So let’s see…if you’re all out of money, the thing to do is spend more money you don’t have. We add that one to the list that says when there’s an energy crisis because gas and oil are getting expensive, you need to keep the oil in the ground and burn food to make the cars go. When America faces an economic crisis from a bunch of companies failing you give the companies a whole lot of money other people have earned from doing other things…and if you find a tenth of a percent of it has gone toward bonuses, be sure and get the word out that nobody can personally benefit too much from saving these companies whose failure would surely be devastating to our economy.

This is way beyond Orwell. It’s a Bizarro world just like out of Superman comics. Recklessness is frugal, frugality is reckless, perverts are normal, normal people are perverts, spending money is saving it, saving it is wasting it, the way to “lead” a nation that is depressed is to talk some smack about it every chance you get (on foreign soil); and the solution to every single problem involving scarcity is to make it more difficult and expensive to produce whatever is scarce.

Update: I was out playing the seventh hole in frisbee golf when I suddenly realized I didn’t give a hat tip on this one. A belated thank you to Dr. Melissa Clouthier, and a shame on me.

Angie Harmon isn’t gonna take it anymore:

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

Dr. Melissa Clouthier takes note:

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

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

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

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

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

Carla,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip to Maggie’s Farm.

“I feel like I’m being lectured by my Mom.” “Me, too.”

I like the way the headline of this post is used as a line of dialogue…multiple times.

Listen to that leftist twit. You don’t agree with him, so you’re “a fuckin’ dumbass” and some such.

Yup. That’s the way they argue. Like six-year-olds, but with saltier language.

Isn’t it funny? It’s always about restoring rights to women and minorities, saving endangered species, saving the planet, getting people to love each other. But the advocates are always so damned mad.

Paul Kengor writing in American Thinker, via Maggie’s Farm.

“We must teach our children to hate,” Vladimir Lenin instructed his education commissars. The Bolshevik godfather declared that hatred was not only “the basis of communism” but “the basis of every socialist and Communist movement.”

Class envy has been a defining staple of the left for centuries, from the frenzied mobs leaping around the French guillotines to the Soviets to, well, the new masses circling AIG executives today. The difference is merely the degree of response — a question of socially acceptable force or violence.

Historically, this behavior is both foreign and antithetical to the American experience. Unfortunately, modern Americans don’t understand their founding and the nation’s core principles — our educational system doesn’t teach those things. Thus, they are now voting, and behaving, in kind. And we are now witnessing our own homegrown socialist movement in action, inspired by hate.

B-b-but that’s not true, is it? The liberal progressive movement is defined and fortified by love!

Sorry, it’s true. Think on it: What highly energized, self-motivating idea has emerged from the left side of the aisle…in the last hundred years or so…that didn’t include a villain that had to be cut down to size?

Sure, they’re always supposed to be defending something, too. Snail darters, children, woemyn, persons of color, labor, teachers, et al. That’s another staple ingredient in the stew. It doesn’t mean the Snidely Whiplash isn’t just as vital, and present just as often. It doesn’t mean the formula isn’t actually based on good old-fashioned hate…which it is. It’s just as simple, and just as reliable, as finding the Little Dipper by tracing your way through the stars in the Big Dipper. Who’s the victim in this idea, in need of progressive sustenance, fortification, defense? Why is the need there? Who is attacking the victim? There’s your bad guy. And he’s always, always, always there…in every single liberal idea, there’s always a villain.

AIG executives. Christians. Bush and Cheney. Stay-at-home moms. Bitter people clinging to their bibles and their guns. Boy Scouts. Small business owners, which employ most of us. Large corporations, which employ most of the rest of us. Men who watch football. Intelligent Design proponents. Advocates for abstinence-education. Cops. Mothers who decide not to abort their children. The U.S. Military, and people who appreciate their efforts. Hooters waitresses. NASCAR fans. People who slaughter, butcher, prepare, cook and eat meat.

Whatever can blast that hate-ray in the greatest number of directions, seeking out multiple targets along a panorama, without conscious thought, is sure to be a popular idea in the liberal camp. Especially if it comes cloaked in some cheap, tacky, wafer-thin, translucent camouflage of something positive, like love, concern or compassion. And so it has come to this: Now you’re a bad guy if you emit carbon dioxide. At this point, you can only ignore what’s really going on, if you put some effort into ignoring it.

The truth is, the ideology is just shopping around for a way to engage in the greatest quantity of hating, with the lowest quantity of work.

Thing I Know #217. Populism, according to the hard evidence that has managed to come my way, has a tough time staying positive. It seems there has to be a dirty so-and-so who’s due for a come-uppins, behind every energized populist movement. That might be because populism seeks to decide issues according to the satisfaction of the majority, and most of us like to feel our way to a decision rather than think our way through. Naturally, laying the smack down on an enemy feels a whole lot better than actually solving a problem.

Oh, Good Lord…The View loudmouth Joy Behar discusses her new childrens’ book, about a dog that is supposed to be President Obama.

BEHAR: The kids love to say SheetzuCacaPoopoo. Well, that was the key. But, the book is really about Barack Obama. Okay? Let me explain.

ROBERTS: Everyone is looking around.

BEHAR: The dog- Max is in trouble. They send him to obedience school, okay? When he’s in obedience school is when he becomes Barack. He becomes a community organizer. And he organizes the big dogs around the little dogs. ‘Cause at first, the big dogs, also known as the Republicans, don’t like him. See? And so, he finds ways, pragmatically, to help the big dogs.

ROBERTS: Uh-huh.

BEHAR: They can reach itches for them. They can go underneath to get to spots. They can scare the cats away. And so, he becomes popular. And everybody loves each other.

ROBERTS: It’s all about change.

BEHAR: It’s all about pragmatism and change, and trying to find a solution in your situation, which is Barack Obama. Isn’t that- How did I jump to that? Pretty good? That’s- All because of SheetzuCacaPoopoo.

Video behind the link.

I think the most surreal part of this is the thing about “and everybody loves each other.” Barack Obama is all about making everybody love each other? How’s that working out lately?

I’ve been wondering this about liberals since long, long before Barack Obama ever hit the scene. The vision is that everybody is supposed to love each other — and to get there, we’re going to demonize people! Dick Cheney, Dick Nixon, Sarah Palin, Israel, coal fired plants, men who teach their sons how to be real men, men who eat meat, men who own and fire guns, fathers who care about their families, executives who receive bonuses, oil and gas companies, people who wear fur (who aren’t Hollywood actresses), EY-VIL COR-POR-RAY-SHUNS (that don’t make movies), people who fly in jet planes (who aren’t actors), Christians, mothers who teach their children to respect their husbands, mothers who decide not to abort, mothers who decide to stay at home and raise the children, mothers who home-school…

There’s always a hit-list. More like a hate-list. It’s a means to an end of getting everybody to love each other.

In what way is this really the goal of liberals? Joy Behar is not the first one to pay this vision some kind of lip service, and she won’t be the last. I think down to some level, the average liberal really does believe in it. But it takes so little to end up in their cross-hairs. Just living your own life the way you want to, is enough to do it. Leaving your coffee pot plugged in when you aren’t using it! That’s a misdemeanor on Planet Liberal now.

In the long history of people who’ve nurtured that dream of everyone else learning to love each other…liberals have a longer list of pet peeves, than any of ’em. Especially liberals like Joy. I think she has a profile of criteria for people being acceptable, that she doesn’t want to admit she has. She wants to live in a tiny, tiny world filled with people who are exactly like her, and she doesn’t want to admit to herself that this is what she really wants. I think that’s what’s going on with her, and with people like her. I think. Figuring this out, is a real work-in-progress for me. And I don’t think I’m ever going to get there.

Yeah, I like.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know, we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but, sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot, and will not ever agree on what is right, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences, and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.)

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s, and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks, and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security. We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everyone health care, if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum By Ya, or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickle down economics, and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you we’ll keep our history, our name, and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots, and if you do not agree, just hit delete.

In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall.
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda.

It won’t happen. But who’s gonna stop it? If liberals really believe the nonsense that comes out of their mouths sometimes…none of them. So float it and see what happens.

King Solomon would approve, no doubt.

A friend (leaning somewhat left) sent me an e-mail poking fun about our presence in Iraq. I sent back a smartass reply that Hillary Clinton owes the public an explanation, since she voted for it. I got back a smackdown to the effect of just once, could I please lay off the politics, sheesh.

My mistake. She wanted to joke about our going into Iraq, without getting into politics. You know, I strongly doubt the response would have been the same if I made a joke about smirking cowboys and choking on pretzels.

It got me to thinking about a audio clip I heard from last year, I can’t remember if it was Letterman, Stewart or Leno. Some joke about one of the Republican candidates…Huckabee, maybe…followed up with some kind of jab at Hillary. The crowd was guffawing with the best horse laugh you ever heard at the joke that came at the Republicans’ expense, and managed to whiplash into an indignant “Ooooh!” when the Hillary punchline came along.

You can find that ominous, tragic or funny in its own way — personally, I find it qualifies for all three. If you find it funny, then you have a surreal situation in which the audience’s reaction yields a far more noteworthy occasion for humor than anything that was scripted.

That’s my “D’JEver Notice?” moment for this week…nothing impressive. It just seems whether Republicans are running things, or those other guys, we always have this social protocol in place. “Everyone” is ready to talk about politics, for as long as anyone wants, provided it is laced with humor, and the humor comes at the expense of the Republicans. When the tables turn, it’s all geez, everyone’s sick of this, fer chrissakes would you move on already.

And if it’s a conversation that causes enough bad feeling to merit recollection later, people recall it as if the Republican started it. Pretty freakin’ scary when you think about all the performance reviews being drawn up out there in corporate-land, about this-guy or that-guy who “votes Republican” and “keeps bringing up politics” and “won’t let it go” and “makes jokes those around him don’t necessarily appreciate.” Question: Why the thin skins? Did Republicans win an election somewhere while I was snoozing? Last I checked, they’d been thoroughly marginalized. In 2009, someone who makes decisions that count, is a democrat, no ifs-ands-or-buts. Good manners means never saying anything snarky about ’em, even if someone comes along and specifically asks your opinion?

I know exactly what this reminds me of. Recess on the playground in third-or-fourth grade, boys and girls playing with each other, and the girls wanting to play rough. So the boys accommodate, and — Ooh! That hurt! You hurt me! Wah!

Someone’s not having an easy time adjusting to their own folks running the show, I think. They still want to define “having a rational discussion about politics” as “speaking truth to power,” and they still want to define the last of those as “recycling some jokes about George W. Bush & crew.” Any “discussion of politics” outside of that is anti-social, perhaps symptomatic of anger management issues on your part…we may not have too much longer to wait before it’s a hate crime.

Yet these people are running everything now.

How much more persistent can those feelings of insecurity possibly be?