Archive for August, 2010

Green Light People

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

Clifford D. May has been noticing what I’ve been noticing:

The controversy over plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan has taken an odd twist. On one side are those making arguments in opposition to the project, along with those who merely have questions they would like answered so they can decide for themselves whether this project will honor the victims of 9/11, or mock them. On the other side are those who support the project wholeheartedly and who respond to both arguments and questions by saying: Shut up.

Most prominent among the second group is New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. It would be one thing if Hizzoner were saying: “I hear your concerns and I have questions, too, but municipal laws and the First Amendment permit this project to go forward.” But he is not saying that. He is saying instead that those with misgivings about the 13-story Islamic center that is to rise near where the Twin Towers collapsed “ought to be ashamed of themselves…It is a shame that we even have to talk about this.”

All together now, one, two, three: “‘Shut Up,’ He Explained.” Yeah, that’s the ticket.

A perfect example of this exists at Ed Darrell’s place. I took great exception to the statement so breezily included in a piece he embedded…

No one knows how many Muslims died on 9/11, but they number in the hundreds.

How in the world could that be true, I wondered? We know, down to a nose, how many people perished in total; we have their names; but we cannot even ball-park the number of Muslims? Suffice it to say, after much discussion that has ensued, I do not have an answer to my question but I have lots of evaluations about my personal character, or lack thereof, from people who do not know me.

Cordoba Center should be given the green light, and anyone who says otherwise is a terrible person.

Well, that dog just won’t hunt this time around. If Cordoba Center is intended as a soothing balm for the relations between the Islamic world and the Western world, nobody connected with Islamic terrorism has anything to do with supporting it or funding it; if that negative can be somehow proven; then still, there are some vestigial reasons for opposing the issuance of a permit. I cannot think ill of someone who would so oppose. It’s pretty hard for me to think well of someone, who would counsel me to think ill of that other someone.

Does all this really even need to be said?

Apparently, not only does it have to be said, we’ve got quite a few people who will never catch on. Truth and decency are casually conflated into one thing, the “red light” and “yellow light” people are fused together in one big group of “you people.” And “you people” are all bad, of course.

The problem with that is, that if these people were as good at logical thought as they claimed to be, they’d not only recognize this as ad hominem but they’d recognize the reason honest people frown on ad hom: It’s all bullshit because it’s all irrelevant. If you’re caught being wrong about something, it means — nothing. Intelligent people are wrong. Decent people are wrong. Honest people are wrong. You don’t have to wait long to see it happen.

Stupid people often turn out to be right. Let’s pause here and carefully define exactly what I’m saying: Glittering personal attributes are not reverse-barometers of good ideas. That would be a silly thing to say. They are irrelevant, or mostly irrelevant.

And so a sound debate will revolve around the ideas. Not the character of the people who are debating them.

The “green light people” who think the Cordoba Center should be given the go, offer us a picture of why the national discourse has deteriorated in recent years. How could it not? They have settled upon an idea that they think insulates them from any lasting accusations that might concern their moral deterioration; this is demonstrated because they leap so quickly to condemnation of anyone with a different idea, as morally deteriorated. They don’t agree with my observation, up above, that good people can have bad ideas & vice versa. They think an idea is both a litmus test and a lodestar.

This mindset does two things. They’re both bad.

One. Since your beliefs shape your personal character, and your personal character shapes your beliefs, and both character & beliefs are on one side or the other of a line separating goodness and badness — beliefs cannot change over time. It is quite out of the question, since the object of the exercise is to manifest personal wonderfulness, and all that progress is going to be set back if the slightest bit of personal ugliness (or questionableness) is tossed in the mix. The idea, therefore, must be unrelentingly consistent. This is a mindset that is anti-learning. It will not permit the evolution of a thought; it will not permit change.

Two. It creates rancor where there’s no reason for it to exist. That thread over at Ed Darrell’s place is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You have the right idea and so you are wonderful. What, then, do you think about someone who does not have the same idea? There is only one answer: You conclude, with no uncertainty whatsoever, that this must be a moral reprobate. Bigoted. Ignorant. Xenophobic. And you get to list, endlessly, all the groups of people who are hated — by this person you do not know and are never going to meet. Anybody else who takes the same point of view must be equally loathed, equally damned. And what do you do with them? You cannot leave them alone. It becomes a glorious crusade to make sure they cannot have any influence upon anything. Oh, and it goes without saying that if this is a person ensconced in a position of power and authority, that person should be driven from it.

So this mindset held by the green light people, promotes both ignorance and hate. These are the two things they are supposed to be opposing.

Nowhere does this become more evident than with their dealings with the “yellow light” people. And I guess that’s me. I do not live anywhere near Lower Manhattan, I don’t know anyone who’s lost a relative in the attacks. And I must admit, I find the singling-out of one religion to be extirpated from free expression within the vicinity, for whatever justifiable reasons, to be disquieting.

But I do find terms applied to the red-light people, like “prejudice and ignorance” and “narrow-minded intolerance,” to be unfair. For daring to raise my voice about it, I am to be subjected to the same criticism they are.

Intelligent, honest people do not argue a point by shunning, and that is a primary characteristic of shunning — that it is contagious, that it cascades. This is how you know you are in the presence of an intellectual lightweight. You are to be shunned, whoever does not shun you shall be shunned, whoever does not shun he who failed to shun you, shall likewise be shunned. These are signs of a big mouth coupled up with a weak mind.

Politics have become contentious, because this has become our chosen technique for discussing them: ostracism, alienation, excoriation, derision, all of it spread by contact. And I blame our most strident liberals. I think that’s fair. And the “green light people” at the center of this particular issue, represent the most brilliant example of why I think this way. They have created the situation in which the rest of us are living, and we have been allowing them to create it.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News and Washington Rebel.

Our Stylish First Lady

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

Speaking of bare asses being paraded around in public (see previous post): Here’s an example of an ass I’d just as soon see covered up, or not at all. The one on the right.

As blogger friend Gerard says: “Excuse me, but isn’t the person on the right supposed to be in charge of the Federal Government’s ‘No Child’s Fat Behind’ program?”

SlouchingThere is something going on with the office of the First Lady and it’s something related to our two major political parties. The one so aptly represented by Michelle Obama’s husband, it would seem, is pushing toward a fixture eerily reminiscent of the British royal family…or Marie Antoinette herself.

Office of the First Lady…hmmm….

The First Lady has a Chief of Staff. When did that happen? She has two dozen people working for her.

I’m seeing a lot of apologia for this, and there’s nothing apologetic about any of it because it all seems to take the form of “B-b-ut LAURA BUSH!” Nobody’s ready to explain what the 24 people actually do, in the service of someone who does not legislate, does not execute, does not adjudicate, does not nominate, doesn’t even decide anything.

Here’s how I see it: You need a scheduling assistant and an expert on etiquette. In Michelle Obama’s case there could be someone like Michael Caine’s character from Miss Congeniality giving badly-needed tips on “gliding.”

More and more, the democrat party seems to be the one that thinks it’s kind of neat when the ol’ man sneaks around behind the First Lady’s back. “Hooray, Bill Clinton got away with it!” and all that. How come these are the same people who think she should be like the Queen of Hearts, holding her own Royal Court? How come there are 21 names between their vision of the services the First Lady requires, and mine? What exactly are these people supposed to be doing all day? Distracting her?

I see shenanigans taking place with this office. Yes, I’m quite serious…and it’s more than a little bit embarrassing to be pointing it out, since that office isn’t supposed to be an office and it isn’t supposed to be doing much of anything. It’s an exercise in awkwardness to be demanding the extra attention, or answers to questions…which is probably why the shenanigans are taking place there.

Seriously. This country was started so we could get away from royalty. Maybe it’s time we got away from it. Two hundred thirty-four years? Yeah, I’d say that’s long enough. Let’s get rid of royalty.

To the Lady Walking Through the Lobby Yesterday

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

SkimpyAt the Grand Sierra in Reno, that is…

There are some bits of you that may freely flap around in the desert breeze poolside, which should be covered up once you re-enter the world of “really walking around in public.” There is swimwear you can pair up with a tee shirt for this purpose, and then there is your chosen attire. They’re different. Good heavens. Do your parents know you do this?

I looked about five or six more times to make sure you really were offensive.

Now, if you can guarantee me everyone who emulates your fashion statement has an ass like yours, this is a completely different conversation. But I’ve passed through Reno quite a few times by now, and there are some legitimate concerns. As one of my friends over on the Hello Kitty of Bloggin’ says, “Nudity and Karaoke both have the same problem…it always seems to be the wrong people.”

Good to see some rules have exceptions though.

“The Most Egregious Performance Ever by a Federal Judge”

Saturday, August 14th, 2010

National Review Online, Ed Whelan:

Consider the totality of Judge Walker’s conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case:

Let’s start with Walker’s initial case-management conference when he determined, to the surprise even of plaintiffs’ lawyer Ted Olson, that the case couldn’t be resolved, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law but would instead require extensive discovery into supposed factual issues.

Let’s continue with Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

Whelan has much, much more; but as far as I’m concerned he can stop right there. He has me at this second one.

It’s getting close to the time we might as well shut the whole experiment down. Our votes are being picked apart by our judges, who in turn are charged with scrutinizing the constitutional consistency of the rules we vote in — and are supposed to have zero authority to make policy of their own. They have been doing this, in part, because they are displeased with the motivations we have when we vote in these laws. It’s a given that they have not accomplished, nor have they attempted, the daunting task of polling each one of the millions of Californians who voted for Prop 8. They…and by “they” I mean Judge Walker…are quite satisfied engaging in speculation and generalization.

I don’t care if you’re conservative or liberal and I don’t care what your feelings are about gay marriage. This should frighten, agitate and anger you. Judges have second-guessed voters for awhile now, but since when have they so brazenly done it out of dislike for the voters’ personal feelings about things? If that’s the game plan, why bother to vote on anything at all?

Sandman

Friday, August 13th, 2010

Americans have already taken a long, hard look at the Wonder of Wasilla. A loud, angry, desperate stream of incendiary rhetoric has emerged that she lacks the requisite brainpower…but “desperate” is the key word there, and the stream of rhetoric is not a consensus, no matter how hard it tries to look like one. The consensus that has emerged is that America would like to keep looking.

But as long as the current leadership offers us all of the pain of having an idiot in charge of things, with none of the benefits — nobody is being eliminated from anything.

Newt Gingrich has seen this, and is considering a run in 2012. A lively discussion ensues over at Daphne’s place, where the hostess is less than enthralled.

I’ve already offered my opinion there.

In a way, it’s useful and helpful when the public clamors to wild-ass nonsensical opinions and declares them to be “moderate”…in this example, the idea that the planet is some kind of danger, and if humanity will only take a proactive stance and bring its fume emissions into check, maybe it can be saved. That is helpful, because the phony thinkers reveal themselves, like poisonous reptiles, arachnids and lizards, slithering out from under the dark spaces under big rocks. They make their big show of reaching across the aisle to the opposition, to showcase their extraordinary harmlessness.

Offering themselves as perfect leaders for a constituency that wants to be governed by Wesley Mouch.

It was not within their method of thinking to know that Wesley Mouch was the zero at the meeting point of forces unleashed in destruction against one another.

Well, we don’t need a Wesley Mouch and we don’t want a Wesley Mouch. What we need and want, is someone who will stand up to the bullshit that is threatening to consume us and annihilate us. On purpose.

As far as I’m concerned, any Gingrich candidacy died right there. In an instant. Like a fly under a swatter.

Ten Key Reasons Why the Obama Presidency is in Meltdown

Friday, August 13th, 2010

Why do the Brits think America’s President is headed for a crash and a burn?

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
3. Obama fails to inspire
4. The United States is drowning in debt
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

Economist:

Why, asks a Democrat leading a training session for fellow activists, doesn’t “Yes we can” work as a slogan any more? “Because we haven’t,” a jaded participant responds.

The democrat party is going to try to save the midterms by…get this…ramping up on the “it’s all Bush’s fault” rhetoric. Karl Rove explains why it won’t work:

Democrats can’t sell themselves as “the results party,” as Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine proclaimed in April. Nor do they have an attractive or popular policy agenda moving forward. Mr. Obama’s fixation with blaming his predecessor has badly weakened him. Constantly engaging in the blame game makes the president look enfeebled and whiny rather than sturdy and confident. One of any president’s most important possessions is his reputation for strong leadership.

Democrats are likely to lurch from one approach to another. Candidates on the ropes often do. At this stage, though, it doesn’t much matter what they decide on. The narrative for this election is firmly in place.

When the lessons you learn from politics on the national stage, match up with the lessons you learn from politics in high school or in the office — you are being exposed to fundamental truths about human nature and it’s a good time to power up the long term memory. What we are learning now, is the same thing we’ve learned before. Reality has been beating us upside the head with it whether we’ve chosen to pay attention, or not:

When you sacrifice all that you have, all that you know is right, and all that you can do just to be popular…in the long run, you are left without even that. You lose everything.

What is a Man?

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

1. He knows trigonometry.
2. He can drive a stick shift.
3. He NEVER uses the word “basically.”
4. He can type without looking at the keyboard.
5. He eats meat. He drinks beer. He goes to Hooter’s.
6. On the weekends, he does *something* that makes him sweat.
7. He can bend a beer bottle cap into a metal taco, with one hand.
8. He’s not in touch with his “feminine side” and does not wish to be.
9. He can shoot. A real gun. Something with a caliber that begins with “3” or higher.
10. He can tie knots. Lots and lots of knots. Something besides the bow-line and the square.
11. With his wife/girlfriend/kids in the room, he uses the word “chicks.” No apologies offered.
12. He very rarely apologizes for anything; if he does, it’s about something he’ll never do again.
13. He knows how to cook. Something that involves mixing a sauce together and heating something up.
14. A woman who builds a household with this man, knows the household is different because it’s him.
15. His voice never ascends above Middle C, unless it does that naturally; which of course it does not.
16. When he meets people, he stands up, looks them in the eye, shakes their hand, and gives them his name.
17. He will take a bullet for the ones he loves. He knows who they are, and if the time comes, he’ll be there.
18. He also knows the ones he does not love so much, and he’ll sacrifice for them too. He will take the blows that were intended for the one who did him wrong.
19. But he’s no patsy. People who owe him favors, know they owe him favors. If they forget, he’ll remind them.
20. He fixes things. He did not go to a class to learn how. He figured out how it worked and then he fixed it.
21. He does not come home to be informed that there is a dog in the house now. He maintains control of the house.
22. He does not drive his kids to school. His kids know how to do things, including how to get themselves to school.
23. He is well read. He has read Atlas Shrugged from cover to cover. He can tell you the parts of it he agrees with, which is most of it.
24. He knows how to spell things. He knows how to use punctuation. He knows his homophones and homonyms. He has mastered the complexity of “it’s”.
25. He thinks the happy ending to “Stepford Wives” is a tragic ending, and that all the eerie parts of it are actually happy. He isn’t afraid to say so.
26. When women, children and liberals are present, he changes the language he uses and the jokes he tells. He does NOT…NOT…NOT change his opinions to suit the new crowd.
27. He keeps his opinion when everyone else agrees with it. He keeps it when just about everybody is disagreeing with it. He only abandons it when the evidence tells him he should.
28. He is naturally enthused about changing the state of objects from a great distance. Shooting things with a gun; flying a model airplane by remote control; pissing on a leaf floating in a stream from a bridge up above it.
29. He possesses the ability to pave his own road, as well as to observe social protocols. He can survive if society is completely dismantled, but he can follow orders too. He is Patrick Swayze’s character in Steel Dawn.
30. He can, and does, figure out for himself that more work is necessary. A reward he’s been anticipating may be delayed, or given up entirely, because of what he realizes must be done. And he does it without a word of complaint.

Science Fiction Rules

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

1. No conference tables. Conference tables are death to good science fiction. The “I Find Your Lack Of Faith Disturbing” scene is the last time anything cool has ever been done around a conference table.
2. No handrails. Bottomless pits look so much more awesome without any handrails and so do staircases.
Space Babe3. No old women and no young men. The buxom planet-princess who’s never met a real man before, only needs a father; a mother would just be in the way. And Captain Kirk doesn’t need any competition from another young stud.
4. No foreign languages. No matter how far away the planet is, everyone should speak perfect English.
5. There m-u-s-t be gravity, artifical or otherwise, EVERYWHERE.
6. Fat guys should always die first.
7. No geography. When you land on a planet, the guy who runs the planet should be no more than thirty feet away. When the bad guys catch you and put you in a holding cell on a space station as big as the moon, the computer that holds the bad guy’s secrets should be right across the hall from the detention block.
8. All ancient alien computers should have a self-destruct mechanism built in so that any unexpected piece of data, logical contradiction, buffer overflow, general protection fault, file seek error or divide-by-zero error should result in explosive self-destruction, preferably involving fire. All the better if it sets off a chain reaction that destroys the entire complex in which it is housed.
9. Girls should, at the worst possible time, lose complete control of themselves, a state which can be cured only by means of a well-meaning gentleman applying a brisk impact to the face which causes them to fall into a deep sleep so they can be carried to safety.
10. Robots should be anthropomorphic, they should always have personality unless they’re “medical droids.”
11. Bad guys can’t shoot straight.
12. When the Captain gives an order to the crew, they should follow it to the letter unless they’ve been taken over by exotic space viruses or evil alien beings. When the Captain receives an order from his superiors, though, the orders are all fouled up, and evidence that the superiors have been taken over by exotic space viruses or evil alien beings.

“You Mecca Me Hot”

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

Greg Gutfield has an idea about the mosque to be built by Ground Zero in New York:

Well, you know, I was thinking — I went on to their Web site, the Cordoba House website. It’s a lovely website, and they talk about preaching tolerance and communication.

And I thought how interesting is it that they are preaching tolerance and communication to Americans? I thought, wouldn’t it be great to test their tolerance?

So I figured let’s open an Islam-friendly gay bar next door to the mosque. That is my proposal and I’m sticking by it.

I’m not a good businessman and I’m a terrible activist, but this might be the greatest idea I’ve ever had.

I’m inclined to agree with that.

Robbing “Rich” Wrecks Economy

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

Ralph R. Reiland writing in Pittsburgh Live:

President Obama’s program for more jobs includes a call for the government, starting in January, to take more money from “the rich,” from the nation’s key job creators, a strategy that’s intrinsically irrational and counterproductive — unless you think that all jobs should be with the government.
:
An analysis of IRS data for 2007 shows the top 1 percent of income earners receiving 22.8 percent of total income and paying 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Similarly, the top 5 percent of income earners received 37 percent of total income and paid 60.6 percent of all federal income taxes.
:
In the high-tax era of the late 1970s, pre-Reagan, the United States was a net capital exporter, with American individuals and companies investing more abroad than foreigners were investing here.

Cuts in income taxes at every level, reductions in taxes on capital gains, and cuts in the highest income tax rate during the Reagan years, from 70 percent to 50 percent and then 28 percent, turned that capital loss around and created what the National Bureau of Economic Research called “the longest sustained period of prosperity in the twentieth century,” the creation of 17 million new jobs from 1981 through 1989.

Obama is moving in exactly the opposite direction.

D’JEver Notice? LX

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

The theme of Republicans being anti-science was still in a state of crescendo during the 2004 election; I recall it became an even more prominent fixture in 2006 and 2008 and may have been a primary contributing factor to their defeat.

What captures my attention about this, though, is not that the democrat party holds itself out as superior leadership in the “supporting science” department, but where. Having made a sweep through my political memory about this issue, and being satisfied that it is a functionally exhaustive one, I dredge up three public policy questions to which this has been applied.

1. The planet is on the brink of dying off because of our toxic human fumes;
2. You cannot properly do stem cell research until you first grind up some babies;
3. The theory of evolution proves this is a godless universe.

I’m not counting all the chatter about the who’s-who of “X has a Blackberry” and “X can’t figure out how to use an iPod.” I’m ignoring it because I think it’s stupid.

So I can’t think of anything beyond those three. What do the three have in common I wonder? That’s the “D’Jever Notice” moment: Humans have all the origin, all the destiny, all the sanctity, and all of the entitlement to a continuing existence of a cluster of bacteria on a kitchen sponge. It all seems to come back to that. We are an infestation and nothing more than that. There’s no reason for anyone to love our species save for what we are going to become later.

If something comes up to substantiate it, our liberals shout it from the hilltops and make sure everyone hears about it over and over again. If there’s something to suggest otherwise, they ignore it. That isn’t an illustration of science, that’s cognitive bias.

Those aren’t white coats they’re wearing; they’re straight-jackets.

And, at times, that is not so hard to see.

Best Sentence XCV

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

The ninety-fifth award for Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL), goes to Daphne’s brother. Yet another repentant, sadder, wiser Obama voter. This one’s made acutely aware of the depth of his mistake, by means of an overheard conversation in a book store…which has all the depth of rice paper.

He says what many others are thinking.

They talked about these people as if they were family, Daphne. Like these fancy strangers were vitally important to the equilibrium of their pathetic lives. It bordered on the obscene, it was grotesque. How could anyone with a functioning brain stem find celebrity whores so goddamn fascinating?
:
Washington is so corrupt we might as well call it Goat Fucking Kabul and these mindless, well-heeled women are busy discussing Lady Gaga’s genetically mangled, fucked up crotch for a solid hour like it’s the Holy goddamn Grail.

Now that’s a way with words. I’d spare this righteous dude the I-told-you-so’s for one evening, just for the privilege of buying him a cold one.

Aw, Poor Newsweek

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

Looks like they just got snookered.

On this one, I’m taking a leftist point of view. The lefty said aloud exactly what I was thinking: Palin was confronted by a hater and handled the whole situation extremely well? That’s a scandal? Could the bar possibly be pushed down any lower?

But the Other Guy Did it First!

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

One of our blogger friends up in Seattle advanced a fascinating argument Friday and we just managed to trip across it yesterday afternoon. If you’re a blogger who embedded that fantastic take-down by the other wise man named Morgan in which he says people should stop talking about race; and you went on to take note of His Holy Eminence’s use of the word “bamboozled” — then, he says in so many words, you’re doing a lousy job of sticking to your own knitting. You’ll notice those last two hyperlinks point back to these fine pages, so we presume he’s including us. “God” just got done telling us to stop talking about race, and here we are talking about it.

What a great point that is. Or would be, if he didn’t mention it. D’Oh!

But there are some things not mentioned, like the premises upon which the argument rests. I specifically have in mind the pure motives of our nation’s first Holy President — the notion that He was Shirley-Sherroded, didn’t mean anything by it, taken out of context. The argument presumes this as a given, while simultaneously shaming us into avoiding any thought or discussion of it.

But once we inspect these motives and find the innocence is not there; or to put it more precisely, once we inspect the motives and find proof, or compelling evidence, that Mister Wonderful was, indeed, making an effort to stir up a racial the hornet’s nest for His own benefit; then, at that point, the entire argument is rent asunder. Replacement Jesus becomes the person flouting the sensible advice of Morgan Freeman, and the bloggers are “guilty” of just noticing it. Ironically, at that point it ceases to be about race. It’s just another story of just another politician making more promises to eradicate a problem, while His political fortunes are inflexibly fastened to the continuing existence of that problem. This is something that has never worked and never will.

So yes, of course Barack Obama is continuing to agitate racial tension. And bloggers, by noticing this and pointing it out, are doing what bloggers should be doing.

Some will call this an exercise in the disgraced “The Other Guy Started It!” defense. I’d like to address that. But first, let us take note of something else that happened yesterday. James Taranto, writing in Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web, had a few words to say about a tempest that has erupted in a teapot in the wake of Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Supreme Court — the issue being the lack of a unanimous vote.

I do not mean to belittle the tempest. There is something that has come undone, when unanimous votes used to be the norm, and now it seems sensible to conclude we’ve seen our last for quite awhile. We have, then, lost something that we should have tried harder not to lose, have we not?

Those Republicans need to take a good long look at themselves! Well not so fast, says Taranto:

As a distressed Jonathan Bernstein observes on The New Republic’s website:

What would have happened if there were only 52 or 53 Democrats in the Senate, or for that matter 48 or 49. Elena Kagan appears, by all accounts, to be a mainstream Democratic nominee; she certainly wasn’t on the short list of liberal advocates, although she was broadly acceptable to most of them. Can any Obama nominee be confirmed to the Supreme Court next year? The problem here is that compromise is almost impossible to imagine over the Court…

If there’s a Supreme Court opening, and if the Democrats hold fewer than, say, 55 seats in the Senate, I think the odds of a real train wreck, a total stalemate, have to be well over 50/50.

It doesn’t seem to occur to Bernstein, however, that the Kagan vote is the mirror image of the Alito vote (D 4-41, R 54-1). Almost all Democratic senators, including future presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, voted to reject a mainstream Republican nominee whom they had no possibility of defeating.

After that, why would Republicans vote for any Democratic nominee?

This isn’t the only time Taranto’s column invokes other-guy-did-it-first. There is an eloquent argument wrapped up in the offering that the real turning point was in 1987, when the late Sen. Ted Kennedy indulged in a smear campaign against eminently qualified nominee Robert Bork. True, after that the flame of bipartisan unity flickered a few times, but then it ultimately died out. At least, for the time being.

If you were paying attention back in ’87 and saw what Sen. Kennedy was doing, then you know: The “he started it” argument has some real merits here that are not quite so easily dismissed.

And this is where it connects back to the other issue, of Replacement Jesus standing up at a podium and using the word “bamboozled” as a code word for whipping up a racial animosity. This hostility we have toward the “other guy started it” argument is something we get from dear ol’ Mom. Dishes, laundry, mopping, dusting…she didn’t have time to play detective and figure out who started what, nor did she have any interest in raising grown-up children who think any reprehensible conduct is just fine, so long as the other guy did something that could be said to have provoked it. This falls short of what is required for functioning in a civilized society.

And so she taught us to maintain control, and responsibility for our interactions with others. And this starts, necessarily, with forsaking for all time the he-threw-the-first-punch defense. We need to ignore the race-baiting of our President, lest we be guilty of the same. And we need to reject Taranto’s argument, pretend the Kennedy smear campaign and the Alito vote never happened.

And this gets down to my point:

Nobody ever said Washington, DC is emblematic of this civilized society in which we must learn to live by forgetting who started what. Quite a few knowledgeable people have said things to the contrary. And this republic is founded on a principle of everlasting vigilance against our so-called “leaders.” The citizens are supposed to be responsible. If we trust implicitly, then we betray the vision. This is a point that is overlooked often.

Did you notice how many times the word “forget” appears, as I describe Mom’s vision? You can’t do that without it.

What we have here, then, are two noble visions — one for our sensible adult conduct once we grow up, one for the country — that eventually come into contact and conflict with each other. The Founding Fathers cannot abide Mom’s advice to us because there is too much forgetting involved. An incompatibility has been created. This is why people detest politicians so much.

You forget that Ted Kennedy started our climate of intemperance with regard to the Senate’s advice and consent, and your forgetfulness fits in just fine with Mom’s advice. It feels like you’re doing your bit to foster a new era of congeniality. You’re doing what Mom said, aren’t you? Forgetting. But the effect this ultimately has, is just the opposite. The politician is taught, like a puppy shitting on the living room rug, that he can get away with this.

No, we have to remember things. We have to remain informed. It is what makes the country go. It is the only hope we have for keeping deranged sociopaths out of our nation’s highest offices.

This would not be complete, without some thought regarding what kind of detestable life form we’re trying to keep out of those mahogany offices. We’ve had a lot of people running the show, for a very long time now, who are supposed to be making it easier for us all to get along with each other. Straights and gays, blacks and whites, men and women, rich and poor. The time has come to acknowledge that if such harmony fit in with what they really wanted, and we have been doing a swell job of picking ’em, we’d be there by now…or, at least, we wouldn’t be having these flare-ups during every even-numbered year in the months leading up to November.

Anger and hatred are like erections. If you can keep ’em going across days, months and years, there is something terribly wrong with you. And there’s something terribly wrong with anybody who wants you to.

Vigilance. Not forgetfulness. That’s the only answer, the only way out. We’ve tried the other one already. Sorry, Mom.

“It Was During One of These Meetings When the Penis Question Was Asked”

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Blogger friend Rick reminisces about the past, unfondly…waxing morosely about a spiritual setback, but it’s not the kind you’re expecting.

The initial hurdle was a series of psychological tests. I had to trek up to Richmond for the day to take them. It took hours to complete the battery. Once I learned that I had passed that satisfactorily, I moved on to the next level.

I, and my fellow potential ordinands, met with a Diocesan discernment board made up of both clergy, laity and mental health professionals…

We met regularly over a number of months as I recall and it was during one of these meetings when the penis question was asked…

I’m trying to think of a personal anecdote I could toss into the mix that would compare, and…nope. The closest I can come is when, as a kid, I had to listen as my Dad griped and grumbled about “the hippies taking over the church,” because the blue jeans and patch-elbowed suit jackets were taking the place of the fine traditional velvet choir robes, and the guitars were gradually displacing the pipe organ.

That’s nuthin’ compared to pre-ordination psychobabble questions about Big Jim & The Twins. I’ve just drawn a pair of sixes against Rick’s Full House.

I Made a New Word XLI

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Pres • ley (v.)

1. To kill an organism slowly, by means of poisoning, which in turn is achieved by denying it the ability to purge itself of impurities.
2. In politics, to bring an entity to a slow demise by stigmatizing against its autonomy in declaring what it is; specifically, declaring what is incompatible with it.
3. To deploy political resistance against a group’s ability to jettison something, with an intent to make it more ludicrous over time and thus to bring it to an end.
4. To declare that someone should never part with something, as if you have their best interests at heart, when you really don’t.

We’ve seen a lot of this lately haven’t we? Ann Rice lashes out against Christianity even as she insists she still believes in Christ; Meghan McCain tries to destroy the Republican party over the same issue, homosexuality, denying it the opportunity to declare and exercise a fidelity to its own principles.

The Republicans responded to a number of other moves like this one, late last year, by coming up with a “Purity Test.” Oh boy, after that, the process just started to get going. The purity test was watered down, by the folks who supposedly had the party’s best interests at heart. And after just a couple months, because of all the artificial heat involved, the purity test was dropped.

Now get your puke bucket ready — if someone isn’t Presley-ing you, you’re gonna be needing it. New York Daily News wants to call out the Republicans for getting rid of Bob Inglis.

The current Republican Party, one hijacked by hustlers and extremists, not only looks to destroy President Obama. It even starts to kill its own.

Rep. Bob Inglis, a voice of reason at a dumb, unreasonable time in American politics, is one of them. Inglis (R-S.C.) will be out of a job soon for not hating Barack Obama nearly enough. The irony, he says, is that he disagrees with Obama on almost everything.

Sounds pretty dumb and unreasonable, doesn’t it? Stupid Republicans! We need a new rule, requiring them to keep the candidate 71% of the voters did not want. For their own good!

But wait. Inglis says…

“I’d get asked a question and they’d all wait to see if I’d use the word – socialist – they were throwing around. I wouldn’t. Because I don’t think that’s what he is. To call him a socialist is to demean the office and stir up a passion that we need to be calming, rather than constantly stirring up.”

Now, that’s a problem. As we’ve pointed out before, it’s pretty hard to come up with something a socialist is supposed to do, that the President has not in fact already done. Inglis is effectively saying if you’re a socialist, once you manage to get yourself elected President, it becomes an obligation of all the citizens to pretend you aren’t one so that the office is not demeaned.

Sorry, Bob. Words mean things, as they saying goes. And since when do we elect our officials to calm ourselves down? Seems to me that’s not what your job is supposed to be. How’d this country get started in the first place, anyway? Was that a “calm” revolution? I missed that part of my history, please enlighten me.

But wait! At paragraph number thirteen (!!!), the reader is finally given the information needed to decide the paramount question: Is the Republican party cuckoo-burgers? Maybe they are, but if so, this might not be the decision that manage to demonstrates it. They purged sensibly. Not that this is evident to you if you stopped reading two-thirds of the way through.

Inglis is smart enough to know it wasn’t just his refusal to call the President names that turned him into one more unemployed American. He voted for TARP and against the surge in Iraq and even called out Glenn Beck, a rough, tough media guy who thinks ad hominem attacks are great until he’s the hominem.

In the primary runoff, Inglis’ opponent got 71% of the vote. It’s never just one thing when you get carried out of the ring like that.

“I was at a breakfast and somebody said the President wasn’t patriotic,” Inglis says. “I knew I was supposed to go along. Instead, I got up and said, ‘That’s simply not true. I disagree with this President most of the time, but he loves his country.’ Afterward a big Republican operative in our state grabbed me and said, ‘Don’t give him that.’ I said, ‘Give him what?’ And the guy said, ‘That he’s patriotic.’

“Why do I have to see Democrats as my enemies? I’ve got Al Qaeda. I’ve got the Taliban. I’ve got enough enemies. I’m supposed to call this President despicable? The people who are despicable are the ones who constantly mislead the public in the interest of selling books. Or themselves. And always cloaking themselves in patriotism. Shame on them.”

He laughs softly.

“But then what do I know?” Bob Inglis says. “I lost.”

His district did. His state did. His party did. He did not.

Yes, his party lost. It lost something it needed to lose, something toxic to it. If you are never allowed to reject anything, then there’s no definition to you and you’re never allowed to become anything.

Inglis did lose. He lost the confidence of his party, that he possessed the mettle required to effectively resist bad policy. He went on the record seeing things that were not actually there. He imagined a “love” of country, where the evidence doesn’t indicate any love actually exists. Like I’ve said before: If you love me like today’s democrats love America, then please stay the hell away.

But if the GOP is to show this dreamer the door, they are to pay as high a political price as is possible, for doing so.

In 2010, it seems that is a popular tactic of the left. Among the people who, strangely, inexplicably, are enamored of some frenzied fondness for higher taxes. Even though most of the people so intoxicated have no direct interest in such a policy, and stand to improve their lot in life not one bit through such a policy.

You know what? They could use a good purging, too.

Update: Oh look, there goes one of them right now. Raising money for Charlie Crist. It doesn’t even justify a separate post.

This is a word we’ve been needing for awhile. It’s an important concept, and we’re seeing examples of it more and more often lately.

If you’re never allowed to get rid of anything, you can’t keep anything.

“That Girl Could Have Killed Half of Oregon”

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

FrankJ writes in Pajamas Media. FrankJ speaks the truth…

Do you know what kinds of diseases can lurk inside improperly handled lemonade? No, you don’t. And neither do I. So obviously, that threat is so severe that medical scientists won’t even tell us about it so as not to create a panic. And do you know how many people died from contaminated lemonade before stringent health regulations were enforced? I’ll give you a number: 52,143,000. Well, the number of people who died from improperly handled lemonade involves one or more digits from that number.

Scary, isn’t it? That stupid little girl could have killed half of Oregon. Luckily the government was there to protect you. But the damage isn’t just limited to people’s health; there’s also the economic impact. She goes out there with her non-union labor selling lemonade for 50 cents, and who knows how many proper businesses that paid all their licensing fees and taxes she was undercutting? She was effectively stealing money from Oregon and the federal government. Thus while President Obama is working very carefully to revive our economy, she is working directly against him. That probably also makes her a racist.

I’m sure the situation is a little more reasonable than this. Probably some homeowner wanted to build a gazebo or install an awning and got turned down for the permit, so their nose was all out of joint about this then they found out about some little girl selling lemonade. Called City Hall and said “What about her? HUH? Has SHE got a permit?!?”

And then of course the officials had to swoop in. Can’t discriminate in any way in a properly civilized society. All laws must be enforced equally, and the only way to do that is with good old-fashioned Zero ToleranceTM. We have to do that, all over the place, to show what good people we are. Enforce and enforce and enforce some more, until there’s nothing left. It’s the least that should be demanded out of a compassionate people.

Now lynch the bitch. Crazy lemonade whore.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News and at Washington Rebel.

Why Isn’t His Word Good Enough?

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

Wow, look at all the flak coming at these guys. This has nothing to do with race. It’s a war against the individual, and a rather craven one. Instructions are being broadcast about who to believe and who not to believe, and the people putting the instructions out won’t even take any responsibility for issuing them.

“It’s a powder keg, folks. People should not play games with it.”

Hat tip to Urban Grounds.

Broken Window Fallacy

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

The epitaph for the times in which we live, is that it’s become radical to acknowledge that destroying things is destructive.

Hat tip to blogger friend Rick.

History of Environmentalism

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

Green & red, yeah they look good together.

Hat tip to Kate at SDA.

Cards, Cards and More Cards

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Race Card Is Maxed Out
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Via Gerard.

Bathroom Prank

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

From bLaugh.

Perfect Mike

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

Blogger MarkyMark received a note. I’ll just excerpt the entire thing.

MarkyMark,

I’m writing this to tell you of an old friend of mine, a man I greatly respected and the tale of his life. What makes this man special is the that by all accounts his life, his married life, working life, and family life, was a “success” by the standards laid down by modern society. I’ll call him Michael (not is real name) and he was a true blue worker, very intelligent, and raised to provide by two parents who stayed together and raised their son with strict Baptist values. He wasn’t all that handsome but invested his younger years diligently, pursuing an engineering degree at Duke University back when grade inflation didn’t exist (early 1960’s). The girls he dated, well, he didn’t date much as he was a nerd and being the 60’s the girls with the new freedom used that freedom to ride the cock train of football players and players in general. The new age of sexual emancipation left Mike at the station. Years after college Mike met a girl who had gotten her fill of the bad boys, and they started dating. True she was no virgin while Mike was, she’d had several relationships and relations before but she recognized the value of Mike in that he had a new job with an up and coming career track – computers! Misinterpretation of his prior religious teaching ordered him to forgive this girl’s past and instead focus only on the future. It was his duty after all. He married her and worked, hard. His father worked for the railroad and the company had taken care of him so Mike knew that this was the way to a good life. Work hard, and the company would reward and take care of you. Then the 1970’s hit with the Carter recession and all that loyalty and hard work amounted to nothing. Still he tried again, found another job (that forced him to move frequently) and this one wanted even more hours than the prior job. I remember him saying “It’s Friday do you know what that means? It’s only two more working days until Monday!” and off he’d go. Everyday. For 43 years. He had two children, a boy then a girl, and worked while his wife stayed at home. Later on after the children were out of high school Mikes wife dabbled a little here and there and worked part time occasionally for a convenience store. The extra money was nice but not enough so she pecked Mike continuously to make extra money. It was never enough. “Go tell your boss you need more! You should show him your value! A real man would provide for his children!” and on it went. Mike was getting older now, and had always had diabetes, a life long condition he had to treat with regular insulin injections. The shots were painful but he needed them to think straight. Of course there was the time he was laid off in 1980 with no insurance and the daughter needed braces. A real man knows when to put others first after all. And of course when the mother in law needed a new roof, and he really had promised his wife that new washing machine, and oh she needed to go see her mother for Christmas as well and airfare was so expensive. So the medicine(s) waited, more than once.

His children were boomerang types, his daughter slutted it up with a guy and moved in with him but later on came back home until she was able to snag a younger version of Mike. His son dropped out of college a few times and then came home to be a bum for 2 years after deciding that work was too nerve wracking. Mike would never throw his children out so they stayed for several more years. Several more. Finally when his son hit 28 he found a slut with a child from another guy and got her pregnant. The girl wanted a lavish wedding but his son was only working at a book store and couldn’t afford it – no big wedding so it seemed. Mike’s wife knew better of course, and argued with him for months about paying for the big day. She’d gotten a lavish wedding (thank you Mike) and didn’t Mike know how important a wedding is to his future daughter? Yes this was his vacation money, yes after so many years of hard work he was finally going to get to go do something he always wanted (to see the Northern lights in Alaska). Yes he was going to finally get that Harley Davidson and ride up there after 35 years of no vacations at all. BUT This was going to be his daughter according to his wife and his kids HAD to come first…. So the girl got her wedding. Then his real daughter needed help with a house. Her new husband turned out not to be a copy of Mike after all but a thug with a criminal record who had just lost his job. Why did his daughter lie about this guy to Mike? Her wedding was very expensive too. Oh well it was too late now and his daughter did need a place to live and she just found out she was pregnant! He didn’t have the money but his wife researched it and 2nd mortgages were so easy to get back then. True, his house after so many years of work was almost paid off but his grandchild needed a real home and there was no way his new son in law could afford it and Mike was told he could now work up to 10 hours more overtime if he wanted. 60 hours wasn’t too much of a sacrifice and he’d at least get a leg up on that promotion, maybe.

Another decade passed and after scrimping and saving and even more hard work the mortgages were paid off. In a rare perfect storm both children (now well into there 30’s with kids of their own) didn’t need something. The mother in law didn’t need a new appliance, or home repair, or another new car being long past her driving years. Yes, now, this was the time. Mike now 64, proudly strode into the Harley dealership and filled out a custom order sheet. In 8 weeks a shiny new Harley would arrive and he would get to ride it. He would finally take a vacation, his first real vacation since college. Sure his wife and kids had gone on many many vacations over the years but he always had stayed behind – to work. Something always came up. One time it was that there just wasn’t money or neighbors to take care of – of all things – the dogs! 3 Lassa’s that Mike never wanted yipping and shitting all over the place. Ugh… still at least his wife would get a vacation – she deserved it after all didn’t she? There was even that one time (he hoped it was just the one time) where he found out his wife had hooked up with an old boyfriend when she said she was going to visit her mother. He forgave her of course a divorce would have devastated his kids (he knew they were his – or at least he hoped) and of course he’d have lost everything with the divorce laws – besides wasn’t he a Christian? Shouldn’t he just forgive and forget? What does his pride or even himself matter? He had never cheated on her or even been with another woman – not even once – but that was normal and he knew that she appreciated that didn’t she?

The last big push before new years came at work and Mike was tired. His wife as always spent Christmas and new years with her mother – and he knew this time she really was with her mother – she was too old to cheat on him now wasn’t she? When she got back he would be free of dog sitting and he would take his new Harley on the road for the first time. Shiny and red, he hadn’t even ridden it yet. He read the owner’s manual 100 times and knew everything about it, he couldn’t wait and it was all he talked about at work! It was brand new and kept in the garage but he stripped the engine and cleaned and oiled everything just to make sure! It was polished, waxed, and hospital clean. All was ready. His first ride on his HIS!! brand new Harley to see the Northern lights. It was the culmination of his life’s work and now it was really going to happen. Mike was so excited.

On December 29th his daughter called and left an angry message on the tape machine. She wanted to visit but the snow was blocking the drive-way and she had her daughter and no snow shovel! Why the f**k hadn’t Mike shoveled the driveway? He knew she was coming to visit that lazy good for nothing piece of crap. NOTE: the words she used were in reality more caustic than this – I have lightened them considerably.

On January 3rd his son came to visit and found his father cold and lifeless surrounded by a ring of dog shit. He’d had a massive stroke, likely from the diabetes, and the paramedics said they thought that he didn’t suffer for long – but it was hard to tell. When Mike’s wife returned later on she immediately made plans to sell the house. She raged that Mike hadn’t left her enough life insurance and no instructions on what to do – what a irresponsible man what the hell was he thinking? He should have provided better for her especially since he knew she was too old to work! She was 62!!! Insurance was so expensive for someone in his condition but if he hadn’t squandered *their* money on that stupid bike he could have afforded it. Her old boyfriend George was so much more successful – oh how she regretted not marrying him! The bike was listed on Ebay that week. “Never ridden Harley – brand new! $17,000 or best offer”.

By every PC measure Mike’s life was a success. He worked his whole life for someone else and doubtless made millions for his bosses over the course of his career. He took care of 3 people and two grandchildren that would have been on the dole if not for his efforts, and paid punitive taxes to take care of many more along the way. He never collected a dime of social security or unemployment even when he was laid off – he was just too proud to file. He never took Medicare and he made lots of profit for 2 large banks, 2 colleges, and never once thought of himself. He died cold and alone, surrounded by shit, never once having done anything for himself. His epitaph was a bike on Ebay – his life’s dream – sold to a dealer for $15,500 – the best offer his widow could get several years ago. She took a cruise with the money. America thanks you Mike. You were a real success, and moreover a blueprint for what we expect a modern man to be. R.I.P.

“Narcissistic Men Typically Direct Their Rage at Straight Women”

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

Bloomberg Businessweek:

Ever met a guy who talks only about himself, thinks he’s superior to everyone and who tends to view women as little more than playthings?

That man may very well have narcissistic personality disorder, a condition marked by an inflated sense of self-importance and a profound lack of empathy for others.

And new research suggests the anger, hostility and short fuse that accompany a man’s narcissism tend to be directed toward straight women.

“Heterosexual, narcissistic men become enraged at people who deny them gratification, whether it’s social status, having a trophy partner or sexual gratification,” said lead study author Scott Keiller, a clinical psychologist and assistant professor of psychology at Kent State University Tuscarawas in Ohio.

“The group that could gratify heterosexual men the most is heterosexual women,” Keiller said. “To the extent narcissistic men would get resistance, that would make them enraged.”

Depressed NarcissistFor the study, published online July 23 in the journal Sex Roles, Keiller and his colleagues gave 104 male undergraduates questionnaires designed to measure narcissism. Questions included: “I love to be the center of attention” or “It embarrasses me when I am the center of attention.” The former is associated with narcissism, the latter with modesty and humility.

Another case of a white-coat pocket-protector clipboard-carrying propeller-beanie egghead conducting a study to “discover” what he wanted it to discover.

If you already see the dark side to this one, I know exactly what it is that concerns you. And your fears crystallize into reality right here:

None of the men questioned had diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder, said Keiller. But narcissism is a continuum, and plenty of the young men had a pronounced tendency toward those traits, he said.

Massive eyeball roll…steam coming out of ears…sputter, sputter. Does it even need to be said? Okay, let me lay it out right here:

Everything is a fucking continuum, asshole!

It isn’t that I can’t see some merit in what he’s trying to do. I recall, some twenty years ago…there was a software engineer on a project who started accusing me of stealing source code and taking it home. This was a small company, and he managed to get me put on some kind of “probation” — over nothing. No evidence, no appeal. I never even understood what set the whole thing off…for a few months…and then it became crystal clear. He blackmailed the boss. Something hadn’t gone his way, so he gave an ultimatum over the phone: He had the project at home and he was never going to come in again until some changes were made. He’d been projecting. Accusing others of doing what he, in fact, was doing.

That one had a whole kit bag packed full of emotional issues. But if he were to be given a test, would he be clinically diagnosed with a behavioral disorder? Maybe if you put him in front of one of those quacks that can find a disorder in just about everything…but that’s true of us all. My point is, he should have been found wanting of something — and maybe looking for mental health deficiencies is not the right approach.

Some of these people are just plumb happy with the way they’ve been made, and they think it’s right. Blackmailing the boss with stolen company assets and blaming someone else for it, is clearly unethical; but the other person might say it’s the only logical decision if there’s some larger mission to be fulfilled, and it can be achieved by no other means. Everyone has a justification for just about everything.

Actually, that’s what the word means. At least that’s what I’ve always thought of it to mean: I can justify anything in my own mind, so if I have any kind of ethical taxonomy, I might as well not have it.

I’d be more inclined to look for mental illnesses with regard to the technique of the blackmail. He wasn’t threatening to start his own company and bring the software to market; he was literally stealing the code. Whatthefuck?? We had backups.

But you know, the more I read about this study, the more Scott Keiller reminds me of that guy. Read that one more time:

“I love to be the center of attention” or “It embarrasses me when I am the center of attention.” The former is associated with narcissism, the latter with modesty and humility.

This is not to say that the only worthwhile man is one who will say “It embarrasses me when I am the center of attention.”

But the desire to obliterate others who are not exactly like yourself…is a continuum.

This is where the study really falls apart. Really, when you think about it, it’s delivering on its promise from stem to stern; there are narcissists out there, like my old “pal,” who would never be found to possess a genuine personality disorder and yet certainly should be. Without a study like this, the rational observer is forced to conduct an informal, unwritten study of his own. Heheh, trust me on that last one. If you were in the position in which I was placed two decades ago, you’d be going at it just as hard.

But the conflation between dysfunctional narcissism, and classically masculine traits, and the cognitive bias that is driven by this, is palpable. My one-line conclusion? Scott Keiller, from what I’m seeing here, is what he calls others.

His research deserves to be studied, just like the stuff his research studies deserves to be studied. In fact, his own mindset is probably even more worthy of inspection because Keiller is not the first “researcher” to let fly with it, and it bears great responsibility for putting our civilization where it is now: Males, in order to be worthy, must be weak, meek and mild. They should be inclined, even eager, to accept situations in which things are not done the way they think they should be done; they should be perpetually self-sacrificing. Females get a pass from all this. They mature more quickly and they know how to “nurture.”

It has deteriorated into yet another academic exercise with much detrimental effect and very little beneficial product in its wake. The propeller-beanie eggheads like Keiller want us to get rid of masculinity because they call it “narcissism”; we’ve accommodated them; now we have a society that is constantly pretending to be more certain about what to do, than it really is. It’s constantly confused. Our feminists typify it. They cannot choose a man who will make them happy over the long term. They can’t even make up their minds whether they want Wonder Woman to wear long pants or not.

I'm Captain Kirk!I once saw an old episode of Star Trek in which Captain Kirk was split in half by the transporter beam. Each “half” was physically complete (they sidestepped the question of the doubled mass in the sum-of-the-Kirks), but the personality was separated, as if spun in a centrifuge. One physical incarnation possessed all the feelings of hostility, all the primal urges. Kirk’s Id. The other half had a monopoly on the characteristics that are required of a person when he seeks to become a cooperative and functional part of a society.

The nasty drunken reprobate was the one in control of all of the leadership and decision-making skills. I’ve got a gut feel Keiller would find this to be scientifically invalid; but if you’ve ever been in a position of leadership, and forced to make decisions about things when not all of the requisite information is there, you can recognize there is certainly something to it.

In fact, I’ve found that particular episode to be a chillingly accurate prophecy of exactly what feminism has done to manhood since it came out. After Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the gang were forced to acknowledge the importance and beneficial effect of these supposedly destructive attributes, feminists and quack-doctors spent the decades since then continuing the damage in their blissful ignorance.

The “researcher” knows barely enough to be dangerous. It’s like he’s figured out that gasoline is extremely flammable, can do all kinds of terrible things…and furthermore, on inspecting the commuter car that gets us to work and back again, has made the shocking discovery that it has some in it. Better get him a grant, toot-sweet!

Hat tip to Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt.

“Want to Help the Cops Build a Case Against You? There’s an App for That”

Saturday, August 7th, 2010

Consumerist:

Cops love finding iPhones at crime scenes because the phones carry so much priceless data about your usage habits, or as the cops call it, evidence. That email you typed months back about feeling stabby when you drink? It’s still there because there because the iPhone captures everything you type to help fuel its spellcheck abilities—even emails you thought you deleted. And that’s not all.

* Every time an iPhone user closes out of the built-in mapping application, the phone snaps a screenshot and stores it. Savvy law-enforcement agents armed with search warrants can use those snapshots to see if a suspect is lying about whereabouts during a crime.
* iPhone photos are embedded with GEO tags and identifying information, meaning that photos posted online might not only include GPS coordinates of where the picture was taken, but also the serial number of the phone that took it.

This Is Good LXXVI

Saturday, August 7th, 2010

This one, like many fine others, is from Gerard Van der Leun’s Tumblr account.

Miss that puppy, and you miss a lot.

Memo For File CXX

Saturday, August 7th, 2010

Irish Cicero, chief cook and bottle-washer of Washington Rebel where I am a new contributor, wants to talk about Armageddon. It is the subject of this post, as well as in a private e-mail thread that has been bouncing around this week. I was quietly abstaining from it altogether because it’s already an important item within My 42 Definitions of a Strong Society — the last of the set:

42. Armageddon is not breathlessly anticipated. Very rarely does anyone talk about the entire world ending, for any reason.

Why is it a definition of a strong society to avoid talk of Armageddon? More precisely, why is it a definition of a weak one to go ahead and discuss it; to cite more accurately, to “breathlessly anticipate” the end of everything?

Because, to me, it represents absolute hopelessness, and a drive to talk about Armageddon represents a yearning for hopelessness. It also represents a departure from reality. You enjoy a much greater likelihood of suffering from a heart attack, without warning, than sitting here in your own natural lifespan when Jesus comes back. Thinking about the heart attack before it happens might be a constructive exercise. But the heart attack is not absolutely hopeless. Maybe you’ll be next to someone else — someone not having a heart attack, who will be in a position to help you.

The end of the world is exactly that, though. The Man Upstairs says, I’ve decided to make a clean wash of it. What are you going to do? Appealing to a higher authority is out of the question, as is making a wonderful speech to Him pointing out some new facet to the situation that somehow escaped His notice.

So I don’t want to talk about Armageddon. I don’t think that is what we are in. I rocked the boat with a suggestion we give it another name, and as of now it remains an open question what we’re going to call it. It is now likely we’ll refer to what is happening by some other name…which greatly enhances the potential of my participation. This is a good thing. I’m not happy with conversations that begin with the expurgation of any & all hope, and go forward from there. I tend to tune out.

Also, I’m unhappy with the level of thinking that tends to accompany the “breathless anticipation” of the end of the world. I’ve found it to lack robustness, logic and tensile strength. Just think on it for a minute with the emotions kept at bay: How do you go about justifying this theme to it, which everyone understands is paramount and central although very few say it out loud — that we are culpable? God wants to hit the reset switch. How much guilt should we really feel about it? The only reasonable answer is “none at all.” It is the height of hubris to say “must be something I did or didn’t do.” We’re that important? Really?

And so such exercises have it in common that they start playing hopscotch; they shift from one foot to the other, from a pious worldview to a more secular one. God’s formatting the disk — no, He isn’t doing it because He isn’t there, we are. Back in the fifties they came up with a replacement god in “The Day The Earth Stood Still” called Klaatu, who belonged to a race of aliens sitting in judgment of us. They were going to topple our Jenga tower. Because we were bastards and we deserved it. This has been an ongoing theme.

I don’t like talking about Armageddon. It represents, to me, abdicating all control of the conversation to those sitting at the table who have no hope. It is an indulgence in hopelessness. To me, there has to be some hope; if there isn’t any, I’d prefer to make up my mind about that myself thankyewverymuch. And once I’ve satisfied myself of that you’re going to find my interest in the conversation has reached an end, not a beginning. Some folks are my polar opposite, I’ve found; they only start their emotional investment when the hope is measurably gone — and I don’t even want to be around these people.

The folks who have far more money than I do, and made it all themselves…I’ve noticed they all operate this way. If you’re one of these Gloomy Gus people who just suck the energy out of the room, they kick you out. If they can, and if they can’t then they beat feet outta there. They don’t want to be around hopelessness. I suppose anyone who has a vision for solving a problem, or who merely wishes to form such a vision, has to be this way.

But I would like to participate in Cicero’s discourse. This is an important point he’s raising. We’re in something that, before, we weren’t in. Or we were not quite so submerged in it.

What then do we call this? Life in 2010 is not normal. Something is definitely happening. It is not the end of the world, because there is hope. There is abundant hope; in fact, if November comes & goes and the children are still running things at the end of it, very little of this hope will have dissipated. What’s the word to describe it?

I like the word “quickening” an awful lot. The changes are washing over us, bigger and bigger, and closer together. The smaller changes that change nothing, but act as harbingers of the bigger changes that are linked to them — they are becoming bigger and closer together as well. I see it on these here innerwebz. The loudmouths who insist on getting the last word, telling me I’m stupid and have the wrong idea about something; maybe they’re right, maybe I’m getting much stupider because it certainly seems I’m being told so a lot more often, by more and more people. Truth be told, the one factor that makes it hard to accept this, more than any other, is the frequency and enthusiasm with which I am told about it. We quickly reach a point where it’s been pointed out a little too quickly, a little bit too energetically. The whiff of desperation is unmistakable.

I am in error when I don’t help to condemn Andrew Breitbart.

I am repugnantly wrong when I insist on solid evidence before believing the tea party is chock full of racists.

I am certifiably stupid when I doubt the settled science of climate change.

I am committing sacrilege when I don’t bow before Shirley Sherrod, kneeling, kissing her, uh, her ring.

And for thinking a military exists for the purpose of fighting and defending something, rather than to provide free higher-education benefits to the enlistees, I’m an oaf.

I’m nuts for thinking there was anything dangerous about Saddam Hussein. Ever.

I’m making a dreadful mistake thinking Sarah Palin personifies what feminism was really supposed to be.

And I need to trust His Holy Eminence at 1600 Pennsylvania. He has the economy well under control. That unemployment rate will drop again, just as soon as He’s all done cleaning up FaPoBuAdtm, the Failed Policies of the Bush Administration. I’m a big ol’ dummy for thinking it would have been nice for Him to bother to show up, in person, to the Boy Scouts’ 100-year celebration rather than going on an airhead ditzy female talk show.

Now keep in mind…I’m only mentioning the most harmless things that I am, according to those who disagree. They have much worse things to say about my fine self. Since, thus far, I’m the only one they’ve met all across the world wide web, who disagrees with them about anything. Except I’m not. In fact, I’m generally not in the majority very often on a given issue, but on many of the above items I’ve found that I am; it is my opposition that is badly outnumbered. Which means very little to me. Except — still, they continue with the bullying. With the numbers extraordinarily lopsided, in the given locale, something like thirty-to-one. They’re the ones to bring it up. Their disconnection from reality complete, they continue their onslaught with the bullying “everybody knows” schtick, when it’s patently obvious that “everybody” knows no such thing.

It’s been happening more and more. More this year than in the two years before, which is saying a lot…and more the last two weeks, than all the months before. It’s a quickening. It’s a plague straight out of Book of Exodus. A plague of fools.

It’s hard to see what is happening here until you take the time to inspect the actual words exchanged, and read between the lines. Look under the surface. Then it becomes crystal clear.

Before I get to that, though, let’s go back to what Irish Cicero wants to talk about. The quickening.

It is a degradation of something. In the private e-mail thread, I compared it to a ruptured gas line burning away at the base of a steel tower. Nobody on God’s green earth can extinguish it. The tower remains standing for an hour, maybe two, but at some point the structural strength will dissipate and that tower’s coming down. If you’ve never experienced this in real life, I can tell you it is an amazing sight. Just one within the crowd will be most sensitive to motion at a distance, and the cry will go forth: “Ah, there she goes.” It won’t be mistaken, and a moment or two later it will be visible to everyone. But still the tower will remain standing, for the better part of a minute or more. Nobody really knows. No one is looking at a timepiece.

That is where we are. We have these “junkies” arguing about trivial bullshit on blogs. But it isn’t bullshit and it isn’t trivial. They…we…are the eagle-eyes, perceiving the movement first. What this says about us, is unimportant. The facts worth considering all have to do with that steel tower.

Another analogy is more obvious: You inflate a basketball to full capacity, and drop it on the level pavement. Boom, boom, boom, boom-boom-boom…they get closer together, very slowly. A gradual quickening. Once it diminishes into that brrrrmmmmm sound, something that existed before has been lost. I like this one because, after the basketball is at rest you can always lift it into the air and drop it again. This, I think, is where we are headed. We’re learning something about ourselves, withholding our efforts so we can see how things shake out. Eventually, we come to understand that it really is all about us. If we want to get some energy out of these objects, we have to put some in.

But the analogy that fits the best, is the darkest one. Every parent’s worst nightmare: Your child was right there just a moment ago, and now s/he’s nowhere to be found. Those first few moments that seem like days, are gone now, and now you’re facing days that seem like lifetimes. The police are looking, and your head is wracked with echoes of WHERE?? and HOW??

This is the best fit for where we are. We have hope, but we do not know how this is going to end. There is something precious to us that we think is still around, although we are not sure of it. The dreadful, unthinkable possibility exists that it may be gone forever.

We’re beating ourselves up constantly with thoughts that contain no perceptible words, other than “if only.”

We hope, and hope, and hope some more that there is a happy ending to this waiting. We don’t really know if it will happen. And we cannot presume the worst, so we concentrate on the when. But we don’t really care about the when. If we have to wait in order for it to come out right, we’ll wait.

But if that happy ending does come to pass, boy oh boy are there ever gonna be some new rules in place!

Yep. That’s it. That’s where we are.

There are those, though, who do not want to put the new rules in place. There are those who, by some neglectful act, or failure to act, allowed the child to go missing…read that as, “voted for Barack Obama.” The rest of us understand that the resulting disaster is so grave, that there is an indecency involved in pointing out their culpability in this. It is useless, it is cruel, and they already know.

And so they take advantage of our compassion and distance themselves further from reality. Then they get angry with everybody else. They begin to behave as if someone else was responsible for losing the child. They project.

Here, I connect this back to the loudmouths on the Internet who like to pretend someone else is the problem. I’m circling back to this thing you realize when you read between the lines, when you look under the surface. What makes them so frenzied, so desperate, so anxious to find racism where it is not, and to overlook it where it is.

It is guilt.

In 1945, we, and the Soviets, defeated the Nazis. Sixty-five years ago this very week, we had victory in Japan. That was the beginning of the Cold War. The communists began to try to infiltrate their new enemy, the Free World. This particular war, contrary to popular belief, has never ended. The USSR crumbled much like that steel tower, they had a “quickening” of their own, but the communist movement survived even the demise of their host state.

True communism doesn’t live in a state. It is a base human impulse. It is the darker side to our human nature and it lives in all of us.

It survives by means of guilt, and it propagates that way.

Here in America, it is hard for us to see it working. We are not like Europe. The misadventures involved with visibly different peoples integrating, coming from different races and different backgrounds, is interwoven with our history. All of our history. The challenges were with us at the very beginning, every moment up until the Civil War, every moment since then. We have always struggled with this.

And the encroachment of the communists depends on this. Communism invades by means of guilt. That is what they do.

I’m not talking about guys with Russian accents wearing Che Guevara hats. There is no requirement for such a thing, any more than vampires in our modern movies have to go around wearing fine tuxedos like Count Dracula. Communism is, as I said, burned into the motherboard of humanity. It is jealousy. It is a desire for misery and failure to be equally distributed, and we are always going to be burdened with it.

These are people who made dreadful mistakes, and they know it. They want all others to be equally culpable.

If they can’t keep their jobs, they don’t want you to keep yours.

If they got fooled by something, they want you to be fooled by the same thing.

And they think it’s silly to talk about communism. The communists were defeated, haven’t you heard? And so there must be no such thing. Our elected leaders can prattle on all day long about “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” and no alarm bells go off. Said leaders are obviously not talking about themselves, or any of their friends, who can make just as much money as their little hearts desire. The rest of us, whose names are not stored in the right Blackberry devices and don’t play the right golf games with the right people, need to live under a ceiling.

It is aristocracy versus commoners. It is exactly what the American revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution, were supposed to banish forever.

Communism, socialism, collectivism, call it what you will — it has emerged from the fog as a synonym for this aristocracy. The leader of such an assembly possesses rights and privileges not too far different at all from those of royalty. We don’t have any church elders running around putting it into words that the glorious dictator rules by Divine Right — but we act that way. He can “make” as much money as He wants, whereas we cannot. He’s different.

I would have to imagine any supposedly egalitarian society is going to have to struggle against the same challenge. Forever. It will remain egalitarian, only so long as the people living there understand that some people succeed at things and some people fail…and that is quite alright. When we start trying to fix it, spread the wealth around, we constantly fail and we end up spreading the misery around instead.

And then we create a new caste of “leaders” who are to be spared from this misery that is being equally spread around.

And they become royalty.

The child is kidnapped — the people who created the situation through their neglect, start projecting their feelings of guilt onto others. And then there is a quickening.

All quite unavoidable.

But not hopeless. Never hopeless. We are humans, we have brains. We can learn. That means we can prevail. Not forever; the struggle will never be over. But we can show some real humility, learn from our mistakes, and resolve to never allow that child to be kidnapped again.

It’s called vigilance. It is the everlasting responsibility of ordinary citizens. The founders of our republic made a point of mentioning, several times, that it is a fundamental requirement and will be one forevermore.

Guilt? That’s the opposite of vigilance. Guilt cannot be complete until it starts to affect decisions; which means, those decisions are made differently because of the guilt. That means they’re made wrongly. And here we come down to another truth, one everybody understands deep down, that is so rarely put into words: Guilt is not good. Decisions that are made out of guilt, are not recalled later with fondness. People don’t say “I’m so glad I felt guilty at the time and made that decision.” Go over those decisions sometime. You’ll find the theme that permeates through them, is not that they are beneficial to whoever suffered the plight inspiring the guilt, but that they are injurious to the person who made the decision. They are self-destructive decisions. They are bad decisions — as a deliberate, non-negotiable object of the exercise of making decisions out of guilt.

That’s why communists like guilt. It leads to suicidal decisions. You need some guilt to sell their product to people.

And so we are going through a quickening with our guilt. We are finding, the hard way, that this is an emotion that has no redeeming value. I suppose there are some people to whom it comes naturally, and it’s unavoidable. Like, every day you need to have something approaching eight hours of sleep — and you need to feel guilty about something.

I will not begrudge them on this. Feel guilty if you have to, but making decisions while you feel that way is about as smart as shopping for groceries while you’re hungry.

It Helps to Be Rich, Too

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Or, uh…so I’m told anyway.

Hat tip to Grerp.

Now, don’t forget those two most important rules of sexual harassment:

1. The intent of the guilty, er, I mean accused party is immaterial. It is the perception of the paranoid, uh, I mean offended person that decides freakin’ everything. Yep, some stranger with a screw loose and a fatal attraction can ruin your career for good. On a whim. We’ve let lawyers make for us a world in which nobody with a brain would choose to live. But hey, at least they can get crazy rich by chasing the right ambulance.

2. These rules are put in place to make a workplace environment that is comfortable for EVERYONE. Yup, everyone. Yeah, we’re going to say those two things, this bullet & the last one, in the same breath. Without even cracking a grin. That’s how you remember we’re reptiles.

Shakira – Hips Don’t Lie – Wyclef Jean

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Neal Boortz was saying something this morning about some musician guy running for President of Haiti or Jamaica or Cuba or something. Whatever it is it’s got something to do with this clip.

I Made a New Word XL

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Frum • i • fes • to (n.)

A Frumifesto is a manifesto written down by a liberal jackass pretending to be a conservative, crying into his beer grape juice that “today’s” conservatives aren’t acting like “real” conservatives, which means like liberals.

Like this guy over here.

Some ingredients in the mix are regular fixtures.

1. She’s in there. Oh yes. Bank on it. The Wonder of Wasilla.
2. The drive against intellectualism. That’s right, these slope-head conservatives of today use their bare feet to propel their little Flintstone’s cars, and they want you to do the same.
3. Putting the hate on the O-man because of His Holy Pigment. That’s right…if only there was a white guy turning America into a socialist paradise, these neanderthal conservatives would be as pleased as punch. They’re upset because He’s too dark.
4. Buckley will get a mention. George F. Will’s name will probably be used too, even though he isn’t dead.
5. Maybe some made-up stories about racist signs seen at tea parties. Or some real stories about real signs carried by infiltrators, which are made-up tea-party people. Also, the “one percent” canard, supposedly the black tea party people are below 1% and this means there’s something wrong with the movement. Xenophobia, nationalism, et al.
6. Global warming. Why won’t these modern conservatives just accept it.

Outside of those staples, on a case-by-case basis the Frumifesto takes off in all sorts of exotic, imaginative, spontaneous directions. Like, for example…

…no, check that. They’re all pretty much identical. I don’t know why anybody bothers to write new ones, I really don’t. Because other people fall for them, I guess.

Well Jonah Goldberg wrote up a good column about how it’s all a crock. Then FrankJ noticed Goldberg’s column and wrapped it.

Me, I’m lamenting the demise of yesterday’s liberals.

I had not yet left my hometown, which was a college community and still is. Liberals back then didn’t seem like anything I’d one day miss. They hated Reagan and they said a lot of stupid shit about it. Like for example…”we” already had the power to blow up the world seven thousand times and here we were building even more nuclear missiles. They wore socks under their Birkenstocks. They were mostly male, old, white, fat, and smelled funny. Their eyebrows stuck out and curled around. You wondered how long the eyebrow hairs were if they were stretched out. Like the Ayatollah Khomenei. They could hide sandwiches in those things. Every one of ’em looked like an evil fucking Santa Claus.

But if you disagreed with them, they just grunted at you. Gugh. Grrr. You wouldn’t get some theory pulled out of thin air about your latent racism or homosexuality. Not that they weren’t a bunch of pretentious intellectual wanna-be types. They were semi-retired professors after all. Like me, they found it difficult to have a thought without jotting down a few pages…except they were much more enthused about making up stories. It would have been a natural fit. Maybe they just didn’t think of it.

Maybe they went on to write a bunch of Frumifestos.

The point is, every single person on the earth who disagreed with them, was not automatically a racist. I miss that. Like today’s liberals, they still pretended to possess a monopoly on “reasoned discourse”…and like today’s liberals, they didn’t come even close to delivering on it. They wanted diversity only with regard to religion and skin color, not about political opinions. Just like today’s liberals.

But they didn’t commit slander quite so often. Back then, it would have taken some work. It wasn’t like today when it seems to come automatically, even to the brainless.