Archive for the ‘Deranged Leftists’ Category

The God Debate

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

Twits on Twitter twit it out. Clouthier points to it.

My thoughts:

Belief in nothing is belief in something: Yes, of course it is. This poor fellow who likens it to a non-sports fan being a sports fan, has missed the point. There is stuff. It is here. If you choose not to believe in a deity, you have to explain how all the stuff got here…unless, of course, you don’t. In which case you’re just being incurious, which pretty much renders your beliefs or lack thereof entirely irrelevant.

Founding fathers were (mostly) deist: I doubt it. I doubt it not because I have evidence they were not, but because I hear so much that “most” or “all” of them were, and when it comes time to make a list I hear the same small handful of names recycled over and over again. With lots of passion, and personal ego investment. These are red flags for me, when they arrive without too much hard data. Another thing — this was pre-Darwin, and the term “deist” had a far different meaning from what it has now. That’s a point that doesn’t get mentioned very much at all, and it really should, especially if you buy into the (not articulated outright) idea that all the gentlemen who signed the Declaration of Independence were deists.

“In order for someone to discover they must first be open to discovery.” Beautiful. Says it all. And you’ll never convince me otherwise.

Mr. Right Goes Nuts

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

Conservathink opened up the floor to some discussion about who might be the “Douchebag of the Year” for 2008. And Mr. Right commenter #2 (and 3), went stark-raving ballistic.

Dude makes some great points.

The entire MSM for the year-long mass Obama-orgasm masquerading as election coverage. Special mention to all on MSNBC, Keith Olbermoron and Chrissy “Tingle” Matthews in particular! I mean, come on, are they even bothering to pretend anymore???

Andy “Trig Troofer” Sullivan

Rod Blagojevich (Being from Illinois, I am just so, so proud!)

Al Franken, MN Secy of State Mark Ritchie, and anyone even remotely involved in the latest in a long, long line of statistically impossible “recounts” that is, as always, miraculously turning another Dem loss into a Dem win. Gee, what a shock!

Al Gore & the anthropocentric global warming farce brigade. Where’s my global warming, Al? The North Pole will melt in 5 years??? Really? Is that a promise? What drugs is this guy on? Seriously!

Former Ohio Dept of Jobs and Family Services Director Helen Jones-Kelley and everyone else involved in illegally digging for dirt on Joe the Plumber! Welcome to the Soviet Union, Comrade! Guess speaking truth to power is only for liberals attacking Republicans, huh?

Rev. Jeremiah “God D–n, America” Wright

Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn

ACORN

Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and all the Dems who helped Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae destroy the economy by giving loans to people who could never afford to repay them in the name of “fairness” and “social justice,” with a lot of kickbacks and campaign contributions for them and their friends thrown in as an entirely unrelated side-bonus. Oh, and throw in all the fat-cat CEO’s and profiteers that tried to cash in and then fiddled while Wall Street burned.

The big 3 US auto-makers and the a**holes at the UAW. Bail this out, you sub-morons!

Bush and Paulson can get in on this, too, for the trillion dollar kick in the groin of the American taxpayer! Up yours!!!

He promised more as he thought of them, and did indeed come back to deliver a second batch. I thought this first helping was far superior, though.

These nominations associated with the bailout, I’d submit under one big umbrella that I might call “Those Who Purport To Save Capitalism By Destroying It.” Regretfully, under that umbrella, I’d have to include all of us. For any occasion upon which —

a. Our politicians water down capitalism by mixing it in with marxist social programs;
b. Because of the incompatible mixing, people get shafted when they otherwise wouldn’t;
c. Some hotshot left-winger makes a speech or produces a movie, saying capitalism is to blame;
d. We fall for it.

Happens way too often.

The elections are too important to us, and we spend too much time thinking about them. I have this feeling of self-revulsion every time I babble away about them here, at The Blog That Nobody Reads — although, in my defense, by the time things have progressed to that point I have very little choice in the matter. I mean really. What should I pay attention to, a bunch of assholes flushing $700 billion of my money down a toilet? Or a fifty-cent ATM fee? Or that Simon Cowell is a jackass and Paula Abdul can’t string together a coherent sentence? Really, where should my fixation be, logically?

I see 2008 was, in many respects, a stronger reverberation of 2004. Back then we had a liberal democrat with no talent and nothing to offer, campaign to become our next President solely on the qualification that he was not George Bush. That didn’t work out, so in our surreal, illogical universe, the next time at-bat the liberal democrats tried exactly the same strategy. In fact, they discussed even less the seemingly staple topic of what their contender would be able to do once elected, and what he indeed would do. And this time it worked great. Possibly because those liberal democrats who constantly insist state matters should not be intermixed with religion, started offering up the idea that their candidate was some kind of Holy Messiah, incarnated upon this earthly plane to deliver us from evil.

Also in 2004, a bunch of wandering minstrels sought to convince us the earth was heating up to the point where it would no longer be able to support life, and it was all our fault. In 2008 they kept at it, and this time really made a bunch of fools out of themselves as things got downright chilly, from Martin Luther King Day all the way through Christmas. Finally, exasperated, they explained to us that when things get cooler, that’s scientific evidence that things are getting warmer. Those among us who cast votes based on this critical issue, decided, somehow, that that was pretty convincing.

Sarah Palin. Where to begin. All the vile bile that comes her way, if you were just visiting Earth right about now, you’d swear on your alien grandmother’s grave that she must have won.

In all the real life on this little rock in space I’ve been privileged to see over the years — I have never, ever, not once, seen a bunch of sore winners, win so resoundingly at something, and remain so sore. If I could somehow measure it, i think they’ve managed to match up with their December 2000 angst, anger and peevishness; I really do. It is truly a “How The Grinch Stole Christmas” situation. It’s up to those Republican Whos Down In Whoville, to teach that liberal Grinch how to be pleased with something on Christmas morning, even though he just got done stealing all their stuff.

You Know…

Monday, December 29th, 2008

I hope this airhead causes a complete avalanche effect when she finally falls down for good.

I have no beef with Caroline Kennedy. But she represents a political class that is high on my list of peeves. The elitist twit. Don’t know nuthin’ about nuthin’, and here’s this microphone sticking in my face, no problem I’ll just reach in my grab bag of focus-group phrases. Constitution, healthcare, torture, listening to my constituents, incredible opportunity, work twice as hard as anybody else, public service…y’know, y’know, y’know.

Hillary’s got some of this going on, too. Neither woman is known for even pretending to have any new ideas. It’s just a lot of “work”; everyone already agrees on how it should be done, y’know, it’s just like a big ol’ washboard in the Senate with a big pile of dirty clothes that have to be run across it, or a barrel of butter that has to be churned, or any other piece of housework. Yeah, housework.

What is it about being one of these strong-willed liberated left-wing politician females? You’re supposed to be a walking paradigm shift. But they’re the very last public figures to whom you can turn, to get a paradigm shift. It’s like your mother opening up the floor for discussion about how the clothes should be folded — never happens. She just folds the damn clothes. I see it in the older ones too. I write to Dianne Feinstein asking her what the prospects might be for her to change her position on issue xxx, and I get back a boilerplate “Thank you for asking about Sen. Feinstein’s position. Her opinion is…” Yeah. She’ll get back to me on what opinion I’m supposed to have, after the people whose names are filed in that very special section of her rolodex, tell her.

How much would it advance the cause of womens’ liberation — whatever still remains to be done — if, just a bit more often, a famous, powerful, high-profile woman said “there is a common misconception that we need to do X; these are the reasons I think we need to do Y instead.” In other words, argue — like a man. Break away from this whole “y’know” thing…stop pretending that we all agree on what needs to be done, and we’re just waiting for someone powerful and female to do the “work,” like little boys waiting for their mommas to wash the urine-soaked bedsheets.

Feminists should be the very first in line complaining about this. It reinforces the idea that if you want to have a reasoned discussion about what we really know, what might really be going on, and what to do about it, you have to turn to the men; women are just there to do grunt work after everybody’s come to the same conclusion that the dog vomit should really, y’know, sometime today, get cleaned off that rug.

I’m supposed to cringe in proxy embarrassment when Gov. Palin points out that Alaska and Russia are close together. Y’know? Who decided that, y’know? At least Alaska’s Governor has a track record for figuring out for herself what needs doing, and making a decision about how to get it done, when there are some very powerful people who don’t want it done. Standing up for something. Disagreeing. Fighting. Like men do.

Hat tip: Cuffy, via Gerard.

Man Gives up Daughter for BDS

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Or, to be more precise about it, to advertise the fact that he has a case of it…

Is there anybody, anywhere, who hates George W. Bush quietly?

An Egyptian man said on Wednesday he was offering his 20-year-old daughter in marriage to Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi, who threw his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush in Baghdad on Sunday,

The daughter, Amal Saad Gumaa, said she agreed with the idea. “This is something that would honor me. I would like to live in Iraq, especially if I were attached to this hero,” she told Reuters by telephone.

Her father, Saad Gumaa, said he had called Dergham, Zaidi’s brother, to tell him of the offer. “I find nothing more valuable than my daughter to offer to him, and I am prepared to provide her with everything needed for marriage,” he added.

Everybody hates George W. Bush. They don’t all agree on the reasons why, I’ve noticed. Seriously. There are a lot of people who hate him, but they don’t all say Iraq is the cause. Some say it’s his smirk and his swagger. Some say it’s his pro-life position. Some talk about vacations at his ranch, clearing away brush. Although, remarkably, there never seems to be any dispute about what exactly his offense is, no passion at all in defining it…only in articulating that he has committed one.

I found the last six words of one of the closing paragraphs telling…

Zaidi’s gesture has struck a chord across the Arab world, where President Bush is widely despised for invading Iraq in 2003 and for his support for Israel. [emphasis mine]

Zowee.

Just imagine, for a moment, if there was widespread resentment against incoming left-winger liberal Presidential Messiah Figure Barack Holy Obama…and this resentment could be linked, however tangentially, to passions antisemitic in nature. How much would we hear about that?

Well, don’t imagine. Such resentments are there, and they’re already linked tangentially to feelings of white supremacy. We don’t need to wonder how much we’d hear about it. We know. The difference is, criticism against His Holiness The Annointed One, Higher Being Lightworker Obama, is never legitimized in the international press. Even when it’s benign, when it’s simple common sense, like “Der, you know, maybe the bandwagon Obama movement can wait until He tells us what exactly He intends to do about issue xxx once He is sworn into office.”

Conversely, this delusional fellow seems to be ready to give away his daughter for the sake of reaching out to other folks in the arab world who hate jews, and saying to them, “Here I am, I’m just like you.” That’s the way it works within America’s borders, by the way. If you hate Bush, you have to say so, the louder the better, so you can find others who hate him just like you do.

If Bush hatred was truly universal this wouldn’t be necessary. Everyone with a working mind hates, for example, being hungry. That is universal. There’s no need to say you hate being hungry. We take it for granted. So no one feels a need to advertise this, because there’s no fellowship to be built.

At the other extreme end of the spectrum, we would have…the desire to restore the Nazi movement? I’m told there are some skinhead kooks out there somewhere. Clearly, according to our modern sensibilities, they’re out of the mainstream. And so I imagine if you had these kinds of feelings, you would “advertise” them but as carefully and selectively as you can, and once you were fortunate enough to find someone of like mind, you would cherish their companionship. Because most people aren’t like you two.

This is why the effort to legitimize Bush hatred, as if it’s something mainstream, by advertising it at every possible opportunity, strikes me as particularly ludicrous. Me, I personally loathe lots of things. I loathe #34 on this list here with a passion. I have no desire to find other people who hate it as well, nor to make sure others know how much I hate it, nor do I care how many other people share my loathing of it. It’s something that inspires neither pride nor shame; it simply is.

I’m not at all surprised to find hatred of Israel is linked to hatred of George W. Bush. The advertising, the passionate search for others of like mind, gives this away. This bumptious pride that is revealed, once the layers are peeled away, to be nothing but shame. This is an anger people know, deep down, that they should not have, even across countries and religions. It is a hatred of other people not for what they have done, but for what they are. It’s just like the hatred of the modern skinheads, giving their secret signals to each other, trying to link up so they can keep on hating. Irrationally. Since the thought comes too quickly, to someone in solitude, that perhaps this isn’t a good hatred to have. It’s a heavy, cumbersome, awkward burden that requires many hands to lift — because it makes little or no sense, and those who have it, know it.

I Agree With #58, #34 and #11

Saturday, December 27th, 2008

But I’m not going to do too much agreeing, because these folks found over 60 “people who deserve it” — and not a single one of them was a liberal.

Let me repeat that.

Turn off any and all ideological preferences you might have. Any. All. For just fifteen seconds.

There were no liberals on the list. No liberals have anything coming.

Think about Al Franken. Think about the other Al. Think about Alec Baldwin. Larry King. Tom Leykis. Sarah Silverman. Jesse Jackson. Madonna. Rosie. Hillary. Bill. Rahm. No annoying liberals at all. Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Sarah Palin made the cut. Okee dokee…any-way…58, 34 and 11 still get a big thumbs-up from me. I’m down with ya, you overly-cutesy, left-wing liberal “our side can do no wrong” attention whores.

Update: Keep complaints to myself? Never. Offered under the Submit A Punch page:

People who expect you to listen to their phone messages before you call them back, even though they never say anything on said messages beyond “Hey gimme a call back, bye.” Punch.

People who ask you to fix something on their computer, and then keep sitting in front of it, not even so much as leaning one direction or the other, blocking your access to the keyboard with their gelatinous forms. Punch.

Liberal “activist” movie actors. There’s hundreds of ‘em. I’m sure you can think of one or two that are more annoying than Hasselbeck. If you can’t, your entire list is crap. And you get the punch.

Speaking of that, female movie actresses who are thought of by women as being beautiful, pretty, gorgeous, attractive or sexy. And should therefore outrank everyone else on a man’s list of sexy women. It’s not the actress’ fault, but it still makes them annoying. Jane Seymour. Andie MacDowell. Jennifer Connelly. Julia Roberts. Punch.

The ugly girlfriend. You know what I’m talking about. There’s a pretty girl, you see her, she sees you, you’re interested in her, she seems to be interested in you…she’s not there with a guy, but she IS there with an ugly girlfriend. And the ugly girlfriend wants to go HOOOOOME NOOOOOW!!! Punch.

Public service announcements…and television commercials from LDS, and others…telling me how to raise kids. “Teach ‘em about similarities, not differences.” The message may be a good one. Trying to grasp control over how total strangers raise their kids, even for the sake of promulgating a good message, is not a good thing. It is a bad thing, a very bad thing. Especially when it’s done with taxpayer dollars. Punch.

Speaking of which — I’d really like to punch any one of a number of people who have speeches to offer that have something to do with “we are all connected.” If you’re not treating that as some kind of a problem, for which you’re going to propose a solution (and I have yet to hear anyone take that conversation there), you get a punch. Because these people don’t see us as equals all tied together…they see themselves, and their pals, as deciding where we’re all going to go, and the rest of us as following along. Recycle, because we are all connected. Get involved with my movement, because we are all connected. Donate to my program because we are all connected. Well no, we’re not, and you’re just a busybody who wants to recruit people to your pet project. In all likelihood, you’re promoting something to do with “diversity” even though you can’t stand the idea of some total stranger doing things different than the way you’d do them, and you’re completely tone-deaf to the irony. Punch.

Update: Aw dang…you realize what everyone seems to have forgotten, is people with loud mobile things. Realize where I’m going with this, here — the loud things are mobile, because if they were stationary, their owners would get the vicious nostril-tearing facial flattening they so vigorously deserve.

And you know which two I mean: 1) The Hawg, trying its level best to use that famous Harley-Davidson shock wave to shatter bedroom windows and set off car alarms; and 2) the asshole with his convertible’s stereo tuned to j-u-s-t the right frequency to make your eardrums throb in horrible pain, cranked up to the max, at, of course, the red traffic light that refuses to turn green.

Facial trauma is way too good for ’em. This kind of offense calls for something testicular.

“Lefties Just Don’t Have the Same Feeling About America as the Hard Right Does”

Friday, December 26th, 2008

I don’t have the same feelings about my girlfriend as her last boyfriend did. I don’t love her. Sure, I claim to, because I seek to improve her by pointing out her flaws. That schmuck she dumped, he used to say a bunch of nonsense like she was the “greatest, best woman God has ever given man on the face of the earth.” Loser. One of the surest signs of love is it makes you talk stupid.

That language seems pretty harsh when you use it to talk about the love between men and women, doesn’t it? Joel Stein seems to think so; he concedes as much in the very last sentence of this love-without-loving screed of his. Up to that point, however, he’s perfectly clear on the idea that this is exactly the kind of sentiment a “nuanced” individual should have toward his country.

I don’t love America. That’s what conservatives are always telling liberals like me. Their love, they insist, is truer, deeper and more complete. Then liberals, like all people who are accused of not loving something, stammer, get defensive and try to have sex with America even though America will then accuse us of wanting it for its body and not its soul. When America gets like that, there’s no winning.

But I’ve come to believe conservatives are right. They do love America more. Sure, we liberals claim that our love is deeper because we seek to improve the United States by pointing out its flaws. But calling your wife fat isn’t love. True love is the blind belief that your child is the smartest, cutest, most charming person in the world, one you would gladly die for. I’m more in “like” with my country.

Fox News’ Sean Hannity loves this country so much, he did an entire episode of “Hannity’s America” titled “The Greatest Nation on Earth.” In that one hour he said, several times, “the U.S. is the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth.” One of the surest signs of love is it makes you talk stupid.

If Joel Stein doesn’t feel love, there must be another thing or two that can make you talk stupid. That or he comes by it naturally.

I owe Stein a debt of thanks for introducing me, indirectly, to Gerard Van der Leun when the latter saw fit to critique the speaking style of the former, nearly three years ago, in one of the best essays I’ve ever read: The Voice of the Neuter is Heard Throught the Land. What’s it about? It’s about how some thirty-ish adults nowadays talk with this tone of voice that inserts a residue of question, however thin it may be, into phonic pronouncements about everthing, even things that contain no question. With such a dizzying consistency that nothing is ever pronounced.

Audibly.

But as you can see from Stein’s writing, he finds refuge in the pen. In this forum, he can pretend to be more than certain about things — even about the evils of certainty. I hope you click on through to Gerard’s website, and then to Hugh Hewitt’s, and then crank your speakers so you can listen to the vocal Joel Stein. That’s quite a different character, one constantly striving to show a charming paralysis-by-analysis in every little thing he says, or asks…and succeeding only in propping up a nauseating, foppish sort of formlessness, sort of an intellectual variant of structurally vacant, gelatinous goo. He seems to be unaware of his own internal contradiction: If nothing is allowed to stand as an absolute or as a certainty, then there is a problem, for that in itself is an absolute and a certainty.

That’s a conundrum. It produces such a devastating handicap, that all decisions made in its presence, may arrive at a beneficial conclusion only by random chance.

I don’t know what kind of progress Stein has had in resolving it; therefore, I don’t know what his other opinions could be worth. I’m not sure his employers or his readers have figured it out either.

Hat tip: Cassy.

Oh and let the record show that I’m crazy about my girlfriend. I cherish the day I met her, and I feel exactly the same way about my country. But…if I were afflicted with this kwestion-kurse, to such an extent that every sentence that escaped my lips had that annoying tonal quality of dro…ning…ques…tion…? at the end of it, and I’d completely lost my readiness, willingness and ability to state absolutes and fasten my name to them — some kind of gelded senile-dementia for thirty-year-olds — I wouldn’t be blaming it on her.

Update: Oh, dear. The audio of that wonderful interview has fallen into an innerwebs-hole. We shall have to roll up our sleeves, in the hours or days ahead, and see if we can produce it again.

In the meantime, what a glorious relief that must be, however temporary, to Mr. Stein. So long as he stays away from any stray microphones, he can scribble and scribble away, and pretend to be sure of what he’s talking about.

Best Sentence LII

Thursday, December 25th, 2008

The fifty-second Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL) award goes out this Christmas Morning to The People’s Cube, for some commentary that went up a couple months ago about democrats and sex.

It, in turn, was inspired by this website over here (warning, main page includes a YouTube clip that plays automatically…just in case the left wing hadn’t done enough, already, to put a damper on your yuletide spirits).

Same ol’ bullshit. You join a movement of attractive young folks who’ve signed a pact to not have sex with anyone who votes Republican. You know what a pact is, right? It’s something a group of people agree to do with regard to future events, no matter how their individual common sense, personal beliefs, or preference at the point of decision may have otherwise motivated them. In other words, it is a triumph of the past over the future, of group-think over individual thought, of dogma over…choice.

None of which is inherently bad.

But to do such a thing to support “choice,” amuses us in a dark, sad, ironic kind of way.

Anyway — what with Tina Fey being named Entertainer of the Year by the Associated Press, for ” ma[king] us think about what was going on,” according to one editor, People’s Cube said something we thought was apropos. Tina Fey, you see, didn’t earn her award by making people think about what was going on. She earned it by making people think a lot of bullshit about what was going on. Among other things Gov. Palin never, ever said, not even once, was “I can see Russia from my house,” even though millions of people who voted last month, are convinced she did. Therein lies the power of humor. Such power reaches its peak when humor ceases to be humor. When it interjects fantasy, while pretending to emulate reality, which is the way more decent parody works.

This is why I had to flip around the website linked above to figure out of it was serious or not. And flip. And flip.

Because some ideas don’t look sensible, until you combine politics with sex. Or combine politics with humor.

Which means they aren’t sensible. It has to mean that; it can’t mean anything else.

Like in public school, to be accepted one must conform or be ostracized. But in the worlds of politics, government and media, right of center “nonconformity” can bring serious consequences.

Humor, for leftists, is strictly a means of reinforcing conformity – a tool to ridicule, demean and demote those not of the Party (much like chickens will peck a sickly or ‘different’ chicken to death). [emphasis mine]

Just something to ponder in 2009…nothing more. Just something very well said.

The Cube went on to put together this video, which offers a much more honest form of parody. The kind that demonstrates the ludicrous nature of the target by intermingling it with truth — not fiction.

Well done.

Clean Friends

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

Fellow Right Wing News contributor Robert Stacy McCain has a excellent dissection up on The American Spectator of the latest meme zipping around that sacred oracle of wholesomeness and wisdom that is the Huffington Post. One Geoffrey Dunn, who claims to be the father of a special-needs child, bitterly resents Sarah Palin for having once offered to represent special-needs families in the White House. And that she’s pro-life. And that he’s found a few unfortunate comments on some right-wing web sites, which he’d like to fasten to her good name.

I’m not entirely clear which among these three he finds most atrocious.

There is something very ugly happening out there in the hinterlands these days–a brewing cauldron of racist anger being directed at President-elect Barack Obama as he and his family get ready to move into the White House. It’s a mean-spirited bigotry that is finding its way onto the internet and right-wing blogs across the country. It makes for a troubling portrait of a significant cross-section of the American polity as Obama prepares to take the oath of office as the 44th President of these United States.

Nowhere have these tendencies been more out-front and prominent than at TeamSarah.org, a website organized by “a coalition of women dedicated to advancing the values that Sarah Palin represents in the political process.” Men, according to an exclamatory notice, are welcome, too.

As “The Other McCain” points out, to associate the phenomenon of pinheaded racism with Sarah Palin is a decent example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which, upon observing a notable event, a prior event is arbitrarily singled out as a definitive cause. In this case, Gov. Palin’s selection as John McCain’s running mate on August 29 of this year did something to racism; re-established it, created it, “crystalized” it in some way.

As McCain points out,

This accusation of “mean-spirited bigotry” was based on a relative handful of comments, far less dramatic than the huffy HuffPoster’s hyperbolic introduction suggested. The Christian ladies who run Team Sarah — Marjorie Dannenfelser, Jane Abraham and Emily Buchanan of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List — responded immediately with sanctions against commenters who cross the lines of political decorum. (Of course, decorum is not even an afterthought at Huffington Post, DailyKos or any number of liberal blogs where the comment fields routinely boil with vitriol, but conservatives have long since become accustomed to this sort of double standard.)

I’m not the least bit alarmed that Mr. Dunn can find these comments on a pro-Palin website. That is not to say I approve of the comments; it’s just that there is a hard limit to how forcefully a handful of comments can reflect on a given website. It’s a pretty weak connection. And they certainly don’t reflect negatively on Gov. Palin herself.

Actually, what alarms me far more, here, are the people responding to Mr. Dunn’s article in his comment section. “spiderbucket” did the best job of capturing the prevailing sentiment, I thought:

Look, it’s simply us or them now and we have to stamp them out before they do some wacko McVeigh crap that we all know they are fully capable of.

How many mental illnesses can you spot here? I see two, at least. There’s the “I’m here to promote tolerance and acceptance and I will destroy anyone who gets in my way.”

The other one is even more disturbing than that…it has nothing to do with being a lefty. It concerns me because I know it is an error made by many.

It’s the notion that, if you’re choosey enough about your ideology, you can take up a position on the spectrum that is so clean you can eat off it.

No pinheadedness, no sexism, no racism, no…disagreement?

Do people really believe in this? There’s no shortage of rhetoric being tossed out to this effect — “I voted for Obama, those Republicans are so full of hate.” What is that, exactly? Recruiting propaganda, or do people really believe in it?

I’m not talking about believing in those ugly comments. They exist. The record is out there. It’s what they’re supposed to prove. This is worse than post hoc ergo propter hoc. People who support that guy, over there, have been known to be racists…just like some people who support (name the candidate) have been known to eat their own bodily waste. You can find someone somewhere who believes in just about anything — but nevermind that. I’ll just scootch over to some other spot on the spectrum, like a dog wiping its ass on the carpet, support another candidate…

…and all my friends who support the same candidate, sharing my new spot with me, will be cleeeeeaaaannnnnn.

I don’t think people really believe this. At least the ones who do, are justifying their decisions after-the-fact, acting on feelings — not really “believing” much of anything, intellectually. I’m sure of this. I mean, how often has the following conversation been repeated…

Obama Supporter: I’m voting for Obama. There’s a lot of racist ugliness in that Republican party over there.

McCain Supporter: Yeah, some McCain supporters are registered democrats who were supporting Hillary until Obama won the nomination, then switched. What does that say?

Obama Supporter: Uh…look! Bright shiny object! Hope! Change!

If you know of any discussion beginning like that, and then proceeding into an honest exchange of ideas instead of the uncomfortable and sudden change-of-subject, do let me know in the comment section. So far as I know, wherever that discourse signature has existed, the train-of-thought has been abandoned. Hastily. At the instigation of, and for the benefit of, the Obama supporter.

So there’s this drive to find a spot on the ideological spectrum, either sanitized, or clean by its very nature, filled with wonderful people and completely devoid of any ugly thoughts. It is theatrical in nature. I don’t think anyone really believes in it.

But theatrics can be dangerous. The weak-minded among us have a way of gradually starting to believe the bullshit that comes out of their mouths when they’re trying to recruit others. And the bullshit has to do with being able to conclude things about a person’s character, based on his political affiliation.

There’s a lot more of that on the left than on the right. I don’t think that can be up for serious question or debate, at this point. I will concede this much: Tighty-righties jump to conclusions about the intellectual acumen, or lack thereof…the personal commitment to logic and common sense, or lack thereof, of people who declare their allegiance to left-wing politics. That might seem like the same thing. It isn’t. Lefty-loosies, on the other hand, have been known to come to conclusions, en masse, about right-wing people being bad. Bad beyond any point of redemption. Down to the marrow of their bones. Tatooed head-to-toe to show their devotion to the Dark Side of the Force, like Darth Maul. How can we not be evil? We want to deny medical coverage to doe-eyed one-legged toddlers whose lungs have been replaced with llama bladders, who want to live to their sixth birthdays so they can sell off their favorite presents to fight global warming and find a cure for AIDS.

To oppose all that, we must be terrible.

“Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.” — Larry Elder

This is bound to be a big problem in 2009. Now that The Chosen One has been elected, those of us who supported the other guy have defined an entirely new level of wrong-ness. An indispensible part of every revolution, after all, is to sweep away the remnants of those who opposed it. Our opinions have been “shown” to be un-American…in a way we were never allowed to call the hard-core left-winger’s beliefs, when they were the loyal opposition. Our vote against Obama is like a beacon. “Here Be Racism.”

What kind of person is open to the idea that if he selects his political beliefs only in satisfaction of a single goal, of choosing the right friends — he is guaranteed to have clean, decent friends?

The kind of person who is inexperienced in the situation where he would have decent friends.

What kind of person says we need more tolerance and understanding, and if you disagree I’ll crush you beneath my boot?

The kind of person who goes through the motions of creating, but lives every moment of his life to destroy things.

What kind of person says Sarah Palin is no friend to special-needs families, even though her family is one? What kind of person says she isn’t a “real” feminist, even though she is, undisputably, a woman?

The kind of person who tells himself a lie, every single day, that he wants us “all” to be “unified,” when in reality such a sense of unity would be the very last thing he wants to see.

Yeah, we’re in the middle of something ugly all right. And we haven’t seen the last of it by any stretch. But it isn’t coming from Sarah Palin’s supporters…not the bulk of it, anyhow.

The Cheapskate Liberal Trend…Continues

Monday, December 22nd, 2008

Via Rick, we learn of Nicholas Kristoff’s latest column, which isn’t news at all…the findings have been found, many times before.

And for reasons I shall explain later, it will continue to be this way.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

Hmm, gee. I haven’t tried to cut health insurance for children lately, how ’bout you? Cut requirements to provide health insurance, maybe. Fight efforts to abuse and thwart the free market, perhaps. But no, if you come to me with news that somewhere, somehow, there’s a child who is horrendously covered with health insurance, I’m not going to go nuts and mobilize to try to get the child un-covered.

This is a common confusion — the one between the helping of people…and the eradication of choice in doing that.

Kristoff doesn’t understand this, I don’t think, but he’s done a great job of defining exactly what our modern liberalism is trying to do. It is a round-robin exercise. See, you may be a decent fellow, but your decency, as of now, is unproven…so you prove what a decent human being you are, by coming together to help pass legislation to force programs down the throats of others, your neighbors, and yourself. Which raises the minimal requirements up to the level of decency you’re performing. Which, in turn…leaves it unproven whether you’re a decent person or not.

What’s it all about? It’s about Thing I Know #32:

There are a lot of people walking around among us who like to re-define the baseline obligations carried by others, particularly toward them, simply because they find it painful to say “thank you”.

They find it painful.

They find it frightening. Beyond measure.

And anyone with any experience in human relations at all, has at one time or another met someone like this. The law requires you to give him a cup of sugar. You give him two. He mumbles not a single word of gratitude, just something about how you were s’poseda do that anyway, and instead lobbies for a new law requiring you to give him two cups.

People like me are genuinely grateful toward the men and women serving in our armed forces, and regularly say positive things about how much it means that they’re in Afghanistan and Iraq, doing the work that they do. But people like me, did not serve; and so you haven’t long to wait before a liberal goo-gooder anti-war loudmouth calls us “chickenhawks.” To which, if we deign to rejoin, we produce all manner of perfectly sensible arguments. My favorite is that if you can’t appreciate the work done by the armed forces unless you’ve served, then you can’t appreciate anything anybody does unless you’ve personally acquired a history of actually doing it. So I shouldn’t even be typing this unless I’ve spent a chunk of my life building keyboards. You shouldn’t be reading it unless it’s listed in your resume that you’ve built monitors, or printers.

Now, people like me, when the time comes for our liberals to clamor for higher taxes or more lavish (mandatory) health care plans…like to ask the snarky question…after you’ve settled your bill with the IRS, Mister Liberal, how much extra do you pay out to the Department of the Treasury? Since it is of such a vexing concern to you that the public debt is snowballing under FaPoBuAd (failed policies of the Bush administration)? What check number was that, and more importantly, how big was it?

To which, if liberal and non-liberal were symmetrical, one would expect we’d get a solid answer or two.

Or at least a coherent argument why we shouldn’t be asking.

A well-thought-out rhetorical question, perhaps?

No, in response to that, we don’t get jack squat.

That’s because being a liberal isn’t about raising revenues to meet expenses. Or covering children with healthcare plans, or raising them to some standard of living, or even a relative one, improved over their status quo by a notch or two. It isn’t about feeding people. It isn’t about retirement plans. It isn’t about a humble foreign policy, earning respect around the world, getting rid of all these guns lying around, womens’ choice, womens’ dignity, getting Christopher Reeve outta that wheelchair, nuanced thinking, making Europe like us moar better, finding cures to AIDS, curing the planet’s global warming fever, tolerating people of different skin colors or sexual preferences or religious creeds.

It’s about the eradication of choice.

It’s about that, because some people find it horrifying to be put in the position of having to thank someone. For something that other person did, that they weren’t being forced to do.

Mr. Kristoff, those studies will continue to turn out the way they always have. For as long as your fingers can type away at something, for as long as mine can, until these fingers have withered away to bone and then to dust. It is a timeless human flaw — some of us have the capacity to be genuinely grateful, while others, because of their upbringing or inner demons, are missing this.

They want baseline obligations to be adjusted, so they’re never put in the position of having to say thanks. And meaning it. It’s too frightening for them.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Gov. Palin Never Gave an Answer Like This…

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

and neither did Fred Thompson.

We’re Palin/Thompson fans here, so if this doesn’t score some heap-big huge demerits against Lady Kennedy, we’re gonna be pissed.

But who’m I kidding. Some people just aren’t s’poseda be embarrassed, so I’ll probably just end up pissed.

How to Keep Socialism Out of the Nursery

Monday, December 15th, 2008

…which, like a fungus designed to dwell in a mucus lining, is where it has always wanted to thrive

Scott from North Carolina is concerned with the radical views of his students:

Dr. Helen:

I’m a middle/high school teacher, of a social-libertarian, economic-conservative bent. All the talk about indoctrination of kids is extraordinarily true. I have kids pass through my class with some of the most insane, Kos-style concepts running through their heads, really doctrinaire hard-liberal stuff. It only got more blatant as the election wore on (and on, and on). I subbed for a fourth grade class in which a girl trotted out the “Bush caused 9/11″ bit. Are you kidding me?

What can I do to help counter this? I’d like to avoid a whole new generation running on Marxist ideology.

This January, the people who belong at the kiddie table will be running things — because we live in a time in which it has become treacherously difficult, and unrewarding, for people to distinguish extremism from moderation.

“Bush caused 9/11” is extreme…along with the notion that the best way to lower gas prices, is to tax oil companies a whole lot more. But the babes think those are among the most centrist thoughts you can hold in your li’l head. Even worse, if you utter a peep of protest, you’re now extreme.

Not too many ways left to deal with this, but Dr. Helen does have a few good ideas.

Coward of the Country

Sunday, December 14th, 2008

The Blog That Nobody Reads has an informal policy about naughty language. We are mindful of the fact that some of you might be browsing to our humble pages during your lunch break at work, perhaps waiting for some script to compile or whatever. Now that the hour is late, some social compacts have emerged in the world of blogs, which have been divided into those that try to remain somewhat “work safe” and those that do not. They are mostly common sense. For example, we used to put the “S” word that describes fecal matter right into our headline. Gasp! It seems a little nit-picky to enact an informal policy against that, but we did, and we don’t do that anymore. George Carlin’s Seven Words You Cannot Say, are kept out of the headline, or anything that’s in big font. That’s the line we draw.

We also went a little overboard, in our view, going so far as to keep George Carlin’s Seven Words You Cannot Say out of the text itself. We will do that, to a certain extent. But we’ve softened it a bit. That’s because we like to make everyday life safe for real people…not for ninnies. And, I’m sorry, but if you’re walking along in front of some other guy’s computer terminal when he’s on his lunch break and you see in our humble font the word “titty” and suddenly you’re tearing down the hallway to the H.R. department screaming with your arms flailing over your head…well, maybe someone somewhere wants to make life less traumatic for you, but we shall not be joining in that sad charade. No, if we were going to keep that policy rigid and zero-tolerant, it would be out of conern to those corporate firewalls that block websites automatically when they see these words going up the tubes. But how concerned should we be about those? The latter is a direct consequence of the former. Besides, it’s a batshit-stupid policy. I don’t know who actually still enforces it. Having a dirty word down in the actual text of something, could be a situation that easily comes up with doing actual work on the innerwebs. No, I’m not trying to be funny. Think of technical advice forums, professional information exchange forums, membership-only, things that are behind some kind of closed door.

We’ll not think on that too long. In a world where we try to be diverse and all-inclusive, it quickly becomes futile to think every possible scenario out to the very end — at least among things that involve people. We take the Jim Morrison Human Resources approach: “People are strange.”

And, if you act like a grown-up, solutions to problems tend to fall into place.

We use our courtesy-language decal (above) when things are about to get spicy. Out of respect to our readers, so they can apply their best judgment.

We do not use the word “fuck” as many times as we possibly can to show how tough we are. If you want some of that, hang out on a middle school playground. Or, go browse Feministing.

We do not use cute punctuation marks as substitutions here. We’ve simply gotten tired of trying to noodle out the “gray areas” of rules like those. Is “titty” a George Carlin word? (We found out, to our great surprise, that it is.) Should you use bangs in it, i.e., “ti!!y”? The intended meaning does not seem obvious unless the context sheds some light on where you’re going with it; looks kind of like “tilly.” Besides, FARK has a virtual copyright on fark, biatch and shiat. We love virtual copyrights here. We love ’em more than real copyrights. They remind us that people can behave with civility and courtesy toward each other without a bunch of rules forcing them to do so. Renews our faith in humankind. Kind of like, when you’re at the bank, and there’s seven tellers and suddenly six of ’em go on a lunch break, everyone gets into one line.

Besides, we are beneficiaries of the virtual copyright, since we never did actually patent “The Blog That Nobody Reads.” But the catchphrse is still ours, thanks to the common courtesy and decency of others.

No naughty pictures embedded in the pages. Penises nipples and verginers should be covered up; if they are not, then that picture is linked-not-embedded. Unless it has to do with civilized, non-prurient artwork that doesn’t focus on the anotomical tidbit, like for example, here.

So that’s our policy. Use common sense, good judgment, be a little flexible in all things, act like an adult and things will turn out alright for the most part.

Having said all that…and with our little mouth-covered-man in place to warn all you weenies about what’s coming up…we’re going to indulge in the unusual practice of excerpting Misha’s fine prose from the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler without cleaning it up. And the occasion is Rahm Emmanuel throwing a hissy fit, in that adorable way liberals do when they think they’re being manly, when they’re really being quite the opposite. You know how they get when they’re trying to be all big-and-bad — with that whistle tucked in between their lips, tooting on it every two seconds as this thing is declared out of bounds and that other things is declared out of bounds. Like bossy little girls. “Not s’poseda do THIS! Not s’poseda do THAT!”

After a lifetime spent trying to avoid that kind of shemale, we find our skills for dealing with them somewhat atrophied. Which suits us just fine. That’s a man adapting to his environment, there. But a man also has to know his limitations, and the Emperor Misha I is, quite plain and simply, much better qualified for dealing with this type of…eh…personality…than are we.

But it’s not January 20 yet and the Holy One has not yet been crowned. Let that event come and go and tack on another year or two, maybe we’ll have adapted to our environment yet again. It’s about to become a whistle-sissy world.

And if that’s a sign of civilization, then how come things are falling apart so quickly? It’s still early! The iPresident Man-Messiah-God isn’t going to be coronated for a long time. The carpenters aren’t ordering the boards and nails to assemble those platforms for inauguration day, just yet…the pyrotechnicians aren’t even thinking about it.

What a Sad Pussy
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Democrat Culture of Corruption, Useless Swine
2:08 PM

Rahm Emanuel is now whining that he’s been “receiving death threats” over his obvious involvement in one of the nastiest corruption scandals in the history of our nation, which is saying a bit when you talk about Democrats.

Back at his home, Emanuel appeared “beet-red,” according to an ABC News cameraman who was invited inside by Emanuel to use his bathroom this morning.

“I’m getting regular death threats. You’ve put my home address on national television. I’m pissed at the networks. You’ve intruded too much, ” Emanuel said, according to the cameraman.

Awwww… What a sad, metrosexual pussy of a seemingly male member of the species. What happened to the Capone-like “man’s man” who once listed a number of defeated political enemies at a dinner, punctuating every cry of “DEAD!” by stabbing his steak knife into the table?

Time to brush the sand out of your vagina, “Rahmbo”, isn’t it?

And, by the way, where was your outrage when Joe the Plumber was subjected to similar treatment and worse simply because he’d had the nerve, nerve to ask your nutless empty suit of a Jug-Eared Marxist Freak Candidate an honest question that your neophyte dumbass Anointed One couldn’t answer without shooting himself in both feet?

Have a fucking cookie and a glass of milk, you gutless pansy masquerading as a man, because you’re beginning to annoy us with your whininess. Make mommy kiss it and it’ll be all better, we promise you.

Cowardly corrupt Chicago Machine fuck. It’s all fun and games bragging about how you’ve “killed” your political opponents until the shoe is on the other fucking foot, isn’t it?

That’s art, right there. Don’t argue with me about it…if my Government can declare a crucifix soaked in urine to be art, then what appears above damn sure is some kind of art. Brings a tear to my eye. And besides, I’m not expecting anyone else to pay for it.

Pay close attention, Feministing fans. That is how you use the word “fuck” to make a valid point. How to use it as a tool, the way a man uses it, not as some kind of decoration to be hung on your Christmas tree as many times as you need to in completion of some kind of weird decorating scheme. Like an airheaded woman trying too hard not to look like an airheaded woman.

I note the rich irony, again, that I’m reading about this the morning after watching Kenny Rogers’ 1981 film. That story, too, is about a guy who used his two-fisted masculine Power To Destroy Things with a high degree of selectivity. Except he did it after “twenty years of crawling,” and when he did, it was all substance, no form. Making a mockery of everyone who “considered him the coward of the county.”

Rahm Emmanuel is a completely different type of seasonal aggressor, in that his mouth means everything to the exercise and his fists actually mean very little. He’s all form and no substance. He’s the loudmouth kid on the playground, the one who can dish things out all day long but can’t take ’em.

And that fucker isn’t doing twenty years of anything. He’s not bottling anything up at all. He’s shoving people around when the situation suits him, and changing overnight when the situation changes, suddenly all thin skinned and “receiving death threats.” Good one. Christ, I’m tired of liberals receiving death threats. I wish I could wave a magic wand, and make it so that anytime some asshole drones on about receiving his death threats in his e-mail, no matter for what purpose, he’s got sixty seconds to produce them in fucking hardcopy or his head fucking explodes.

It’s e-mail (I assume…Rahm-a-lama-ding-dong does not say…I’m just making the leap, and it isn’t a big one). Private e-mail. Not like Sarah Palin’s e-mail. Most e-mail isn’t hacked. You could say there’s an invitation from Queen Elizabeth to join Her Majesty at tea time tomorrow afternoon, and nobody is in any position to doubt it…only to call it into question, and that’s all. Whining about “death threats in my e-mail” is about the most gutless thing you can do, even if it’s true. The whole generic statement, no matter what the probability in any context, would be stigmatized into meaninglessness overnight in a truly sophisticated society.

Hardcopy printout or it didn’t happen. And even then I call shenanigans. Fuckers.

Obama To Revive the Sixties

Tuesday, December 9th, 2008

Hawkins really found a humdinger this time. On Huffington Post, one Stephen Mo Hanan has made the point that capitalism is simply beyond saving. An important message, since his viewpoint no doubt represents the same of many others:

The oft-prophesied collapse of capitalism is looming over our world’s daily supply of goods. The global economic system is on the ropes and must not be allowed to fail. So proclaims government, financial marketeers, tottering czars of industry, media mandarins, and just about everybody else who can pay to be heard. But since their efforts to avert failure have so far inspired little confidence, some attention might be given to Plan B. After all, despite its arcane procedures, capitalism is really just an accounting system, a way of ensuring that the world’s work gets done and that those who do it are properly compensated.

Now I’m not stupid enough to forget that capitalism is also a system that has allowed a substantial though relatively small group of human beings to amass titanic wealth and, so to speak, to capitalize on that wealth by exercising transformative power over the whole planet and everyone on it. If they were all wise and benevolent, that might be a satisfactory arrangement; they aren’t, and it isn’t. So any discussion of how human history (let alone human well-being) might continue after the demise of capitalism must get a good fix on the roots of greed and why it has persisted despite the abundant evidence of its perversity.

Ah yes…greed. The House of Eratosthenes Glossary says

Greedy (adj.):
An undefined word. If it does have a meaning at all, the closest one we’ve been able to extrapolate from the pattern of the word’s actual usage, is: Someone who manifests a desire to keep his property when someone else comes along wanting to take it away. A wealthy person who wants to stay that way (but you’d better click on the word “wealthy” to find out what it really means).

Mo Hanan takes a few paragraphs to say what he really means, but eventually gets around to it…

What if we began to ask whether corporate consumerism was really the ultimate flowering of America’s promise? For one thing, capitalism as we know it would fade away. But since it may be doing that anyway, we might be wise to drop our resistance and bid it a fond farewell. We could thank it for its efficient promotion of the Industrial Revolution, while observing that by creating an interconnected world it has rendered its own creed of frenetic competition obsolete. A satellite can’t go into orbit till its booster rocket falls away. If the accounting system is in flames, let it drop and disintegrate, mission accomplished.

This is the first part of his long column in which that voice in my head, screaming “What in the hell have YOU been watching, Mo Hanan?” finally subsides. I agree with him a hundred and ten percent here. Socialism…anti-capitalism…modern liberalism…call it what you will. It is dedicated to an axiom that whatever has helped us up until this point, is a hindrance from here on out and has to be jettisoned.

I live in a world in which fathers teach their sons how to use guns, even though in these times, you don’t need to know that in order to feed yourself. How to tie knots, even though you don’t need to know that in order to travel. How to change a flat tire, even though a service that will handle that for you, is a phone call away. How to make a car last three hundred thousand miles, even though you’re expected to trade the bucket o’ bolts in after fifty or sixty, seventy tops.

Mo Hanan, and those like him, live in a metrosexual world. A Twilight Zone in which yesterday’s assist is today’s burden and tomorrow’s toxin. He lives in a world in which we’re expected to provide payback to whatever has ferried us, rescued us, lifted us up from disaster, by casually discarding it. To reward life with death.

And his preaching is in favor of brotherly love, and against materialism.

Oh, the irony.

No, we share effectively only when we do so from love, as children spontaneously teach. They teach it not only in those moments when they suddenly share a prized possession, but especially when they share some unexpected aspect of themselves, the harvest of self-discovery. We could travel steadily through life making such offerings of ourselves, giving and receiving delight, except for being conditioned by fear to suspect the worst of each other.

Of course, living can inflict a thousand wounds on our ability (or willingness) to “love one another.” But with the advances since Bible times in our understanding of how the psyche functions, self-realization techniques are widely available to repair the damage done to our inherent nature. Why not make use of them? The world’s work would get organized and performed in a collective spirit of mutual assistance and shared benefit.

Mr. Mo Hanan, you possess a remarkable ability to abandon in a great big hurry whatever dollops of reality contradict this vision of yours, so I’ll pose this question as if you’ve not yet thoroughly noodled on it and it’s not a mere formality: What in the world were the last forty-five years about? What was going on since this vision first gained widespread recognition and acceptance, and the election last month? Was America just s-l-o-w-l-y allowing the lesson to sink in?

What was 1968 about? What was 1980 about? What was 1994 about? Could we have been experiencing the same kind of fatigue with the party-in-charge, leading up to those years, that we displayed in 2008 with their ideological opponents? Or were the people just going off willy-nilly, showing a mindless Pavlovian response to — aggressive marketing?

No, what you’ve managed to ignore here, and I get the impression you have an impressive talent for so ignoring, is the well-established fact that while the capacity to share and give and love is an ingrained part of this mystery-shrouded human psyche, so too is the ego.

Seriously, there is some thought with some horsepower behind it going into Mo Hanan’s column. I’m not entirely sure it’s all his…it has the flavoring of something ripped off from somewhere else, and it is a rather tired message I’ve been hearing over and over again, here and there, since my childhood. But there is some good thinking somehow getting injected in there. It’s just not very well informed. Someone has achieved way too much talent for expurgating ideas he doesn’t like, before he adequately checks ’em out.

Hey, here’s a fun exercise for you during your down time. Every time Mo Hanan talks about loving each other and getting along with each other in this new post-modern era of mutually cooperative human history, in your mind’s mind, insert afterward “with conservatives and Republicans.”

For a chuckle.

But don’t get too humorous with that chuckle. Don’t forget — there are millions upon millions of people who see the world exactly the same way as Mr. Mo Hanan. And they want “everyone” to get along and love each other, to be included. But their definition of everyone excludes quite a few folks, folks just as real as any other, that they don’t want to talk about. Their Utopia is a sort of modern version of Noah’s Ark, built from stem to stern for the express purpose of providing a shelter to an elite crowd…leaving the balance behind. In their world, “everyone” never really means everyone. And they don’t want to admit it.

And always, always, always…their plans for creating this new world, fall apart when the time comes to decide who’s going to be in charge. Because every face on the totem pole thinks it’s going to be the one on top. Everyone in their new Starfleet wants to be a Captain, and nobody wants to clean the Starship latrine. They confront the mystery and the power of the human ego, later rather than sooner — always insisting on the dubious privilege of allowing it to take them by surprise.

That’s why, as you survey all the gear that has given good things to you and those you know, from coffee makers to green (!) automobiles to the weaponry Mo Hanan hates so much, to nuclear reactors…capitalism continues to retain a complete monopoly on providing it. Every nut, every bolt.

So with all due respect, Mr. Mo Hanan, maybe we still have some waiting to do before we talk about jettisoning things.

“They’re All Dead”

Monday, December 8th, 2008

Can you sense the conflict, as they try to demonstrate 1) ideological purity and 2) nuanced/diverse/tolerant thinking?

This is your fourth milestone on the way to insanity right there, folks, and it’s about to get a whole lot worse. Nobody from their camp can ever have a shitty idea. Nobody from the other camp can ever have a good one. Everyone on their side of the aisle is sweetness and goodness and light, and everyone from the other side is just a walking heap of dog feces.

“Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.” — Larry Elder

And if that isn’t enough to brighten your day, you can always take a peek at this other thread charmingly titled “I’ll hate this rotten bastard as long as I live. I’ll teach my kids and grandkids to do the same.”

Whatever it takes to bring about that new utopia of peace, love and harmony.

H/T to Stop The ACLU, which was considerate enough to provide this nifty graphic of girls-n-guns, shot in Baghdad:

Bush Suddenly Not That Bad?

Sunday, December 7th, 2008

Like father, like son. Now that we’re finished with him, his popularity rating starts to trickle up.

What, after we find a suitable replacement he’s not a war criminal anymore?

I’m almost tempted to think it’s the millions upon millions of dollars spent to make people hate him, that are no longer being spent. I would think that — but that would mean people don’t necessarily think for themselves. And they keep telling me they do.

Going Into Withdrawal After the Campaign

Sunday, December 7th, 2008

Hardcore left-wing moonbats. Suffering delerium tremens, now that they realize they can’t do a whole lot of arguing when everything’s gonna be done their way.

And yet, they certainly do find a way to get some arguing done. All friendly-fire. If you’re a lefty-loosie, you might want to sit down before watching this. If you’re a tighty-rightie, put the coffee down because I will not be responsible for buying you a new keyboard when you spew:

I told you the House of Eratosthenes One Revolution Away Badge would come in handy. I knew it then, I said so, I never had any doubts about it…

FaPoBuAd (Failed Policies of the Bush Administration) never…ever…not even once…had anything to do with it, did it? It was all about chasing that next high. From the very get-go, for untold millions upon millions, that’s all it ever was. Now look what you have going on here. Everyone wants everything to be done the same way, everywhere. On that, they agree. But nobody wants to do anything the way anybody else says. Every face on the totem pole thought it would be the one on top.

Speaking of which — isn’t the definition of good satire that it’s hard to tell it apart from reality? With that in mind, imagine the YouTube clip above put in transcript form, and then placed alongside this.

Would you be able to tell what’s-what? You sure about that?

Thing I Know #235. What a self-parodying mess it is when a command hierarchy is constructed within any rebellion, for there it becomes undeniable: The rebel is only a fair-weather friend, at best, to the act of rebelling.

Bush Belongs in Prison

Sunday, December 7th, 2008

Moonbats unhinged.

The Left’s Religion

Saturday, December 6th, 2008

Gerard opines.

The real disaster for the Liberal/Left in the last 8-years was not that George Bush was religious, but that Bush’s religion was not the Liberal/Left’s approved religion; the Religion of the Self. They now have their new apotheosis in Obama, a man whose professed faith is plain to see — through.

There does seem to be a strange unifying gravity well in that part of the universe, does there not? Not exactly true atheism, is it.

They seem to believe in a deity who helps those who do not help themselves.

It has something to do with being a good person. But it’s not overly obsessed with that, because if you ascend to this level of goodness but nobody knows about it, it’s all for nothing. You must advertise it. And it’s not all happy thoughts, because hating George W. Bush is an indispensible part of the weekly benediction.

The only thing these “Believers” could sense that partook of the spiritual was the Self and the Self alone. Thus they made the Self into their golden idol and set it on the altar of their brief lives. Obsessed with embellishing this idol many spent large sums and long periods of introspective analysis with professionals that were paid handsomely to confirm to them, at all times and in all places, that the grim visage of the Self reigned supreme, and that only the Self and only this life in this world could be validated.

Lack of faith has turned out to be a form of faith. That the left does, indeed, have a religion, is all but proven when the time comes to figure out what to do with the infidels. A non-religion would leave them alone entirely; “liberal” stands for liberty, does it not? But there certainly is a “convert or die” undertone involved in how our most rabid leftists treat those who cannot, or will not, believe.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Conservatism Builds, Leftism Overthrows

Friday, December 5th, 2008

All high civilizations have been built by conservatives. You can’t accumulate the cultural capital needed to build any high civilization if you try to destroy the past, as the Left constantly tries to do. You can’t build a chariot if you have to reinvent the wheel every generation. The batty idea that kids have the real answers in life is just a modern delusion. It is just ignorant.

Conservatism builds. Leftism overthrows. That is the meaning of that pop word “revolution.” The all-destroying revolution is an adolescent fantasy, and the Left hangs on to those fantasies a lot longer than conservatives do.

American Thinker, via Rick, via Alice the Camel.

Not hard to prove at all. Just read some liberal blogs. Aside from the usual “we are poisoning the land and the planet and the environment and the world and this and that and some other thing over there” and America is at fault for this-that-other-stuff…there are the toxic items. Look at this awful commercial. Look at this awful magazine article. Look at this YouTube clip. Here, read this transcript of this terrible thing this guy on the radio said. Help me deplore it.

Thoughts about building versus thoughts about destruction. Yeah, liberals like to trot out some token victim to help justify the destruction, but that doesn’t mean they’re about preserving anything. They’re just in the habit of using certain tools for their public relations needs.

Global warming, for example. It always has, back to Day One, been about forcing humans…particularly Americans…to stop doing something they are currently doing. To destroy an activity. The crisis of the day rotates among the American/human activities, but what they all have in common is that some thing being done must be stopped. The guilt is always directed toward a common target. A bulls-eye the size of a pencil lead.

Nobody knows what a “saved” planet would look like. Nobody knows what the carbon saturation in such a victorious, restored global ecosystem would be — even though we can measure it quite accurately now. We don’t know what the goal is, because it isn’t discussed. That’s because that isn’t what the movement is all about. It’s about destruction.

Destroyer wolf, in protector-sheep clothing. That’s pretty much it.

Threatened

Friday, December 5th, 2008

This is exactly the question that’s been on my mind

Why Is the Left So Threated By My Poll?
By John Ziegler
Writer/Director/Producer, “Blocking the Path to 9/11″

It has been quite a strange couple of weeks since I decided to commission a Zogby poll of Obama voters. I chose to do this at great personal expense to determine whether interviews I did on Election Day were indeed representative of the larger population…What was most remarkable about the left’s extreme reaction to the original Zogby poll was that it was utterly devoid of even the pretense of addressing the real issues that the nationwide telephone survey exposed. Instead of debating the implications of the results (in my view they clearly revealed a massive amount of media-induced ignorance on the part of the voting public), they chose to focus on the questioners rather than the actual answers from Obama voters — clearly, the responses they gave made them feel remarkably insecure.

I think I know why they felt threatened: Remember, this came at the end of eight years of calling George W. Bush a stupid dumbass. Along with his supporters. Actually, not just his supporters, but whoever was a little slow on the uptake to join along with calling him a war criminal, a constitutional offender, a liar, a knuckle-dragging rube…take your pick.

So they’ve been calling a bunch of other people dumbasses — suddenly, they, or at least the lucky interviewees who represent them in all the ways that matter, are being asked fairly basic questions. How could you not feel threatened if you were them.

There is something else at work here too. I see it in the left-wing commoners who want to argue with me in real life, on the e-mail, on the blog, as well as in the left-wing elitists I see on the idjit box…which must mean something. The latter is the head of an octopus and the former are the tentacles. I think it’s significant when I find some tactics shared throughout the head and the ends. And what I see is this: Stigmatization where one expects reasoned discourse.

Conservative: Idea.
Liberal: That’s the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard!

Admittedly, it doesn’t mean much if I keep bumping into this. Maybe my ideas are idiotic. Lots of people think so. But then, how do you explain…

Conservative: Rhetorical question.
Liberal: How in the world can you even think of asking such a thing?

Or any one of the following:

Conservative: Fact.
Liberal: That can’t possibly be true!
Conservative: Uh…it’s a fact. Source.
Liberal: How can you ever stoop to reading such dreck?

Conservative: We should do thing-to-do.
Liberal: It’s people like you, saying stuff like that, that invite the anger from all around the world.
Conservative: Suit yourself, but if we don’t…consequence.
Liberal: Like I said, it’s people like you that make the rest of the world mad at us.

Conservative: Whenever I see this, I see that.
Liberal: You’re stereotyping.
Conservative: Call it what you want, it’s true.
Liberal: I’m done. I don’t know you. You’re disgusting. I’m not going to talk to you.

Conservative: I just believe…article of belief.
Liberal: That’s because you’re a dumbass.

I don’t mean to suggest by this that liberals have a monopoly on name-calling. The name-calling is not the target of my criticism here; it is, rather, the general practice of deviating from reasoned discourse. There’s something about being a left-winger that jettisons them from a true exchange of ideas, presuming they ever wandered down that path to begin with, which many of them didn’t.

It’s all whistle-blowing. This is shocking, that’s over the line, this other thing over here is “beyond the pale,” some unnamed anonymous nameless-faceless guy who might not even exist will hate us for doing X, …and then all that other stuff is STUPID.

Left-wingers feel threatened by this poll because it puts the big reveal on their estrangement from truth, common sense, and the intellectual disciplines that tether people to those things. Instead, their doctrine is more about “coloring within the lines.” Some sort of protocol. Manners. Except not really manners, because manners are things you want your kids to do that your grandparents were also supposed to do at the same age. There’s something timeless about manners. Liberal rules, on the other hand, are re-invented for each election cycle.

Example: In 2004 it was unacceptable to vote for someone lacking the proper military credentials. Clearly, in 2008, that rule had been repealed. Furthermore, it was alright to make fun of old people, and we hadn’t seen a relaxation on that standard since 1996.

So our left-wingers pretend to possess a decent command of the cerebral cortex, but in actuality their favored region is the OFC. They’re all about virtual electroshock therapy. Knuckle-rapping. “Hey, don’t go there, because I said so.”

It is the next generation of the folks who drove around with “Question Authority” bumper stickers affixed to their Volkswagons. Yeah. Who’d a-thought it.

So that’s my answer, and I’m stickin’ to it. Had the liberals simply asserted they weren’t stupid, they would not feel threatened by this poll. It could be politely brushed off with the “exceptions to the rule” argument…sure you found some dumbasses amongst us liberals, Mr. Ziegler, but there are bound to be some Republicans who don’t know what they’re doing, either. But that is not the liberal claim. The liberal claim is that they have a monopoly on brains. Not just brains, but curiosity. That readin’ stuff. They’re in Starbucks reading Cicero and Chaucer, while the rest of us are out here in our single-wides, just cleaning our shotguns and spittin’ tobacco.

Meanwhile, once you actually get the typical liberal in front of a TV camera and ask him some stuff that is supposed to be of a distressing concern to him, he doesn’t know squat. That’s because pronouncing this, that, or some other thing to be out-of-bounds, is not a very self-edifying activity. It’s really hard to turn the pages in a book while you’re slapping someone.

They aren’t that well-educated. They’re just bossy.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

About That Supermajority

Thursday, December 4th, 2008

So the new Senate looks like this: If the two independents vote to invoke cloture with the democrats all the time, which seems likely, and the Republicans all hang together, which seems a whole lot less likely, the filibusters will hold 42-58. In other words, the democrat party is two votes shy of what would be needed to render all dissent irrelevant. One vote shy if Franken manages to “find” enough votes in Minnesota.

They’ve worked really hard to get those sixty seats.

I remain a staunch opponent of filibusters. But I think there is no intellectual dishonesty or inconsistency in entertaining one argument touted by the filibuster defenders, since I’ve always had respect for this argument if not for the process: What, exactly, do you think you’ll be able to pass with those sixty votes, that would be so hopelessly bottled up with only fifty-nine?

My suggestion to Republicans: Do not use the filibuster. Ever. The goal should be that the democrat party owns the 111th Congress, and every piece of news that takes place during the two years in which it sits. It’s theirs whether they like it or not.

You already know they won’t want to. There’s going to be some stuff so ugly that its own parents will look away…and then…it’ll be on. FaPoBuAd (“failed policies of the Bush administration”) will reign supreme, the verb “inherited” will be bandied about more often than the noun “Gravitas” was eight years ago when Bush and Cheney were first paired-up. We’ll hear about how Chosen One inherited this, that, and some other bad situation from George Bush — so often our ears will fall off.

Make it so that that’s all there is. Make that the only lifeline. Don’t give them a filibuster so they can say “we wanted to do X, but the Republicans filibustered.”

Except cutting funding to the troops. That would be as good a criteria as any, I suppose. Filibuster if it salvages something for the troops, otherwise, we do everything that can be done the democrat way, the democrat way. It’s The People. It’s what they said they wanted. Give the people what they want.

Since about the 1950’s, the ratio has been somewhere around four-to-one: Every day the federal government is obliged to do everything the hard-left democrat way, translates to four, five or six days the democrats stay out of power once the honeymoon is over. There are exceptions…like Watergate. But overall it holds up. And if you ignore the Great Depression, this formula is maintained clear back to the Civil War.

We just voted to get drunk and screw. There’s one hell of a hangover, pregnancy and venereal disease waiting for us. We are alcoholics, and within my lifetime we’ll probably fall off the wagon yet again — but if the hangover is bad enough, it’ll probably be quite awhile. Quite awhile. And who knows, maybe if we wake up soaked in urine, with a penis drawn on our face with a permanent magic marker, we’ll finally start the twelve-step program we should’ve started in 1940, and get rid of the democrat party for good. We’re America. We deserve better “loyal opposition” than this, and we damn sure deserve better leadership. They’re just a lawyer-party at this point; nothing more and nothing less.

But for the next two years, we say we want them in charge because we’re still addicts, so bring ’em on.

Yeah, that’s why bartenders have signs that say something about refusing service. Too bad this isn’t a bar.

Chambliss

Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008

AP reports Chambliss is ahead; Fox has just called it for him. That would end the democrat party’s hopes for a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate. Even if Al Franken is going to win in Minnesota, which it looks like he’s not gonna do.

I’m almost sorry. I am sorry. This is the weakness with the American political system, that it is so hard for one party to be in charge of everything. I think we’re just about at the point where that’s working against us. Properly implemented, liberalism would indict and convict itself within a single election cycle, but if it’s opposed, or even watered down a little bit…instant talking points. Thanks to the filibuster, that’s what we have here. The democrat party policies will piss in their own boots, and come 2010 they’ll be all…”the reason we couldn’t fix that was the Republicans filibustered.” Or threatened to filibuster.

It is an interesting thought exercise, in my mind, to ponder what would happen if we went twenty-four months just doing everything the democrat way. Lots of cities already do this. Garbage needs to be collected – well, what’s the most liberal way we can collect garbage? What’s the most liberal way we can zone this district? I don’t mean to say there is a liberal or conservative way to zone a district – but boy, howdee, they sure do try to find a way. San Francisco, I’m looking at you.

What if we did that? Put the democrat party in charge of everything, without appeal, without recourse, without filibuster, and most importantly of all, make sure everyone everywhere knows the democrat party is running the show.

This guy butchered two hundred girl scouts in broad daylight while his neighborhood looked on in horror? Rough childhood. Let him go.

Iran wants to build a nuke? Let ‘em. Get rid of ours.

Tax the rich at a hundred and five percent.

Pay for abortions. Give out prizes.

That mail clerk at city hall who puts a sign on his counter saying “Merry Christmas?” Sue his ass off. Sue him to death. Put his heirs in the poorhouse until the day his youngest great-grandchild faces mandatory retirement.

Register anything more powerful than a child’s pop gun. Track down whoever isn’t buying his share of carbon credit vouchers. Home in on those bastards like a heat seeking missile, and show ‘em how unfriendly an IRS audit can be. Flog Joe the Plumber in the public square on a regular basis like the English did with Titus Oates.

Fairness doctrine? Make a whole new cabinet-level position to enforce it.

Minimum wage. Maximum wage. Make ‘em the same number. Hundred percent death-tax. Take away everybody’s car. Pass Directive 10-289. Pay criminals to not misbehave. Force colleges to admit nine illegal aliens for every legal citizen admitted, and then force that legal citizen to pay the tuition of the nine illegal aliens, plus fifty percent.

Just do what the cities do. Every little thing you can do a left-wing way, do it that way. For two solid years.

Until we hear those six magic words that ring true over all the wreckage in San Francisco, Davis, Seattle, Chicago, Washington DC, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

“Can’t blame conservatives. There aren’t any.”

Polarized

Saturday, November 29th, 2008

My household is a dual-income one, now, which means two sets of job responsibilities. So the political loudmouth could not make the trek “home” for the festivities. It would appear, from my e-mail, that the extended family that could so journey, got into a little bit of a polite dust-up around the table.

I continue to marvel at what an incredibly rare event it is for yours truly to actually bring up the subject of politics — compared to the way people recall it later. Thinking back on it, it almost never happens. I’m not saying that to be funny; it’s true. People come to me with questions. I’ve always had this appealing trait that when people ask me what time it is, I tell ’em how to build a watch…so I suppose it’s natural that when you’re talking about one thing when you go to ask Morgan about the particulars, and by the time Morgan dishes out his monologue you’re talking about ten things, you should recall later that Morgan brought up the subject.

That’s quite understandable.

Doesn’t make it true.

Be that as it may. The subject of the elections came up at a dinner table which was separated from me by about eight hundred miles. So I can’t tell you how. I can only say the inquiry that came my way, was about people becoming tragically polarized, and the question that emerged was in what way did the recent election results address this trend, if they did at all. I take it the options were that the election manifested it, the election healed it, the election opened a new chapter of it, or…some smorgasbord of other alternative answers. Had I already “blogged” about this? What, if anything, is out there that has been written about this?

The reply follows, with just a few minor corrections (and one meaningful one — why do we always see these things after we hit the “Send” button?).

There is quite a bit inspecting the underlying causes, without attempting to attack the problem you specify directly, but you have to understand how to look it up. For example: The 527 groups. They can be used to channel large amounts of money into advertising campaigns *provided* the campaigns are not affiliated with, or directly advocate the election of, any specific candidate.

As anyone who’s been placed on their mailing lists knows, a victory for the opposing side brings on an avalanche of form letters from the 527. If these form letter campaigns are effective — and they must be, otherwise they would not take place — the money comes in. So right there is an artificial device put in place to keep your gas gauge at 50% or very close to it…the effect of this is that a massive war chest will be accumulated on the Republican side as the democrat party continues to run everything…with no opposition anywhere. It is quite unavoidable. Two solid years of form letters from Republican fund raisers to loyal Republican supporters to the effect of “Guess what they’re up to NOW?” is bound to have an effect. Mistakes will be made. Real life will bring challenges to everyone…it always does. Can’t blame conservatives for any of it. There aren’t any.

Also — there is a cause-and-effect relationship between all these drives to “get the vote out.” I’m sure you’ve seen these, all these PSAs, some paid-fer, some not…some of it just mindless pablum echoing from blogs — “Get out there and VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!” as if the subject under discussion is bringing a sandbag to an overloaded levee or a bucket of water to a house fire. Left undiscussed, is that there is one surefire way to get people to vote, that works better than any other: Convince them everything’s going to hell. [Lack of] voter participation, contrary to popular belief, is a sign of good times. People stay home because they’re pretty sure everything’s working out more-or-less OK.

Finally, there is the question of John McCain himself. The Republican party picked him out of a desire to decrease polarization across the board, to help unify — choose someone closer to the middle. The Republican party officials…were after exactly what you are after, to somehow compel people to agree. Supposedly, this was a surefire plan to win the election. Act a little bit more like lightweight democrats.

What did the electorate do? Congratulate the Republican party on doing this wonderful voice-impression of democrats, pat ’em on the head, turn around and vote for the other guy. He was cuter. But the lesson is, when people get offended about things, they’re often getting offended on behalf of others — with whom they don’t even agree, and people who in all likelihood aren’t even getting offended. I see it with Sarah Palin; all these democrats running around talking (still?) about what a terrible VP pick she was, with that pregnant unmarried daughter and all. You think the average democrat gives a rip about that? No. They’re trying to agitate fundamentalist Christian Republicans…who they hate. Take a poll of all the people who are sympathetic to conservative principles, and the message comes back pretty resoundingly: Fred Thomspon would have been a much better pick, and probably would’ve won. It sounds fantastic at first, but how many Republicans would have stayed home to watch reruns with a Thompson/Palin ticket out there?

So when one seeks to win converts, it never helps to mute the message. Therefore, the moderate sub-spectrum is a politically unattractive place. We just ran the most-liberal-Republican against the most-liberal-democrat, and the Republican got his own hindquarters handed to him. It wasn’t about Republican-ness…it was about moderation. People say they want it. They don’t. They want a messenger who will stand up for his message. They don’t care that much about the contents of the message. Heath Ledger touched on this a little bit in The Dark Knight, giving a brilliant monologue as The Joker: Something about how calmed-down people are, when they know there is a “plan.” If the plan involves death and destruction, they’re not concerned, compared to the way they would be if they thought there was no plan at all.

So I don’t hold out a lot of hope for unification if the plan is to gather toward the middle. Seems to me that’s been tried already, just now. In fact, I don’t altogether agree with the goal. How many people do we want agreeing? Sixty percent? Eighty? A hundred? On how many issues? Some? All? This fixes what, exactly? Does it manifest that things are OK? If so, how? Quite to the contrary, it would be an enormous red flag that people aren’t thinking for themselves.

And we have that problem with things existing as they are right now. I see it in every Obamaton with whom I discuss these things…every single one, so far. Time comes to discuss what His Holiness the iPresident Man-God is going to do to solve our various problems, and all I hear about is ending the war, which means giving up. Close down Guantanamo, sign Kyoto, and roll back the tax cuts. That’s all. After that, the specifics come to an abrupt stop. There are none. It’s just how wonderful the Man-God is, how smart all His people are. This, to me, is not indicative of people thinking for themselves. They can name four specifics, maybe, on which they think they agree with the Man-God, and each item has to to do with helping our enemies, or dealing injury to ourselves. “I need some ‘Change!’ — two twenties for a ten?” “Uh…yeah, that seems fair, sure!”

And the problem exists on the Right, too, to be fair about it. Lots of quoting from scripture (much of it non-existent), lots of sloganeering. Not nearly as much as the hopenchange liberals this year. But it is there. And there is some negative feeling about it too. Sarah Palin gave her best speeches when she showed evidence of some independent thinking going on upstairs. Once she took the housewifey approach and prattled on about how wonderful McCain was, her support started to erode. People wanted to know if she stood for sincere, heartfelt, resolute support for conservative principles, and she made the mistake of giving them two answers. When she’s at the top of the ticket in 2012, hopefully she’ll be in a position to do a better job of it.

The irony? I think people *do* want to be unified. Support for the liberal ideas dissipates, just as soon as liberals talk about how to split us apart, which never takes long. Rich versus poor, gay versus straight, white versus black, man versus woman, labor versus management. Do I need to substantiate this point? Listen to Hillary Clinton talk about an issue…any issue…for fifteen minutes. See if you can pick out who the bad guy is, the Snidely Whiplash who needs to be taken down a peg or two. There always is one. The subject she discusses, doesn’t matter. There always is one. Even when she talks about a tragedy with no villains in it, like Hurrican Katrina, the Indonesian Tsunami, or the AIDS epidemic. If there’s no villain, she’ll make one. That’s emblematic of what liberalism is in 2008, of [what] people chose to buy with their votes this year. They came together, to drive a wedge amongst themselves. Now there’s one-party rule so no wedge-driving will be possible. It’ll be interesting to see how they pull this off.

PS: A great hue and cry has arisen about how President Bush should resign before January 20, and (as usual) if enough people complain, we can make it happen. As a commentary on that, I designed a new bumper sticker:

[From here.]

This morning I woke up to find my hit counter had spiked, because of this. [Note: This was mostly a result of linkage at Maggie’s Farm, so welcome to The Blog That Nobody Reads, you Yankee farmers.] So there seems to be widespread recognition of this. We seem to have a lot of people living among us, who live their lives, perpetually, on a turning point. Always one revolution away from happiness. No schism, means no revolutionary event, and no revolutionary event, means a stultifying boredom [of such magnitude] that they’d never be able to tolerate it once they had it.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

People Who Have Met Sarah Palin or George W. Bush Are Exempt From This Rule

Monday, November 24th, 2008

If you think the two people mentioned in the headline are a couple of big ol’ stupid dumbasses, and you think this because someone else told you so — and you believe it right down to the marrow of your bones — don’t get started on any of what follows. Not with me.

Just…don’t.

1. I don’t want to hear what an independent thinker you are.
2. I don’t want to hear about your education. You’re not using it.
3. I don’t want to hear that you’re a “nuanced” thinker, capable of perceiving the world outside of overly-simplistic black-and-white terms.
4. Don’t bore me to tears telling me how much Europe has hated us up until now, or is going to be inspired to not hate us quite so much from here on. Who cares what you think.
5. And I really don’t want to hear you asking about if “America is ready to elect a person of color.” I said she was, when it wasn’t cool to say so. You’re the people who called me ignorant. I won’t even ask if you’re going to recant what you said or apologize, I know that’s not happening.
6. Save your blathering about how intolerant conservative Republicans are. You and I both know you can’t name examples, and you’re not the kind of person who thinks too deeply about that anyway.
7. Clothes that cost $150,000. Don’t even start to go there.
8. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. His Holiness The iPresident-Elect could pass his own modern-day Alien and Sedition Act and you’d be just peachy with it. You know it and I know it.
9. Globular wormening. I ride my bike to work. You probably don’t. Stuff a sock in it.
10. Liberty. You adopt opinions about the intelligence or lack thereof of total strangers, because other total strangers, told you what to think. You don’t know what liberty is. You don’t have the first clue.

Had to get that off my chest.

Among people who have not met Sarah Palin or George W. Bush, any statement that either one of those high-profile Republican contenders is some kind of a big dummy, is tantamount to driving a mile and a half down the freeway with your left blinker on — not a sign of gargantuan intellect.

It is an exceptionally odd prestige symbol a lot of people have. Their numbers are more than significant, and their misunderstanding about how they’re presenting themselves, is quite tragic really.

I have a dream, that my children and my children’s children, will be judged on their intellectual acumen or lack thereof, by people who’ve actually met them. And will grow up in a world in which people wait to personally meet each other, before passing judgment on how smart or stupid everybody is.

Seems like so little to ask.

And yeah, I have the same words for any Republican voter who wants to call Obama a big ol’ stupid-head or whatever. Meet people…then decide. And even then, know a little bit more about things than what you say out loud. A generation or two ago, this was just common sense.

Complete Victory Would Ruin Them

Monday, November 24th, 2008

Fair disclosure: I don’t have any higher-level education. At all (save for a corporate accounting course at a community college once). But twenty years have come and gone since the last time I had a job that didn’t “demand” a college degree. Skill, luck, a combination of those two…whatever. The point is, I’m not a neutral observer in what follows. But I’m not an ignorant or inexperienced one either.

Awhile ago, The Anchoress invited bloggers to define exactly what’s wrong with the world. My response was, among other things, that people as they exist in the here-and-now place too much emphasis on being something, and not enough emphasis on doing something.

Liberalism, if the substance resembles the packaging, ought to be a perfect antidote to this. An end to discrimination would mean that what people are doesn’t matter one bit. We would then turn our energies and interests toward what we, and everybody else, would do.

And yet, take a look at David Brooks’ slobbering Obama-…I’m really struggling to find a noun to place after that hyphen. I need something family friendly. Let’s just say his enthusiasm surpasses what one commonly finds in a G-rated enclave. He’s doing with the iPresident-Elect what Monica did with Bill. (Hat tip to Malkin.)

Jan. 20, 2009, will be a historic day. Barack Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) will take the oath of office as his wife, Michelle (Princeton, Harvard Law), looks on proudly. Nearby, his foreign policy advisers will stand beaming, including perhaps Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), Jim Steinberg (Harvard, Yale Law) and Susan Rice (Stanford, Oxford D. Phil.).

The domestic policy team will be there, too, including Jason Furman (Harvard, Harvard Ph.D.), Austan Goolsbee (Yale, M.I.T. Ph.D.), Blair Levin (Yale, Yale Law), Peter Orszag (Princeton, London School of Economics Ph.D.) and, of course, the White House Counsel Greg Craig (Harvard, Yale Law).

This truly will be an administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on their SATs. Even more than past administrations, this will be a valedictocracy — rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes. If a foreign enemy attacks the United States during the Harvard-Yale game any time over the next four years, we’re screwed.

Ha ha! How droll.

First problem…does it not defeat all the talking points about January 20 being “an historic occasion” if these people really are the best-suited to “rule,” and it is their natural place to do so? If that’s the case then why was there any wait at all in getting this brain trust ensconced?

Second problem…it’s a case of being over doing. I’ve learned this is nearly always the case when the degrees are given too much importance — discussion about what these people do, comes to an abrupt halt. (In the case of Eric Holder, it is grudgingly acknowledged and then hastily shoved aside.)

The third and fourth problems arise from the second. Degrees are accolades affixed by strangers, usually strangers whose acquaintances will never be made, whose identities will never be known. It is a proxy evaluation of the applicant’s competence, which may be of about as much value as no evaluation at all. And the fourth problem is — as degrees are used as a stencil outline for determining who’s a good “fit” and who is not, the thinking observer cannot help but gather the impression that those deemed worthy, are not nearly as crucial to the exercise as those who are excluded.

I know I should be reacting with hurt feelings, a temper tantrum, some kind of rage when liberals drone on about the importance of degrees. It’s a dual attack upon my biography; I’m not liberal and I don’t have a degree. But my natural reaction is more one of genuine curiosity. Does anyone else see the glaring contradiction? The object of the exercise is to eliminate discrimination. How far we are to go with that, depends on which liberal you ask; there’s no shortage of the complete-utopian types who will soldier on tirelessly until everyone is on precisely equal footing, in all walks of life. Perfect flatness; no compromises. They want the Star Trek universe, except without Captains, Admirals and Ensigns. Everyone on an equal level.

Then their representatives get elected.

And not only are those officials discriminating with the elevation of being-over-doing; they have to. If we were to abolish these prestigious diplomas and degrees overnight, by seven o’clock the next morning they’d latch on to some other thing. They need a “club,” and there is no such thing as a non-exclusive club. Someone has to be left out.

I keep hearing these high SAT scores are indicative of drive, of the ability to “succeed” at all kinds and types of things. I’ve spent my twenty years in what should have been fifty-yard-line front-row-seats, positions that should have qualified me to see it in action, first hand. There is a glimmer of truth to it. I’ve met people with tons and tons of drive, who did of course have their Masters’ and such. I’ve also met people with more drive, who had no more education than yours truly.

And when you line people up according to who-built-what, who laid the bedrock upon which we’re laboring to put down that hot asphalt, who laid the floorboards before we started arranging the furniture…who’s on the heavy end of that spectrum? Who laid the groundwork for what is really used, what actually changed the tomorrow of yesterday? Who made a functional impact? It wasn’t the ivy-league crowd. It could not have been, you see, because they were too busy pleasing others. There’s the rub — that’s what these letters after the names, really are all about.

And on this fourth problem, this particular point, we come to something that is hard to communicate to people because it involves an ugly truth about all of humanity. We are not so much enamored of people who will “get the job done,” as we are of people who will attempt to get it done exactly the way we ourselves would so attempt if we were they. Fact is — when the time comes to make a choice, would you rather have it done your way, or would you rather have it done? — most of us would rather see the attempt fail. Just so long as things are done everywhere the way we would do them.

People do not value getting things done, over getting things done their way.

In fact if you set about a task differently from the way they’d do it, and succeed, they get pissed.

And college professors are people.

The student who says to himself “It won’t work that way, I’ll have to devise my own method if success is to be realized” — won’t graduate.

This leads to a paucity, within our higher ranks, of those who are gifted in thinking about cause-and-effect. If we do this, then these positive-or-negative consequences will be in store for us. The people-pleasers tend to crowd them out, in those extra-large cubicles and corner offices.

Yes, everybody has the foresight — even Harvard people! — to keep the tableware out of the electrical outlet, lest one receive a nasty shock. It’s not a question of having the reflexes to match Mark Twain’s cat who’d stay off the hot stove. The question is how much foresight. How early in the effort can these consequences be anticipated. This exercise in people-pleasing tends to wash that out, much the way your view of a much-anticipated meteor shower is obstructed if you fail to get away from the lights of the city. It becomes a “serving two masters” thing.

But the primary point I wish to make here, is that we do have the basis of a comparison.

Because we’re different. Thank goodness.

And those who have just been elected to rule over this nation, or govern it, whatever terminology you choose — want to eliminate those differences. They say. Everything they want to do is “for all” or “for everybody.” Everything’s possible for everyone. That’s just swell.

But a complete victory here would ruin them. Their public-relations methods have everything to do with showing us how wonderful they are, what a pristine, elevated, superhuman Mount Olympus they have up there above the clouds.

The membership is defined by elitism. Without a terracing of the human landscape, Mount Olympus could not exist, because nobody would be left out of it.

This is permanent and timeless. It matters not one bit if you have a cabinet or transition team you need to form. You have to leave people out before you can leave people in. “We Are Good People” is something that, to act upon an audience in a compelling way, can only be expressed as a comparative statement.

Food is Death

Sunday, November 23rd, 2008

Okay, okay, fine. I’ll write something about this “Sarah Palin gave interview with turkey butchering going on behind her” stuff. And I’ll completely avoid the obvious — that if it was Joe Biden or His Holiness The iPresident-Elect Man-God…the same people who are calling Gov. Palin a stupid dumbshit for choosing the wrong background, would be squealing with delight about what a wonderful interview it was and how dare you blame the august luminary for a background that is the cameraman’s responsibility. Or the news producer’s. Whatever.

I’ll avoid any mention of that whatsoever.

I think this is much more worthy of comment. Food is death. If you eat, you kill. Period.

How sick a culture do we live in if real, live, grownup adults writing for real, live, grownup newspapers are only finding out now for the first time that meat comes from animals? Aren’t we supposed to shun the shrink-wrapped vision of the food chain? Aren’t we all supposed to be more nuanced than that?

But now it’s only okay to eat meat (anything else is a sick slutty “celebration of death”) if we never-ever-ever-ever acknowledge that what we’re eating came from an animal? And what exactly are people who work in the farming business supposed to make of all this? What will happen to them when people finally find out what it is they actually do?

Update:

I never thought about this. Looks like Vegans are gonna have to starve to death…

I can get crops to grow by simply putting seed in the ground. The rest of my job is to kill, kill, kill. Kill weeds. Kill insect pests. Kill vertebrate pests. Whether by herbicide, pesticides, shooting, trapping, stomping, you name it — I spend far more time killing than I do making something grow. Mother nature takes care of the growing. I have to remove the competition. There have been days when I’ve trapped 50+ pocket gophers and shot 100 ground squirrels – before lunch. They needed killing, and the next day, more of them were killed because they needed killing. At other times, I’ve shot dozens of jackrabbits at night and flung them out into the sagebrush for coyotes to eat.

Hat tip: Gerard.

And here’s that video of the clueless dolt Sarah Palin using the wrong background for her interview. Really. Seriously. Is this supposed to be evidence of her dimbulbishness? On what planet? What about the news crew? Does Sarah Palin say “Hey, why don’t you shoot me over here?” and the camera crew that is so much smarter than her, says to itself “aw…gee…darn…the Governor has chosen a poor background…can’t say anything about it, with her being the Governor and all…”

An Emperor Has No Clothes situation?

You people call yourselves the “reality based community.” Heh.

Personally, I think it’s pretty funny.

And…that’s about all I have to say about that. Happy Thanksgiving. Go out and get a real turkey. Sucker’s been killed anyway, don’t want it to go to waste.

I Keep Telling You And Telling You; The Most Devastating Thing To Do To A Stupid Idea…

Sunday, November 23rd, 2008

…is to take it seriously.

That’s why I ride my bike to work every single day. I tell everybody who asks, it’s about being a moderately fat middle-aged guy as opposed to a grotesquely fat middle-aged guy, and not only that, but UNLESS EVERYBODY STARTS DOING THIS RIGHT NOW THE EARTH IS GONNA DIE!!!! An umptyfratz-many esteemed scientists have told us so so it must be true.

I deadpan that last one. Just for fun. It makes me happy when I get funny looks. I wouldn’t have gotten funny looks on that one just a couple years ago.

The most devastating thing you can do to a stupid idea is to take it seriously.

Or, elect it to be your next President.

Earlier today, I noted that Barack Obama’s team has started hinting that they will move back towards John McCain’s position on interrogation techniqiues. Now supporters of Obama who have criticized the Bush administration’s position on indefinite detention have begun rethinking that policy as well:

As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama sketched the broad outlines of a plan to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba: try detainees in American courts and reject the Bush administration’s military commission system.

Now, as Mr. Obama moves closer to assuming responsibility for Guantánamo, his pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers. They include where Guantánamo’s detainees could be held in this country, how many might be sent home and a matter that people with ties to the Obama transition team say is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted or cannot be prosecuted at all?

That concern is at the center of a debate among national security, human rights and legal experts that has intensified since the election. Even some liberals are arguing that to deal realistically with terrorism, the new administration should seek Congressional authority for preventive detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release even if they cannot be successfully prosecuted.

“You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone,” said one civil liberties lawyer, David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor who has been a critic of the Bush administration.

You can’t? That’s all we’ve heard from the close-Gitmo crowd for the last seven years. Indefinite detention supposedly violates American values, we’re losing the war if we adapt to the threat against us, blah blah blah. Certainly Barack Obama never gave any indication of nuanced thinking along the lines of indefinite detention during the last two years while campaigning for the presidency. In fact, Obama made the absolutist case that Cole now belatedly rejects in June 2007:

“While we’re at it,” he said, “we’re going to close Guantanamo. And we’re going to restore habeas corpus. … We’re going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That’s our vision for the future.

Now that Obama has to live with these decisions and not simply snipe from the sidelines, the game appears to have changed. A month ago, the NYT’s editorial board scoffed at the Bush administration’s efforts to keep Gitmo detainees from being released as merely a way to avoid bad press and not to keep dangerous people from killing Americans. Suddenly, the New York Times discovers that the American system does allow for indefinite detention to protect society from dangerous individuals without full-blown criminal trials — as with the criminally insane.

Gosh, and all that “shut down Gitmo” stuff sounded so rational and sensible back in the olden days, when we were reassured it wasn’t really gonna happen soon.

So how far did you get when you parents told you to go ahead and run away from home?

I wish like the dickens I could patent this obvious truth, that some silly ideas seem attractive and sensible right up until they’re about to be implemented and then suddenly the beer goggles fall off. But I can’t. The earliest I became aware of it was when Carlin Romano said it after announcing in a book review that, according to Catharine MacKinnon’s “logic,” he just finished raping her. “People claim I dehumanized her,” he said. “In fact, I did worse — I took her seriously. The worst thing that can happen to a flamboyant claim is to be tested.”

That was way back in ’94. Since then, I have seen the wisdom of his words proven over and over again.

So this McCain voter is not weeping, wailing, or gnashing his teeth. He’s not stomping his feet or holding his breath until his face turns blue. He’s conducting his life, riding his bike to work…occasionally indulging in making an Obamaton squirm about driving that enormous SUV everywhere while the earth is dying. And, just reading the news to see how this hopey-changey goodness turns out. This McCain voter is very much like your mom and dad telling you to go ahead and run away from home, and watching to see what happens next.

This McCain voter is expecting — and not just a little bit — that what comes down the news pipeline, as all this hopey-changey goodness is nailed into place, resembles very much this first example. Oh no, Obamatons, your ideas are being taken seriously! What’re ya gonna do now?

Hat tip: Anchoress.

Feminists Outraged: Women Underrepresented in Publication of Stupid Crazy Nonsense

Friday, November 21st, 2008

Really:

Writer Jessica Wakeman recently had an interesting study published by media watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting on the present number of bylines belonging to women on Huffington Post.

After two months of tracking the number of bylines on the homepage, she found that only 23% of them belong to women:

The Post does seem to be making a conscious effort to include women’s voices; despite the low percentages, the study found at least one female byline on the home page at all times. But if there is indeed such an effort, it stops far short of parity. Of the 89 times bylines were checked during the study, not once did the number of women’s bylines equal those belonging to men. Only eight times did women account for more than a third of all bylines. And Arianna Huffington, appearing 57 times, accounted for more than a fifth of all women’s bylines; 45 of those occupied the most visible top post. Only once, in fact, did a woman other than Arianna Huffington get her byline in the most visible top slot–Post editor-at-large Nora Ephron (8/26/08).

I’d like to see a larger study around this; too many of us feel that women bloggers are undervalued in the progressive blogosphere, but hard evidence is always helpful.Thoughts?

Yeah here’s a thought, you whiner: A utopian’s work is never done. There’s always a scintilla of unfairness left lying around. Utopianism, therefore, whether it’s feminism, “civil rights,” hyper-environmentalism or general left-wing thuggery, will always be the packaging of extremism behind a veil of phony compromise.

Thing I Know #52. Angry people who demand things, don’t stop being angry when their demands are met..

Here’s another.

When I think of a hybrid construct of all the HuffPo bloggers of whom I’ve read, be they male or female — and I probably speak for quite a few who have dabbled in that corner, here — the general picture that emerges, closely resembles a stereotype of women that might be tossed out by careless piggish men, right before feminists like you start waving around their patented theatrical outrage.

Products of lifetimes spent getting attention, and not trying to accomplish too much else.

Thoughtless. Spoiled. Snarky.

Cute to the point of irritating.

Thinking well of themselves, while never straying too far from, or reigning in too tightly, a streak of viciousness.

Unhappy if everyone in the room isn’t watching them every second.

Full of punchlines, with absolutely no solutions to the problems of which they like to complain so much, showing absolutely no effort to find any.

And so it occurs to me that you’re caught up in a cyclical protest here, feminists: You’ve been spending all these years demanding people think of women as rationally thinking, strong, reliable and capable beings — and that women take this to heart as much as anyone else. Maybe, just maybe, when women started to comply, that’s when the female-authored posts to HuffPo took a tumble.

Let’s face it. You really don’t have to wait that long for a post written by a woman to emerge from the depths of the cistern that is Huffington Post. And if I want to think more positively of women and the contributions they can make to our society, I have a lot of other things I can look at besides that. No, the real flesh-and-blood women I know, inspire much more confidence in me about what they can do, and cause me to look forward much more positively to the next time I’m called on to work on something with a female, compared to the average female-written contribution to HP.

Or to Feministing, for that matter, now that I give it another think or three.

My Cheap Shot

Saturday, November 1st, 2008

I’m tempted to disclaim this with a paragraph or two about my high-minded intentions, but what in the hell is the point. I know I’ll be accused of taking a cheap shot for writing this, and that’s not what I’m trying to do, nor does it speak to what I’m trying to say. It isn’t my point to say “gay people stab each other with screwdrivers” and it isn’t my point to say that “writers for the Huffington Post stab people with screwdrivers”…but why should I have to say that. To conclude that this is my intent, would be bad logic. Measurably bad logic. Expressably bad logic.

Fish have gills, fish swim in the ocean, dolphins swim in the ocean therefore dolphins have gills.

Simple Socratean logic defends me…why should I try to toss up a bloated paragraph to try to do the same. It happened, I’m linking it, conclude what you will. Anyway, Morgan Rule #1 is if I’m gonna be accused of something, I wanna be guilty. But I’m not guilty — my motive for citing this is singular in nature.

Here in the land of fruits-n-nuts, in which we’re weighing the benefits and liabilities of Prop 8…we are rapidly settling into the disturbing and dishonest habit, of using “loving” as a euphemism for “homosexual.” Nobody’s complaining about that besides me, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything terribly wrong with it. As a straight dude who’s a parent, I find it grindingly offensive. And reasonability-wise, that’s the same dolphin logic cited above, or at least it encourages it.

Just as some things in the sea breathe water and some other things in the sea breathe air, that’s the way relationships are. Gay and straight people abuse their partners. Gay and straight people love their partners and treat them well. Neither sex-preference community has a monopoly on taking good care of children, loving the people in their households, beating ’em, butchering ’em, mutilating their bodies, killing themselves. It is non-correlative. At least partially non-correlative. On whether one community or the other demonstrates a statistical tendency for such things…I don’t wanna get into it and I see no reason to do so here.

No, I don’t want you to conclude anything about gay people.

If you want to conclude something about Huffington Post contributors, on the other hand, I’ll not do anything to stop you. Having read a few samplings from that corner, I’ll probably not even disagree with you too harshly about said conclusions, depending on what they are. There is something in the drinking water in that corner of the web. Not exactly a wellspring of cool-headed, rational thinking…

…having said ALL that…this is a little gruesome…

Woman stabs lover 222 times with screwdriver, then kills herself
October 31, 2008 – 1:30PM

An election writer for popular US blog The Huffington Post killed her 56-year-old lover by stabbing her 222 times with a screwdriver, before shooting herself, US police said.

Police said Carol Anne Burger, 57, attacked Jessica Kalish in the garage of their house in Boynton, Florida, on October 22 and then loaded Ms Kalish’s body into her car and abandoned it a few kilometres from the house.
:
Burger initially reported Ms Kalish missing, but committed suicide before police could question her, the paper said.

Things like this give me cause to take the comments of famous straight-lady and Bush-basher Ms. Jong in a somewhat different light (an Obama loss would spark rioting in the streets, et al). As you inspect the divide between left-wing and right-wing, a theme consistently emerges that concerns order versus chaos. The left wing likes to call itself tolerant, and deplores accusations of lawlessness. As you inspect left-wing positions, you find some of them are tolerant. Others are not. But left-wing positions on various unrelated issues do tend to possess a common attribute of finding lawlessness appealing.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the week before last and he asked an intriguing question: When do WE riot?? Answer: “We” don’t. That’s because of the “we.” The pronoun does not refer to registered Republicans, or talk show hosts, or people who like cigars or golf with Rush Limbaugh, or straight people or white people or even ideological conservatives.

“We” are people who long for a restoration of order. Not authoritarian/totalitarian order. Directional order. The kind of order that was upset on the playground when you got tired of the bully messing with you, punched him in the gut ONE TIME, and you both got hauled off to the principal’s office…the bully to get a ritual-nothing talking-to, and you to absorb the brunt of the real punishment.

We’re the people who think if there are rules someone bothered to scribble down, and an authority charged with enforcing them, then by implication the authority should be making life a little easier for people who follow those rules and tougher on people who don’t — rather than the other way ’round.

On a whole ballot full of issues, Proposition 8 is the one thing that divides my household. That’s because we think as individuals here. To me, as an individual, this stuff is all about definitions. As I declared when called-upon to defend my position, the argument has been put before me that gay marriage is all about a civil rights issue…I’ve considered the argument, and I’ve rejected it. I think of it as a big ol’ pig-in-a-poke, and I’m not buying. It’s not a civil rights issue. It’s a definition issue. And I’m sick and tired of seeing things defined as other things.

Illegal aliens are just-plain-illegal…we have to have a big debate about whether they are, or should be. Vote registrations are fraudulent…we have to have a big debate about whether they lead to actual fraudulent votes. Clinton lies about having sex with an intern…we have to have a debate about whether the lie counts or not. Obama says he’s going to spread the wealth around…we have to have a debate about whether that’s what he really meant to say.

Our minds are WAY too open. And yes, there is such a thing. We debate WAY too many things that aren’t really open to question. And I’m sick to death of it. But that isn’t the worst of what we’re doing. What we’re really doing, is casting ballots about recognizing things, and laboring under — or imagining ourselves to labor under — some obligation to relegate our individual cognitions to second-fiddle status, behind the government’s opposing sensibilities mandated by the prior election. That is not how it works.

But getting back to the subject at hand. This central debate that goes undebated. Chaos versus order. Maybe this will be offset when, this weekend, some right-winger goes off and commits domestic violence, and some left-wing blogger will read something into that. It doesn’t matter.

Something has slipped out of a dark cave here, and allowed us to catch a rare glimpse of it. And it’s the order/chaos discourse that underlies all other agreements between right-wing and left. Try this: Gather together a list of issues we’ve been discussing. Make it exhaustive. Anything in which there is a clearly-defined right-wing and left-wing position.

Gathering the first five or ten should be easy for you. The “exhaustive” part may pose a little bit of a challenge. Start a spreadsheet. Start a database. See how many you find.

Now examine those left-wing positions. When do they have something to do with preserving order? When you define “order” as the excision of dissent from left-wing sensibilities…or the prohibition against punishment of someone whose actions have somehow brought it down. Just in those two scenarios. Those are the only situations in which the left wing champions anything that could in the wildest imagination be called order.

The rest of the time, they look like what they are: Agents of chaos.

So yeah, Carol Anne Burger turned her lover into hamburger, and yeah, I’m reading something into it. Just as countless others read something into it when Dick Cheney shot his hunting partner in the face. It’s not tit-for-tat; it just makes sense. Especially when you consider other evidence suggesting the left-wing masks some package of human impulses that demand, perhaps urgently, a little more critical inspection before someone else gets hurt. That’s my cheap shot.

Filibuster Proof

Sunday, October 26th, 2008

Having a democrat President, a democrat House and a democrat Senate is not enough. For Hillary Clinton, it’s worth forming an alliance with Al Franken, to stump around in an effort to make the new Senate filibuster-proof.

“Al Franken was taking on the vast right-wing conspiracy before other people even admitted it existed,” she told a crowd of 2,000 supporters on the University of Minnesota campus, urging them to give her rival, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate. “Al Franken, with your help, can be our 60th vote.” [emphasis mine]

While I remain a staunch anti-filibuster advocate (When I Start Running This Place, Item #30), it’s an interesting canary in a coal mine in this situation; with 41 Republicans in the Senate the filibuster would be the last hurdle for bad ideas, or at least, extreme ideas.

Think about it: With the results in from an election in which Obama became our President in a rout, and democrats solidified their holds on both houses of the legislature — what kind of acts would still need that pesky filibuster to be removed, or rendered ineffective, in order to pass?

Here’s something else to ponder. Since the question posed above is simply belaboring the obvious (my respected pro-filibuster opponents use that argument on me, fairly often), it’s well-established that we already have quite a few people who are concerned with it. Hillary’s no dummy with that fine political art & science of figuring out what’s bothering people. She could have come up with a laundry list of good ideas, that might perish in the legislative chamber of a nation gripped in left-wing fever if there are 41 Republican votes in the Senate to bottle things up. Somehow, it was worthwhile to leave this undone. And I notice that’s the case pretty consistently.

The democrat party loves to talk about victory over Republicans.

It loves to talk about tactics and measures put in place to make sure they’re unopposed. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they were so enthused, with the prospect of defeating terrorists?

They so seldom talk about the fine details of what exactly it is they want to do. They hate Joe The Plumber so much. All Joe The Plumber did was initiate a dialog about this, at such a level that such a dialog became truly useful to people. If democrats thought they had a platform that would become more popular to us as we learned more about it, right about now Joe The Plumber would be getting a phone call about a Cabinet position, or an Ambassadorship.

That’s not what’s happening to Joe right now.

Their euphemisms disturb me. A lot.

So many of their most effective euphemisms involve placing discussion of generalities, where discussion of specifics would be in everybody’s better interests. Barack Obama has been babbling constantly for the last two years about “the failed policies of the Bush administration.” He could have been talking about an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He could have been talking about making sure each year’s budget is in the black — no new spending. After all, we “know” that’s what he really means, right? But he doesn’t say those things very often; instead, he talks about “the failed policies” with that name always following afterward.

No politician worth his salt will choose a strategy that involves risk and cost, over another one that does not.

I’m hearing the word “common sense” bubbling to the surface of the political-speech stewpot as well. In a sane political cycle, a singular use of this term would inspire stigma, and repeated uses of it would result in career suicide. But it seems Sen. Obama’s margin over his opponent widens by a point every time he uses that phrase, so it’s working out very well for him.

Implications of “common sense”:

You and I are not only united, but our unification is a piece of distant history. We are united in our goals as well as in our methods for reaching them. What I’d do in a situation, is identical to what you’d do in the same situation…or, at least, our reactions would be substantially similar. We need not make early commitments about what exactly is to be done — we can leave the real decision making until later, because you and I have this fraternal notion of trust in each other.

Is that the situation with the political climate of our country today?

More to the point, what has Obama, or Hillary, or the democrat party in general — done to foster a climate like that?

Therein lies the patently absurd dishonesty to which we’ve unfortunately become accustomed, and begun to accept. The democrat party is making a good show of including “everyone” in what they’re going to be doing. But Hillary’s effort here is typical of her party’s efforts. They want a complete election cycle in which they are so powerful, that nobody else’s opinion matters. They’ve done such a splendid job of gathering campaign funds, now, that they have a golden opportunity to explain the details of why they need that, to the rest of us.

And they won’t do that. They won’t do it, because it would hurt them. They act — in many, many ways — like people ready to assume a substantially different behavior, after a point of commitment has passed. The point of commitment means everything to them. If they had a real fraternal camaraderie with the rest of the nation, something in which the phrase “common sense” would be meaningful, the point of commitment wouldn’t have such an impact.

They act — more than a little — like the blushing bride waiting for the rings to be exchanged so she can gain back the weight, stop wearing make-up, spend truckloads of money down at the mall, start shagging the best man, and never cook another meal again.

Caveat emptor.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.