Crazy Idea

arottenchestnutThis goes along with the bumpersticker politics of the, as Dear Leader says, “false choice” between schools and bombs.  But this time, it’s schools and prisons.

But the big question here I want to ask, and Morgan has asked it as well, what do they mean by “fully funded”?  What percentage of funded are they now?  What dollar amount would make them “fully funded”?  They don’t have a concrete answer.  It’s pretty much always “more”.

Not to mention the fact that … if you did this, you might have your schools overrun by criminals.  Just a thought.

The GOP Moves to Elect a New People

Well may it serve them.

The last even quasi-respectable argument for voting Republican — that they’re at least kinda sorta trying to defeat the Democrats — is now gone.  When you’re trying to win a contest, the last thing you want to do is help the other team.  Adding eleven million socialism-loving Aztecs to the electorate is just slightly slower suicide.

But don’t worry — there will be enforcement, they say.  Tighter borders and whatnot.

Yep.  And how’d that work out last time?  Here’s a hint:  When NP fuckin’ R has a kind word for Ronald Reagan, you know it’s a complete and total leftist victory.

Some have rejected my Weimar America thesis on the current lack of focused racial hatred.  John Boehner and Co. are trying to fix that for us.  When the crash comes and everyone’s looking for someone to blame…. an alien element within the body politic that seems to consume a disproportionate share of resources… a group that seems loyal, not to its host nation, but to a different country entirely

Ah well.  America had a good run.  Thanks, Republicans!  Hell of a job.

With Friends Like These….

A couple things still interest me about this “Abortion Barbie” story.  As with Elizabeth Warren, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and, well, just about everyone else the media shoves down our throats these days, I’m trying to figure out what the appeal is.

And not because they’re generic liberals, mind you.  The appeal of generic liberalism, I get.  It’s the appeal of these particular individuals, their biographies, their “stories” or “narratives” (if we must use two of the most obnoxious words in political language).

Wendy Davis’s candidacy rests on three pillars:

  • She’s a mother
  • She’s a lawyer
  • She likes abortion

If there’s anything else to it, I haven’t seen it.  And since this is straight from the mouths of her supporters, you have to assume this is all they’ve got.

It’s easy (and fun!) to point out the contradiction between 1) and 3) — if she’d been abortion’s BFF back when, she wouldn’t be a Heroic Single Mother now, and nobody would know she exists.  I think this was the main complaint of the maybe five conservatives who paid attention back before her lies were exposed.  Here we have a woman being praised to the stars by liberals for a decision that, in any other context, would cause those same liberals to deride her as a fool and a sellout.

But hey, if they could grasp the obvious they wouldn’t be liberals.  What’s interesting to me is the support she’s still getting in lots of quarters.  Wendy Davis is a standard-issue grandstanding narcissist; that it manifested as a run for office from the left rather than the right is for all intents and purposes accidental.  It’s her supporters I find baffling, and the peculiar blindness of their faith.

Now, I don’t doubt that  “Pro-Life Barbie” would have her cadre of fanatic supporters too, for whom The Cause overrides any and all personal failings of the candidate.  But “Pro-Life Barbie” would never be able to hang on as long as Wendy Davis has.  “Pro-Life Barbie” would be hounded into obscurity by the media before she could contemplate running for municipal dog catcher, let alone governor of Texas.  But since the media constantly enables liberal fantasists, let’s take the wonderful opportunity they’ve provided to armchair psychologize a subset of them.

Here’s the Washington Post (via Ace of Spades) arguing that her lies damage her national image:

What Davis then needs most of all is not to win – although that would be nice for her and her supporters – but rather to be seen as having run a creditable campaign that continues to elevate her star status. Allegations like these about her résumé, if they persist and/or lead to other problems with the campaign, are perilous to that perception.

It goes without saying that the DNC plans to parachute her in, Hillary!-style, to whatever blue-leaning district they think they can capture an election cycle or two down the road, because that’s how federalism works in Weimar America.  At worst, she could hang around as a Sarah Palin-like figure, reminding the base of what an unsung hero that Kermit Gosnell fellow is.

These supporters are the easiest to understand.  In a real republic, even a fringe party wouldn’t have an accomplishment-free nobody like Wendy Davis on their bench, let alone as some kind of ringer…. but that’s America for you.  The DNC and the WaPo (if there’s a difference) understand this; they want to protect the brand.  Their support is entirely tactical.

There are others, though, who don’t see Wendy Davis as an accomplishment-free nobody.  These are the scary ones, and if we want to get America back on track, they’re the ones we have to understand.

I see a few subgroups here.  Morgan has been on for years about the fetishization of non-accomplishment, and he’s got a far better handle on it than I do.  How and why people reason from “she’s done absolutely nothing” to “she’s super-competent at everything” beats my pair of jacks, as it does his, and Jonah Goldberg’s, and a lot of other people’s.  Now, I think (and I think they think) some of these people are just DNC-style tacticians — Hillary! is our best chance to retain the White House, so let’s all pretend that feckless dithering and bungling are accomplishments.  As Goldberg notes, you can’t prove that her tireless efforts in Myanmar didn’t stop the Burmese juggernaut from overrunning the globe, so let’s go with that.  It’s a horrible precedent that will inevitably come back to haunt us, but hey, if they could grasp long-term consequences they wouldn’t be liberals, right?

There’s another group, though, to whom Hillary!, Obama, Wendy Davis, and the rest really are aspirational figures.  Note the fetishistic phrase “single mom.”  It’s been a while since I’ve hit the singles scene, but in my youth I dabbled with online dating and I noticed a curious thing — while lots of women with children had profiles, only some of them described themselves as “single moms.”  Those were the ones to avoid at all costs.  Dates with them was narcissism on parade.  Marriage is hard work, parenthood is exponentially harder, and both of them require constant effort to understand the perspectives of two or more very different people.  Those who proudly claimed the “single mom” badge, in my experience, rejected all that.  They seemed to regard their kids as trophies, adornments to their careers.  The babydaddy — ol’ whatzisface — was invariably the source of gossip or exasperation, if he was mentioned at all.  Lots of times he didn’t even get the dignity of a name.

Wendy Davis, then, is someone who did single momhood right.  She got a sugar daddy to launch her in her career, which she then pursued to the exclusion of all else, with the kid — and the Heroic Single Mom merit badge — as useful props on the campaign trail.

Ditto Hillary, though her main aspirational appeal comes from having snagged an apex alpha male.  Remember that tw[i]t who said she’d happily blow Bill Clinton for keeping abortion legal?  You can pretty much ignore everything after the hyperlink.  Yeah, Bill cheated, but as a wise man once said, five minutes of alpha beats five years of beta, every time.  That right there accounts for 90% of the Hillary love — and the Palin hate* — from liberal women.

Ditto Obama.  Liberalism makes you brilliant, remember, and since politics is nothing more than putting smart people in office, Obama must be a smashing success.  As, of course, all his supporters would be, had they gone to Harvard and run for office.  Which they totally could’ve.  Because liberalism.

You can tell that these individuals are, at bottom, aspirational figures simply by repackaging their biographies and presenting them as people you knew from college.  Like so:  “I knew this girl in college who was cute and vivacious, but she got married young and had a kid before she was ready.  So get this: She divorces the guy and moves in with her parents just long enough to meet this old lawyer, who marries her and puts her through college and law school.  He even takes care of the kids — including her previous one by Trailer Park Joe — while she’s off at Harvard on his dime.  And then she dumps his ass the minute the last check clears.  Oh, and she was fucking around on him the whole time she was up there — the marriage was nullified on account of her infidelity.”

Would you be friends with this person?  Would you say yes, that’s just what she should’ve done; if Horny Old Lawyer Man was so whacked on Viagra that he believed her, he deserved to get taken to the cleaners?

To ask is to answer.  And yet some people still insist on this heroic victim narrative.  We’ve got to reframe that, to point out that Wendy Davis is, in fact, an awful person, and while her positions might not flow from her personal awfulness (though I think they do), her general shittiness taints whatever merit her positions might have.

If the personal is the political, in other words, then the political is also the personal.  Even if you love you some abortions, do you want to be associated with this crappy wreck of a human being?

 

 

*Todd Palin is alpha and choosy, so you have to be at least as smokin’ hot as Sarah was to snag him.  Bill’s well-documented willingness to dump a fuck into just about anything probably got him more distaff votes than all his policies combined.

Blue on Blue is a Hoot

Hey, as we always say: Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.

Bill Simmons is a typical doctrinaire liberal douche.  So it’s fun to see him squirm after inadvertently offending the transgendered.  Since he’s a liberal, all will of course be forgiven… but the puppy-who-peed-on-the-rug act is fun while it lasts.

Meanwhile, the criminalization of plain facts continues unabated.  But hey, at least I’ll have Grantland’s hard-hitting coverage of the latest Lady Gaga album to keep me entertained in the camps.

Lieawatha and Abortion Barbie

Hey, so get this: A Democrat politician was a weensy little bit less than honest about her heroic victim narrative.

Which makes me wonder why Republicans bother with whatever shreds of integrity they have.  You and I both know that it makes no difference that this Wendy Davis idiot lied about being a single mom living in a trailer park and putting herself through law school.  (For the record, she married a sugar daddy who paid her way through Harvard…. then divorced him the minute the last check cleared).  The left doesn’t care.  In fact, they rally around her, because somehow, in the seething ball of daddy issues that is the liberal psyche, being attacked by eeeevil Republicans means she’s even more of a hero than she would’ve been had her bullshit sob story been true.  Cf. Warren, Elizabeth, former grand sachem of the long-lost Fukawi Tribe and current senator from Massachusetts.

So why do Republicans bother?

And I say this as a disinterested observer.  Chris Christie, for instance, is an idiot statist who loves him some Obamacare.  He’s a conservative like I’m the president of the Friedrich Engels Fan Club.  Fuck his fat ass sideways, is what I’m getting at.  But still: Why should anyone in the Republican establishment pretend to care what he did or didn’t do to the George Washington Bridge?  His name really is “Chris Christie,” he actually went to school where he said he did, he’s only ever checked “white” on his census forms, and he can produce a copy of his birth certificate in less than ten months.  Most Democrats are oh-for-four on those, and their base loves ’em anyway.  I’ll give one nickel-plated shit about his, or any other Republican’s, supposed scandals when I hear one figure — just one — in the supposed mainstream media calling for Wendy Davis to drop out of the race.

Liberals vs. Evolution

Another question I’d like to see asked:

Liberals believe in evolution, right?  I mean, evolution + “global warming” = science, according to Our Betters.

So, ummm, WTF, guys?

Take a population of, say, squirrels.  Disperse them over several continents, in isolation from each other, for a few thousand years.  They’d change, right?  They’d evolve, if you will.  And any stoopid science-denying conservative who came along and said that of course the European reticulated warbling squirrel is exaclty the same, in behavior, capacity, and habits, as the Australian crested three-toed squirrel, would be laughed out of the room as scietifically illiterate, right?

And yet we’re all supposed to believe that in this one case, homo sapiens sapiens, that’s exactly what did happen.  We’re all exactly the same, in behavior, capacity, and habits.

Please for to explain this. Wouldn’t this, on its own, be an execption so huge as to render Descent with Modification false?

Or are they, you know, just bullshitting us?

 

DystopYA

Does it bother anyone else that every single YA novel — about ten zillion of which will soon be movies — are all set in dystopian hellscapes?

Ok, on the one hand, it’s good to prepare the next generation for the inevitable consequences of their parents’ Democrat votes.  But on the other hand, shouldn’t we be teaching them ways to avoid this?  You know, starting with: Quit fucking voting for fucking Democrats?

By “Democrats” I also mean “Republicans.”

Idiots Ruin All the Good Theories

Further to Morgan’s thoughts on the duped (with which I 100% concur):

Leftwing ideologies are a kind of psychological cutout. They let you will the ends without putting yourself on the hook for the means.  Pick any leftie cause — global warming, say.  It’s obvious that the earth shall not be saved without drastic measures, the kind that no democracy could ever implement and even most dictatorships would blush at.  It’s also obvious that global warming doomsayers don’t take their own prophecies seriously.  For instance, this is Al Gore’s house:

Gore Mansion 3

That’s, like, half the carbon footprint of Bangladesh right there, even with compact florescent lightbulbs.

I used to think this was just because cognitive dissonance is bullshit.  But then I realized: This is why they’re always talking about government action!  If you delegate all your responsibilities to the state, your own lifestyle is off the hook.  Huge, pollution-spewing McMansions haven’t been outlawed yet; therefore it’s fine for global warming Jeremiahs to buy them.*

Once you start looking for this psychology, you see it everywhere.  For instance, here’s silly internet humor site Cracked.com on why The Dark Knight Rises sends the opposite of its intended message:

Because Bane’s anarchy-plagued Gotham works better than a lot of American cities.

Oh sure, we get a little montage of wealthy people getting dragged out into the street, and yes, there are some unfair trials going on. But for the average Joe Gothamite on the street? Life seems to be going pretty well.

Now, I used to think that most folks would realize that when you’re rationalizing your good life with “oh, it’s just a few _____ who are being lined up against a wall and shot,” you are, in fact, a horrible person.  But maybe not.  After all, you got what you voted for.  Der Fuhrer promised law and order and he delivered.  Had I gotten to vote on the whole “lining people up against a wall and shooting them” thing, I would’ve said no — of course I would have! — but I didn’t get the chance.  So I’m not to blame.  Heck, I didn’t even get a chance to vote for Bane.  And meanwhile the streets are safer….

The problem with this theory is that most people are idiots.  And since MPAI, attacking them on the ideological level won’t work.  Abstract thinking’s not their bag, baby, so it’s useless to point out one’s moral responsibility to at least consider the means before voting for the ends.

Instead, we’ve got to counter with specifics, drawn from their own lives.  Forget the whole earth for a sec – have you, personally, noticed even a drop in your electric bill from those new bullshit light bulbs?  No?  Then what possible good are they doing?

We could avoid a lot of debacles this way.  ObamaCare, for instance.  Jimmy Kimmel’s great, but where was all this before the law passed?

Always remember that most people are morons.  Big abstract theories are great — I’m rather fond of them myself — but most people need the nuts and bolts.  “Uh huh, that’s a great idea, Moonbeam.  But now how exactly, specifically, will that be achieved?  Let’s consider what we’re actually empowering the government to do before we do it, mmmkay?”

 

*And of course there will always be exceptions to the McMansion laws for guys like Al Gore.  Every proletariat needs a vanguard.

Propaganda Devoid of Fact

meme

Sombody’s been drinking OBAMAKOOLAID
– philmon

The discussion that spawned my last post was a thread responding to this e-poster (right).

Hard to imagine how a single Tea Party representative could “deregulate the whole state”.  But apparently they want you to believe that, thanks to the Tea Party, no laws were broken and the company gets off scott free.

I’d also like to know just what a “GOP Company” is.

And while I’m sure FEMA is distributing water, so are those eeeevil capatilists Coca-Cola, Pepsi, BB&T Bank in North Carolina, and some 7-Eleven stores.  This attitude that “capitalists” don’t care and we “need” government to save us every time something happens is  … sadly, dominant.  And demonstrably false.  But it’s the meme put out by statists, because statists want to be in charge, get all the credit, and basically tell everyone how they will run their lives.

There’s a market for this worldview as well.  Or we wouldn’t have the administration we have now.