get an “account” of this person’s character — to get someone to vouch for him;
3. He exists, among us, only when it suits him to so exist — he dances the tune but doesn’t pay the piper.

There is evidence around, like this, that we’re slowly descending into a world in which we are all “No Accounts.” A world in which, what was once dirty slang, is now normalcy. You think of hiring a person, you call a former employer for a reference, and all you can get is confirmation that he worked here between this date and that one. That’s what you get if the person was an excellent performer…an adequate performer…a sub-standard performer. Letters of reference are not written, they are not sought, and if they do exist then nobody bothers to collect them or pass them along.

If anyone does bother to type one up — they worry about being sued. A website exists for the purpose of finding out the dirt on special ed teachers — and it is sued.

I have to wonder about something here. I have noticed, throughout my lifetime, that a lot of these things that apply to “all” industrial occupations often do not apply to lawyers. Is this another example? What happens when these lawyers, who file lawsuits to intimidate us from sharing information about this-or-that person’s performance, get together for lunch and talk about other lawyers? Do they say to each other “As you well know, being a fellow lawyer, I cannot say anything about that lawyer other than to confirm that he worked for our firm between X and Y”? Is that what they say?

I mean, it must be so. If it’s somehow possible for the rest of the world to function, flying completely freakin’ blind on the question of who’s a good-egg and who isn’t…why, the legal community must be able to hum along just fine as well in the same condition. So I’m sure that’s what they do.

Heh.

I’m A Freedom Crusader

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

How to Win a Fight With a Liberal is the ultimate survival guide for political arguments

My Conservative Identity:

You are a Freedom Crusader, also known as a neoconservative. You believe in taking the fight directly to the enemy, whether it’s terrorists abroad or the liberal terrorist appeasers at home who give them aid and comfort.

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

H/T: Ms. Underestimated.

Ith Americath Faulth Nom Nom Nom Nom

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Hunger LadyOh, I’m sure the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) might be doing something to alleviate the problem of world hunger besides blaming America…and holding press conferences to blame America…and distributing press releases that blame us…and holding conventions to blame us…

…but that’s about all I’ve seen or heard of them doing. Maybe they are doing other things. Maybe they’re coming up with some plans to “end world hunger.” But the making of the plans, consistently, gets a lot more news coverage than the content of those plans once made. You know, I think if everyone was willing to do whatever it took to end world hunger, once the content of such a plan was made clear and thought to be viable, it would travel to the four corners of the world like jungle telegraph.

All I’ve ever heard of, is bitching away about how the United States doesn’t kick in enough money.

And the menu for the latest bitch-fest…as reported by the AP

Tuesday:
• Vol-au-vent (pastry puffs) with corn and mozzarella
• Pasta with a sauce of pumpkin and shrimp in cream
• Veal rolls with cherry tomatoes and basil
• Spinach Roman-style
• Fruit salad with vanilla ice cream
• White wine from Orvieto

Wednesday:
• Cheese mousse
• Pasta with vegetables and cherry tomatoes
• Chopped beef
• Butter beans
• Pineapple with ice cream
• Cabernet

Thursday:
• Zucchini pie
• Parmesan Risotto
• Ragout of veal with legumes
• Sauteed potatoes
• Lemon mousse with raspberry sauce.
• Pinot Grigio

Yummy.

You know, the catering seems to be the genesis of the public relations problems with these things. I understand it makes sense to cater meals with such a large entourage. What city’s cuisine establishments could handle such a lunch crush?

Hey here’s an idea. Fly them to Redmond, Washington, where I got my start in software development. The Microsoft engineers…twenty years ago, they had inspired a huge explosion in Thai restaurants. I’m pretty sure the restaurants are still there, most of ’em. Thai food is yummy. And, you know, there are some hungry people in Thailand. Just do with the world-hunger diplomats and policy wonks and noisemakers what they do with me when I have to go to training — speaker says “Do I have time for one more question? No? Pushing it? Okay, maybe it’s time for a LUNCH BREAK?” And then you turn them loose.

I’m sure there’s some kind of banking office in the U.N. that can handle the conversion of whatever currency is available, into American dollars in advance of the trip. Whoever can’t afford the ten bucks for chicken in peanut sauce, iced tea and tip, can just spring for McDonald’s.

Yes, I know…if they skipped lunch, it wouldn’t feed a single hungry person. I get that.

But people who are fat, or are making themselves that way, as they go through the motions of solving world hunger — man, that’s one of my pet peeves.

And I’m not alone. How do these public relations boondoggles happen? The U.N. is an organization that exists, in large part, to convince outsiders of things. They come up with ideas, right or wrong, and from there on out the big struggle is to persuade others how incredibly wise and correct they are because they are the U.N. It’s not a done-deal. The U.N.’s ideas tend to cost lots of money. Some folks are receptive to them, others are more skeptical.

So P.R. must mean something.

Why, then, does it seem that so little thought goes into things like this?

Which Is Worse?

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Dominique is challenging readers of Down With Absolutes with the question that has been plaguing the democrat nomination process all year long…and she’s emphatic it doesn’t have anything to do with the election. I have a lot of trouble seeing that, but okay.

Question Of The Day – Sexism vs. Racism

A lot has been made of -isms this primary season. We’ve been having an ongoing, sometimes heated, debate about it in the Marshall household. Which is more prevalent? Are they equally bad? Is one tolerated more than the other? Is one considered more serious than the other? If so, is that a good thing?

I compared that to shooting yourself in the head through the left temple or the right one.

If I’m pressed to answer, I’d have to embark on a thought process that’s just — well, let’s have at it. Okay, I’m hiring for a position, and I can arbitrarily dismiss women from my pool of candidates, or black people. Sooner or later these will both be mistakes, because I’ll run into a competent person otherwise qualified, and dismiss them because of their sex/color. So, uh, I calculate something like…one out of four black guys is qualified, but one out of five women is qualified. So sexism isn’t as bad because I can dismiss more candidates that way without mistakenly pitching out someone who was otherwise qualified.

On the other hand, if more women are applying than black people, maybe it would take me less time to run across the competent woman against whom I’m going to discriminate. So golly. Maybe I should consider becoming a racist instead.

See what I meant about shooting yourself through the right side or left side of your head? Both are irrational and self-destructive. I really don’t want to re-type the following comment, because it kind of makes your head hurt reading it let alone writing it, but it sums it up solidly…

I would suggest that, if there is no intent to select a presidential candidate based on “which-is-worse,” and there is no intent to ignore one or the other as being less serious — the question is completely useless and meaningless.

Note to future generations, in case your textbooks are cleansing this. It is well known in the here & now, that it has become an effective Republican tactic to let this thing play out and hope for it to be played out in the limelight as much as possible.

Feminist activists trying to portray women as having more acute grievances than black people; black people trying to portray themselves has having a better group complaint than women. It’s all about claim on the democrat side of the ballot. Just like Yorkists and Lancastrians fighting over who has a stronger claim to the throne. Jockeying for a coronation based on pity. Complaining. Weakness. Whining.

We’ve carved our way deeply into the longest presidential election in our country’s history, without any prominent democrat saying one word about how the country would be governed should this-or-that democrat be elected — save for:

1. I’ll “negotiate with our enemies”;
2. “Healthcare for everyone”;
3. Blah blah blah something about the “Bush Administration.”

In other words — thanks to a question that happens to be identical to the one Dominique asked, our democrats have shown the very opposite of leadership.

Republicans haven’t been too much better. They’ve noticed their approval ratings have been dipping, and so they have worked their asses off to act more like democrats…which has brought their approval ratings down even more.

Here’s what kills me, though. What’s wrong with discrimination, no matter what kind, is that before you see all the things that make up the person you see the group identity of that person…which is like one page out of a great big book. But the minute we “recognize it” and “treat it as a serious problem” what do we do? — We see people not as people, but as members of groups.

It’s like we promulgate the disease, in hopes of finding a cure.

The pervasiveness question makes me laugh even louder…and more sadly. Someone says “It’s Still Out There” and we’re all just supposed to — whoa boy. We’d better get rid of it!

That’s silly. Just about everyone who would insist “we have to get rid of it” would agree, in this country, you have the right to do stupid things. Well, that’s the thing. When you look at discrimination, that’s what you’re looking at: People doing stupid things. And if they have a right to it, that means it’s going to be around. Forever. It’s a consequence of free will.

You want people making decisions who aren’t serving in Congress — or you want people making decisions who are? Eh…the people who are outside of Congress have a much higher “approval rating” with me, thankyewverymuch. And yeah, I say that as a straight white guy. What of it. People discriminate against me whenever they want to, so yes, I know what I’m talking about.

Wally, Exit, Stage Left

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

The author of this work just shucked his mortal coil this last month, and the passage therein on pp. 99-100 has special meaning to us. It is autobiographical, and it describes the divided loyalties between the urban and rural areas, felt by a family of five during a trying time in our nation’s history.

The Rogue I RememberDanny, who was now driving the old Stevens and displaying an active interest in girls, needed a regular income to sustain his racy life style. I had achieved varsity status on the Prospect High basketball team and was looking for new and larger worlds to conquer. Bobby, two years my junior, had not yet exhibited the same restlessness, but soon his strong commercial inclinations would involve him in the general revolt. For the moment, however, our fathers’ firm opposition thwarted all of these noble aspirations.

Then one day Mom stunned us with an altogether unexpected announcement. As we finished our supper and prepared to troop upstairs she informed us, a trifle awkwardly, that there would soon be another place at the table.

“Who’s coming” Bobby asked. “Relatives?”

Mom and Dad exchanged a conspiratorial smile. For a change, Dad’s mood seemed less somber than it had been of late.

“Well, yes,” said mom; “but not the kind you are thinking about.”

Our mouths fell open and for once we were at a loss for words. Danny was approaching sixteen, I was fourteen, and Bobby was twelve.

“You mean a baby?” Danny finally blurted out.

“That’s right,” Mom said, obviously pleased with herself at taking us so completely by surprise. Mom was then forty-two and, by our unenlightened reckoning, light-years beyond the proper — or biologically possible — age for childbearing. Up to that moment the possibility of any further increase in our family had no more entered our minds than had the prospect of entertaining a visitor from outer space.

From that moment this great coming event dominated our every waking thought and overshadowed all other considerations. The spare room was cleared and converted into a nursery. Dad set to work making a crib. We boys were at pains, for once, to spare our mother any undue effort.
:
For the time being the dolor of the Depression was relieved at our house by the prevailing mood of expectancy. Not a little of the excitement hinged on the question of the newcomer’s sex. Another boy? Our parents looked at each other and paled. Surely, not another boy!

Ten days into the new year of 1934 a healthy, squalling baby girl arrived and settled all the speculation. She was christened Mary Ann and immediately became the center of all our attention.

The baby girl grew up to become my mother, who passed away from a brain tumor in early ’93. Of the six of them — my grandparents, Dan the Drinker, Wally the Writer, Bob the Blood Pressure and Baby Mary Ann — Uncle Wally was the last. He finally found rest on May 6.

He was also the author of The Accidental Missionaries and Defiant Peacemaker.

The Freeberg family tree has been getting hacked and whacked pretty good by this first decade of the new century. Six years ago, there were…lessee…five uncles and a grand-uncle, who are all resting now. Marriage relations aside, that leaves my Dad and one more uncle on his side. After those, my generation will be senior, then I’ll really be old. Huh. Wonder how that happened.

It’s a punch in the gut when a writer dies, whether you’re related to him or not. Any old goat can live through some events, and remember them. Only a few folks bother to jot it down as it happens…or to discipline themselves to record it accurately, if they scribble away about it afterwards. And when they’re gone, the past, including even the most precious pieces of it, becomes much more profoundly distant.

Neal, You Are A Very Bad Man

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Yes, you are.

Deniers Are Like Fritzl

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Commenter dc wants to know why I walked through the details of all the things I’ve learned about people since I came of age, when it seems “people like to conform to each other” would do the trick. Well, I’ve already explained, that doesn’t really do the trick…if there’s a common theme, it’s that we have a tragic predilection toward conforming toward dysfunction, disability, weakness and chaos.

dc is, perhaps, just helping to prove, tongue-in-cheek, observation #9:

People who don’t write anything down, get upset and frustrated when they see someone else has.

But maybe he’s sincere. If that is the case…feast your eyes on the latest real-life substantiation of observation #15 — which is —

People who have been duped by something and have come to realize it, want everyone else to be duped in the same way.

How nasty do you think people can be, what awful, vitriolic things do you think they can say, in service of Thing I’ve Learned About People That Nobody Told Me #15.

Better trot out that many paces, and then jog a good distance further. See the acid and bile that drips when people see other people, showing healthy skepticism where they know damn well they should have:

People who fail to tackle climate change are acting like an Austrian man who locked his daughter in a cellar for 24 years, an Anglican bishop has said.

The Bishop of Stafford, Gordon Mursell, wrote in a parish letter that not confronting global warming meant people were “as guilty as” Josef Fritzl.

It meant future generations would be left in a futureless world, he said.

Mr Mursell added he was not accusing people of being child abusers but shocking analogies were needed.

Gee whiz, why’s that Bishop Mursell? If it’s all climate science blah blah blah consensus has spoken blah blah blah mean global temperature blah blah blah greenhouse gas blah blah blah…why not just have a reasoned debate about it? I’m still waiting to see some evidence that carbon saturation causes an increase in temperature, rather than the other way ’round. Still waiting to see evidence that industry has more of an effect on the mean global temperature than any natural phenomena, terrestrial or extra-.

In that vein, I’m still waiting for a concrete, objective, measurable definition of “mean global temperature.” Still waiting for a reasoned argument that our temperature measurement methods have been so accurate and consistent across the generations, that an increase of 1 degree in that time means anything at all.

What is this stuff you call “science” that cannot be explained without analogies loaded with shock value? This process, in which we abandon the enterprise of answering the quite reasonable questions above…and start comparing child molesters with people who simply disagree with you? Or who merely question you? People who haven’t been duped as you have. Inigo Montoya Time: I do not think that word — “science” — means what you think it means.

But anyway, dc. We’re going to keep seeing examples like this, and that’s why we walk through the disastrous human tendencies one by one by one. Saying “I toldja so” is kinda fun…I’ve never pretended to be above it. And things that are true, tend to be proven out over time.

Things that aren’t, tend to depend on “shocking analogies.”

H/T: Rick.

Return of the Real Man

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

From London Daily Mail Online:

Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn’t spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men. Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published. David Thomas tip-toes through the unashamedly macho details…

Who is he?

Remember, you have a number of qualities, almost all deriving from your testosterone, which women can’t help but admire. For example:

1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner’s hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever.

Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.

2. You can make decisions on your own. You don’t need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.

3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.

4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.

I am an old man…for this is a complete 360-degree cultural cycle, and I have now seen it twice. The first time was in 1982, with the publication of Bruce Feirstein’s book Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche.

What was going on back then — it wasn’t just the book. There was a palpable hunger for men who knew how to do things real men know how to do. Open jars. Kill spiders. A thirst left unslaked by a decade of finger-waggling and cluck-clucking over our twin national shames, Vietnam and Watergate…in which the ideal man was Jimmy Carter, whose name was seldom mentioned in the same sentence as the word “man.”

The same thing is going on now. Sex in the City has been made into a movie and we’re all being given instructions to go down and support Obama — the ultimate metrosexual — and don’t ever mention to anyone that his middle name is Hussein.

Ergonomic stoolIt seems an odd time, to me, to have a re-awakening of this chasmal culture conflict between Drowning in Ocean of Estrogen, and the re-emergence of the Totem of Strong Manhood from the waves. In ’82, we had a new Republican President, with a great big bagful of masculine policies to be implemented both domestically and in our foreign policy. And he was still popular. Now, we’re winding up the second term of a Republican President, and while some of his policies are masculine our prevailing sentiment is that we have become fatigued with him. He’s tried to recover some scraps of what was once his re-electability by watering down his platform, becoming quasi-liberal, and (does this not always seem to be the case) it’s backfired on him terribly.

Maybe it’s Congress that is the common cause. Our Congress is led by people who work against the interest of everybody else, engage in exceptionally thin masquerades and charades to pretend to be on our side — nobody seems to believe it except people who work in the press. That situation was true in 1982, as well. How does that inspire a Return of the Real Man? Widespread fatigue with bullshit? Could be. We’d like our cars to be bigger than we can afford for them to be…that was true in 1982. What’s the cause and effect there? Metaphorical? We’re hungrier for a bigger car, so we’re also hungrier for more manly-men, to emulate if we’re male and to genetically-splice if we’re female? Could be that, too.

H/T: Maggie’s Farm. And I’m very fond of this statement in particular:

Women often can be heard adopting the passive-aggressive victim posture, and bitching about how easy and good men have it in life. Fortunately, there are plenty of wise women out there who appreciate how tough it is for a boy child to become a man: it is so tough that many never manage to do it. [emphasis mine]

That’s a piece of artwork right there. Explains so much in so few words. And it’s true.

How Come There Aren’t More Male Nurses?

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

Proving much of what was in the post previous…don’t miss this fascinating exchange between sidebar resource Ross of Rossputin, and Nancy.

Nancy wants to know Why Women Don’t Run.

The statistics are grimly familiar. Just 24 percent of elected statewide officials and state legislators are women. Only 18 percent of the nation’s governors are women, 16 percent of members of the U.S. Congress and 10 percent of big city mayors. And the reason why, say authors Jennifer L. Lawless and Richard L. Fox, who surveyed thousands of male and female qualified professionals, “There is a substantial gender gap in political ambition; men tend to have it, and women don’t.”

Ross responds.

If I informed you that (based on the last data I could find) fewer than 6% of registered nurses are men, would that be “grim”? What about 9% of American elementary school teachers being men? Is that “grimly familiar”?

Nancy responds to Ross, saying…

You also never explain why men aren’t nurses or elementary school teachers, although you imply it’s because they just don’t want to be. But is that because they wouldn’t like the work or because these jobs traditionally have been held by women and therefore are undervalued?

Ross responds again.

First, the numbers are at their all-time lows; there used to be more men in both fields. Second, the idea that a job is “undervalued” because it’s “traditionally been held by women” strikes me as the same old feminist claptrap without foundation. What do you mean by “undervalued”?

Life imitates art…which was written by me to imitate life in the first place. In Act II, Diana Goddess of Womens’ Lib storms the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, demanding to know why there aren’t more women in positions of authority and power. By Act III, she’s storming a passenger jetliner back in the present time, wanting to know why there aren’t more men in subservient and subordinate positions. After all, there won’t be any room for female jetliner captains if you don’t force some of the existing male captains into early retirement, and bust some of the other ones down to male-stewardess.

It starts out trying to help people, and looking like it’s trying to…not too many pages have to be turned, before suddenly it’s all about destroying people. That’s the reward for all of us, for championing coercion and bullying, placing it on the altar of “You Have To Support It Too”…and calling it “choice.”

Everything I Know About People, Minus What I Was Told When I Was A Child

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

…and I think this goes for all children. We have an unfortunate tendency, as parents and caregivers, to conceal from them the things they’ll need to know whey they grow up.

Is it shame? Probably. This seems, to me, to be the stuff we have that we weren’t designed to have. Like it’s the stain we painted on ourselves the day Eve got Adam to eat that apple. We tend to be very weak when it comes time to look at people who are better than we are, and say to ourselves “I am flawed, for I am not like that; I shall put great effort into trying to improve myself.” We tend to think highly of the way we do things, when we see others who do things better; and, to think more highly of the other, when we find out he makes a bigger mess than we do.

1. People who litter, don’t want anyone else picking it up.
2. People who break the law, tend to act superior to people who do not.
3. People who don’t read anything, don’t want anyone else to be well-read.
4. People who don’t work hard, don’t want anyone else to work hard either.
5. People who don’t believe in God, don’t want anyone else to believe in Him either.
6. People who don’t engage in free trade, don’t want anyone else to engage in it either.
7. People who follow arbitrary rules, want everyone else to be forced to follow the same rules.
8. People who wear ugly, ratty and dirty clothes all the time, don’t want anyone else dressing up.
9. People who don’t write anything down, get upset and frustrated when they see someone else has.
10. People who talk a lot, have a tendency to form acrimonious relationships with people who do not.
11. People who don’t exercise their right to free speech, don’t want anyone else speaking freely either.
12. Women who are ugly because they don’t take care of their bodies, don’t want anyone going to Hooter’s.
13. People who don’t and can’t show any class, have a strong likelihood to feign offense on behalf of someone else.
14. People who don’t make a material success of themselves and their efforts, don’t want anyone else to prosper either.
15. People who have been duped by something and have come to realize it, want everyone else to be duped in the same way.
16. People who are overly concerned about their emotions, don’t want anyone else to be overly concerned with thinking.
17. People who will not protect their families from harm, come up with creative and ingenious ways to condemn those who will.
18. Students who get poor grades, have been known to show some nasty behavior toward fellow students who get better grades.
19. People who live in the same town where they were born, have an envious and vituperative attitude toward people who do not.
20. People who don’t take care of their health and physical appearances, tend to have some pretty harsh words for people who do.
21. People who won’t take the initiative to see what needs doing and do it, don’t want anyone else to take the initiative either.
22. People who wear the latest fashions, tend to get nasty and vicious toward other people who spend their energy on other things.
23. People who are lazy when it comes to teaching their sons to be men, don’t want masculinity to be appreciated by anyone else either.
24. People who imagine themselves as part of a group, with no individual identity, don’t want anyone else to have an individual identity either.
25. People who can’t solve problems because they don’t think rationally, work pretty hard to avoid acknowledging that someone else solved a problem.
26. People who have taken mind-altering drugs, have a tendency to show an imperious, snotty and condescending attitude toward people who never have.
27. People who make a conscious decision not to offer help or defense to someone who needs it, don’t want anyone else to help or defend that person either.
28. People who have never built anything and don’t imagine they ever will, have a desire to destroy that which builds, and preserve whatever is likely to destroy.
29. Wives who diligently avoid doing anything that might make their husbands happy, engage in delusion when excoriating other wives who will do those things.
30. People who imagine they’ve been “oppressed” in the past, single out supposed beneficiaries of said oppression, and imagine themselves entitled to their property.

Update 7/3/08:
I should add something about words, because I know a lot about people that I wasn’t told when I was a child about what people mean when they use certain words. Some of the words we use don’t mean what they are supposed to mean. Among those words, some of them never mean what they’re supposed to mean. They mean, if anything, the exact opposite.

Everyone/body: This one has to come first because it is, by far, the most abused. This is annoying to everybody, this is the only meeting date we found that will work for everyone, we need to put this guy someplace where he won’t piss everybody off, everybody agrees this is a good idea, everybody’s tired of you, we need to form a policy that will work for everyone. The word “everybody” does not mean everybody, and “everyone” does not mean everyone. Those words mean “me; an elite club of people I’ve met who agree with me; and anyone I meet from here on who agrees with me.”

Torture: This word has no definition save for “stuff I wouldn’t like having done to me if it was me.” That’s not really a problem, except it tends to be tossed around rather breezily as an argument for doing away with some sort of punishment or aggressive interrogation, and both of those are rather pointless if they aren’t unliked right?

Constitution: “Shredding the Constitution” means “doing something you wouldn’t be allowed to do if I had my druthers.” It has nothing to do with that old piece of parchment or anything metaphorically based on it. It’s a buzzword thrown in to make it sound like you’re sagaciously citing an historical document, when all you’re doing is expressing a personal taste.

Civil liberties: What you use instead of the word “Constitution” when you’re afraid that, if you actually use the word “Constitution,” someone will ask for a more specific citation. There is no “civil liberty” document with all those pesky articles and sections and amendments, so you can just opine away about “civil liberties” until you’re blue in the face and no one will ever call you on your crap.

Common-Sense: What I want, and hell with everyone else.

Tolerance: This is another one of those “opposite” words. Usually, when you’re accused of being intolerant it means you’ve tolerated something someone wishes you didn’t. And, if you’re credited with being tolerant, it means you’ve refused to tolerate something.

Open-minded: Another “opposite” word. Open-mindedness is demonstrated by a steadfast refusal to be told certain things. If you weigh the evidence even-handedly and show a fair consideration to all possible conclusions, you haven’t long to wait before someone will call you closed-minded.

Diversity: If “diversity” means anything at all, it certainly doesn’t refer to actual diversity, especially with regard to skin color. Today you can claim to be embracing “diversity” if everyone in your office has exactly the same skin color, as long as it’s a “good” color.

Science: Has two definitions, an old one and a new one. The old one has to do with learning facts and forming reasoned conclusions from the facts…testing them with theories…all that good stuff. The new definition has to do with keeping a ++ahem++ open mind (see above) about possible explanations…which means, of course, safeguarding sacred cows against reasoned challenge. Or, as I put it in the glossary, “a credentialed collective of academic elites who use democratic, political and coercive techniques to decide amongst themselves what is so.”

Skeptical: Another “opposite” word. Skeptics, once told what to think, dutifully think that and nothing else. If you’re told what to think and you start coming up with these annoying problems with it and pesky questions, you are not showing proper “skepticism” — although this is the essence of the classic definition of the word.

Fascist: Nobody has the slightest clue what this word means anymore. It’s just something liberals call you when you back them into a corner.

Greed(y): Nobody knows what this word means either, it has lost all definition. If we are pressed to come up with one, it would be “expressing or acting on a desire to keep your property after I’ve decided you should be deprived of it.” Protesting or resisting theft.

Solidarity: This means, according to the dictionary, “union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests”; but in real life there’s a twist to it because you have to have communist goals. There is no “solidarity” if you are forming a fellowship for the purpose of…legalizing the private possession of firearms, setting up a system of private school vouchers, petitioning Congress to drill stateside for oil, or abolishing the capital gains tax. Solidarity means upholding no standards of performance save for that which is mediocre. A perfect example is all those nitwit teenagers changing their middle names to “Hussein” to show solidarity. “Showing solidarity” has to have something to do with sameness — you don’t set a new bar and challenge people to make themselves better, in any way, for solidarity.

Wealthy: It no longer means having a high net worth or enjoying a high income. If I tell someone you are a “wealthy” person, what that really means is you have something I wish you didn’t have. On your economic status in relation to me, or to that other person, it says nothing. You can be much poorer than me, and I can still think you’re “wealthy” if I have ambitions about making you even poorer than you are now.

Carbon Belch Day

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

Don’t forget to do your part. June 12 is the day. Belch loud, belch deep, belch long. Freedom is at stake(eak).

H/T: Bidinotto. And best wishes on your post-op recovery, sir.

Ryan vs. Dorkman 2

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

You may recall the original chapter was impressive enough — came out somewhere right after The Phantom Menace. Haven’t been able to find it on YouTube. I’ll keep looking.

Great job.

Update 6/2/08: Commenter pdwalker nailed down the first chapter here. Catch Ryan Wieber’s website here.

Some are of the opinion that this is even better:

This Is Good LI

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

Yup, pretty much. That’s just about it.

Nobody ever says “No” to an environmentalist nut-bag.

Someday, we really do need to do something about that.

Open Letter From Obama Supporters to Islamist Whack-Jobs

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

As written by Gerard:

9/11 JumpersTO: ISLAM
FROM: AMERICANS UNITED FOR OBAMA
RE: KILLING US SOME MORE

DEAR ISLAM,

You may have asked yourselves if, with the rise of Barack Hussein Obama, we American supporters of the candidate of the millennium are impatient with you. Yes, it’s true. You are not fulfilling our desires which we believe we have made clear with our worship of Obama. Let’s be clear about one thing, as supporters of Obama we thirst for death.

We would like you, at your earliest opportunity, to expunge our guilt – especially that of the whitest and therefore most guilty among us – by slaughtering us wholesale.

Just as you hate us for what we are so we hate ourselves for who we are. We have so much while you, the petulant children of a whacked-out god, oppressed by your own ratty cultures and fascist governments and unable to contribute anything to civilization for over 500 years, have so little except your “trauma.” Because of this we feel it is only fair that you get to kill more of us at will.

As Obama-Americans we have a problem with our self-esteem in this country, and that problem is that you are not killing enough of us quickly enough. Especially if we support Obama. You don’t think we’re working for him for our health, or even our health-plan, do you?

Pretty much. There’s much more. Go read the whole thing.

Twenty-first century American liberalism in a nutshell: That which builds or preserves must, at all costs, be destroyed; that which destroys must, at all costs, be preserved.

Little Too Much Magnesium

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

Just about got it perfected…

Fake, maybe. Dunno. Fun to watch.

Don’t try this at home, kids.

Update: A compilation of some stuff that’s more real, IMO. At least, I have faith in the authenticity of the feats caught on film. In the authenticity…in the common sense of the perpetrators, not quite so much.

D’JEver Notice? V

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

Anger I've SeenFrom time to time I hear about “angry white males.” It occurs to me that simply requesting some evidence to substantiate this theoretical phenomenon, observed first-hand, is to deal it a devastating blow, especially since probably ninety percent or more of the times I’ve heard this phrase have been since the 1994 elections.

Other than my father and my brother and my son getting mad at me for various reasons…why…thinking back on it, I’d have to say the last angry white male I’ve ever seen was Archie Bunker. Oh, and my fifth grade teacher Mr. Vanderpool got really upset with something one of the other kids did.

These are interesting musings on which to think in 2008. This year is five-twelfths of the way over. And I’ve seen so very much anger — so very, very much anger. The term “angry white male” seems to me to be misplaced right now. I thought it was misplaced in ’94. But it seems even more misplaced now.

What holds my fascination even more than the various directions from which it comes, is where it is sent. Anger I have seen this year is a very pragmatic type of anger. Most of it, one way or another, is connected with the primary victim selection process going on within the democrat party. Who’s the whiniest victim among us? Who should run everything? That the weakest, whelpiest sniveling whine-job should make all the critical decisions, is something on which they’re all agreed…they disagree vehemently on who that is going to be. Black guy. Woman. Black guy. Woman. Back and forth it goes…

Where is all that anger directed? It is pointed at whoever, it seems, is about to win the chief-whiny-democrat sweepstakes, to the annoyance of those showing off the anger. This year, it’s just the same old story over and over again.

And from that, I daresay I’ve seen enough anger over the last five months, to put a big dent in all the anger I’ve seen in all my days previous to that.

Angry white males? Maybe it’s time for a lot of other folks to ask, in unison with me: Where, exactly?

Obama Quits

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

And he got all his resigning done in twenty years, give or take. Blink at the wrong time, you miss it:

Barack Obama has resigned his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.

Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had resigned from the church “over the last few days.”

Campaign aides said they weren’t immediately certain how the resignation took place, whether by letter or in some other fashion, and were trying to find out.

Messages left for a church spokeswoman in Chicago were not immediately returned Saturday afternoon.

For detailed instructions about what you are & are not allowed to say about this, contact your nearest Obama campaign headquarters. I haven’t done that yet, so my comments with regard to this are going to be extremely brief. I won’t even mention Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name, because I know I’m not allowed to do that.

H/T: Don’t Go Into The Light.

Washington After a Nuclear Attack

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

…as envisioned by, apparently, our old friends Al Qaeda. From ThisIsLondon.co.uk from the Evening Standard:

boom[The image] appeared as rumours swept the Internet that the FBI was warning that an Al Qaeda video was about to be released urging militants to use weapons of mass destruction to attack the West.

The information was said to be coming from ‘groups that monitor Islamic militant websites’.

The FBI was quick to point out that it had not issued any warning and that the video was not an official Al Qaeda release through its media arm, Al Sahab, but simply an ‘ amateur’ collection of old footage spliced together and posted on the Internet.

U.S. analysts said a lot of effort had been put into the video – entitled Nuclear Jihad, The Ultimate Terror – with graphics, music, and clips of different leaders and groups.

The same expertise seems to have gone into creating this image of a devastated Washington.

Update 6/2/08: Oops, we been had on this one:

On May 30, 2008, the Telegraph newspaper ran a misleading story, “SITE red-faced as Islamist ‘Washington ruin’ image turns out to be from Fallout 3 game,” which incorrectly and falsely described analysis provided by the SITE Intelligence Group.

Discussing a computer-generated image of a destroyed Capitol Building in Washington that was posted to a jihadist forum, the Telegraph claimed, without any basis, “The SITE Intelligence Group said that the image, showing a ruined Capitol Building in Washington, was created by extremists as part of discussions about the feasibility of nuclear strikes against the US and Britain.”

This claim is entirely false, as is the characterization that SITE is “embarrassed” or “red-faced.”

SITE rejects the claims by the Telegraph and stands fully behind the accuracy of its information and analysis. SITE at no time maintained that the image “was created by extremists.”

SITE reported to its subscribers that extremists posted the image to a password-protected forum affiliated with al-Qaeda. This is entirely accurate. Moreover, this information was part of a report describing the general atmosphere in this forum with regard to extremists’ discussions on weapons of mass destruction, making its context all the more important. This report in its entirety is also completely accurate.

The Telegraph is not a subscriber to SITE’s services. Apparently, the newspaper made these erroneous claims without actually reading SITE’s original report, and the basis of their information for their incorrect article is unknown to us.

The SITE Intelligence Group, a leading provider of intelligence and analysis to governments, organizations, and institutions across the world, has contacted the Telegraph to correct their factually inaccurate and misleading article.

H/T on that to Reverse Vampyr, who like many is pointing to Telegraph with a link that seems to have once worked. Now it’s giving a 404. A search from the main page on the word “nuclear” returns no results relevant to this. (The ThisIsLondon link, top of the post, still works fine.)

There is scrubbin’ goin’ on. Telegraph seems to be engaged in a process of backtracking from it’s backtracking. They can do that without our help…

Gah. We been taken. We knew it would happen one day, and now that it has, we got the balls to admit it.

No Evidence of WMDs…Here

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

From Powerline comes a nugget that is worded so tightly and efficiently that I see no way to “tease” it, so I’ll just quote it in full…

One of the several reasons why the mainstream media have consistently underestimated the significance of the Trinity/Wright/Pfleger story is that, to a considerable degree, conventional reporters and editors tend to agree with Rev. Wright’s critique of America. When Wright said, “God damn America,” reporters thought he’d gone a little too far but didn’t necessarily disagree with the underlying sentiment.

A good illustration of this was the New York Times’s article on black liberation theology in which the paper endorsed as true Wright’s claim that the United States has used biological warfare against other nations. (This was cited to explain that the idea of the federal government inventing the AIDS virus in order to exterminate African-Americans was not so far-fetched.)

What on earth could the Times reporter have had in mind? Maybe the old canard about smallpox and the Indians; I can’t think of any other candidates. In any event, this morning’s Times corrects the error:

An article on May 4 about black liberation theology and the debate surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr, Senator Barack Obama’s former minister, erroneously confirmed a statement by Mr. Wright that the United States has used biological weapons against other countries. There is no evidence that the United States ever did so.

Note, though, that the paper is keeping its options open. Who knows, maybe the evidence will turn up someday.

This usually-unacknowledged sympathy with Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism is, I think, part of the reason why the mainstream press misreported the Wright controversy from the beginning.

I remember the last time I had occasion to think about this. It was…a day and a half ago, Thursday evening, cleaning out my son’s end-of-school homework folder. I found an essay about the Santa Ines Mission. I remember helping him with the photographs & illustrations involved in this, but this was the first time I saw the core thesis. I sent it along to his mother, and didn’t copy it, but I remember about forty percent of the way through it makes brief mention of the fact that the Indians burned down the Mission in 1824. It had been rebuilt since then but did not resume it’s missionary functions after that.

The punch in the gut was the very last sentence, something about how “the white settlers were mean to them [the Indians].” I thought for the briefest moment of jotting in something smarmy at the bottom, like, “So the moral of the story is you shouldn’t burn down peoples’ buildings or they might be mean to you?” I thought a little while longer about having a chat with the boy about it. I decided both actions promised inadequate return; my son’s already been counseled against absorbing politically correct nonsense, and the truth of it is — hey, yeah, the white settlers were pretty mean to the Indians.

But I’m not going to pretend to deny what’s going on here. You’re supposed to attach little “down with whitey” trailers on the ends of your essays — if you do that, you’re much more likely to get an A+. That’s the way it worked in my day. We used the word “education” to describe what was taking place there. To borrow a phrase from Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what they think it means.

But the sin committed here, is not so much with regard to truth, as with regard to relevance. The subject is the Santa Ines Mission. What’s that got to do with white guys being mean to the Indians? Not an awful lot…on the other hand, Powerline’s example from the NYT has to do with truth. It made the white guys look like a bunch of Dirty Rotten Creepy Jerks (DRCJs), and we’re the New York Times so hey, we like that a lot. Let’s run with it.

After all, we’re the “Paper Of Record.”

Update: This passage from the original New York Times article, also, hit me sort of like a pillowcase full of dead batteries:

“Most black church members want to see their ministers involved in defending the race and improving civil rights,” [Bishop Harry] Jackson said. “The anger and bitterness that bleeds through in Reverend Wright’s comments are something that many blacks can sympathize with, even if they don’t want to hear it in the pulpit.” [emphasis mine]

May I suggest a stronger identification of what exactly it is we’re trying to do as we tinker with something called “race relations.” We’ve been making it a social project for a very long time now, kind of a heavy-handed one at that. Do we want the races to come closer together, or grow further apart?

Because if we don’t want them to grow further apart, it hardly seems productive to me for anyone to be spewing a lot of bile from the pulpit, just because there are some blacks somewhere who “sympathize with” the “anger and bitterness.”

That strikes me as a case of, with friends like these, who needs enemies.

And this white straight middle-aged guy, if nobody else, is pretty sick and tired of seeing Reverend Wright defended this way. In what universe do these apologists live, in which you can spout such acrimonious and unsubstantiated hateful rhetoric, and it’s somehow copacetic if it brings legions of bigots to their feet with cheers of rah rah rah…because they can “sympathize with” it?

This doesn’t impress me as productive — not even potentially. Let’s try the Spock approach for a little while — putting a stop to the emotionalism, and use logic instead. Emotion has been our hydraulic fluid of choice in normalizing race relations, for over forty years. That’s a long time. I keep hearing “we still have a long way to go” so it’s effectiveness as said hydraulic fluid ought, by now, be called into question. One cannot help but wonder, if we channeled logic in this endeavor instead of emotion, how far forty years would have brought us.

The New York Times would certainly not have been just caught with it’s tail in a crack. Because they would have been more vigorously motivated to do their jobs — print up facts, and things those facts support, rather than whatever feels good at the moment.

And, of course, if we went that route Barack Obama would not be a good candidate for any office this year.

I Know Who Killed Me

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

Saw Lindsay Lohan‘s disaster last night.

Know what? I didn’t really think it was that bad. Sure, the story was idiotic, particularly in certain parts. Some of the scenes were gruesome. Lohan has sort of a dual role, so she gets to play both a skank and a goody-twoshoes (you get the impression neither one is much of a stretch), and ultimately does an okay job at both.

A lot of the plot points were ripped off from other things, I mean, a whole lot of them. Almost all of them. The dialog contains a lot of unnecessary lines.

All of the above, I can say about this as well. No…I don’t mean to suggest they’re equal.

I just think it’s an interesting case study in our unfortunate tendencies we show when we rate things. Supposedly, if group consensus is an indication, you should think of movies that are so bad that they’re good…like Andy Sidaris’ legacies, for example — specimens that insult the audience in every possible way, unrealistic dialog, stupid plot lines, gaping holes therein but you can say at least it’s fun to watch — and then go down a few more levels until you get no enjoyment, none whatsoever, out of the badness. And there, you’ll find I Still Know What You Did last Summer and I Know Who Killed Me.

It’s not true. The acting was okay, the torture scenes were realistic and gruesome, the serial killer was a nutjob. The story proceeded at a syrupy slow pace, but for a thriller that’s quite typical.

Yeah, we definitely tend to hide, when asked how good something was, behind our egos. We answer from the point of view of how much of the ego we have invested in the thing, rather than how good the thing really is. This is evidenced by all the folks on Internet Movie Database taking the time to stop by and say those three magic words: “Worst Movie Ever.” Ever? Ever?

I could engage in endless banter about “what about…” but I think as I came up with my offerings, the worst-movie-ever critics would look back at me with a blank stare, as they hadn’t seen any of ’em. There should be some kind of certification handed out before you can type “worst movie” into the Database. You ought to be able to demonstrate you’ve seen a couple hundred hours’ worth of bad movies. Otherwise, when you toss around the w.m.e. phrase lightly, it doesn’t mean very much at all.