Archive for the ‘Deranged Leftists’ Category

Thanksgiving 2006

Thursday, November 23rd, 2006

Happy Thanksgiving! I hope you can find something for which to be thankful.

I would think if you’re a left-winger, it would be easy. But I don’t know those people very well, and what I do know about them calls into significant question their readiness, willingness and ability to be thankful for things. They might have some trouble even as their liberal faces are still smiling and flush with victory from two Tuesdays ago. Thought I’d help them a little.

There’s all the stuff of which, thanks to Boortz, I’ve found out Michelle Malkin has put together. It comes down to a whole lot of bad crap that can happen to you in other countries if you run around talking like a liberal. Liberals like to pretend they’re really courageous “speaking truth to power” by making jokes about our current President eating pretzels, as if the Department of Homeland Security is full of people like the child-stealer from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang with his oversized net, ready to chase the sarcastic liberals down and lock ’em up if the liberals don’t…aw shit, I can’t keep typing this. I don’t know what the liberals think they’re doing to keep from being locked up. Just go on being courageous and outspoken I guess. Anyway, it’s a sad delusion, and I’m thankful Malkin has put together the research to remind us, liberals & otherwise, how delusional it is. And how real such concerns are, even today, once you start trotting the globe.

And then there is Mark Foley. Scandals in general — and the wonderful American political system that ensures that scandals will have a special smearing power against whatever party is in charge of things, especially if it’s Republicans. So that eventually if you wait long enough, Democrats will come out on top even though Americans are stick to death of their crap.

I would guess Conservatives are a little trickier. Most of them will find something for which to be thankful, by stepping out of politics and thinking about their families. Does the trick for me. Some conservatives don’t have families, though, so for them we have…also via Boortz…a wonderful article by Walter Williams comparing the United States with you-know-where. That’s right, Europe.

Government spending exceeds 50 percent of the GDP in France and Sweden and more than 45 percent in Germany and Italy, compared to U.S. federal, state and local spending of just under 36 percent. Government spending encourages people to rely on handouts rather than individual initiative, and the higher taxes to finance the handouts reduce incentives to work, save and invest. The European results shouldn’t surprise anyone. U.S. per capita output in 2003 was $39,700, almost 40 percent higher than the average of $28,700 for European nations.

Mmmm, my. Fifty pennies on the dollar versus thirty-six pennies on the dollar. Wow, if we put half our GDP into government spending, Uncle Sam would be chewing through nearly six trillion dollars a year. I don’t even want to think about what that would look like. I’m pretty thankful we don’t have it.

Class

Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006

Maybe showing class is an obsolete concept. Or maybe we can still show some class, but we forget how to do it once we’re discussing matters of life and death. I wish everybody could have it all the time, but if we have to be uncouth when we discuss grave matters involving people getting killed I can kind of see it. There’d be a certain nobility to that although it would still be a regrettable weakness.

But President Bush’s dad has more class in his toenail clippings, than Jimmy Carter has in his whole wrinkly terrorist-loving body.

One audience member asked the former president what advice he gives his son on Iraq.

Bush said the presence of reporters in the audience prevented him from revealing his advice. He also declined to comment on his expectations for the findings of the Iraq Study Group, an advisory commission led by Bush family friend and his former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group is expected to issue its report soon.

“I have strong opinions on a lot of these things. But the reason I can’t voice them is, if I did what you ask me to do – tell you what advice I give my son – that would then be flashed all over the world,” Bush said.

“If it happened to deviate one iota, one little inch, from what the president’s doing or thinks he ought to be doing, it would be terrible. It’d bring great anxiety not only to him but to his supporters,” he added.

Excellent as it is, the elder Bush’s explanation leaves out important things because he explains his reticence only from the viewpoint of someone who supports his son’s policies. A lot of participants are concerned about the interests of America, but are bitterly opposed to the Bush doctrine and have their reasons for being so opposed. They, too, are opposed to former presidents criticizing said policies in public — or should be.

Iraq is the frontal stage in a propaganda war. A propaganda war is all about confidence; getting more for your side, undermining the enemy’s. Iraq, in general, isn’t doing so hot. A lot of that has to do with confidence. A lot of our most publicly-visible and vocal Americans, for the last four years, have been rather apathetic about this concern. They’ve been too giddy and drunk on the elixir of “speaking truth to power,” in a nation where there is absolutely no civil or criminal penalty looming for doing so.

The preceding paragraph has just six sentences. They’re solid, all six of them — either factual, indisputable, or both. You’d have to be just-plain-nuts to disagree with any one of the six, and they lead unavoidably to one conclusion. That conclusion is this: If we’re looking for a good post-mortem process on Iraq, searching for ways to do it a little better next time, we need to take a look at keeping our stinky, halitosistic cakeholes shut. Share your criticism of our current President with other Americans, and concentrate on the things he does, not on who he is. He got elected. He invaded Iraq. Get over it.

One of the most persuasive arguments against going into Iraq in the first place, is that there were other menacing hoodlums all over the world who are supposed to be more threatening than Saddam Hussein ever was. Personally, I question that comparison, but the hoodlums are definitely out there. We’re going to have to do the Iraq thing a few more times. You disagree? Fine. Lay down some arguments — to Americans — about how the whole venture was doomed from the start in spite of all the things President Bush did right.

To say President Bush has messed up Iraq, and oh by the way he spends a lot of money and is letting in illegal aliens and ruining the planet’s climate and causing hurricanes and letting people whither and die in New Orleans and he’s too stupid to eat a pretzel and he’s a draft-dodger, and, and, and…why, that’s tantamount to arguing that Iraq didn’t succeed simply because the wrong folks were in charge. And if I’m some foreign guy and I’m hearing you go on about how Americans are ignorant and arrogant and your President is a dumb klutz, and I get in a discussion about some other foreigner about it…well…here’s a question. How are we supposed to see Americans in a good light, if they don’t see themselves that way? And what’s the most positive thought possible we can have about your President? Defending America’s reputation, begins with Americans.

Maybe…just maybe…the hot, pimply-faced, spittle-flinging anger at President Bush has found a little bit more of a voice than we should have allowed it to find. Isn’t that possible? No, I’m not talking about restricting speech. I’m just talking about visiting or revisiting the possibility: Maybe it’s had a bad effect. Maybe. It’s possible, right? You know, in forty years on the planet, I’ve noticed that people get only-so-angry about things when they know their position is the right one. Above a certain level of anger, you get into levels reserved only for people who know they’re wrong, and/or that it’s the other fellow who is right. It seems to me the anger at President Bush has long ago rocketed into that ionosphere, and is still gaining speed.

As for America’s situation, she’s in quite a pickle here. Our weapons won’t save us, and neither will our freedom-of-speech, our democratic republic, our money or even the dedicated individuals who volunteer to serve in our military. None of those things will see us through this crisis. I’m thinking class just might do the trick.

It’d be rather difficult to assert we’ve already tried it, right? Hello, former President Jimmy “mouth of the south” Carter! You’ve been something of a stranger lately to the whole leaving-things-unsaid dealy-bob. What say you?

Deus Ex Machina

Thursday, November 16th, 2006

With Republicans running all three branches of government, I was instructed by the talking-heads I was supposed to have the opinion that we have some rampant election fraud going on. Now Congress has been taken over by the lefties, and I am being instructed I am no longer supposed to have this opinion. Or, rather, they’ve taken a holiday from instructing me on what kind of opinion to have about it. They’ve stopped with the whoop-whoop-whoop, red-siren alert, Danger Will Robinson stuff.

Does that mean the problems have been fixed? I mean, ya can’t blame a guy for asking. Or for that matter, this article for trying to answer it.

Like claims the U.S. was responsible for 9/11 and Republicans were fixing gas prices, the media promoted the left-wing electronic vote-rigging conspiracy.

Now that the votes have been cast and counted, Republicans lost, and the silence of the national media has been deafening.

The idea was that somehow the company Diebold had programmed the machines to let Republicans win. The theory, perpetuated by left-wingers posting on Daily Kos and The Huffington Post and Bev Harris’ book, “Black Box Voting,” was embraced by all three broadcast networks, as well as CNN and MSNBC.

Following Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) defeat in 2004, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ignored statements by the candidate’s own Ohio attorney about the lack of evidence of “confirmed fraud.” Instead, Olbermann ranted for days about fraud causing the Kerry defeat during his show “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Leading up to the 2006 election. Lou Dobbs and Kitty Pilgrim waged a five-month long, two-person war against electronic voting in regular “Democracy at Risk” segments during CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

Dobbs fostered mistrust of electronic voting throughout his broadcasts. “When it comes to the federal government, don’t expect much assurance that your electronic vote will be counted accurately. New standards for electronic voting machines may not be ready in fact, for years,” he warned on Oct. 29, 2006.

Bernard Goldberg has a chapter in his book, Bias, about how Bill Clinton single-handedly cured homelessness…just by being Bill Clinton. It’s the same phenomenon. Republican President(s)…ooh, we got a homelessness problem. Millions of homeless people, tens of millions of families a paycheck away from being tossed out on their rear ends. Democrat President — whoopsie! The problem dun gone away. Or at least, nobody’s talking about it anymore.

This is where I start to lose sympathy for people who choose not to pay attention to political news. Sure you can choose that…but even if you’re not interested, the constant drumbeat of “AIDS AIDS AIDS” or “HOMELESS HOMELESS HOMELESS” or “DIEBOLD DIEBOLD DIEBOLD” is impossible to avoid. Even if your head’s in something else, like Netflix and Starbuck’s, you just gotta notice it when the drumbeat stops. And with just a smidgen of critical-thinking skills, seems like it should be an easy thing to notice that the drumbeat starts & stops depending on political parties taking things over.

Poor John

Wednesday, November 15th, 2006

Kerry has to get out of the shoot, lest anyone think he has something to do with the powers-that-be.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer appeared to kick Sen. John Kerry out of a Democratic leadership walk in Washington, a reporter who witnessed the event said.

An ABC News reporter said the incident occurred Tuesday outside of the Old Senate Chamber as members of the new Democratic leadership, of which Kerry is not a part, left the chamber en route to the Ohio Clock Corridor to discuss leadership elections, the incoming majority’s agenda and Iraq.
:
Kerry waited for the Democratic leaders to walk ahead and then ducked between two statues. The ABC reporter speculated that Schumer may have told Kerry to stay clear of the leadership shot.

Yeah, Michael Moore gets to appear shoulder-to-shoulder with them though, invited as Jimmy Carter’s special guest during the Democratic convention of ’04. And check out Moore’s transcript from the link immediately previous…check out what he says about “the troops.” Not too different from what Kerry said to get himself in all that trouble.

Was Kerry’s “botched joke” an isolated incident? The reader shall decide.

This Is Good XXX

Tuesday, November 14th, 2006

Update 11/15/06: Thanks to alert reader Phil (see comment(s) below), we find the video has been yanked. Due to copyright issues…which, if memory guides us, seem to surface more than reliably when it’s the left-wingers who are being heckled. For those left wondering what it is they missed, you can start piecing it together by following this link over to Hot Air.

Not much more to be said. Trust us, it was really funny. Ya had to be there, as they say.

Update 11/19/06: YouTube put it back and I changed the link above. Thanks for the tip, Buck.

Best Sentence III

Tuesday, November 14th, 2006

This morning’s best sentence, out of all I have read lately, is this one from Mike Adams discussing affirmative action. He’s talking about competent individuals who want to achieve on the merits of their own skills, but are not given and cannot be given credit for such things. And why not? Because they happen to be members of some class that is supposed to benefit from affirmative action rules. I can’t state such a situation with brevity, at least not much, but he can.

Once a class of people is given credit for something its members did not achieve, individuals in that class forfeit credit for the things they actually did.

Bingo. Says it all. Read the rest. You’ll find an intriguing idea down toward the very end: Suppose all applicants worked together to bring an end to affirmative action, from sea to shining sea, everybody — universally — by “checking the box for ‘African American’ on every university form.”

That’s an idea worthy of a book. Racism and blatant fraud brought to a permanent and inglorious end, by means of — just-plain-fraud. Well, that isn’t what’s about to happen. We got us a Democrat Congress now. Get ready for some more reverse-prejudice at all levels, some “temporary” reverse-discrimination to be cemented into permanence; probably, like nothing we’ve ever seen before. And who’s going to be victimized more than anybody else? The individuals who happen to belong to the protected classes, who desire to succeed simply on their own merits. Individuals of all races, are going to find it to be tougher and tougher to do that very thing. As Yoda might say, begun, the war on individuality has.

Hey all you “conservatives” who watched re-runs of “Full House” and “Married With Children” on election night, because Republicans “didn’t deserve your vote.” Feelin’ good about it now? Just askin’.

Memo For File XXXIII

Sunday, November 12th, 2006

This is a memo for file, and that is all it is. I wish the title could be “Why The Democrats Got Their Asses Kicked Yet Again,” but of course that isn’t the way things went. So this is just a bit of old stuff to go in my digital scrapbook…an unusually terse and tactless, not that this is a bad thing, column by Victor Davis Hanson about the Senator who very nearly changed the whole outcome of the midterms. Some of it is a little below-the-belt; some of it simply states the obvious. It’s all good, and like everything else Hanson has to say, points out some pretty useful stuff.

How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman.

Bathosploration

Sunday, November 12th, 2006

I’m inventing a new word. I’m using this word because it’s a word for our times, and it’s worthy of scrutiny where our society is going, and how words can be used to describe it. If I continue to comment on the election results and what they mean, using only conventional words, I’ll become a one-note samba, even though I’ll be trying to describe things that are symphonic in nature. My new word is inspired by, among other things, Laura Ingraham’s comment Wednesday as quoted in the Seattle Times online

Democrats, in my mind, don’t have a mandate because they stood for nothing.

This statement hits the nail on the head, and at the same time it is completely wrong. Democrats stood for nothing; they won; they do have a mandate. They do. It is a very powerful mandate. It fits our prevailing sentiment to a tee. It is a mandate…of nothing. Note, that is an entirely different thing compared to having a mandate not to do anything. And it is an entirely different thing compared to not having a mandate. Those are three distinctly different things. What we have here, is a mandate of nothing. Voters want action. They refuse to say what the action is to be. They only want to say what the action is not going to be.

They have voted without vision, and therefore, their confidence that things can turn out in some way that is not shit, is at an all-time low. In fact, I’m gathering most among the electorate, regardless of party affilation, are convinced it certainly will turn to shit, and I’m not talking about just Iraq. Everything. It’s all going to turn soft and brown and stinky…and what voters want, is to disclaim ownership. They want to not be blamed when it happens.

If you happen to be reading this, you’re probably thinking “that sounds kind of like my boss at work.” And you probably think you’re the only one thinking that.

But these are the times in which we live. Bathosploration.

ba‧thos
–noun

1. a ludicrous descent from the exalted or lofty to the commonplace; anticlimax.
2. insincere pathos; sentimentality; mawkishness.
3. triteness or triviality in style.

ex‧plo‧ra‧tion
–noun

1. an act or instance of exploring or investigating; examination.
2. the investigation of unknown regions.

ba‧thos‧plo‧ra‧tion (-noun): a ludicrous, trivial and insincere descent involving the abandonment of investigating unknown things, and instead, recognizing only known things, and channeling all progressive energy toward the refinement of those known things to a more pristine state. Bathosploration is characterized by intense hostility toward others who partake in explorative things, a desire to deflect blame, in irrational drive for inventing and conforming to rules, and a remarkable apathy concerning how to do things better than they were done before — except where some kind of sterility is concerned. In a bathosplorific society, actions are weighed not for their likely consequences, but for their conformity to established rules; enterprises are launched not to acquire greater knowledge about what has yet to be discovered, but to achieve greater comfort with what has already been.

It is utterly incompatible with life, and sports many attributes associated with death. It is about stillness. Getting life over with. Not leaving behind any indications you were ever here, over & above what is absolutely necessary — and hiding those as best you can.

It is the opposite of exploration. It is what the human condition does after we have passed the zenith, and entered into an era of bathos, beginning our post-apogeal descent. Exploration has to do with starting from a defined point, and journeying outward into the unknown. One generation will do some exploring, conquering frontiers; the next generation will settle that frontier, or perhaps reach maturity regarding that frontier as tamed, paved and just as familiar as anything that came before it — and define a new frontier, and conquer that. Humanity ex-plodes. Outward. The frontiers get farther and farther flung, outward and onward, and over time they tend to become bigger frontiers.

The foregoing describes the human spirit in times past, and it would appear that chapter has now closed. Things are different today. We are in our bathos now. Dreams, where they exist at all, no longer concern exponential conquests; nowadays, they are fractional conquests. We start from some environment that has some filth to it, we devise ways of detecting impurities, and then we clean and purify. Where a new generation dreams of things undreamed-of by the previous generation, it has to do with trudging toward a zero. Taking a mathematical zero, and making reality reflect that zero-based ideal with greater precision. Our water has so many parts per million of arsenic, let’s see if we can cut that in half. There’s so much ozone in the air, let’s bring that down.

We go to work; nobody gives a shit what we’re going to do once we get there, they care how we got there. Did we carpool?

So the election simply reflects where our mindset is. Accomplishing something? Who said anything about that? Who, in this campaign just past, ever said anything about it — other than the guys who lost. America voted to have things not accomplished anymore. It doesn’t know what it wants, and it isn’t very concerned about figuring it out.

Next year we will have a 110th Congress, elected by The People. And that Congress will be uniquely qualified to carry out what The People want. It will look like our nation’s mindset, for good or for ill. It may do nothing; it may do a lot of things. But whatever it does, will be nobody’s fault. Go on, find someone who thinks this election was a good thing, and get their opinion about what the Congress is going to do. All you’re going to get is a diatribe about what an awful guy President Bush is…and maybe a snippet about impeachment hearings that aren’t even going to happen.

And like all bureacracies that have matured to the point of rotting from within, this nation holds that objective, the don’t-blame-me deal, as paramount. Pick this thing, pick that thing; do, or do not. Whatever. Just make sure I am not to be blamed for what happens.

It’s two different mindsets. You go and explore a New World, you have to take responsibility for things. Someone has to make sure the boat can hold water, and the compass works. Shipbuilder steps up and says, “I can build your boat! I’m the best there is! If it sinks, you can be sure it won’t be my fault!” and nobody, but nobody, will want to hire that guy. In an age of exploration, you want a boatbuilder who will make sure that fucker keeps floating. In such an age, people prayed to a God…and they didn’t care who overheard…that if they had fifteen children, maybe eight would live. So they could grow up and do exciting things. They prayed the children would have educational benefits the parents never had, so the children could dream things of which the parents never dreamed. And actually do them. And have more children, who in turn, would dream even bigger dreams, and do those.

Bathosploration is different. Parents don’t have dreams like these for their kids. Parents pray…maybe to a God, maybe to something else, but if they pray to a God they are sure to do it quietly, so nobody is offended. If they pray for their children to live, they’re confused about where the protection would be needed the most, for they know their children grow up in relatively sterilized environments, with defenses from literally everything — from kidnappers to political-incorrectness. And for what? Very few parents discuss, outwardly, what these children are supposed to do when they grow up. Have more children? Enter a particular field? That is thought to be unfairly imposing the parents’ values on the child, who is his or her own person. Sure, the rock stars of the seventies had clashes with their parents about their chosen professions, just as Beethoven was castigated by his father over the same issues…but those days are coming to a close. Parents aren’t supposed to have a vote in what their children do. They aren’t supposed to have a say. They aren’t supposed to care. Children are supposed to live and be healthy so they can be…happy. Just get them clean food. Clean water. Clean air. Clean, clean, clean. A child today needs three or four doctor’s visits a year, on average, and his father might have needed that many throughout his entire childhood. Everyone, it seems, has a story to tell about mistakes with antibiotic medicine, which used to be a rare phenomenon. Children need prescriptions to “pay attention in school,” and this was unheard of before.

In bathosploration, everybody has an idea about getting somebody else “what they need.” Only rarely does anyone take the trouble to ask “need…to do what, exactly?” And you can grow old just waiting for one well-thought-out answer.

What can we achieve in an era of bathosploration? Whatever we set out to do, and this is what disturbs me most about the elections. “Bathosploration” is all about setting out to do…nothing. It’s about making sure nobody is offended by anything. Following procedures. Doing what you’re supposed to do. Making sure nothing is ever your fault. Communicating no opinions whatsoever, except for raging excoriation aimed at other people who have the audacity to try to do something.

We are a star, past supernova stage, now collapsing inward on itself to become a black hole. Much evidence supports this; very little is available to contradict it. In any way.

It’s a natural phase of civilization, I suppose. We expand, tame what was once wild, as we are designed to do…until we just get tired of doing so. And then we start taking a look at our taming, and inspect if we’re taming things enough. No longer do we look at what is to be tamed next; we’re concerned about making up new rules for the taming. It’s as if we think chastity is something that can be achieved where it was previously absent, when it depends on innocence that can never be captured. So we end up like Lady MacBeth trying to wash the blood off her hands.

It’s utterly futile. By its very nature it is futile. We were built to explore, and to take responsibility for things turning out right. We’re abdicating the responsibility. We’re doing worse than that; collectively, we’re nurturing a white-hot hatred toward anyone who doesn’t similarly abdicate. We’ve become apathetic, and at the same time, passionate about propagating our apathy. Previous generations would have wondered if such a thing was possible, and if there was any point to wondering if such a thing was possible — and here we are.

The only question that matters, is what bathosploration is in the grand scheme of things? Is it the second phase of two phases, or the second of three? Are we doomed to collapse into a dead, still black hole and just sit there in the cosmos? Or get tired of wasting our lives working toward a state of death…and start exploring again? Start doing things that are compatible with being alive? Taking ownership of things? Making sure things work? Chart new territory? Dream exciting dreams, dreams that have nothing to do with purifying things and thinking up new rules? Where do we go from here, exactly?

I believe in a “quickening.” I think I’ll see the answer to this question in my lifetime.

Whether I’m going to like what I see…I must say, I have strong doubts.

Recidivism

Saturday, November 11th, 2006

A few hours ago I made mention of some human vermin who, according to the available evidence, lashed a couple to an anchor and pitched them over the side of a boat Billy Bathgate style. True to form, I made a quick mention to the story and made some passing references to the events therein, after bloviating bloatfully about those among us who — well, let’s just cut to the chase this time — they don’t believe in visiting justice upon the wicked. Yes, I know the anti-death-penalty types bristle at that accusation, insisting that they simply have “moral objections” to the ultimate punishment. But they share a close kinship with the criminals-rights folks. And the criminals-rights folks, generally, aren’t too keen on victims-rights. They champion one over the other, often. You don’t have to wait too long to see them do it. They’ll find any excuse in the book to release predators whom common-sense says are guilty of their “alleged crimes,” even if “innocent-til-proven-guilty” might be interpreted to say otherwise.

James Bostwick has a lot in common with me. We both celebrated a birthday ending with a zero and each of us is mourning a decade of our lives lost forever…except he’s embarking now on the one I just lost. And he just got done reading an article about recidivism, and sharing his thoughts about it.

We didn’t collaborate on this. I swear.

Probably, what’s going on is we share concerns about our new Congress.

Isn’t it interesting? The people we are told are “conservatives”…you get left-wingers in positions of power, and the conservatives worry about violent predators being released on the streets and little kids getting chopped up and buried in fields.

The people we are told are “moderates” and “liberals”…you get right-wingers in positions of power, and those kind folks worry about tax cuts. They worry about government getting the hell out of the way, and private persons and businesses being allowed to do the stuff they want to do. Big crisis, huh?

Government getting out of the way of businesses that want to hire people, versus, Government getting out of the way of predators who want to rape and massacre little kids. Which is worse? Real toss-up, huh?

Flesh! Oh, No! VIII

Wednesday, August 9th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No! VIII

As this story came out, I had feelings of real ambivalence about whether-or-not to give a rat’s ass. Things other countries do, culturally…it’s pretty hard to get me all uppity & slobbery about those things, whatever they may be. I’m a live and let live type guy. Ultimately, my phobia about letting noteworthy items pass off into the ether, never to be seen again, uncaptured, unsketched, undocumented, won out. I decided I needed a quick write-up about it. The deciding factor, was that overseas or not, the decision described is just plain harebrained. We like to capture hairbrained decisions. We, here at The Blog Nobody Reads, like to explore the yawning chasm between the things people do, and the things that would make more sense. We make lists of such things; if we do that, and said lists are missing items like what you’ll read about below, it places unnecessary doubt on whatever else remains on the lists.

In the meantime, the story has lost its freshness, so news-junkies are advised to skip this one.

No swimsuits for Cambodia’s Miss Universe contenders
Mon Jul 31, 2:46 AM ET

PHNOM PENH (AFP) – Cambodia is to choose its first
Miss Universe contestant in more than a decade, but organizers have said that the qualifying competition would lack the customary swimsuit round.

Kem Tola, marketing manager for Planet Communication which will run the Miss Cambodia pageant, said the competition will begin next month and winners will be announced in October.

“We hold this event because we want to make our culture known worldwide,” Kem Tola told AFP.

But he said the competition’s co-organizers, the ministry of culture, had slapped a ban on the swimsuit section of the event in the interests of Cambodian culture.

Sim Sarak, a director-general of the ministry of culture, said the last Miss Cambodia contest in 1995 also went ahead without a swimsuit round.

“We are not that civilized yet but we want our culture to be a sustainable one,” he said, adding that no pageant had been held for 10 years because the government thought it was a waste of money.

The winning Miss Cambodia will receive about 1,000 dollars prize money and will likely be nominated to take part in next year’s Miss Universe contest, Kem Tola said.

Now, you see the source of my ambivalence. I really don’t care about the political influence of Cambodia’s Ministry of Culture, whether that is a formal influence like a constitutional-type thing, or whether it’s more of a mafioso-type influence involving bribery and blackmail and horse heads in beds. I don’t care. But the thing I have to keep reminding myself, is that it’s impossible to be “passionately apathetic” about something; to not care about something, means to not care about whether ensuing events cause you to someday care. There is difficulty in that for us all. Someday, maybe that would be a subject worth exploring.

But as members of the human race with a God-given gift for logic and intellect, whoever these people are in the Ministry of Culture — which, according to AFP and Yahoo! News, I guess isn’t even deserving of capital “M” and “C” letters — have sold out to something, I know not what. Look what they’re doing here. They’re having a national competition, carefully expunged of that oh-so-offensive swimsuit competition with the “unsustainable culture,” from which they will produce a winner. Said winner, who may or may not have the assets necessary to partake in a swimsuit competition, may then be nominated to partake in the worldwide Miss Universe pageant, where…well, do I really have to draw a flow chart?

You know, as a guy who appreciates good-lookin’ ladies in swimsuits, I can think of just a few things that are important for a female who wants to look good in one, and/or compete with other females in one. Not being a woman, I’m pretty sure my list falls short of the real story, but what’s on the list is stuff about which I’m pretty certain. I’ll bet you some good money if I were fortunate enough to interview a Miss Universe, or someone who actually competed there, the list would lengthen considerably.

All of which gives me cause to wonder. Could this decision be explained, by anybody, with some genuine passion? As opposed to an apathetic talking-head like Sim Sarak, simply mouthing the words because her paycheck depends on those words being mouthed? I suspect not, but what do I know.

Flesh! Oh, No! VI

Monday, June 26th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No! VI

People like to watch The Daily Show with John Stewart, which discusses current events, and then injects a unique brand of humor into the process of reporting them. If those people were approached by someone who said “I’m pleased as punch that you like the Daily Show, but I’ve decided you should like it because of the news, not because of the jokes…and since I have authority in this matter, I’m going to enforce my decision by forcing John Stewart to not be funny anymore.” Those people would say screw you, I’ll watch the show for whatever reason I want to watch it. We’ll get you fired Mr. Authority Person, and if we can’t do that, we’ll probably stop watching.

People like to listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s radio show for a number of reasons. Some of them like to hear Dr. Laura’s words of wisdom, some like to gather dirt on Dr. Laura so they can bash her somewhere else, and other people just like to listen to stories of airheaded sluts cheating on their boyfriends and husbands. If Dr. Laura were to come on the radio and say “I’m glad you’re all tuning in, but I’ve decided you shouldn’t be tuning in to take prurient delight in these stories, so I’m going to get rid of them.” People would stop listening, of course. Just before they tuned out, they would bear a lot of rage, and probably express it, at the attempt to control their very preferences.

People like to listen to the President of the United States give speeches. Some like to hear what the President has to say so they can make up their minds on whether to support his initiatives; others simply wait for the President to screw up on pronouncing something, so they can make fun of him. Consider what would happen if a radio/television network announced “We know some of you are tuning in just to add on to your lists of ‘Bushisms,’ and we don’t want to give you any ammunition, so just know in advance that if the President makes an embarrassing slip-up we’ll bleep it out with the benefit of our ten-second delay. But we think you should still tune in, and listen for the reasons we think you should be listening.” Gawd, can you imagine the backlash that would take place then. The backlash…and the futility.

Well, Wimbledon has figured out people like to watch tennis matches just to watch good games of tennis…and to look at good-lookin’ women in skimpy outfits. What was just a silly hypothetical, in the above three recitations, is reality in this fourth one, according to this brief snipped from The Sun.

KILLJOY tennis chiefs have outlawed skimpy outfits at this year�s Wimbledon, which starts today.

They want spectators to keep their eye on the ball, not on the athletic figures of the gorgeous female players.

So they have issued a strict new dress code banning gear deemed too sexy or low-cut.

That means a bevy of babes must cover up. What a glaring fault � especially when you check the form of stars like former champ Maria Sharapova.

The Sun has put a prohibition on using their images without licensing, so I got the above graphic from somewhere else. Hope that’s okay, The Sun does not own Wimbledon so far as I know.

Awhile ago I said something about the European mindset, and this mostly-European tendency to make rules about things without regard to whether those rules can be expected to be effective. The author of a not-very-readable comment, appeared to take offense, although I’m not sure about this. Well…this is a great example of what I’m talking about. What is going on in your head when you tell someone “come on over, bring the kids, watch our tennis matches…but only for the reasons we think you should be watching them.”

It’s enough to make you want to throw tea in the harbor all over again.

Here is what I want to see before we get too much farther into the summer “Fire Women For Wearing Bikinis” season. Let’s get a woman, dressing modestly, who fainted…then maybe another one, maybe a couple more. Three total. Add to this, some ruminations on global warming, and about how this is the hottest year ever recorded in human history. Somewhere, someone is willing to say so, I’m sure. Then, let’s get some egghead college professor who makes a living being quoted, to add a sound bite about how women are feeling intimidated by social pressures to wear more clothes, and running into a disproportionate number of health problems because of it during this hottest-year-on-record. Like dehydration, and fainting.

In other words, let’s get the public-policy goo-gooders to feed on their own. Our egghead propeller-beanie clipboard-and-white-coat goo-gooders are forcing women to wear more clothes, and our global-warming propeller-beanie goo-gooders and our female-health-malady and unfair-cultural-pressures propeller-beanie goo-gooders say it’s high time something was done about it.

I’d pay money to see that.

Like I’ve said many a time before…we are all here, because a lusty man thought a woman’s body looked good. Red-blooded straight guys who like to look at young ladies in skimpy outfits, are doing the Lord’s Work. If anybody’s looking for an apology, don’t look here.

Flesh! Oh, No! V

Saturday, June 24th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No! V

It’s a little too long and windy to become a “Thing I Know” but it’s still something I know, and know very well. When the subject of young ladies in skimpy outfits comes up, very few of the things anybody says on the subject, make any sense whatsoever. There’s something about this time of year, wherein young female teachers and young female bank managers start getting fired for wearing bikinis. Well, it just happened again.

A New Orleans artist who began working as a teacher in Lafayette after Hurricane Katrina filed a free speech lawsuit Thursday against the Lafayette Parish School Board, alleging she was unjustly fired because of adult-oriented art on her Web site.

Heather Weathers, whose Web site features images of partial nudity and declares that her art “addresses stereotypes and taboos about women�s bodies,” is seeking unspecified damages in a lawsuit filed on her behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

According to the lawsuit, Weathers had been teaching at Comeaux High School one week when Principal Joseph Craig told her that parents had brought the Web site to his attention.

Craig “then informed Weathers that she could not continue to teach at Comeaux or any other Lafayette Parish school,: according to the lawsuit.
:
Weathers is active in the New Orleans art scene and has previously worked in New Orleans and New York as an art teacher.
:
Work exhibited on her Web site spans from performance art, to sculpture, photography, painting and video.

One performance piece detailed on the Web site involves her donning a bikini fashioned out of meat, a statement on objectification of women.

Now, what I get a kick out of, here, is the kind of thing that makes Erica Chevillar look much better — ahem, I mean, the merits of the case — than Heather Weathers. Let’s review.

Erica Chevillar posed for the website of something called the “National Bikini Team” under a pseudonym, one “Erica Lee.” Heather Weathers could have done the same. It’s not that “Heather Weathers” is a terribly unique name, although it somewhat is, but it’s a thoroughly memorable name. That some busybody parent would come to notice the naked chick wearing the meat, was one and the same with the precious bubbins’ schoolteacher, was just a matter of time. It would be a cause for concern if such a thing never happened.

Heather Weathers runs the website, or at the very least, is responsible for some of the content and arrangement of same. The diligence with which she has restricted the naughty portions to the over-eighteen set, has been called into question. This issue doesn’t pertain to Ms. Chevillar.

The irony is not lost on me, that the intellectually vapid tidbits tumbling out of Weathers’ mouth, dealing with “objectification of women,” are identical in verbiage to the talking points of people who so regularly stir up trouble about women in bikinis presented where excessive bare flesh is thought to be inappropriate. This is a case of the prudish feeding on their own. Although I would like Ms. Weathers to ultimately prevail, I’m torn on the issue because she’s made it clear she’s an activist for the very people who are trying to cover her up. In effect, she’s teetering on the brink of becoming a martyr for the opposing side.

Last but not least, there is the question of time. Erica Chevillar’s pictures were taken before she became a schoolteacher — at least, that’s what she’s said, and nobody to my knowledge has taken the trouble to contradict her. The summary of Weathers’ case is that she’s taken the time and energy, on her own, to put up a provocative website, in her own name, while simultaneously subjecting herself to the rigorous inspection awaiting any schoolteacher by the parent community. Even if she were to emerge legally victorious in the conflict, by engaging so much of the initiative to cause that conflict to arise in the first place, she’s opened the quality of her judgment to legitimate question. The same doesn’t apply to Chevillar.

And as a straight male, I freely confess it means something to me that Chevillar looks much better. I like her curves.

Legally, I think there’s enough fresh meat (har!) involved in Weathers’ termination, that it will probably stand. Personally, I’m inclined to side, as always, with the right of good-lookin’ women to bare their bodies if they choose to, and I’m not going to be pleased with the precedent when Weathers’ is, after all’s said & done, thrown to the dogs. But I do hope the “Cover ‘Em Up” brigade takes note when it comes to pass — this is not a victory for them, as the head on the pike came off the shoulders of one amongst their own.

The lesson here is that when some of us lose freedom, even the freedom to wear a bikini, the loss of freedom hurts all of us. Each and every single one of us. Er…not that I’m anxious to see men wear bikinis. But, you know, the principle stands.

Update: There is an article here about Chevillar and Sheri Doub, the bank manager referenced in the first paragraph. It appears in some kind of atheist column and tries to tie religion into the whole thing.

Whatever, dude. I believe in God, I think people who don’t are just plain nuts, and as far as I’m concerned women can wear bathing suits whenever they want to. Within reason. I’ll just look over the ones I like and ignore the ones I don’t.

Straight men looking at good-looking women in skimpy clothes, are doing The Lord’s work. We are all here because somewhere, a guy thought a woman’s body looked good.

Flesh! Oh, No! IV

Saturday, June 3rd, 2006

As this blog has observed repeatedly — there’s something kind of strange about people nowadays. Two subjects they just can’t handle in any way, which you can tell by the steady stream of crap that comes out of their mouths when the subjects come up, are these: Terrorist attacks and young ladies in skimpy clothes. Someone who’s just gotten done flinging spittle around the room, pontificating about how a freakin’ hurricane is President Bush’s fault, will act like a terrorist attack is…nobody’s fault. Or, maybe that’s Bush’s fault, too. Or it’s just something that happens from time to time, not a big deal, you’re more likely to be struck by lightning, so don’t worry about it. And certainly, nobody actually went out of their way to get the terrorist attack done. It just happened. Boom, oopsie, move on.

Regarding the young ladies who aren’t wearing a lot of clothes, I strongly suspect that the ones over age eighteen who look decent, aren’t really bothering anyone — it appears we’re stuck in some kind of mode where everybody is pretending to be offended on behalf of everybody else. That certainly does seem to be the case here, in which the male kitchen workers at an all-female Oxford College dorm, are supposed to be “upset” that the student body is showing a little too much, ya know, student body. At beakfast. The male kitchen workers. Article makes mention of the unsettled reaction of the poor blokes, and it’s more than a little strange that the article mentions no blokes, at all, by name or by quote, whatsoever.

Students of St Hilda’s college at Oxford University have been ordered to dress properly for breakfast. Some were arriving for their morning cup of tea wearing the naughtiest of nightgowns. Or pyjamas that left little to the imagination. They claimed that with no men in the all-female halls of residence, there was no need for decorum.

But the kitchen staff – particularly the handful of men among them – hardly knew where to look.

Revealing nightwear best left to the boudoir has now been banned.

The order to cover up has not gone down well with students, however, who claim breakfasting in their nightclothes is one of the privileges of studying at an all-girls college. Arielle Goodley, a 20-year-old English literature and psychology student, received a written warning for wearing a lacy nightie and skimpy dressing gown after the ban was imposed.
:
“They are claiming that it makes the young male serving staff uncomfortable, but we know that’s not true. Whenever we’ve asked the men themselves, they say it doesn’t bother them at all. In reality it’s the older women working there who seem to be making a fuss.”

This is abuse of authority plain and simple. There is no ambiguity going on at all — the Dean, Dr. Amanda Cooper-Sarkar, is order, and the hottie, Arielle Goodley, is chaos. Order, and chaos. Yet the thinking individual must tie his brain up into knots in order to take the ravings of “order” at face-value. The men are upset? The men don’t “know where to look?” What kind of men are these?

Arielle, who is chaos, on the other hand makes perfect sense. A bunch of bitter middle-aged old biddies are passing out new rules and blaming their rigidity and insecurity on the men. Who hasn’t seen that before? I normally side against college kids who want to start mini-revolutions the first time they bump up against rules they don’t want to follow…and I’m inclined to continue that informal policy here. But as far as what’s going on, Ms. Goodley’s comments are perfectly rational, and achieve perfect comportation with my own experiences about such things. As far as what’s going on, I have no reason not to believe each and every word that comes out of her mouth.

Especially that part about asking the guys if it’s okay, and being told hell yes!

Now sometimes, it’s only logical to create new rules in certain situations demanding greater coverage and modesty. This may be one of those times. But when that comes to pass, why, oh why, can’t people just put together one or two sentences that are honest & make sense, and use them? Why do they have to spin so much crap?

And what is up with these cranky women with degrees and hyphenated last names? It seems they are disproportionately represented in these teapot-tempests. Jealousy? You’d think the hyphenated female authorities would at least put some effort into making it look like something else.

Why Aren’t You There?

Saturday, October 29th, 2005

Why Aren’t You There?

Maybe it’s their cozy history with union thuggery, or perhaps they’ve lately become a little too friendly with Europe. But since the September 11 attacks, it’s come one notch shy of a new dictionary definition: When those on “The Left” engage in political debate, the “debate” invariably stops being an exchange of ideas, and swings around into an exercise in telling people what to do.

Sadly, this remains the case — perhaps even reaches a zenith — when the conversation turns toward Iraq. On this subject, the Left is cornered by people like me, who think it was the right thing to do, and far too late; and, by people who believe it was a hideous mistake, but see the wisdom that now that we’re in there, retreat even in future-timeline form would be a major disaster. Against both of us, I’m entirely unclear on what True Believes on the Left have in mind for a vision. I’m not sure they know either. But boy howdy, they sure know how to look into the sands of the past and lecture anyone who will listen on things that should not have been done.

And their plan is iron-clad for figuring out who is a hypocrite, as if that’s what we need to do in these troubled times: A hypocrite is someone who 1) disagrees with them, oh boy, there’s a shocker; and 2) isn’t actually on the front line in Iraq, fighting the Good Fight. In other words, me. And Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Rourke, Coulter, Elder, Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. etc. etc.

It is perhaps lost on no one, although seldom pointed out anywhere, that if you qualify for #1 then #2 is a given. If you believe, as I do, that the Left is a bunch of bitter, whiny crybabies who can’t get over the fact they lost an election, and a bunch of dullards who simply figure out their Hollywood icons don’t like war and therefore they shouldn’t either, you have a God-given freedom-of-speech right to say so — right up until you enlist. Then you have to hunker down and do your job. If you believe passionately in your points-of-view, you are obliged to leave the commentary to someone else who isn’t enlisted. Ah, but The Left likes to tell people what to do, and lives in a fantasy world where everybody complies unquestioningly — therefore — anyone pro-war, should enlist, and shut up. And when you say they “should” what you mean is they will.

They want zero dissent. That is what they must have, because they can’t cope with dissent. Coping with dissent, it seems, is everyone else’s job.

I’m not sure who circulated this talking point for them. It can’t be someone with too much smarts, because it doesn’t work. It just plain doesn’t. For one thing, free speech isn’t really free speech for anybody unless it is enjoyed by everybody. Another problem is, enlisting is a lot like looking for a job — just because you’ve declared yourself to be on the market, doesn’t automatically guarantee someone is willing to take you. Among the people like me who understand why it was necessary to go into Iraq, are a lot of people who acquired this wisdom over the years noticing the far-flung effects of terrorist appeasement. By and large, we’re pretty old. The Left wants their new rule to apply universally, not just to certain people, so do they think there aren’t any octagenarians and nanogenarians in favor of the war? Do they think there’s no one on emphezema who requires an oxygen tank? No paraplegics?

The point is, when The Left notices that those who disagree, aren’t serving, and announces the discovery of hypocrisy, they show their own ignorance. People who disagree, aren’t serving by definition, because when you serve you give up your freedom-of-speech rights about things like this. People who do that, are heroes. And while they go off and fight with bullets, the terrorists they fight plan to retaliate in the theater of ideas. The terrorists have said so!

Who is left to engage in that theater of ideas? The anti-war left would have it be just them. Nobody else. Their army would march across the battlefield, unopposed, participating in something resembling more of a parade than any kind of conflict. Freed from the burdensome task of having to explain their ideas, they would simply demoralize everybody else until we pressured our leaders into a retreat. The troops would then fly home, the task incomplete, and then sit by the fireplace with the rest of us, waiting to see what happens.

Then, I would have to guess, and I expect no one would directly disagree, the prognosis is that we go back to the days of a terrorist “nuisance.” We’ll argue about Social Security while embassies are bombed. We’ll hash out the details in some well-intentioned and possibly effective welfare reform bill, while ships are blown up. We’ll scream at each other over union rules and cost-of-living adjustments, while planes are hijacked. Every five or ten years, we’ll send our President out to the Rose Garden to shake hands and drink Mint Julip with a terrorist and announce the end of terrorism. And every once in a while when things go really, really well for the terrorists, we’ll have several thousands of people dead in a smoking crater where a landmark once stood. Then it will be front page news, we’ll “come together as Americans, with no Republicans or Democrats” and two months later we’ll go back to yelling at each other over relatively trivial bullshit, while poor Osama wonders what in the hell he has to do to get our attention again.

In short, terrorism would be treated like a really bad weather phenomenon, with no one responsible.

Except when we feel like blaming Republicans. Hey, brilliant plan!

Here’s a much better one, anti-war leftists. I, and millions like me, will intellectually oppose you. Someone has to. HAS TO. And we’re not over there, where you want us to be. What’s worse, is we know why you want us there, and it has nothing to do with hypocrisy. Deal with it.