Monthly Archives: March 2013

A Little Friday Humor

Fat is Counter-Revolutionary

Struggling with your weight?  Turns out it’s a class struggle, my friend!

product_thumbnail.phpYes, that is a real thing.  And such a bargain, at a mere twenty capitalist dollars!  Order it here.

In case you’re wondering,

The book formulates a perspective where weight loss is treated as a political act against a consumptive, capitalist, culture of excess. All other diet books promise ‘beauty’ ‘beach bodies’ and such nonsense, this book however, argues that weight-loss should stem from a desire to live in a world where resources are shared by all. It categorically proves that one cannot lose excess weight and maintain a capitalistic hoarding psychology.

All of which seems a bit like overkill, no?  If Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, and the Kims’ North Korea are any indication, post-Revolution weight loss is pretty much guaranteed.

German Paper Warns of Coming Ice Age.  It’s funny because everyone knows we’re all gonna die of global warming.  Or that global warming causes global cooling.  Or something.  Because, science.

Speaking of science, here’s Beloved Leader Kim Jong Un proving that North Korea really is Vault 101 from the Fallout series of video games.

kimAnd yet somehow these guys have a nuke.  I especially dig the trac-ball mouse.  And because North Korea’s the nation that keeps on giving, here’s a still of the crack 4th Pajama Jammie Jam division demonstrating their deadly eyes-closed “spray ‘n’ pray” firing technique:

norks1It might be tough to see in thumbnail, but trust me,that dude in the foreground has his eyes screwed shut.

The cream of the North Korean navy goes through amphibious maneuvers:

norks2And last but not least, check out this elite regiment of… whatever the hell these guys are:

norks3I’m sure the Abrams boys are quaking in their boots.  If we have to fight them mano-a-mano while wearing 1920s college football gear, though, we’re in deep shit.

And here’s a MiG-21, which first entered service in 1959.

norks4Apparently the North Korean People’s Air Force figures our guys will be laughing too hard to pull the trigger.

And yes, these are the pictures of their military the Norks want us to see. It’s almost as if the state-controlled media is so in thrall to the Party that no information about the real world can ever penetrate to the top of the chain of command, for fear of upsetting their Beloved Leader’s cherished delusions and delicate emotional equilibrium.  Soooo glad that kind of thing doesn’t happen here in America, no?

Happy Friday, y’all.

Loading Likes...

Marriage is …

Reprimand ProjectI’ve seen this, among many other things circulating in the social media world, with approval from even some of my Tea Party friends. Not so much for me. In their cases, I think it is an attempt to come to terms with what they think is propbably inevitible — and maybe it is.  Inevitible, that is.

I mean, would it be the end of the world if the word Marriage got redefined in our culture to mean something it has never meant in Western Culture at all?  No. Probably not.  I do think it would lead to the further deterioration of Western Culture in the long run.  And some are arguing that that is the intent.  Maybe it is.

This is certainly not the way I would handle this issue.  It’s still in support of an attempt to unilaterally and legally re-define a culuturally significant word with complete insensitivity and, frankly, often comtempt for the culture it is being forced upon. . There are other ways to ensure legal frameworks that work for everybody. This is the wrong way to do it.

If you doubt the contempt part, just look at the website of the people who put this out. The “Reprimand” Project. They’re there to “reprimand” people who don’t agree with them. 

Check out this paragraph, the first of the explanations for what “reprimand” is all about.Pay special attention to the last sentence. It’s dripping with contempt for men, in particular. Frankly their whole manifesto is as well.

REPRIMAND (Required Exam of PRostate In Male ANdrogen Deficiency)

By legally requiring that all doctors and healthcare professionals give men a full, manual (i.e. with a finger in the rectum) prostate exam when treating not only issues of erectile dysfunction, but all symptoms that point towards low testosterone, we can ensure that men receive the critical, preventative care they need. It also means that men get something stuck up inside them for seeking legal medical services.

I can’t say I disagree with every position they have, though I will say without hesitation that I disagree fundamentally with their worldview and political outlook.  These people are divisive and petty. They’re all about punishing what they don’t like, even if they’re punishing a person who hasn’t engaged in that behavior.  A little full of themselves if you ask me, in the way that one might be if one had just finished a womens’ studies course and really got the fever.  If you read closely, their “equalizing” philosophy is not to extend freedom to people who they feel don’t have it, but to restrict it from people who do. I’ve got no use for them.

Loading Likes...

Earth Hour is…

A “dry run” at not-solving a phony problem, so we can get our pretend-to-solve-it skills at peak performance [for] when we start not-solving the real ones.

Words of wisdom from me, over at the Hello Kitty of Blogging.

Veering off on a tangent, in a piece of correspondence, I elaborate “off line”:

People are frustrated, bored, want to go through the motions of building something great and grand. But…They are destroyers, not creators. You ask them what they’re building, they can’t answer. You ask them what they’re destroying — they can. You ask their political opponents “What are those people over there trying to build, and what are they trying to destroy?” and the answers you get back, are identical to the answers you got from the participants in the movement themselves; only the terms are less glittery, less flattering. Example: The democrats want an “estate tax” and the Republicans call it a “death tax.” They disagree on the terms, but they agree on the implications of it and how it is supposed to work. What does it build? What does it destroy? Nobody can say what it builds. Well, it turns out a lot of human energy is going into things like that. Building things is scary. If someone comes along to quiz you about it, you have to say how it’s all supposed to work. And then when you actually do it, you have to get everything right. That means developing skills. Otherwise you do something stupid like put the wrong kind of fuel in the President’s limousine.

So in anticipation of the scrutiny and the assault of other destroyers, people find it easier to be destroyers; they’d rather do the quizzing, than be the ones who are getting quizzed.

I remember a very smart guy, the Chief Financial Officer for a company I once fooled into hiring me, and promoting me…came up with a real gem, which I must paraphrase and probably paraphrase poorly. Here goes. In government, even the people at the very top of the structure lack the authority to make anything go. But everybody, all the way down to the mail room, can bring the authority needed to put a stop to something. Everyone can stop something. Nobody can make it go.

Well, it isn’t true of just government. Authority and wherewithal to make things go, to build something new, are rare things. Because these things are rare, they are therefore precious. That the discipline involved is difficult to master, makes them even more rare and more precious. The authority and wherewithal to destroy such efforts, to bring them to a stop, are in abundance. The ritual of the destroyer quizzing the creator, obliging the creator to stop his creating if he can’t answer each question honestly, accurately, completely and to the satisfaction of the person asking. Doing that kind of quizzing is easy and fun. Being on the receiving end of it is frustrating, and not fun.

This is where I become truly embarrassed when I hear about the wrong fuel being put in the President’s limousine. The problem isn’t quite so much lack of skill. Heck, who am I to criticize, I never did find out if it was gas in a diesel engine, or diesel in a gas engine, and I’m at the point where I don’t give a hang. The problem is that it just wasn’t taken seriously, and I know why. The leadership is in the business of destruction because destruction is easier. They like to pretend they’re building something cool. They can’t say what it is they’re building. And, they lack the greater discipline required to build things.

Quoting Spock again:

As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes and Right Wing News.

Loading Likes...

“Trigger List”

Further to “Racist Hair,” David Thompson notes that Our Betters are praising themselves for the length of their “trigger lists.”

Yes, it’s true:  Our liberals — openminded freethinkers all, science’s BFFs — are awarding themselves Virtue Points for turning into automatons at the drop of a hat (or the twist of a dreadlock, I guess).

In the Dim Devil’s Dictionary, “liberal” is spelled P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N.

Loading Likes...

Racist Hair

Yes, racist hair.

I got nothin’.

Stuff like this is the main reason I don’t have much use for political theories.  Despite the frequent instances of the word “politics” in this diatribe (as in, “locs [sic] are an intensely political statement and…black people – especially black women – are constantly policed about their hair”), it has nothing to do with politics as I understand it. Yeah yeah, these clowns vote Democrat, but all the presence of a “writes with all apparent sincerity about the politics of black hair” demographic in our polity tells us is that perhaps there should be some kind of psychiatric qualification for the franchise.

One might even argue that folks getting incensed about white kids with dreadlocks are a sign of political health.  After all, what could be more of a first-world problem than this?  A system that delivers the goods well enough for us to squander psychic energy on dreadlocks must be doing quite a few things right.  Which, no doubt, is why more-radical-than-thou “progressives” are really secret conservatives

Loading Likes...

Speaking of Stuff Liberals Don’t Understand…

Did you know the federal minimum wage is supposed to be $22 an hour?  No, seriously:  it’s science.

Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions last week asked why the current federal minimum wage rate is only $7.25 and not $22 an hour.

“If we started in 1960, and we said that, as productivity goes up — that is, as workers are producing more — then the minimum wage is going to go up the same,” the Massachusetts senator said during the hearing.

“And, if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour. So, my question … is what happened to the other $14.75?” she asked University of Massachusetts professor of economics Arindrajit Dube

Jesus Christ on a rocket-powered moped.

Where did the other $14.75 go?  To the Happy Hunting Ground with your family’s tribal records, Sen. Warren.

Loading Likes...

Political Theoriezzzzzzzz…….

Confession time:  I don’t have much of a political philosophy.  I spend orders of magnitude more time thinking about what to have for lunch than where I stand on the nature of the state.  I don’t think I’m alone in this.

Put simply, that kind of thing bores me to tears.  Confronted with a paragraph that opens like this

We suspect that an intramural disagreement among conservatives has confused Tanenhaus about Calhoun’s influence. For many years a group of conservative scholars led by the brilliant Harry Jaffa have contended that the Constitution must be read in light of the moral principles of the Declaration of Independence

I reach for the rum.  When the authors follow it with this

While Tanenhaus does not mention Jaffa, he seems to have exaggerated Jaffa’s insults. If that is what happened, one irony is that Jaffa’s views have largely prevailed among mainstream conservative intellectuals, who are far more Lincolnian in their thinking about the Declaration than they were before he began writing

I start casting around for something much, much stronger.

Which is not to say I’m incapable of handling an intellectual argument, or even that I don’t enjoy them from time to time.  But my brain just doesn’t run in these channels, and I’m curious as to just how many people’s brains do.  If politics is show business for ugly people, then arguing about political theory is…. what?  Chess for guys who aced their SAT verbals but didn’t pass pre-calc?

Part of me doesn’t want to be as snarky as that last comment.  But part of me wants to be much, much harsher.  The more I observe political behavior in this country, the more convinced I am that intellect has about as much to do with it as it does with being a sports fan.  Nobody has a theory about baseball*; you just watch the games and wear the hats and hate the Yankees like all good red-blooded Americans.  Politics is similarly limbic — I doubt if either of the candidates for president last year could pick John Locke out of a police lineup in under three tries, to say nothing of the legions of ward heelers and phone-bankers and envelope-stuffers and sign-wavers that actually make elections go.  This is angels-on-pinheads stuff.

Ironically, it was Jonah Goldberg himself who pointed me to the fundamental distinction between anti-state and anti-left conservatives.  I’m one of the latter.  States change either glacially or violently; my opinion on the Constitution, even assuming I had a fully-formed and airtight one, extends exactly as far as my own personal sphere of influence.  I can’t even get my dog to stop barking at the mailman.

The main — the only — problems in American politics these days are psychological.  The state is in the fix it’s in because there’s a certain virulent form of douchebaggery, called liberalism, that parasitizes the personalities of impressionable citizens.  It causes them to vote as if they can sidestep reality with the sheer flower power of make-believe.

That’s where all the right’s intellectual energy should be focused.  Let’s get a majority of the country to recognize that “a slight decrease in the rate of increase of government spending” is not the same thing as “a spending cut” — and to act that way.  Then we can start worrying about whether the Republican Party is too Calhounian, or not Calhounian enough, or whatever.


*except, undoubtedly, for George Will.  Which probably accounts for half the conservative movement’s intellectual problems right there.



Loading Likes...

QUILTS: Priorities

One QUestion I’d Love To See asked has to do with priorities.

subwaypregnancyYou’ve probably read something about the furor surrounding this ad campaign in NYC.  All the usual idiots are outraged, of course, in their usual boring thoughtless screechy way.  What I’d like to know is this:

Which is worse, these ads or 16oz sodas?

It sounds silly, I know.  But stick with me here.  A large part of liberalism’s appeal is its endless insistence that, contrary to all decrees of God and nature, you really can have everything.  If you seemingly can’t have a healthy committed-but-not-clingy relationship while raising 2.1 perfect kids while making partner at the law firm by age 30 while writing a novel while eat-pray-loving around the world while staying in great shape while enjoying a fantastic smorgasbord of international cuisine while living in an ethnically diverse and vibrant yet perfectly safe neighborhood in a rent-controlled apartment no more than a block away from all major services while finishing your PhD in Women’s Studies, it’s not that this would violate several important laws of thermodynamics.  No, it’s somebody’s fault, damn it!

Given humanity’s lamentable propensity to believe pretty lies, and the media’s insistence that reality shall not obtrude upon the public’s consciousness until at least 2016, asking about priorities is the only chance we have of breaking through the veil.  We need to ask them to make some hard choices.  Even a liberal will admit, I think — if you press them hard enough — that two posters can’t occupy the same stretch of subway wall simultaneously.  So: Should we advertise the soda ban, or propagandize for Planned Parenthood?  Similarly, I think they would agree — again if pressed hard enough — that one police officer can’t be in two places at the same time.  So:  Should he spend his time going after secondhand smokers or under-the-counter consumers of oversized colas?

We have to force them to realize there’s an inflection point, even in liberaltopia, even when pursuing two bona fide Good Things.  How, for instance, are we going to get the unwed teenage mom all the education she needs about the bounteous cornucopia of public support that is hers by right if she’s spending all her time getting the 24/7 postnatal care that is also hers by right?  Which is better: a stint in the Peace Corps, or being a full-time staffer at Organizing for America?

How, in other words, do we rank Good Things?

I’d love to see someone put that to Jay Carney.  Of course, we already know how he’d answer….


Loading Likes...

D3: Goodperson Bingo

Surprising absolutely nobody, liberal twit New York Times reporter (BIRM 3x) Nick Kristof isn’t too happy about the new Pope’s lack of progressive credentials:

Pope Francis seems liberal on social justice but sadly traditional on sexuality and contraception

(via Ace).

Still Catholic; same funny hat

Still Catholic; same tall hat

Equally unsurprisingly, a great many people are ragging Kristof about this.

So far, so predictable.  But here’s the thing:  Despite being a liberal, a reporter, and a New York Times employee, Nick Kristoff isn’t stupid.  He knows a pro-gay, pro-abortion “Catholic” has roughly the same chance of being elected Pope as I do of being elected chair of the Berkeley Wymyn’s Studies program.

So why does he post crap like this?

I know the answer, of course, same as you.  He’s playing Goodperson Bingo.

Good*per*son Bing*o (n).  A competitive public display of Goodperson status.  Players assert an item of leftist cant in response to a news item.  Points are awarded based on the number of contrary responses.  The more people who disagree with you, the more popular you are; the most popular is by definition the most virtuous.

This is, sadly, one of the keys to understanding the liberal mentality.  Since anyone who disagrees with a leftist is stupid (just ask ’em!), everyone who disagrees with a leftist in public is one more confirmed kill in the war against idiocy.  So-and-So thinks the Pope shouldn’t be all about gay marriage?  Well, that proves it– So-and-So is a moron.

It’s very important for liberals to have these public affirmations of being smarter than someone else.  Otherwise how would they know?

Remember the functional definition of liberalism:  The lifelong attempt to make high school turn out right.  Being “smart” — or virtuous, or educated, or attractive, or whatever — is, to the liberal, exactly the same as being “cool” is to a high school kid.  Nothing can make you cool.  You either are or you aren’t, and the only thing mere effort can do is to put on the right clothes and get the right haircut and post the right Facebook statuses and maintain ever-watchful vigilance against the thousand and one microscopic social missteps that will hurl you — forever — into the ranks of the losers.

Goodperson Bingo is just a high-tech way of laughing at the fat kid with braces in the cafeteria.


*I was going to call this entry “virtue bingo,” but apparently there really is a site called Virtue Bingo out there.  Wouldn’t want to be guilty of the ol’ copyright infringement, ay wot?  Sadly, though, Virtue Bingo appears to be a site where people really play bingo, for money and stuff.  Which I had no idea was even a thing.


Loading Likes...

Get Going on it, Rand

Looks like Rand Paul has the same take on this whole Gay “Marriage” issue that I do.

“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”


Loading Likes...