Archive for April, 2011

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… XXXI

Thursday, April 7th, 2011

Quote from one Alfred E. N. Gray, by way of Boortz:

“The secret of success of every person who has ever been successful lies in the fact that he formed the habit of doing things that failures don’t like to do.”

Listening to Husband Talk to Himself As He Watches The Bachelor

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011

I’m thinking I like this husband. I acknowledge the multitude of exceptions to my observation, but I have found it to be a (yet another) fair generalization to make:

Reality teevee shows take as long as they do, because for every minute of something happening there are nine additional minutes of “When [blank] did or said [blank] it made me feel [blank].” To say I find this annoying would be an understatement, so potty-mouth and I are on the same page.

Hat tip to Gerard.

Generalizing Fairly

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011

Since sometime in the second half of the twentieth century, we have had this rule in place that is unwritten and yet rigidly enforced. If someone were to take the time to string it into actual words, it would read something like “Any observation about people with exceptions to it, along with any observation that may have an exception to it is to be blocked, on penalty of ostracism.” Sometimes in grade school it is crystallized into the form of “It is wrong to generalize.”

Nowadays, it seems the perimeter has shrunk although at the same time, hardened. “All things noticed about a class of people, particularly a class of people represented by any organized victims-advocacy groups, are to be discarded before anyone acknowledges the thing noticed, such that it may as well not have been noticed.” So the enforcement is no longer against certain ways of thinking, it has subtly changed into a pit bull safeguarding the interests of political advocacy groups. For example — in 2011, I can say “it seems I am much less safe on the highways when the driver of the next car has a very low head, rising not too far above the steering wheel.” It is a generalization; certainly, still not looked upon too favorably. But it no longer draws any genuine offense because it doesn’t specifically target any one particular group. There is a “Could Be Construed As” standard that still has some teeth, and this could be construed as an attack upon Asians, or old people, or vertically challenged.

But it is not considered “super duper wrong” like it would have been before. In other words, we have very subtly done away with our deploring of certain ways of thinking, with the “enter every single new experience with people with zero baggage, and a brand new blank slate” thing. In times past, generalization itself was thought to be always unfair; making use of a long term memory was absurdly equivalent to denying someone, somewhere, opportunities and therefore “rights.” Well, unless it was a generalization the communists might like. “Business executives are cold-blooded reptiles” has never been politically incorrect, or discouraged in any way.

Well, like Baxter Black said: I acknowledge the multitude of exceptions to my observation. When you start out with that; and acknowledge the plain truth of the matter, that greater proportions of one declared class engage in a certain behavior than of some other declared class; and, consider the action of voting to re-elect President Obama — it is interesting what remains on the table.

Neal Boortz proceeds to catalog it thusly. And it’s a fair question for these fair generalizations. Who, after all, could have been paying attention over the last three years, and come to any conclusion available, other than that we’re looking at a failed experiment?

As I’ve said before, I take issue with the thing about women being wired for security while men are wired for opportunity. In times past, I say, it might very well have been true; but it’s time for a re-think. Are men, nowadays, wired for opportunity? Pfeh. If that’s the case, let them prove it, better than I’ve seen them prove it up ’til now. And I’ll be generous about it — dudes, if you’re going out to cut your own wood, change your own oil, fix your own machinery, plumbing, wiring, heating/AC ductwork, then I award you points. If you have opted for a job that pays on commission, or some kind of a bounty, has no flat salary, you get points too. Who’s left standing around with no points? A bunch of dames? A bunch of skirts? Their mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends…nobody else? I’m thinking not. I’m seeing a lot of men who can’t make rational decisions about their own lives, unless & until everything is completely safe…at least in appearance. Men who can’t tell their next pink slip apart from an order of execution — who lack the ability to envision what is to become of their lives, the day after the current full-time job comes to an end.

Another disagreement: I must side with the commenters who have pointed out to Boortz that he has erred in skipping over the very young people. They are significant. Obama can count on them, and I think He is. You know what they say; you can’t have a heart if you vote Republican at twenty-five, and you can’t have a brain if you still vote democrat at thirty-five. As Rush Limbaugh said in his book, “that statement is at least half true.” But I find it a fair generalization to make that voters, up until about age thirty, don’t really give a rip. Oh, they’ll vote to “be a part of this thing” and so forth, but they won’t take the time to learn the details about what they’re doing.

I think in 2012, Barack Obama can count on young voters, feeling the pressure to participate…but, not taking the time to answer critical questions that pertain to Obama’s administration. Like, for example, “how exactly does a drilling moratorium help the situation with the oil seeping into the gulf?” Or, to cite another example, “what exactly is ObamaCare supposed to do, to bring medical costs down and make better care available to a greater number of people?”

If you had to contend with some kind of knowledge obstacle, to demonstrate some capacity of understanding for our policies and the effects they have before you could cast a vote…Obama would be a dead duck, with His amazing talents for speechmaking and crowd-pleasing rendered a mere nullity and nothing more. Might as well call up the moving truck right now.

There’s only one fair generalization needed, really: Barack Obama is depending on voters accustomed to feeling their way around problems, rather than thinking their way through them. Voters who have been conditioned to think they are assured of an acceptable outcome of each new situation, if only their emotions are in a good state, and kept that way until some concluding event.

Mental children, in other words.

More Male Guilt

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011

And why not? It’s brought us such wonderful things, like…uh…hold on, I’m sure I’ll think of something.

Well it’s not over yet.

Am I hearing this right? Are these multiple generations of male hippies apologizing for rape? Sounds like a confession to me.

Give ’em a fair trial, lop off what they seem not to value anyway and toss their ponytailed carcasses in the clink.

To engage in further dark fantasy would be to embark upon a road I fear does not end…but it would also be to join them, on some level, so I shall concentrate on other things.

Rather surprised this has not already become a “Everyone Else is Blogging It, I Might as Well Do It Too” thing. I imagine it will be going viral soon.

Thanks to Rob, sending around the good stuff by way of e-mail, again.

The Blog That Nobody Reads with the Pages That Don’t Load??

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

Thanks to blogger friends Phil and Buck for confirming it isn’t just my imagination. Of course, the occasional HTTP 500 errors confirm that, but we needed confirmation the problem is getting worse.

It seems to happen between 9 and 10 PDT on weekdays. My domain provider has confirmed it’s a “roommate” problem of sorts, I’m sharing a physical bank of machines with other clients and one of them has been sucking the cycles away. They’re going to investigate the problem over a few days, read some logs, etc., possibly move things around if necessary.

So it’s not just your imagination, either. We’ll be following up in a couple days to make sure there’s real progress.

“Leaving the Reservation”

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

Daphne is letting loose once again, and making it look easy.

A silent tide is sweeping across the country among family men of a certain age. Men who’ve decided that they are done living on the government’s terms, shrugging off the tight-fitting version of suburban success with an ease they never thought possible. They’re walking off the reservation on their own terms, without anyone taking slightest bit of notice.

These men don’t show up at Tea Party rallies, march on Washington or join militias. They go to work, love their wives, pay their never-ending taxes, fees, surcharges and diligently raise the next responsible generation. Most people would call these solid men our nation’s backbone.

Many have served our country, in war zones, with distinguished honor. They gladly earn their bread while supporting complete strangers who don’t, can’t or won’t work. They span the spectrum from blue collar workers to successful entrepreneurs. A number of these good men have been sniffing the wind for the past two years and they’re calling it a day. Bolt holes are being created, money is being transferred out of the market and into solid commodities, debt load is being reduced with an eye towards further economic collapse. Politics have become meaningless to this breed, they’re done, disgusted, fed up with whole cesspool. These men are looking at American life in a whole new way.
:
Flying under the radar, getting out from under the yoke, becoming free men, rather than shackled dogs or besuited grey ghosts, is the juice fueling their passion. These men don’t want to argue politics and they have no interest in fighting, not anymore.

These men have decided that what they want most of all, is to finally start living.

It is, perhaps, impossible to definitively determine how many societies have crumbled this way. Someone gets the bright idea to improve things and make them kinder and more compassionate, by making them kinder and more compassionate. As in, force some class of schmucks to do something they otherwise would not do. And then they do it again and do it again…after awhile, nobody bothers to even begin to explain how this next incremental erosion of freedom is supposed to solve the stated problem. We just do it a few more times. And then, finally, lo and behold we do build a super advanced society that works for “everyone.” But by this time we become well-practiced in re-defining “everyone” to mean something besides “everyone.” We re-define it to cover non-productive people, who don’t have jobs, don’t want jobs, or have jobs that cannot and do not produce anything of value to anybody. We create a society that works for them, and to hell with those other people, the people who keep it all running.

So our super-magical perfect society leaves them…before they leave it.

It isn’t the first time we’ve been down this road. Far from it.

Atlas Shrugged is opening on April 15. Have you demanded that it be shown in your zip code yet?

Force

Monday, April 4th, 2011

I’ve been conducting guided tours through California with extended family, and I’ve seen the question emerge as I execute my assigned captain-of-vessel duties from behind the steering wheel, many times in a variety of different phrasings, “What is California?”

The comment has arisen that lane-splitting is hairbrained and stupid. I am inclined to agree. Lane-splitting, for the uninitiated, refers to the practice of going between cars when you’re on a motorcycle. It is legal here in California, and in not too many other places.

I must admit that if I was on a motorcycle I’d probably not exploit this. But I also must admit that I hope California keeps this allowance in place, for one reason and one reason alone: This state is completely pussy-whipped in all other respects. In all other scenarios, all other situations, all other institutions, in all other walks of life. In fact, I shouldn’t compare it to female anatomy or female appendages or female characteristics because it isn’t fair to females. I do find this to be anti-male, but anti-male is not the same as female.

In all other matters, “One Regulation Away From Complete Bliss” is the order of the day.

California is, in its own way, rather disgusting. It is egregious. It is extremist. It is…dare I string the words together in this sequence…brutally secure. Yes, that does capture it, I think.

Everybody has to be healthy and safe. Siskiyous to Rio Grande, Sierra Nevada to the surf of the Pacific, every single square inch. Everyone must have an absolute guarantee that they will stay that way — healthy, safe, cancer free, organic, sterilized, non-radioactive…happy and content. And everyone has to have the feeling that they are absolutely safe. All the time.

This objective is not possible in this universe of reality, and so: It is always the right time to make another law. So yes, I do agree the lane-splitting is potentially hazardous — I don’t see any reason to keep it legal, at all, save one — if it is outlawed, our pussification is complete. While this stupid suicidal practice remains legal, there is a layer of insulation separating California from the brink. It is the one way you can use your resourcefulness, and your drive, and your rugged individualism to get ahead of the crowd. It’s dangerous. California allows it and not too many other states do. We need more things like that, not fewer.

We were heading toward one of our favorite places in the National Forest, and Dad was noting how attractive the wilderness was. And it is. Well cared-for, has that looked-after feel to it. And these aren’t acres and acres we’re talking about; it’s square miles and square miles.

But we weren’t in the National Forest yet.

And herein lies my observation. Not quite so much a liberal/conservative thing; more of a statist/libertarian thing. What is it we keep hearing about national forests? “Protect it! Make this parcel of lands hands-off to developers! Make it so it can’t be developed!”

Here I’ll just come out and say it. I don’t think those people bother to come out to where we were. I don’t think they go to national forests. I don’t think they enter the periphery near the forests, where we were. Because what we were looking at destroyed the entire paradigm. “Make this a national forest so it is protected from development” assumes, implicitly, that anything outside the borders of a national forest is going to get developed. Or at least un-maintained. Un-looked-after. That obviously is not true, so the entire argument crumbles under the weight of its own inherent silliness.

The same is true of any government entitlement program. When you say we need to raise taxes so the government can make ends meet, and then we need that government to provide a program so the beneficiaries of the program can do…whatever…what you need to presume, for that idea to find support, is that a dollar left untaxed is a dollar that won’t be used to help anybody. Well, people use their after-tax dollars to contribute to charities. So there goes that.

Education, too. How many times do we hear, lately, that we need to route more of these dollars to “education.” Implicit in that is — well, it’s the same. We’ve built this leviathan construct bureaucracy to educate people. Therefore, there must not be any way to get educated outside of this bureaucracy. Now if you presume that and refrain from challenging it in any way, or tolerating any challenges to it in any way, it makes sense. But if you tolerate challenges to it, once again the whole argument crumbles. And why would you refuse to tolerate any challenges to it? On a word-for-word basis, nobody even has the balls to advance this supposition anyway.

I don’t mean to flesh this list out to the point where it becomes exhaustive. But there are more examples, of course. ObamaCare. People going uncovered, dying, diseased, medical costs through the roof, blah blah blah — because there is freedom. Because there is choice. Like Venus arising from the ocean waves, this idea springs forward from nothing that all these problems will simply go away if people are forced to do something. Forced into the “public option.” Forced to buy insurance. Same thing as what you saw with the national forests. Stopped. Hindered. Obstructed. Made to do. Forced. Must. Should. Can’t.

How have these acts of force solved our problems? How will they? How can they? I say, go ahead and ask the questions; you’ll probably notice what I’m noticing. The answer never seems to come. It’s like the sacrifice of some barnyard beast to some primitive deity. Do it, and the rains come and we have crops…unless they don’t, and we don’t, in which case, well, heck. We must not have done it right. Do it again.

Is the global warming scare still on? I’m not even sure anymore. Let’s consider adding that to the list. Let’s see if I can describe this crisis accurately: Something called the “mean earth temperature” has gone up by a degree or so over the last hundred years or so. Solution: “cap and trade” scheme of some kind, and maybe a tax. There it is again. Force. Make. Bludgeon, beat-down, coerce, penalize, regulate, legislate, enforce, fine, imprison.

May I proceed to point out the obvious? Here, I’ll state it word for word and ruin the suspense: We are surrounded by fellow citizens who think of force as an adequate substitute for logical thought. If they were to enjoy some mystical immediate translation of their every thought into action, the problem would remain unsolved. Or, let’s state it properly: We find ourselves wholly missing any logical substantiation for the idea that the stated problem might be solved.

The involvement of force, is the only ingredient in the proposed solution that might incline a person to think the situation would be improved. But since when has that really solved anything?

Gun control. Prohibition against trans fats and salts in restaurants. Don’t invade Iraq unless the U.N. says it’s okay. No “gaming” unless you’re in a licensed casino. No home-schooling. Can’t turn your thermostat to seventy-two degrees.

When there’s another “crisis” with an oil leak in the gulf, the answer is a drilling moratorium. What is a moratorium? It is the word “can’t.” So there it is yet again. Can’t, can’t, can’t, can’t, can’t.

I say: Fine, give it a try. Forbid people from doing things, to your heart’s content. But hey, I’m a moderate. I say…do it, and at the same time, remain open to the possibility that it isn’t working. That last half of it is not being done.

I see it as something like an involuntary facial tic. Or a hand-washing compulsion. Some challenge arises and the resolution to the challenge is not immediately obvious. So these people, who lack basic talents involving maturity and resourcefulness, immediately just scurry to their corner of protection and comfort and say — forbid X from doing Y and that will make everything come out all fine.

And don’t ask me how. “I don’t care, Obama is awesome!” and let’s move on to the next topic.

But these are the fellow citizens who are supposed to be our deep, talented, nuanced thinkers. Yeah, uh huh. You figure that one out, you drop me a line okay?

Update: It seems this particular brand of insanity does not sleep, or even rest. Hat tip to Instapundit.

Can someone come up with some kind of special treatment, or program of confinement, or drug, to get these poor wretches the help that they need?

Cross-posted at Washington Rebel.

Obama’s Re-election Campaign Being Run at LA Times

Monday, April 4th, 2011

William Jacobson, among others, is having a chuckle over this. Looks like someone at the Los Angeles Times had the wrong link copied into the clipboard whilst engaging in an attempt to direct readers to Obama’s re-election website, and pasted in the Times’ site address instead.

I just got done trying to find my way around President Obama’s website. I was trying to drop a brief reply, asking the President specifically what He plans to do in His second term that He can’t quite seem to get accomplished in His first. It’s a fair question, isn’t it? Whatever it is, it seems to be important enough to drive this historical, billion dollar campaign fund-raising effort.

Even knowing we’re talking about Barack Obama here, the “excitement,” contrasted against the absolutely complete lack of substance about goals & processes for reaching the goals…is nothing short of stunning. It’s worse than 2008. Without the ritual bellyaching about George W. Bush, there isn’t enough structure to get the excitement generated — not enough to even get started on that.

Just a lot of “okay, it’s time, let’s get started.” Like an elementary school teacher leading kids off a bus onto a field trip…but not to the petting zoo or fire hall or something cool & fun…more like, to some museum everyone’s already seen.

I was trying to ask pal Barry what’s up, and what I thought might get me to an e-mail reply page, got me this instead.

I don’t know about you, but I found “Ed” to be particularly pathetic. Toxic, even. The video would have been better if he’d been entirely removed. In the middle of a video that’s supposed to get me all excited and jazzed, but is completely lacking in “President Obama is for [blank] and to get that done He intends to do [blank],” here’s Ed to counsel and preach to me that he doesn’t agree with Obama on everything, but he respects Him. Hmmmmm…yes, that is very inspiring. Gas prices have doubled, unemployment seems to have found a natural new home at around nine percent, and the top dog is doing things we disagree with. But He’s respectable, “we” respect Him.

Maybe there’s a way for the bar to be lower than that. Having trouble thinking of one at the moment…

Still, there’s a real chance this might actually work. It’s going to be an interesting race. Sort of like a literal race, from one end of a barnyard to the other, among two animals, chickens or goats maybe, neither one of them feeling too much oomph about it or offering much clarity of thought about space, geography, where the finish line is…maybe a couple of feral creatures inebriated on liquor. To build up such an analogy any further is to drift into the realm of award-winning bad metaphors and I’m probably there already.

Point is, I expect each side to be excited and motivated solely by the weaknesses hobbling the other. Not entirely sure about the Republican challenger, since I don’t know who that is yet. But President Obama certainly does have that problem — His billion dollar fundraising campaign shows none of the excitement He seems to think He can bring to it. And if it does ever come to find this excitement, it will be agitated into effect only by the weakness on the other side.

So I’m not altogether sure why He has seen fit to deliver this to us now. Maybe someone, somewhere, has done a calculation and figured out it’ll cost a billion dollars to get His sorry ass re-elected.

Good for Him that the LA Times is helping Him out where it can.

“Now We Know Who the Half Man Is”

Sunday, April 3rd, 2011

I’m divided about Charlie Sheen, although not by any means unresolved or uncertain. As a matter of fact, there are many things in life about which I think it would do me good to learn a bit more, but there are very few subjects on which I have less curiosity than Charlie Sheen. Among the things about which I am ambivalent, I think it is fair to say Charlie Sheen represents the one item on that list about which I possess the lowest level of curiosity, the one item on which I have the least to learn.

Do I need to elaborate upon the reasons for which I feel ambivalent? I have some sympathy for when he’s asked why he likes hot looking women…as if it’s some kind of mental illness…and he replies, “duh.” Not only am I on Charlie Sheen’s side in that exchange — I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the man who is not. Charlie Sheen ranks much higher on my scale of acceptability, than some virtual gelding who goes through the motions of pretending “proper” men should not find attractive women to be attractive. I think those lightweights are selling out their own sex, but I also think they are much worse than that. I see them as liars, who are complicit in an effort to ruin the lives of others who speak truth.

From what I have read, Charlie Sheen is a working man. He shows up for the job on time, and he delivers. He seems to be a pain in the ass to any kind of employee, boss or co-worker…but not because anything that has to do with getting the job done. I think he’s a dick, but I think the guy who fires him because of some personal friction, is a bigger dick. In short: I have contributed productively to successful projects, working shoulder-to-shoulder with people who disagreed with me about things. I have little interest in forcing everybody else to do likewise. But I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who fail at this. I figure if I can do it everybody else can too. I think the “team player” thing has been vastly, vastly overdone, in all walks of life. I think we have neglected the getting-done of the job at hand, even if it’s a silly job like show business, to this “lesson” more properly relegated to the second-grade classroom of “learning to work together.” I think Charlie Sheen fails at this, is proud to have failed at this, but the goal is substandard, nonsensical, useless and childish in the first place. I think it needs more resistance. When Sheen/Estevez puts up his resistance against it, I am in his ball park and I am on his side.

Next item of Sheen-mania: “Winning…”? I’m ambivalent about this more than anything else. Yes, it sounds pretty stupid and yes it probably should. It’s also a falsehood in my opinion. I have a few people in mind who I think are “winning” or have been “winning.” Charlie Sheen has not been on that list. He is certainly not on that list now!

But why do I not like Charlie Sheen? Not because of any one thing he’s uttered in particular; he’s going through the motions of being this rugged-individualist guy who doesn’t care what anybody thinks. And it is the polar opposite of the truth.

Charlie Sheen is trying to get attention. I cannot respect people who try to get attention. They keep saying all kinds of stupid bullshit things.

Like for example…this.

9:18 – “Nothing terrifies a troll more than its own reflection,” Sheen continues, before shifting gears into politics. “In a recent poll, they told me I’d bring down that whore [Sarah] Palin. I don’t have time for that nonsense.”

9:20 — People start booing Sheen. Not playing around, but actually booing him. Sheen yells, “I already got your money, dude!”

We here happen to like Sarah Palin, but let’s leave that alone. We happen to be friends with lots of people who don’t like Sarah Palin, if Charlie has something insulting to say that by itself doesn’t make him a bad person.

And it’s not necessarily the word that brings it to my attention.

It’s the entire family of words. Trollop, whore, cunt, twat, plate-of-warm-meat, jezebel, tramp, bimbo, gang bang party favor, tootsie, hoe-bag, strumpet, tart.

Nouns that indirectly refer to the organ that is between a woman’s legs, for the purpose of implying that the target of the insult has sexual intercourse with an inordinately large number of men, or has a great number of sexual adventures of a casual nature across a relatively brief expanse of time.

Calling all people who do not like Sarah Palin — and let us say, for the purpose of argument, that I am also a person who does not like Sarah Palin.

Why would you go calling her a whore? It just makes us look like dumbasses.

Now let’s re-emerge back in reality, and acknowledge that I do, in fact, like Sarah Palin: I already know these Palin haters are dumbasses and don’t need to see anything by way of ancillary proof. But it does prove what I already know. They’re dumbasses.

Why do you go calling her a whore? Can you think of any way in which she is qualified to be on the receiving end of such an insult, even remotely? No, you can’t. I say this makes Charlie Sheen, and all the other Palin haters, look like exactly what they are. People stranded in “opposite land.”

I would rather have Palin watch my house while I was on vacation, than Charlie Sheen. And I think most of the Palin haters would rather have Sarah and Todd watching their houses than Charlie Sheen, while they were on vacation. I think they know what I know. I think this is why they hate her so much. It’s like Stockholm syndrome; they have this inexplicable fascination with, and attraction toward, flaky unreliable scumbag ditzy slutty people. And so they project these slutty attributes upon clear-thinking reliable people who are not sluts, that they know are not sluts.

They try to make an issue out of Sarah Palin, and “tea party people,” being well-read or not well-read. But it’s all nothing but a big smoke screen, a big red herring. Being erudite or worldly or having a passport has nothing to do with it.

She possesses good judgment and is wholesome, and they hate her for it.

But why call her a slut or a cunt or a hoe-bag or a twat, or any of these derogatory words for women who have indiscriminate, frequent or vast magnitudes of sex? Why do that?

After years and years of moving in next door to her to spy on her, and comb through her trash, there was not a single sexually titillating thing discovered about her except — correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is an exhaustive list:

– Her daughter got knocked up
– She showed her legs, wearing running shorts, with awesome looking legs sticking out of them, on the cover of a magazine, and it was a damn good-looking cover since Sarah Palin’s legs are so good-looking…
– Some bikini picture had to be photoshopped. That means it wasn’t real. Which means, they couldn’t find a real picture. Which means, you know what her legs look like but you don’t know what her stomach looks like.

That’s a whore? You can’t even find an old boyfriend pre-Todd? Just one? Someone who will spill some secrets? Just one? After all this energy spent looking…it would not be an overstatement to say an entire industry has been built on this effort, between August of 2008 and the moment in which I’m writing this…still, there is nothing. That’s a whore, huh?

Sorry Charlie. You’re a falling star, burning out. But I think you know that already.

Title of this post taken from the comment made by cruzin77.

Cross-posted at Washington Rebel.

I’m Impressed With Baxter Black’s Brain

Sunday, April 3rd, 2011

His weekly column is here.

He is even enviable in the way he chooses to word things. During the audio book on the way back from Nevada, I was particularly impressed with the phrase, “I acknowledge the multitude of exceptions to my observation.” The occasion was a comment made about the difference between girls and boys as they interact with horses. Gender differences, in other words. We sometimes talk about gender differences here; it sort of teeters on the brink of the precipice of “Three Things Morgan Doesn’t Have the Balls to Blog.”

So I think I’ll borrow the phrase, when it is needed, going forward. “I acknowledge the multitude of exceptions to my observation.”

I’ve Decided I Want to Take Michael Moore Completely Seriously…

Friday, April 1st, 2011

…in everything he says, about anything. I mean the dude does talk about capitalism and money an awful lot. He must know something about it, since he’s a great big fat rich capitalist guy & all.

I just hope it doesn’t get me into any kind of (logical) trouble. Like so —

Hat tip to Kate at Small Dead Animals.

Dads Know Everything

Friday, April 1st, 2011

Of course we do.