Sen. Norm Coleman saw his lead over Al Franken in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race dwindle to just two votes Thursday. Meanwhile, a key court ruling put hundreds of improperly rejected ballots in play and promised the recount would drag into the new year.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that improperly rejected absentee ballots be included in the state’s recount. It ordered the candidates to work with the Secretary of State and election officials to set up a process to identify ballots that were rejected in error. Counties must make a report by Dec. 31.
So far as I’ve seen, or know, there haven’t been any “OMIGOSH!” votes found under floorboards, under couch cushions, mistakenly buried with embalmed bodies, implanted into William Hurt’s chest, injected into some guy’s bloodstream with Raquel Welch, launched on a rocket toward Hackensack New Jersey, buried in the snow near Brainerd Minnesota, et cetera, FOR NORM COLEMAN. Each and every single “found” vote has been for the funnyman.
Does that strike you as odd?
If not, see what Ann Coulter had to say about it. Yeah, I know, she has a bad name with some, and admittedly, whoever’s inviting Coulter and Franken to dinner on the same night, is no longer seating them next to each other. But just suspend all that for a minute…because facts iz facts, and these iz them…read…
The day after the November election, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman had won his re-election to the U.S. Senate, beating challenger Al Franken by 725 votes.
Then one heavily Democratic town miraculously discovered 100 missing ballots. And, in another marvel, they were all for Al Franken! It was like a completely evil version of a Christmas miracle.
As strange as it was that all 100 post-election, “discovered” ballots would be for one candidate, it was even stranger that the official time stamp for the miracle ballots printed out by the voting machine on the miracle ballots showed that the votes had been cast on Nov. 2 — two days before the election.
Democratic election officials in the miracle-ballot county simply announced that their voting machine must have been broken. Don’t worry about it — they were sure those 100 votes for Franken were legit.
It gets weirder from there.
We are well on our way — if we’re not there already — to having an unwritten rule that, in any state, if the democrat party loses an election by less than a thousand votes, they automatically win. You think I’m exaggerating? Read that Coulter link again. Go ahead and check out the facts if you don’t trust her.
I don’t care if you think the democrat party hung the moon. If you think there’s nothing to be worried about with regard to this issue, you’re nuts. This is not a situation where you can shrug your shoulders and say “oh well, it’s all a matter of personal perspective” or “oh well, opinions are like assholes everyone’s got one” or “oh well, both sides are equally wrong.” It’s not like that at all.
My apetite is not satisfied; I wanna see “The Taming of the Shrew” by Quentin Tarantino.
And for those who want to see The Blog That Nobody Reads take its turn at this stuff, if you’re still up for more such silly nonsense, Raiders of the Lost Ark With Lolcats is here (budget version, no pics).
Male science students are a university’s most likely virgins while females who study arts subjects are the most sexually active, Australian researchers say.
A pilot study conducted at the University of Sydney saw 185 students, aged 16 to 25, quizzed on their sexual history and awareness of the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia.
The whores in art class have to be having sex with someone. And I doubt like hell the professors can make that many deals for an easy-A…only so much of it can be lesbian sex…
…so the pocket-protector propeller-beanie-wearing egghead researchers could’ve gone a step further and formed a profile of these guys gettin’ some. It would’ve been a far more interesting report. And more in demand, too, might I add. But no more of a surprise to me than what I see here.
Another dividend of our liberation movement. The trollops are all pretty much pickin’ out the same dude, or the same type o’ dude anyhow…he’s a great example of reverse-Darwinism, can’t be counted on for shit. And they’re spreading around STDs of which they’ve never heard before, that they can’t spell, don’t know how to pronounce, and don’t know that they have.
When womenzlib got started, if you’d predicted all this was going to happen, you’d have been, according to the prevailing viewpoint, an enormous jackass. Maybe you were. But you’d have been a hundred percent right — just sayin’.
Also just pointing out one more time: Young ladies having sex with lots of scuzzy dudes, doesn’t have a great deal to do with expanding womens’ options, the level of respect given to them in civilized society, or their level of power in that society. After nearly half a century of bitter hairy feminists trying to make it not so, it still remains so: A principled and devoted mother is the most powerful figure in our culture…bar none.
Yeah, ya gotta get preggers to get there. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to do everything.
People need not worry about power corrupting US president-elect Barack Obama, an American research has suggested.
“Our research suggests that people may not need to worry too much about power corrupting Obama,” according to Joe Magee of New York University, who collaborated in the study.
“His newfound power might enable the change he desires rather than that power changing him instead. This is contrary to what most people think: that the longer he works in Washington the more he will be influenced by the same old ways of doing things,” Magee added.
This is specially relevant with the January inauguration of the president-elect and how he responds to the advice, influence, and criticism of his advisors, cabinet members, media, and other political leaders as he takes office.
“Although power is often perceived as the capacity to influence others, this research examines whether power protects people from influence,” said Adam Galinsky, professor at Kellogg School, Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who led the study.
Cassandra Grant, 29, said: ‘We were about 20 minutes from landing, when the captain said: “Unfortunately I’m not qualified to land the plane in Paris. We’ll have to fly back”.’
She added: ‘It was amazing. The whole thing beggars belief. The captain apologised but said it was down to his qualification status.’
The nitrogen tank is used to preserve samples of semen for artifical insemination of cows. The tank is 16 inches in diameter and about three feet tall.
“I’ve got almost 20 years in the field and it’s a first for me,” said Inv. Douglas Childs. “It’s definitely one of the strangest things I’ve ever investigated that was stolen.”
Childs said the tank itself was worth about $750, but the bull semen was worth $4,393. “My guess would be that it’s another farmer or it’s a methamphetamine addict that wanted the nitrogen,” said Childs. “Ultimately, I would think that it’s probably a farmer. Times are tough and bull semen is expensive — depending on the bull and the quality of the bull — these semen units are $25 to $75 a unit,” said Childs.
The stolen tank had about 100 to 105 semen specimens it, according to Childs.
Childs said the suspects are looking at third-degree burglary or grand larceny charges depending on the evidence.
I thought this was just a stellar performance by Joy Behar, challenging Alec Baldwin on his assertion that Sarah Palin couldn’t have been Vice President.
Baldwin: Well, she was entombed in Secret Service agents. And they had to — they covered the entire floor and the elevator, and the entire … and they closed off the street. There had to be 950 Secret Service agents …
Behar: Yes.
Baldwin: … because she’s the vice presidential candidate.
Behar: Do you think that [Baldwin’s “30 Rock” co-star] Tina [Fey]’s impression of her did anything to the election? I mean, do you think it had anything …
Baldwin: People say it did. But, I mean, I couldn’t possibly comment on that. I wouldn’t know. But people say that it did. I want to think that — I don’t really know. I have more faith in the American people. I can’t imagine that they would let that sway them. …
But I think that the correct answer is that what Tina did, and so beautifully, was just underline what was already out there in the journalistic zeitgeist and on the record, which was the woman was not ready to be the vice president of the United States.
Behar: Yes.
Baldwin: She just wasn’t.
Behar: Do you think she knows that — or knew that?
Baldwin: I think it was a win-win for her to be the nominee. She’s only the second woman to be the nominee in this country.
Behar: Yes, right.
Baldwin: … And I think that, you know, for her, it’s just full speed ahead now for her career, or whatever she wants to do.
Wow…that’s just a hard-hitting interview, there. No, I know Behar isn’t going to ask the obvious — “What exactly is it a Vice President needs to do that Sarah Palin can’t do?” But it’s telling that this interview went to Behar instead of to Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity.
The idea that Sarah Palin can’t do something — anything, really — is an idea that can’t stand up to challenge. It ends up looking good, only if everyone in proximity slobbers all over it and supports it.
Really, what should a Vice President know how to do that Palin has shown she can’t do? Name me five things. Name me one.
In fact, take everything you’ve ever heard about what people are supposed to be able to do, when they’re Vice President. Now, lop off from that, everything you’ve ever heard since August 29, 2008. Is there anything left? No. The fact is, Sarah Palin was over-qualified for this office, if anything.
Alec Baldwin being a dad, on the other hand…well…I’ll just not comment any further on that.
Update: Not entirely related — but I don’t want to start a whole new post just to bash poor Mr. Baldwin one more time. Nevertheless, I just have to make a record of what follows. Gov. Palin, you see, has been associated in proximity with animal remnants…as has Baldwin…however, only one of the two of them has been a spokesperson for PETA.
Seriously. I just can’t get over the idea that Alec Baldwin doesn’t think Sarah Palin is ready for something.
I’d love to have her as my Vice-President. Or President. Or Ambassador, Senator, Governor, you name it.
Alec Baldwin, I wouldn’t trust to watch my kids on a Saturday night.
President George W. Bush knows he’s unpopular. But here’s what matters, he says: “I didn’t compromise my soul to be a popular guy.” In a wide-ranging interview with Fox News Channel, Bush also praised the national security team assembled by President-elect Barack Obama, offered hope to U.S. automakers seeking government assistance and said the people of Illinois will have to sort out allegations that Gov. Rod Blagojevich sought kickbacks in choosing a successor for Obama’s Senate seat.
Bush said presidents fail when they make decisions based on opinion polls.
“Look, everybody likes to be popular,” said Bush.
“What do you expect? We’ve got a major economic problem and I’m the president during the major economic problem. I mean, do people approve of the economy? No. I don’t approve of the economy. … I’ve been a wartime president. I’ve dealt with two economic recessions now. I’ve had, hell, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn’t compromise my soul to be a popular guy.”
An Associated Press-GFK poll last week showed just 28 percent of the public approving of the job Bush is doing, about where he has been all fall. Among Republicans, 54 percent approve, a low figure from members of a president’s own political party.
I’m pretty sure even the most rabid Bill Clinton fans won’t admit this…but when Bill Clinton made decisions based on opinion polls, they weren’t terribly fond of this. There’s nothing less inspiring than the leader who makes decisions to be popular. You get him to do what you want, he smiles, leaves the room, goes off to negotiate with someone else…and then what happens? You don’t know. So what good does it do you that the guy once-upon-a-time agreed with you?
No, you count on the guy who doesn’t give a rat’s ass if you like him or not. You count on him, or you don’t count on anybody at all. That’s life, folks; that’s real life.
Chrysler says it will close all 30 of its manufacturing plants for a month starting Friday.
The company needs to match production to slowing demand and conserve cash.
Tighter credit markets are keeping would-be buyers away from their showrooms, Chrysler says. Dealers are unable to close sales for buyers due to a lack of financing, and estimate that 20 to 25 percent of their volume has been lost due to the credit situation.
Uh huh. And all that sweet bailout money. Now you can tell Congress you had to pull the shutters closed for a month.
This is heap-big serious, for it stands a good chance of being the lodestar of all of American business, as the “bailout” becomes the way of doing business. We already have this with our business and personal income taxes, do we not? Show us your weaknesses. We need to figure out who to make strong, so show us how weak you are.
File this one under “us dudes have the long end of the stick here”:
Big Bear High School student Mariah Jimenez should be allowed to wear the “Prop. 8 Equals Hate” T-shirt she was banned from wearing on campus, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
The 16-year-old sophomore, who is her class president, wore the tie-dyed T-shirt to school on Nov. 3, the day before voters approved the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage in California.
Mariah’s sixth-period teacher, Sue Reynolds, ordered her to remove the shirt during a meeting of the Associated Student Body.
When Mariah protested, Reynolds sent her to the principal’s office.
“She said I shouldn’t be wearing such divisive shirts, and my shirt draws a line down the school,” said
Mariah, who also plays on her school’s golf and softball teams and has been involved in school politics since seventh grade.
I think every lad my age and under has recollections of a young lady like Mariah. Strong Willed Woman type, outspoken, lots of opinions about things, constantly encouraged to have ’em. Until it becomes inconvenient.
See, for the boys, the message is consistent: Opinionz iz bad. But of course, every gutless necktie-wearing coward bureaucrat wants to be closely associated with the opinionated female. Until the heat in the kitchen is just a little too hot. And so, we end up saddling our ladies with the most terrible of burdens, the burden of inconsistency. Have an opinion. Oh, no no no, don’t have one. Too divisive. Mariah is a product; a product whose designers cannot handle what they’ve built. She’s been encouraged since seventh grade to be opinionated — it’s been oh-so-trendy to manufacture these gals who are so opinionated about things — and now they just can’t handle it.
So should females have opinions about things?
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer on that one. See, we’re all going to have to swing our heads back & forth, looking to each other, to see what the other fellow thinks. And so no such answer shall be forthcoming.
We know what to tell the boys though: I can’t have an opinion, so you can’t have one either.
Everything you need to know about the shoe-throwing incident is at IMAO. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
By the way, I stole the headline from Plentyobailouts (7th comment). But at the same time, I’m just loving the contribution of No One Of Consequence (comment #2). Remember the beginning of Casino Royale? At the top of that crane when the bad guy ran out of bullets and threw his empty gun at James Bond? Yeah, baby…YEAH.
Ah, if only Bush had, in a single motion, caught the shoe, and flung it back at the guy, nailing him in the forehead, that would have been awesome!
Not entirely sure where in Article II he derives the authority to throw shoes back at people. Fortunately our country was spared this constitutional crisis.
I recall reading an article somewhere about making homemade napalm out of gasoline and soap flakes. No, don’t be alarmed, if I was interested I’d have saved the link. But it got me to thinking…supposedly the soap is used to give it that gelatinous, sticky consistency. Whoever’s making napalm out of soap is missing a real opportunity with this yellow crap coming out of my nose. See, with these pounds and pounds of kleenex being wadded up and tossed in the (full) wastebaskets, I’m really instituting my own disarmament program.
And doing lots and lots of sleeping.
Mmmkay, that’s just about as much graphic information as I’m going to give. I know I’ve crossed the “TMI” line already.
So Cassy has a post up about some propeller-beanie-white-coat-egghead researchers Across The Pond in Jolly Ol’ Britain…actually, they aren’t “hard” type scientists-folks, they’re Relationship Ekspurts…discharging their opinions, that a woman cutting her hair short is a sign that she’s not craving sex with us guys.
Does short hair mean that a woman has given up on sex? Absolutely not.
But it might mean there are more important things to her than attracting a man.
The British male, in particular, is an unimaginative beast.
He doesn’t look at a woman’s chic and sleek new cut and think how fabulously fashionable it is.
He doesn’t assess its softly cut layers and think how perfectly it frames her features.
All he sees is the absence of the long mane that he instinctively equates with ‘youth’ and ‘sex’.
So, if a woman is looking for a man, she’s not going to cut her hair off.
It’s a fact that long hair has a broader appeal to the opposite sex – I’d say nine out of ten men prefer long hair to short – which means long-haired ladies are more likely to catch a guy’s eye.
I find that to be a pretty reasonable set of statements, although it isn’t as well-sourced as I think it should be, appearing in a prestigious tabloid such as Daily Mail and droning on about such an intricate and weighty issue. In fact — side note here — I think the selection of authorities is all wrong. When you study things like how the sexes attract each other, “researchers” are dudes, usually dudes who don’t get any. That may seem silly, but Relationship Ekspurt is several rungs further down on the authority ladder. They’re chicks. You don’t ask chicks what men find sexy. Not if you want to get hold of some hard, reliable information that means something.
In fact, Cassy and I both picked out the same Ekspurt as offering the most sane and sensible thesis in the entire article — a dude who cuts hair. Not because he’s a dude, but because of what he said and how much sense it makes.
When the time comes to find out what dudes like in a woman, there are two kinds of women: Women who ask other women what’s what, and women who really want to learn truth instead of wasting their time. Well, I’m a dude. And I’m never quite so confident in my opinion about how to appeal to a woman’s primal, lustful instincts, as when my nostrils are all jammed-up airtight with germy yellow snot.
So since Cassy was specifically asking for further opinions, Casanova blossomed forward. Hey, I’m just the giving type.
1. Take the “British” off of it. Regardless of nationality, men are an overwhelming disappointment to the lady who’s spent some extra cash having her mane chiseled down “artistically.” I don’t care how sensitive you think he is, there’s something in each haircut you wanted him to notice that he didn’t notice.
2. At my age (42), when a lady gives off vibes she’s not interested in a gentleman, four out of five of us will have the good sense to say “no accounting for lousy taste” and move on, with the one out of five grasping at straws ready to do ANYTHING to make her interested.
3. Cut my age in half, and down there, the ratio flips around. Eighty percent of the studs have an insatiable desire for the apathetic and unattainable.
4. Too many women find out too late how the male mind works, and then make the mistake of applying those lessons throughout life. And so it becomes a semi-regular event that the shorter ‘do is used as a seduction device…thou shalt be interested in me, because I am NOT interested in you. With tragic results. I used to adore Lori Laughlin and Jeanne Tripplehorn. And, believe it or not, between ‘93 and ‘96 Hillary Clinton found a way to shed what little sex appeal she might’ve had. Go on, find some seventeen-year-old pics of Arkansas’ First Lady before lynching me for that remark.
5. Continuing with that thought…women don’t really dress or apply makeup or get their hair cut to please men. They do it to please other women. If that were not true, miniskirts and go-go boots would still be in style.
7. The researchers are being clinical-minded, to excess, when they talk about “wanting sex.” Note the hairdresser discussed in the article who says most of his customers who want their hair chopped are already in a stable relationship. Long hair isn’t a sign of wanting sex; it’s a sign of being in the market (or rather, short hair is a sign of not being in the market).
8. If three women in a clique are not in the market, and a fourth member of the clique is, the three are not going to be very nice to the one.
9. Women are vastly more sensitive to clique-politics than men. Evolution has molded and shaped the female side of the gender to live within the village walls, while us men run around outside the walls and do the hunting. That’s why we’re better at burping and farting. That’s also why the most independent-minded lady will sit with a fashion magazine and comment with genuine interest that this is “in” and that is “out”; and the most peer-pressure-susceptible dude, even, will respond to this with a quick change of subject, and eyeball-roll, or both.
10. A beautiful woman’s hair is a wonderful thing. Fact is, very often, once it’s gone you suddenly realize you never understood how much it contributed to her overall beauty, until it was no longer there. It’s easy to underestimate this. It’s practically impossible to overestimate this.
11. Obviously, in certain situatio[n]s, pointing out #10 will lead to a dude sleeping on the couch for several nights in a row.
12. Among the misunderstood things about men, women, and the relationship between the two — MOST of the misunderstood things, arise from certain other things not being pointed out because some guy was afraid of sleeping on the couch. This is one of them.
A few days ago, The Blog That Nobody Reads opined away about — believe it or not — liberals. Yeah, we never do that. Specifically, what caught our eye was a Sixties’ Kid waxing eloquently at the rest of us, talking down to us about where to go from here: Ditching capitalism, the sooner, the better.
What if we began to ask whether corporate consumerism was really the ultimate flowering of America’s promise? For one thing, capitalism as we know it would fade away. But since it may be doing that anyway, we might be wise to drop our resistance and bid it a fond farewell. We could thank it for its efficient promotion of the Industrial Revolution, while observing that by creating an interconnected world it has rendered its own creed of frenetic competition obsolete. A satellite can’t go into orbit till its booster rocket falls away. If the accounting system is in flames, let it drop and disintegrate, mission accomplished.
The first thing to raise my red flag wasn’t the liberalism, and it wasn’t the anti-capitalism, and it wasn’t the hemp-stench of the sixties-ism. It was the description of all of us living and working “together,” all “connected,” celebrating that supposed unicellular state that binds all of us, even while commenting on all the options this eliminates.
I am deeply suspicious of people like this. They drone on at length about how we are all one being. They drone on at length about all the things this means we cannot do. They don’t say one word about how this makes us more capable of doing something. But always, this interconnectedness is an occasion for celebration, not for some kind of action. Anything to do with independence, individuality, etc. — capitalism, for example — get rid of it. It’s yucky, icky-poo.
What can we do once we get that done? Once the booster is jettisoned? Just be wonderful all day long?
This Is The Daw-Ning Of The Age…Of…A-Quar-Ee-Us…
But of far greater concern is how these collectivists talk once they get the idea people are acknowledging this connectedness. First step after that milestone is reached: Re-define the concept of “everyone”:
…their definition of everyone excludes quite a few folks, folks just as real as any other, that they don’t want to talk about. Their Utopia is a sort of modern version of Noah’s Ark, built from stem to stern for the express purpose of providing a shelter to an elite crowd…leaving the balance behind. In their world, “everyone” never really means everyone. And they don’t want to admit it.
Now, I don’t know if Rush Limbaugh reads this blog. I’ve always kind of assumed hardly anyone ever does. But how, then, do you explain this item from Monday, of which we learn via blogger friend Rick:
Colin Powell, ladies and gentlemen, insists that conservatives and Republicans support candidates who will appeal to minorities like I guess McCain who led the effort for amnesty. He insists that conservatives and Republicans move to the center like McCain, who calls himself a maverick for doing so. General Powell insists that conservatives and Republicans provide an open tent to different ideas and views, like I guess McCain, who repeatedly trashed Republicans and made nice with Democrats. I mean, their tent’s big, they just don’t want us in it. John McCain is and was Colin Powell’s ideal candidate. All these moderates, Bill Weld, all these moderates that crossed the aisle and voted for Obama, they got their ideal candidate, and they got their ideal campaign in McCain. Once McCain was nominated as the Republican candidate, largely by independents and Democrats voting in Republican primaries, Colin Powell waited ’til the last minute, when it would do the most damage to McCain and the Republicans and endorsed Obama. And when I said it was largely about race, that’s what set ’em all off, you’re not supposed to say these kinds of things. This is supposed to go unspoken.
So if we try to understand Powell’s thinking, which is difficult since it’s incoherent, we should have all voted for McCain in the primaries, and once he was nominated, we should have voted for Obama for president. That’s what we should have all done, if you listen to what Powell said on CNN yesterday. There’s something interesting — and Snerdley picked up on this — he said that Powell in the CNN interview is talking to Republican leaders about tossing me out, when I’m not in. (laughing) This remains to me to be the funny thing here. It would be one thing if Republicans were listening to me and going down in flames, but they’re not, and they haven’t for the longest time. So Powell is talking to Republican leaders about tossing me out of the party, and people should stop listening to me and helping Democrats with any legislation that might be aimed at taming talk radio. This is what Snerdley thinks he meant by virtue of what he said in that interview. He did say he’s talking to the leaders — leaders of what? The Republican Party? He’s getting together to talk with the leaders about me? When was the last time I was on a ballot? When was the last time I raised money? When was the last time I wrote a plank in the party platform? [emphasis mine]
This is a recurrent theme going down, nowadays, just about everywhere you look. Things are excluded from other things, and then when the dust has all hit the ground, we’re all supposed to pretend they were included and not excluded. Things are alienated from certain decision-making processes, and after the decisions turn to crapola, we’re all supposed to pretend the things that were so alienated, were in charge of the mess from Day One.
So now — Republicans are supposed to take a lesson from the elections and steer toward the left? That’s what they did when they nominated McCain, wasn’t it? No? Someone tell me, please. Back when McCain emerged as the front-runner, if Republicans were supposed to do a better job veering off to the left, who else were they supposed to have picked?
We need to jettison capitalism because it’s screwed us over so badly, huh? Hmm. I’m typing this on a laptop that was created and then sold to me — through capitalism…I got a feeling the same is true of Mr. Mo Hanan and this drivel he scribbled down, above.
This is pretty frightening stuff when you ponder where it leads: Collectivists, determined to create a new society that includes “everyone,” with their own surreal otherworldly definition of what “everyone” means. Although I agree with everything Rush said, above, he really should stop laughing.
He Who Walks On Water — the most powerful human on the entire planet, come January 20, and so far not a single soul can coherently explain why — elaborates:
It’s a system in Washington that has failed the American people. A system that has not kept the most fundamental trust of American democracy: that our government is of the people, and that it must govern for all the people – not just the interests of the wealthy and well-connected. [emphasis mine]
This is the scary side to the Unicorn Fart Man. Can you imagine anything more truly frightening than someone who pours such energy into pretending to bring “everyone” along, while fully intending, down to the very marrow of His Holy Bones, to leave some behind? What could be scarier than that? Anybody want to bet me some large money that when He says “the wealthy and well-connected” — He is talking about Himself? George Soros? Ted Kennedy? Hillary Clinton?
What about the “all the people” part? Does that include conservative Republicans? He wants the new “system” to govern for conservative Republicans? How about Joe The Plumber? Are we going to get a government of, by, and for Joe The Plumber, along with “everyone” else?
Eh, don’t make me laugh.
Like I said, Noah’s Ark wasn’t built primarily to keep the exclusive club afloat. The point of the project was to kill off everything else.
Rush is right. Rush is right because he repeated what I said. The folks from the kiddie table who are now going to start running things, are one and the same as the folks who ran the Republican Party this year — and their tent’s big, but they don’t want the real “everyone” in it. If the real “everyone” is allowed in, why take all the time and trouble to build the damn thing in the first place?
Scott from North Carolina is concerned with the radical views of his students:
Dr. Helen:
I’m a middle/high school teacher, of a social-libertarian, economic-conservative bent. All the talk about indoctrination of kids is extraordinarily true. I have kids pass through my class with some of the most insane, Kos-style concepts running through their heads, really doctrinaire hard-liberal stuff. It only got more blatant as the election wore on (and on, and on). I subbed for a fourth grade class in which a girl trotted out the “Bush caused 9/11″ bit. Are you kidding me?
What can I do to help counter this? I’d like to avoid a whole new generation running on Marxist ideology.
This January, the people who belong at the kiddie table will be running things — because we live in a time in which it has become treacherously difficult, and unrewarding, for people to distinguish extremism from moderation.
“Bush caused 9/11” is extreme…along with the notion that the best way to lower gas prices, is to tax oil companies a whole lot more. But the babes think those are among the most centrist thoughts you can hold in your li’l head. Even worse, if you utter a peep of protest, you’re now extreme.
Not too many ways left to deal with this, but Dr. Helen does have a few good ideas.
It’s a labor union. Except you don’t have to have a job to belong to it; you DO have to have a verginer; and the labor union officials are so passionate about what they do, they don’t have to be paid. If you applied those three simple changes to any labor union, you’d have feminism.
Viewed in those terms, it all makes sense. You see it isn’t that feminists should be allowed to get away with violating the dress code. It’s that, when they violate it and you blow the whistle on ‘em, you are subjected to such an endless acid rain of crap that next time you’ll decide it just isn’t worth the hassle. Yeah, in the minds of some, this is what “representation” means: Someone cheerleading the notion, whether they ultimately succeed at it or not, that you and people like you shouldn’t be held to standards, but everyone else outside your clique should be.
The subject under discussion is that Jessica Valenti doesn’t think women should be held to the standards of a dress code, if they’re willing to join her union and call themselves feminists.
I’m kind of obsessed with the site Passive Aggressive Notes; I think it’s hilarious. This one I found particularly irritating/interesting:
Apparently this woman’s supervisor sent this charming note because someone had been complaining (!) about her showing a bit of cleavage. According to the sender, “as I’m currently 7 months pregnant, i could be wearing a turtleneck and still be showing ‘too much’ cleavage.”
Ugh.
I really don’t understand this comment about wearing a turtleneck and showing cleavage. But I’m a guy, I don’t have to face the rigors of dressing up on planet-woman every single day, other people do, so we’ll just let that one go. I’m a little bit more curious about this “sender,” Jessica herself, and other folks climbing on the sender’s bandwagon. The full quote is —
“the shirt in question was a run-of-the-mill top with an empire waist…but as i’m currently 7 months pregnant, i could be wearing a turtleneck and still be showing ‘too much’ cleavage.”
And NO, there is not a pic. Just a one-line description of this run-of-the-mill top, which Jessica didn’t even see fit to carry forward on the help-me-deplore-this jungle-telegram.
So maybe we have two camps. The “people in our group shouldn’t be held to standards at all” camp, and the “people in our group always tell the truth all the time” camp, somehow laboring under the delusion they’ve been allowed to independently evaluate this run-of-the-mill top, when they haven’t. This nameless-faceless nipple-exposing hussy could be claiming she saw Elvis at lunch that day, and goddamn it you better believe it, because it’s Gospel.
This brings me to the second front of what we now, today, call feminism — the character disorder.
Rather than spell out the next point about the above clip, which would be tedious, try to imagine just a few differences injected into it which, in a sane situation, would be meaningless differences.
A couple of dudes raising emergency funds for the financially troubled “Asshole Magazine” who’ve been working extra hard at making themselves unattractive. Not like Wayne and Garth. More like Jimmy and Adam — plus 150 pounds each, their sneakers and blue jeans not quite as clean looking, foregoing the blubber-hiding untucked-shirt look in favor of the “Why Can’t Men Wear Half Shirts?” look. Big ol’ spare tires spilling out over their filthy frayed grease-covered blue jeans, maybe one of ’em picking his nose every few seconds…”Dude! We gots ta get hold of fifty billion dollars cause our magazine is in trouble!”
Just those few minor changes would expose what’s going on here.
People…entirely inexperienced at (or not giving a ripe about) figuring out what others want…just got an idea in their heads about what their product should be. Not the timeless entrepreneur’s idea of “If I build X, the world will beat a path to my doorstep.” Just a child’s idea — after she’s spent too much time playing with dolls. “This guy wants X.”
In the psychological domain, this is what feminism is. That you are here, feminists can accept. Everything else about you, including the thoughts in your head, is either irrelevant, or pre-planned. And where the plans disagree with reality, the plans win. Wherever the feminist mind is confronted by some uncomfortable difference, the answer is revolution.
It is, in the psychological makeup of people, the simple character deficiency of being unable to perceive.
The labor-union part of it, is a cause-and-effect consequence of multiple people struggling with this same deficiency, and banding together to get what they want.
Multiple generations of people have now been born since those long-gone days when feminism was something much bigger than it now is. And so while it’s obvious to those who lived through it, it should be jotted down for the benefit of those who did not:
Mainstream society used to accommodate this. You may have been wondering why workplaces are so yielding to the feminist movement, when the feminist movement seems to be nothing more than a bunch of chubby goth chicks scribbling down acrid blog posts and sending money to each other. The answer is tradition. These deficiently-charactered harpies, thirty years ago, had the world by the balls. If word got out they wanted something, things stopped under the capitol dome, and in the corporate board rooms, until someone could figure out what they wanted and give it to ’em.
Back in those halcyon days, was feminism more than a labor union and a character defect? No, not really. Not among the true believers. Not among the work-for-free union officials (and vastly greater numbers of them did not work for free). The only difference between then, and now, is that they had more people fooled. They’ve had this line of propaganda that “it’s all about ensuring women make a fair wage,” et cetera…they’re still trotting it out to this very day…there are far fewer takers.
Why is nobody believing it anymore?
Because when Bill Clinton takes advantage of women, thus completing the very picture of an overly-powerful male staying in power while abusing women sexually, socially, legally…they support him.
And when Sarah Palin runs for the Vice-Presidency, thus completing the very picture of a woman who represents others, courageously, attempting to achieve a bigger voice in forming the policies that affect the lives of so many millions, while at the same time dedicating herself to her family…they snark away at her with the hatred that used to be reserved for abusive men.
It’s been exposed.
It’s a labor union, formed for the purpose of achieving political goals that really don’t have that much to do with opening up options for women — killing babies (half of whom are girls), gay marriage, hippie peacenik protests, the two-minute-hate of the target-of-the-hour. And it’s a labor movement made up of people who’ve made it through childhood without developing the ordinary, everyday attributes of their personalities that the rest of us have to have, that enable us to work together and live together. And those attributes have to do with recognizing what the other guy thinks is important that we don’t, and somehow learning to deal with it.
Simply put, most people…if they started a magazine exploring what dickheads they are and glorifying their nose hairs and butt cracks, and the magazine started to go out of business…would say to themselves “Huh. I guess most people don’t want to see my butt crack.” And move on.
Feminists who cover themselves with tatoos and call themselves bitches, need forty big ones.
So won’t you please donate today. C’mon, those soldiers who need prosthetics and those kids whose homes burned down, can wait; we need your help calling ourselves bitches.
The fifty-first Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately award (BSIHORL) goes out this morning to fellow Right Wing News contributer The Other McCain, Robert S. McCain, the McCain that has never ever lost an election. He’s blasting his comrade-in-names in a halfhearted defense of Karl Rove, that isn’t quite so much a defense of Rove, as an assault upon a whole bunch of B.S. that has been engulfing us in the wake of the Republicans’ defeat last month:
If the failure of the “Maverick” campaign taught any lesson, it should have taught Republicans that there is no safety in a “me too” strategy of bipartisan cooperation.
…will people stop repeating this myth that Obama won because of “educated, affluent voters”? Look at the numbers: He got 73% of voters with annual incomes under $15,000, 60% of those earning $50,000 or less. His strongest educational cohort was high-school dropouts (63%).
Eh. Let ’em go ahead and call themselves affluent and educated. It’s kinda cute. It won’t take too long after January 20 for them to figure out what they did wasn’t really all that smart.
You might have to wait awhile for them to admit it, but you won’t have to wait too long for them to figure it out.
Update: I found some workmanship by one of those bright, intelligent, affluent Obama voters. Just trying to make ends meet until the iPresident-Elect Messiah-God Hopenchange Unicorn-Fart Man pays his mortgage for him…has his ticket to the Inauguration Day festivities bought and safely tucked away, I’m sure.
I daresay there was a lot less “satire” involved in that one than there has been in any SNL opening skit since, uh, maybe somewhere around Reagan’s second term. No, I don’t have anything specific in mind. I haven’t seen ’em all, not even most of ’em, I’m just saying somewhere around twenty years or so.
I would also like to say that if you have so much as a shred of sincerity about you as a sentient being capable of verbally communicating its innermost thoughts…if you are in the habit of forming your opinions about current events from SNL opening skits, and have the candor to admit it…if you were ever concerned about a certain Vice-Presidential candidate saying she could see Russia from her house* — your concern about this ended sometime between last night and this morning.
Contrary to popular belief, I do have sympathy for the misfortune of others. There is a fine line between lacking sympathy for one’s misfortune, and lacking sympathy for one’s misfortune due to one’s negligence.
In fact, I even have sympathy for the misfortune of others due to their negligence.
Up to a point.
Allow me to state that which is embarrassingly obvious to all red-blooded American men: This panel was drawn by a Canadian woman — and if it was somehow her desire to make it a secret, or just something obscure, either her nationality or her gender identity, then she has failed.
This is…assuming it’s based on any kind of real-life event…just one of many thousands of little costs that all add up over time, of failing to give masculinity its proper respect. Such a scene would never — I repeat never — occur in any household over which I preside as Lord and Master, or that prospers from the benevolent patriarchal wisdom of any similar Real Man.
How do you forget the rope?
In the castle of which I am King, the rope is the star of the show. Actually, the hooks in the rope, and the really cool knots that are used to secure them, that only a Real Man can tie. The point of the trip is to use the knots…and the hooks…and the saw (only for a few brief seconds)…and the really manly genuine-leather gloves.
And to march the woman and the whelps around in the chilly winter air, for only that tiny handful of minutes, in token honor of the ancestors who had to live out their entire lives in it. So the hot apple cider or hot chocolate tastes that much better to them an hour later. That is what Christmas is all about.
Manly men don’t forget the rope. They wouldn’t. It’s not because we have better memories, it’s because it isn’t logically possible to do so. You think like a man, getting a tree becomes synonymous with getting a rope.
…Chris Muir scribbled down his vision of it two weekends ago. It’s a vision worth repeating over and over, because it’s where we’re headed. All liberals agree we should trudge off in this direction, they only disagree about how far. That is the point that has to be stressed, because it is one hundred percent true.
Strength, aggression, recklessness, creativity, innovation, intuition, pride, individuality, manhood, the instinct to protect, faith, weaponry…a halfway decent long-term memory…you know, if those things were banned-outright, it wouldn’t be nearly so frightening. What all those stories listed above have to do with these precious commodities of humanity, is not that the commodities are actually banned, but rather that they are seized for the purpose of erecting and preserving the state. Our liberals have demonstrated over and over again — all those things are fine if they’re brandished or used in service of liberalism. It’s when they’re used for something else, that you’re supposed to give ’em up or put ’em away.
This is the paradox we embrace when we vote for left-wingers. The underlying concern is what bubbled to the surface in the Watergate days, and lingered under the surface in the decades before that — that our government will insist on making all our decisions for us, and ultimately fail to respect human life. In Logan’s Run, when you turn 30 (or 21) your time is up; in Soylent Green, people eat human flesh without knowing it; in THX, Anthem and We, procreation is controlled and devoid of passion. Our phobia is the lack of respect for human life.
So then we vote in these liberals, who don’t have any respect for human life. They’re dedicated to killing off, at whatever sluggish pace they need to proceed in order to keep their popular support somewhat intact, all of these things that make human life as we know it possible. All the things that nourish it, make it grow, give it hope.
