Archive for April, 2009

Twenty-Five Sexiest Death Scenes

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

Because…again…I’m really sick of talking about that guy in the White House.

Of course, for the most part, we have not been. There is effort invovled in that. Most of my blogging effort these days goes into finding something else to talk about.

Anyway. On with the show.

And Rendell Belongs to Which Party?

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

No more mopin’ around!

Gov. Ed Rendell is trying to do his part to aid the citizens of the commonwealth.

His latest plan is to use about $15 million from the federal stimulus funds pouring into the state to try and change the mood of Pennsylvanians.

The Patriot-News has learned that the money will be spent to hire clowns, mimes, magicians, street performers and comedians (nothing blue) who will be dispatched to malls, fairs and festivals across the state to boost morale.

I’m awfully glad the federal and state governments are spending this money so wisely. Who knows where it would’ve gone had the lowly citizens been allowed to keep it in the first place. They probably would’ve poured it in ditches and set it on fire.

It Really Does All Make Sense

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

Victor Davis Hanson explains the actions of The One, who was elected to install a morally clean and fiscally sane government, and is going through money like a horse goes through water and nominating a bunch of druggies, perverts and tax cheats to His top slots:

In just the first 70 days of the new administration, a number of Obama supporters have expressed some dismay at their new president. Some find his ethically challenged appointments at odds with his soaring moral rhetoric.

Others lament his apparent inability to stir up supporters in impromptu speeches, at least in the manner he did with set oratory on the campaign trail. And they worry about his occasionally insensitive remark.

Many cannot quite figure out why, after lambasting George W. Bush for running a $500-billion deficit, Obama has outlined eight years of budgetary red ink that would nearly match the debt run up by all previous U.S. presidents combined.
:
Welcome Back, CarterIf you believed that highly educated and sometimes distracted liberals occasionally slip on rather mundane questions of taxes, lobbying, and conflict of interest — but not at all in the felonious, premeditated manner of the corporate hierarchy — then it would be necessary to overlook such minor lapses for the greater good of marshalling talented and well-disposed experts into progressive government.

If you believed that socially minded liberals are tolerant and extraordinarily empathetic, then their rather impolite speech is not at all offensive. Constant disparagement of the previous administration, and jokes about fellow Americans — ranging from the physically or mentally impaired, to Nancy Reagan and her séances, to the stereotyped religion and culture of a clinging middle America, to the purported prejudices of a “typical white person” — are not insensitive, let alone callous. No, the evocation of these occasional infelicities reflects the tally-sheet of nitpicking right-wing agitators, keen to bring down a hard-working progressive sacrificing for the people.
:
If you believed that wars, crises, and international tensions are brought about by miscommunications, misunderstandings, and Western insensitivity, rather than by despots trying to advance illiberal agendas whenever and wherever they sense an opening, then you would blame past administrations for our present ills, with all their bellicose and retrograde talk of preparedness, deterrence, and pre-emption. You would grandly proclaim a new age of harmonious relations, and count on your rhetorical abilities and charisma to persuade past rivals and mischaracterized enemies that, at this rare but opportune moment, there are no real differences between us — and thus no reasons for future disputes.

In other words, if you believed as President Obama and many of his advisors do, then you would do what Obama and his advisors are now doing.

Caveat Emptor.

Atlas Shrugged Trailer

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

It’s old. It’s only new in the sense that I just stumbled across it.

A is A.

Update: Related: And too good to let go.

Ayn Rand’s message to the Republican candidates, 1961.

Women Naturally Inclined to be “Hotties”

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

A balmier climate tends to produce more baby girls:

People who live in the tropics have more baby girls compared with those living in other parts of the world, work reveals.

Tropical HottieIt may be down to the hotter weather or the longer days, says US researcher Dr Kristen Navara in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters.

She says this climate may change miscarriage rates and sperm quality.

Or there may be some evolutionary advantage to having more girls than boys if you live by the equator.

Experts already know that the birth rates of boys and girls vary across the globe.

While some of this can be explained by society – in countries like China baby boys are favoured and many unborn girls are electively aborted – there are natural processes at work.

Research suggests the female foetus is less fragile than the male foetus, which is more prone to the effects of the environment on pregnant women.
:
Dr Bill James of University College London, who has spent his career studying sex ratio patterns, said although the differences found were statistically significant, it was not as meaningful as other factors that have been linked to sex ratios at birth.
:
“The idea is that, in mammals, males have a greater variance in their reproductive success.

“Some have lots of offspring and others have none, whereas most females will have at least one offspring.

“So it pays a women who is reproductively fit in good times to have a boy because he may well give her more grandchildren.

“But when times are hard and if she is less reproductively fit, she is better off having a girl because in this way she should gain at least one grandchild.”

Is it just me, or did this article stop making sense about halfway through?

I’m not trying to be a sexist, here, but when I think of tough climates versus wimpy climates, I’m thinking the tough one is the cold one and the unwind-after-work one is the beach with the white sand, the waiter bringing me a weird blue or green drink with an umbrella in it. Maybe it’s my upbringing in the Pacific Northwest, I dunno. Maybe it’s the fact that I’m in a cushier latitude now, one with palm trees…listening to California natives bitch and bitch whenever it’s any crisper than 60 degrees.

My point is, these scientists talk as if they know, if they say something about the males being better suited for a colder climate, they’ll lose all their grant money for the next several years. Men must always be weak, women must always be durable. Think about it. We’re up to our eyeballs in these “scientific studies,” multiple times per month, if not per week. How many years has it been since you’ve seen a study suggesting the male characteristics are better suited for…anything?

This one twists the logic around 180 degrees. Statistically significant differential in girl-versus-boy babies born in a gentler climate…and so we have to make this look like the female fetus is more robust. You know, it could very well be. But how do you get from there, to here? Somewhere, they explained that, and I missed it.

Every man who’s ever been married…every man who’s ever lived with a woman, and a thermostat…knows. Women hate being cold. It’s not sexism — it’s just a fact. It’s their bodies, they’re built to be pregnant.

Go out jogging sometime. See all the cute lady joggers. Now keep on doing it until school starts…then into October…when the low pressure systems pull all the rain in. Where’d they all go? Dude, I don’t wanna see that! Nothing around but a bunch of ugly Rocky Balboa wanna-bes. Happens every year. Weather gets cold, the women are gone. Science is going to say that’s because women are more resilient?

Whatever; that science has become politicized, is pretty old news by now. But it’s interesting that nature may have a way of singling out the sex of the baby based on the climate. It’s pretty easy to see this kind of musing and speculating is still, after centuries, in the stages of “we don’t even know what we don’t yet know.”

My Mom used to say it was the personality of the mother. If woman having the babies, had what it took to whip the kids into shape, said kids would turn out to be boys. The dilemma with the baby crying after bedtime, for example. Her theory was, if your tendency as a mother was to come running when you heard some whimpering in the crib, you’d probably have girls. If you had that streak in you that would permit you to lay down some “whoopass,” you’d probably have boys. She had two.

You know one thing I didn’t see discussed at all, in spite of this sumptuous banquet of theories to toss around — was the frequency of sexual activity. If you live in a place that’s cold enough, it has a real impact on what you can do with your spare time. There are plenty of spots on this big rock where it is so cold, for so much of the year, that when the work is done you can only do one thing.

Hmmm…that seems to me a sufficiently solid idea to at least toss in the pot. If that’s proven out over time, it would mean the discrepancy has nothing to do with the innate robustness of girls versus boys, or vice-versa.

You’re a Bad Person

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

HarmonAngie Harmon isn’t gonna take it anymore:

“Here’s my problem with this, I’m just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it’s not because I’m a racist, it’s because I don’t like what he’s doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you’re called a racist,” Harmon told Tarts at Thursday’s Los Angeles launch of the new eyelash-growing formula, Latisse. “But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is. I’m just not crazy about what he’s doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay … I’m still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we’ve got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that’s the thing I really don’t appreciate. If I’m going to disagree with my President, that doesn’t make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn’t make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous.”

Dr. Melissa Clouthier takes note:

I think it’s time to give credit where credit is due. The Left has succeeded in framing every issue morally. Leave your lights on Saturday night? You’re a bad person and don’t care about the environment. Believe that marriage is, by definition, between one man and one woman? You’re a bad, closed-minded person. Believe that people should pay their bills and that includes the government? You’re a bad, judgmental person.

The Left has done an excellent job of vilifying the normal and common sense. I don’t know how we get back to normal. You know, where hard-working, bill-paying, rationally conserving families are viewed as the normal and not framed as freaks.

Commenter Carla brandishes the tried-and-true “everybody’s doin’ it” defense.

The right is just as judgmental. If you don’t believe marriage can exist only between a man and a woman (which as another reader points out, has NOT been the interpretation from the dawn of time) then you’re a bad person. If you’re a man and you love a man in a romantic way, then you’re a bad person (many right-wingers even insinuate that you’re a child molester, just by virtue of your being gay). The judgmental statements propagated by the right are far too numerous to detail here, or ever. Both sides do it to the same degree. You’re not holier than anyone. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I, true to form, kill the thread by putting words to truths so logical, so reasonable, so undeniable, and so complete, that nothing more need be said:

Carla,

Generally speaking, when conservatives pursue an argument of “you’re a bad person because you do (don’t) believe in X” there’s more to it than that. If you’re a bad person because you want to let a child molester out of prison, for example. Or abort a baby. There’s a consequence to doing things other than the way the conservative has in mind; and there’s an innocent who stands to be harmed by this.

Now I’ll grant you, liberals have victims in mind behind their agendas too. But that’s mostly for show, and the agenda is always more important than the victim. Tell a conservative that the baby you want to abort is going to grow up to be a liberal, and that won’t slow down his momentum one bit, because he’s sincere in wanting to defend a helpless human being.

Tell a liberal “Actually Mister Liberal, these poor indigents to whom you want to provide universal healthcare, voted for George W. Bush,” and suddenly this “right” the liberal insists we “all” have is nothing more than a memory.

There are exceptions to all rules — including this one — but overall, you’ll find conservatives are superior at thinking out cause-versus-effect when they say this-thing is good or that-thing is bad. Whereas, liberals are just being bossy.

It’s an entirely different thing to say, “A society in a state of decline, first kills its own babies”; or, “in a culture in which anything goes, ultimately everything does” — versus — “women have a right to choose” or “everyone has a right to vote.” The first two of those are arguments of cause-and-effect; kind of a “you can’t keep your eyes open when you sneeze” thing. When this thing over here happens, whether you realize it or not, that thing over there has to happen. They look like statements of s’poseda and must-must-must and rules-rules-rules to an uncivilized mind that cannot tell the difference. But they’re not.

The last two of those, for example, can easily be set up as a contradiction…which is wonderful fun. “If women have an absolute right to abortions,” I like to say to the pugnacious liberals, “and everyone has an absolute right to have their vote counted…if my state or county is so foolish, oppressive and blatantly unconstitutional to put an abortion ban on the ballot, do I have an absolute right to vote in favor of it?” As I’ve said before: It’s more entertaining than toying with a kitten, with a bit of string or a laser pen. Oh yes, they’ll find something to say about that — but it won’t make any sense.

They’re not thinking. They’re just being bossy.

Self-Hatred

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

Old stuff. Good writin’. Smart thoughts, since they echo my own:

I’m only talking about the incurable tendency of liberals to kowtow in awe of “The Other,” as the trendy English professors like to call it. According to academic myth, The Other is supposed to be the scapegoat for one’s own unacceptable side; there is something to that, but for the dominant culture of America today, the truth is exactly the opposite. For liberals, it is The Other who is above criticism, and it’s the in-group — like us folks — who are irredeemably Evil. Why do you think they voted for Obama? To prove to themselves how much better they are. It certainly had nothing to do with the reality of picking a sensible leader for the country. Obama voters are living in a comic strip of their own devising, and it may take a really life-threatening national crisis for them to come down to earth. Just wait for the Iranian or North Korean Bomb, and we’ll see.

The trouble with all that peace and love — which I don’t mind people fantasizing about — is that seems to go along with a real hatred of one’s own. It’s interesting just to ask your nearest liberal friend — “Can you say anything good about America? Anything at all?” — and watch them flounder and stammer.

Hat tip to Maggie’s Farm.