>
I just wanted that on the record.
Called it.
>
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Equal rights for one.
>
Abraham Lincoln is mentioned almost every time the media discusses Obama because it's whites' coded way of congratulating themselves for electing a black man and their having made it possible.
Every newsboy and newsgirl feels the need to say/write, at least, and very often apropos of nothing, that Lincoln is Obama's favorite president.
Notably: Obama is considered by the US media and the vast majority of its white people to be black and not white because -- apparently and terribly -- the One-Drop Rule still applies: "A person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black." Obama's mother was white and of Northwestern European ancestry. Obama's father was a black Kenyan, of black Kenyan ancestry. Therefore, Obama's ancestry makes him exactly -- to continue to speak very crudely -- half white and half black.
But we call him black.
Obama, like all bi- or multiracial people, is considered black, instinctively, by white people and white institutions because his skin color doesn't match his own mother's. The One-Drop Rule is embedded in white Americans' thinking.
Which means whites have a lot more discriminating to do:
"Genetic evidence appears to support the Out of Africa hypothesis. In the western half of Eurasia and in Africa, this hypothesis also seems the better explanation, particularly for the apparent replacement of Neanderthals by modern populations." (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History -- scroll to/run a Find for "A Compromise Hypothesis.")
So Europeans and Africans, if not all people, share a common ancestor. A black one. Which means we're all black, according to One-Drop, the rule the US still applies.
Our genes also show that there is more genetic variance within "races" than between them. And that "race" is a stupid social construct (much more here) that has and is and will continue to be used to evil ends.
Skin color, despite science, remains a handy dividing line between an Us and a Them, and a handy indicator of who to hate, even if it's ourselves.
And let's hope Obama funds scientific research and gets it into public schools to begin the end of America's intense stupidity.
>
Abraham Lincoln is mentioned almost every time the media discusses Obama because it's whites' coded way of congratulating themselves for electing a black man and their having made it possible.
Every newsboy and newsgirl feels the need to say/write, at least, and very often apropos of nothing, that Lincoln is Obama's favorite president.
Notably: Obama is considered by the US media and the vast majority of its white people to be black and not white because -- apparently and terribly -- the One-Drop Rule still applies: "A person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black." Obama's mother was white and of Northwestern European ancestry. Obama's father was a black Kenyan, of black Kenyan ancestry. Therefore, Obama's ancestry makes him exactly -- to continue to speak very crudely -- half white and half black.
But we call him black.
Obama, like all bi- or multiracial people, is considered black, instinctively, by white people and white institutions because his skin color doesn't match his own mother's. The One-Drop Rule is embedded in white Americans' thinking.
Which means whites have a lot more discriminating to do:
"Genetic evidence appears to support the Out of Africa hypothesis. In the western half of Eurasia and in Africa, this hypothesis also seems the better explanation, particularly for the apparent replacement of Neanderthals by modern populations." (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History -- scroll to/run a Find for "A Compromise Hypothesis.")
So Europeans and Africans, if not all people, share a common ancestor. A black one. Which means we're all black, according to One-Drop, the rule the US still applies.
Our genes also show that there is more genetic variance within "races" than between them. And that "race" is a stupid social construct (much more here) that has and is and will continue to be used to evil ends.
Skin color, despite science, remains a handy dividing line between an Us and a Them, and a handy indicator of who to hate, even if it's ourselves.
And let's hope Obama funds scientific research and gets it into public schools to begin the end of America's intense stupidity.
>
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The US still does not have universal health care.
>
And it's a good thing we don't.
If we did, we could end up like every single other Westernized, wealthy, suit-and-tie country.
And we see how that's worked for them.
...Oh. Hey stupid Americans: Demand universal health care.
And here's a reason that isn't "not doing so advertises your idiocy":
We hate the French right? Let's make health care accessible to everyone just so we can be at least as good as the country that birthed Maginot.
>
And it's a good thing we don't.
If we did, we could end up like every single other Westernized, wealthy, suit-and-tie country.
And we see how that's worked for them.
...Oh. Hey stupid Americans: Demand universal health care.
And here's a reason that isn't "not doing so advertises your idiocy":
We hate the French right? Let's make health care accessible to everyone just so we can be at least as good as the country that birthed Maginot.
>
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
George Will: un-smart. (Edition 1)
>
(This is the first post in a series that will deal with the writings and general thoughts George Will is un-smart enough to make public.)
Re: Newsweek's "Last Word," December 1, 2008 edition:
Will states that "the doctrine of 'nondelegation'"... is "a necessary concomitant of the Constitution's separation of powers, [and] usually concerns improper delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch."
Yet Will did not, and does not, believe nondelegation to be important concerning the "improper delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch." He has never had a problem with what has come to be called W.'s Imperial Presidency.
Will only is concerned with the unconstitutionality of the recent bailouts, and supports his view with an idea he lauds in this instance, and shuns in most others.
Onward: TARP "has made Treasury Department bureaucrats into legislators; or perhaps it has made Secretary Hank Paulson the fourth branch of government."
No. Congress still is the only branch of government that can create and pass legislation, even if it is the kind of legislation Paulson and the Treasury explicitly desired.
And the bailout measure was full of enticements that bought representatives' pro-votes.
These weren't in Paulson's plan. They got there because the bailout had to go through Congress' colon.
So I'm still only counting three branches of government.
Will spouts nonsense for a bit, then this: "Socialism is not merely susceptible to corruption; it is corruption—the allocation of wealth and opportunity by political favoritism. Under democratic socialism, such favoritism is then rewarded by financial support, by those favored, of the dispensers of favors."
Will's point must be that W. ran a socialist regime. W. made his friends and supporters rich and filled his government with them, from Heckuva Job Brownie to Halliburton to giving any and every government job to Republicans (being a Repub. was a prerequisite for service, with Dems being weeded out by design in application processes).
The column's second-to-last paragraph is this:
"It serves the left's agenda of expanding the scope of politics by multiplying the forms of dependency on government. Hence liberalism's enthusiasm for enriching the menu of entitlements; hence liberalism's promotion of equality by making more groups and entities equally dependent on government."
All of this is opinion (fine in an opinion piece) unsubstantiated by any facts. It's simply the warped way Will views "liberalism."
Liberalism is (m-w.com):
1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d: capitalized: the principles and policies of a Liberal party.
And Will believes liberalism to be self-evidently evil.
Which allows one to argue rather easily that Will, rather, is evil. And also shows that he doesn't have a proper conception of what he writes about (since he believes the US is a Christian nation and loves nothing more than to profess his adoration for individual freedom, free competition, and especially the self-regulating market).
>
(This is the first post in a series that will deal with the writings and general thoughts George Will is un-smart enough to make public.)
Re: Newsweek's "Last Word," December 1, 2008 edition:
Will states that "the doctrine of 'nondelegation'"... is "a necessary concomitant of the Constitution's separation of powers, [and] usually concerns improper delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch."
Yet Will did not, and does not, believe nondelegation to be important concerning the "improper delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch." He has never had a problem with what has come to be called W.'s Imperial Presidency.
Will only is concerned with the unconstitutionality of the recent bailouts, and supports his view with an idea he lauds in this instance, and shuns in most others.
Onward: TARP "has made Treasury Department bureaucrats into legislators; or perhaps it has made Secretary Hank Paulson the fourth branch of government."
No. Congress still is the only branch of government that can create and pass legislation, even if it is the kind of legislation Paulson and the Treasury explicitly desired.
And the bailout measure was full of enticements that bought representatives' pro-votes.
These weren't in Paulson's plan. They got there because the bailout had to go through Congress' colon.
So I'm still only counting three branches of government.
Will spouts nonsense for a bit, then this: "Socialism is not merely susceptible to corruption; it is corruption—the allocation of wealth and opportunity by political favoritism. Under democratic socialism, such favoritism is then rewarded by financial support, by those favored, of the dispensers of favors."
Will's point must be that W. ran a socialist regime. W. made his friends and supporters rich and filled his government with them, from Heckuva Job Brownie to Halliburton to giving any and every government job to Republicans (being a Repub. was a prerequisite for service, with Dems being weeded out by design in application processes).
The column's second-to-last paragraph is this:
"It serves the left's agenda of expanding the scope of politics by multiplying the forms of dependency on government. Hence liberalism's enthusiasm for enriching the menu of entitlements; hence liberalism's promotion of equality by making more groups and entities equally dependent on government."
All of this is opinion (fine in an opinion piece) unsubstantiated by any facts. It's simply the warped way Will views "liberalism."
Liberalism is (m-w.com):
1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d: capitalized: the principles and policies of a Liberal party.
And Will believes liberalism to be self-evidently evil.
Which allows one to argue rather easily that Will, rather, is evil. And also shows that he doesn't have a proper conception of what he writes about (since he believes the US is a Christian nation and loves nothing more than to profess his adoration for individual freedom, free competition, and especially the self-regulating market).
>
Statistics: Black people had nothing to do with Calif. Prop 8's passage.
>
Well: very, very little to do with it.
Fox News and other media outlets have been harping on the fact that 70 percent of black voters voted in favor of California's Prop 8 (which bans gay marriage).
This stat is used to claim that black people, therefore, are responsible for Prop 8's passage.
In CA on November 4, black people comprised less than 7 percent of voters because black people make up less than seven percent of the CA population. Also, roughly half of the people in the US vote.
So maybe 70 percent of 5 percent of a certain demographic of voters were pro-8.
And this meager percentage was responsible for Proposition Bigot's passage?
Why was something so moronic as the above allowed on the air (teevee news) and in newspapers?
I can understand Fox News running with this: Their audience hates facts like they hate canker sores. And, likely, gays and blacks just as much.
But supposedly legit media broadcasting this guano?
...Did there have to be "another side" to the story so people wouldn't think nor care as much about the evil meddling the Mormon Church perpetrated in CA?
I want to hear the excuses for the media running with this story so I can die a bit more inside.
...And I suggest everyone Google "Mormon marriage." It's far scarier than gay marriage.
>
Well: very, very little to do with it.
Fox News and other media outlets have been harping on the fact that 70 percent of black voters voted in favor of California's Prop 8 (which bans gay marriage).
This stat is used to claim that black people, therefore, are responsible for Prop 8's passage.
In CA on November 4, black people comprised less than 7 percent of voters because black people make up less than seven percent of the CA population. Also, roughly half of the people in the US vote.
So maybe 70 percent of 5 percent of a certain demographic of voters were pro-8.
And this meager percentage was responsible for Proposition Bigot's passage?
Why was something so moronic as the above allowed on the air (teevee news) and in newspapers?
I can understand Fox News running with this: Their audience hates facts like they hate canker sores. And, likely, gays and blacks just as much.
But supposedly legit media broadcasting this guano?
...Did there have to be "another side" to the story so people wouldn't think nor care as much about the evil meddling the Mormon Church perpetrated in CA?
I want to hear the excuses for the media running with this story so I can die a bit more inside.
...And I suggest everyone Google "Mormon marriage." It's far scarier than gay marriage.
>
Thursday, November 20, 2008
You saved for a bass guitar
>
[words by Camera Obscura]
Fresh as the paint
Friendship can die young
Life will be the death of you
I'm ready to be heartbroken
--Such a fragile thing
I can't believe
I got myself some bowling shoes
and they're all that I can see
All alone in a room following lines on maps.
>
[words by Camera Obscura]
Fresh as the paint
Friendship can die young
Life will be the death of you
I'm ready to be heartbroken
--Such a fragile thing
I can't believe
I got myself some bowling shoes
and they're all that I can see
All alone in a room following lines on maps.
>
Be courageous.
>
[words by Broken Social Scene]
Library cards
Bleaching your teeth, smiling flash
Under my window
Sleep on the floor
Dream about me
--They lost their lives in backyards.
Park that car
Drop that phone
These people drinking lovers' spit
--It's time we grow old.
I like it all
that way:
Library cards
Rented faces
--They lost their lives.
>
[words by Broken Social Scene]
Library cards
Bleaching your teeth, smiling flash
Under my window
Sleep on the floor
Dream about me
--They lost their lives in backyards.
Park that car
Drop that phone
These people drinking lovers' spit
--It's time we grow old.
I like it all
that way:
Library cards
Rented faces
--They lost their lives.
>
Sunday, November 16, 2008
My madness deepens:
>
The song stuck on repeat in my inner ear insists "big girls don't cry."
Please. Everyone cries when they hear this song's vocal harmonies.
>
The song stuck on repeat in my inner ear insists "big girls don't cry."
Please. Everyone cries when they hear this song's vocal harmonies.
>
Cold fusion is possible. No one bothered to tell me.
>
A breakthrough like that, and I had to hear about it from a teevee show instead of from a family member, a friend, or even a newspaper. For years, fusion reactors have been up and running.
Fusion.
Humans can create energy the same way stars do.
If humanity can hang on through World War Three, aka Crusade IX, fusion reactors will provide the world's electricity. That's right: Hang on to your Christianity, because eventually sea water-powered fusion reactors will be supplying our zapping juice.
Of course, the Western World will enjoy fusion's benefits first and be an asshole about sharing with the other kids. Humans will be fusing atoms, but not getting rid of massive-scale poverty, hunger, and disease. The cherry on the sundae: The world will use the whole fusion-thing as an excuse:
"Yeah, we still haven't gotten around to the 'ending world hunger' thing. 'Next year,' we always say!
"But come on now: Fucking. Fusion. The world [the speaker knows the audience will understand the "world" to be only the countries on it with strong, interdependent, economies] makes energy the same way the god damned stars do! This city -- this country -- is running on the energy provided by a cup of freaking sea water!"
Of course, for fusion to be viable, it will have to be cheaper than other means of creating electricity, which is likely to make it the juice-generator of last resort.
Still, given enough time, humans will be using plasma power. And these generators' worst byproducts will be nonradioactive only three hundred years after their creation.
...We may be in another ice age by then.
>
A breakthrough like that, and I had to hear about it from a teevee show instead of from a family member, a friend, or even a newspaper. For years, fusion reactors have been up and running.
Fusion.
Humans can create energy the same way stars do.
If humanity can hang on through World War Three, aka Crusade IX, fusion reactors will provide the world's electricity. That's right: Hang on to your Christianity, because eventually sea water-powered fusion reactors will be supplying our zapping juice.
Of course, the Western World will enjoy fusion's benefits first and be an asshole about sharing with the other kids. Humans will be fusing atoms, but not getting rid of massive-scale poverty, hunger, and disease. The cherry on the sundae: The world will use the whole fusion-thing as an excuse:
"Yeah, we still haven't gotten around to the 'ending world hunger' thing. 'Next year,' we always say!
"But come on now: Fucking. Fusion. The world [the speaker knows the audience will understand the "world" to be only the countries on it with strong, interdependent, economies] makes energy the same way the god damned stars do! This city -- this country -- is running on the energy provided by a cup of freaking sea water!"
Of course, for fusion to be viable, it will have to be cheaper than other means of creating electricity, which is likely to make it the juice-generator of last resort.
Still, given enough time, humans will be using plasma power. And these generators' worst byproducts will be nonradioactive only three hundred years after their creation.
...We may be in another ice age by then.
>
Friday, November 14, 2008
I want a panda-monkey.
>
Fuck it. Let's make a clone that gives the world a panda-monkey.
I'm gonna be brutally honest and say (write) that I'm damned curious to see what the fuck it would look like, what its internal structure would be (in a post-natural death autopsy, of course), and how the hell such a thing would, in general, live.
...Wait. That's insane. We have shitloads of trouble cloning cows right now.
Gonna have to wait a while for that panda-monkey.
>
Fuck it. Let's make a clone that gives the world a panda-monkey.
I'm gonna be brutally honest and say (write) that I'm damned curious to see what the fuck it would look like, what its internal structure would be (in a post-natural death autopsy, of course), and how the hell such a thing would, in general, live.
...Wait. That's insane. We have shitloads of trouble cloning cows right now.
Gonna have to wait a while for that panda-monkey.
>
Thursday, November 13, 2008
There can only be one.
>
I am invincible.
I haven't been sick -- with a cold, the flu, the anything -- throughout the past four-plus years.
It seems no virus or bacteria can affect me. And if I'm keeping these insidious creatures from harming me, it seems probable that I'm taking care of cancer (or will be able to, should I have to) and all other death-dealers too. I also get to brag that I can prevent and/or cure the common cold, while medical science never will be able to.
Currently, no one knows what causes fibro. There are a few theories, and all of them are amazingly stupid. And, therefore, so is the way fibro is treated by all but a few doctors. Dr ML&S has it right, for example.
I think fibro may be an autoimmune disease. Such diseases cause the body to attack normal, healthy body structures in their hyperactive Doberman-eagerness to protect the body. A brutal assault by the body on the body certainly would be capable of causing fibromyalgians' all-encompassing pain, tender points, chronic fatigue (whose cousin narcolepsy is suspected of being autoimmune), etc etc et cetera.
My gene pool is a a rich habitat for autoimmune diseases. Those in my family who have such diseases also cannot get sick. This inability to get sick is the only -- symptom? -- shared by people with diverse (and genetic, not communicable) autoimmune diseases and/or disorders.
Unfortunately, this means I have family who are fellow immortals, and I am destined to attempt to kill them, and they me. There can only be one.
The current state of fibro misdiagnosis, however, ensures that people who can get sick end up being labeled fibromyalgians. People with extremely cruel iterations of Celiac, chronic fatigue (unaccompanied by body-wide pain and esp. tender points), crippling depression, etc etc et cetera get lumped in with true fibros by doctors who haven't run enough tests.
Which keeps fibro from being understood and from being cured. (See various posts at my other blog for more rants dealing with the above paragraph's subject matter.)
Perhaps: If you've been diagnosed with fibro and have had a cold since then, you need a new doctor and a new diagnosis. I hope you find you have something else... It will keep you from having to worry about being hunted by sword-wielding gimps bent on decapitating you.
(I will seem crazy -- well, crazier -- if you don't know about The Highlander.)
>
I am invincible.
I haven't been sick -- with a cold, the flu, the anything -- throughout the past four-plus years.
It seems no virus or bacteria can affect me. And if I'm keeping these insidious creatures from harming me, it seems probable that I'm taking care of cancer (or will be able to, should I have to) and all other death-dealers too. I also get to brag that I can prevent and/or cure the common cold, while medical science never will be able to.
Currently, no one knows what causes fibro. There are a few theories, and all of them are amazingly stupid. And, therefore, so is the way fibro is treated by all but a few doctors. Dr ML&S has it right, for example.
I think fibro may be an autoimmune disease. Such diseases cause the body to attack normal, healthy body structures in their hyperactive Doberman-eagerness to protect the body. A brutal assault by the body on the body certainly would be capable of causing fibromyalgians' all-encompassing pain, tender points, chronic fatigue (whose cousin narcolepsy is suspected of being autoimmune), etc etc et cetera.
My gene pool is a a rich habitat for autoimmune diseases. Those in my family who have such diseases also cannot get sick. This inability to get sick is the only -- symptom? -- shared by people with diverse (and genetic, not communicable) autoimmune diseases and/or disorders.
Unfortunately, this means I have family who are fellow immortals, and I am destined to attempt to kill them, and they me. There can only be one.
The current state of fibro misdiagnosis, however, ensures that people who can get sick end up being labeled fibromyalgians. People with extremely cruel iterations of Celiac, chronic fatigue (unaccompanied by body-wide pain and esp. tender points), crippling depression, etc etc et cetera get lumped in with true fibros by doctors who haven't run enough tests.
Which keeps fibro from being understood and from being cured. (See various posts at my other blog for more rants dealing with the above paragraph's subject matter.)
Perhaps: If you've been diagnosed with fibro and have had a cold since then, you need a new doctor and a new diagnosis. I hope you find you have something else... It will keep you from having to worry about being hunted by sword-wielding gimps bent on decapitating you.
(I will seem crazy -- well, crazier -- if you don't know about The Highlander.)
>
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Planned obsolescence.
>
The majority of Americans are against publicly funding embryonic stem cell research. The larger part of the populace is against laws that would fund such research even when this research is allowed to be performed only on embryos that would be discarded. That is to say (write): incinerated. Burned as though in hellfire itself.
Someone I know who has multiple sclerosis is against using taxpayers' money to fund the above, even with the stipulation mentioned above. And he (according to scientists) likely could benefit the most!
Americans can choose to use stem cells from embryos or choose not to. Either way, the embryos end up destroyed. Throwing them in an incinerator is one way to get rid of them. Another way is to involve them in research that could cure or benefit people who have MS, Parkinson's, nerve damage (including paralysis) and on, on, on.
Choice one: the one hundred percent guarantee that no good comes from the destruction of embryos. Many people holier than me, who claim to care about these embryos and human life more than I do, take this position. Which is a touch like saying "I care about waste management so much that I refuse to support recycling." (Awful simile.)
Choice two: the likelihood that the destruction of embryos eventually will lead to the easing and eventually curing of some of the worst ailments humans can have.
America prefers door number one. An incinerator door. The majority of US-ians believe it is morally correct that no good come from embryos bound for distruction. ...It is better that embryos be destroyed by fire than by beneficial research.
And that is nucking futs.
...The US is about to have new leadership. Leadership is about a lot of things -- and Americans have heard every cliche that supposedly defines it during the presidential campaign.
Here's a specific example of leadership: Issuing an executive order to correct the wrongheaded policies against stem cell research.
PS: This isn't meant to be a blog about politics or political issues. I'll try to write something smutty very soon to cleanse our palates.
>
The majority of Americans are against publicly funding embryonic stem cell research. The larger part of the populace is against laws that would fund such research even when this research is allowed to be performed only on embryos that would be discarded. That is to say (write): incinerated. Burned as though in hellfire itself.
Someone I know who has multiple sclerosis is against using taxpayers' money to fund the above, even with the stipulation mentioned above. And he (according to scientists) likely could benefit the most!
Americans can choose to use stem cells from embryos or choose not to. Either way, the embryos end up destroyed. Throwing them in an incinerator is one way to get rid of them. Another way is to involve them in research that could cure or benefit people who have MS, Parkinson's, nerve damage (including paralysis) and on, on, on.
Choice one: the one hundred percent guarantee that no good comes from the destruction of embryos. Many people holier than me, who claim to care about these embryos and human life more than I do, take this position. Which is a touch like saying "I care about waste management so much that I refuse to support recycling." (Awful simile.)
Choice two: the likelihood that the destruction of embryos eventually will lead to the easing and eventually curing of some of the worst ailments humans can have.
America prefers door number one. An incinerator door. The majority of US-ians believe it is morally correct that no good come from embryos bound for distruction. ...It is better that embryos be destroyed by fire than by beneficial research.
And that is nucking futs.
...The US is about to have new leadership. Leadership is about a lot of things -- and Americans have heard every cliche that supposedly defines it during the presidential campaign.
Here's a specific example of leadership: Issuing an executive order to correct the wrongheaded policies against stem cell research.
PS: This isn't meant to be a blog about politics or political issues. I'll try to write something smutty very soon to cleanse our palates.
>
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Sarah Palin: complete, utter, hopeless, idiotic moron.
>
The following is reprinted from HuffingtonPost.com. Click the title of this post to see the article I quote below:
Nicholas Graham
The following is reprinted from HuffingtonPost.com. Click the title of this post to see the article I quote below:
Nicholas Graham
"According to Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron, there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked 'a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency,' in part because she didn't know which countries were in NAFTA, and she 'didn't understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself.'
"Palin was apparently a nightmare for her campaign staff to deal with. She refused preparation help for her interview with Katie Couric and then blamed her staff, specifically Nicole Wallace, when the interview was panned as a disaster. After the Couric interview, Fox News reported, Palin turned nasty with her staff and began to accuse them of mishandling her. Palin would view press clippings of herself in the morning and throw 'tantrums' over the negative coverage. There were times when she would be so nasty and angry that her staff was reduced to tears.
"Cameron also reports, along with CNN, that McCain's senior foreign policy adviser was fired a week before the election for attacking, in defense of Sarah Palin, various McCain aides who he felt were undermining Palin."
Me again:
Watch the video below, which is the interview Nicholas Graham at HuffingtonPost referenced in the above article. I was going to post bullet points from the interview, but found myself transcribing everything Cameron said. Watch the video. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll hope Palin stays the fuck in Alaska for the rest of her life.
And oh my freaking gods the apologism O'Reilly engages in is so so so pathetic.
Best. Video. Ever.
>
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Killing an Arab.
>
It's as likely as not that bin Laden is dead, and has been for maybe a year or two.
However, his life as a dead person will be as long as Elvis's because if the West isn't fighting Osama and his ideas, then we're killing Arabs for the purpose of maintaining military bases and embassies in oil-rich countries.
And the US wouldn't have cause to creep into Pakistan.
And Americans would have to think about the fact that our real war is with hundreds of groups or Muslim radicals who want to kill Westerners -- hundreds of thousands of people everywhere, in every country.
We would get very bad headaches as we thought about that. And we would be even more terror-filled. And I would need a MacBook Pro more than ever.
So it's preferable for the West to have a single face to hate. It prevents headaches and, quite likely, hate crimes against Muslims from becoming as common as blinking.
>
It's as likely as not that bin Laden is dead, and has been for maybe a year or two.
However, his life as a dead person will be as long as Elvis's because if the West isn't fighting Osama and his ideas, then we're killing Arabs for the purpose of maintaining military bases and embassies in oil-rich countries.
And the US wouldn't have cause to creep into Pakistan.
And Americans would have to think about the fact that our real war is with hundreds of groups or Muslim radicals who want to kill Westerners -- hundreds of thousands of people everywhere, in every country.
We would get very bad headaches as we thought about that. And we would be even more terror-filled. And I would need a MacBook Pro more than ever.
So it's preferable for the West to have a single face to hate. It prevents headaches and, quite likely, hate crimes against Muslims from becoming as common as blinking.
>
I boycott zoos.
>
A friend kept a chameleon as a pet. It lived in an aquarium that didn't have water but did have a stick he snapped off a tree outside his dorm.
I had read that for a chameleon to come in contact with a human was/is a very stressful experience for the animal, and that the stress was/is such that chameleons kept as pets don't/won't live long.
So when I hung out in my friend's room, we got stoned and drunk and tortured a chameleon by forcing it to be near us.
>
A friend kept a chameleon as a pet. It lived in an aquarium that didn't have water but did have a stick he snapped off a tree outside his dorm.
I had read that for a chameleon to come in contact with a human was/is a very stressful experience for the animal, and that the stress was/is such that chameleons kept as pets don't/won't live long.
So when I hung out in my friend's room, we got stoned and drunk and tortured a chameleon by forcing it to be near us.
>
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I will say:
>
That I wrote that the Republican Party is now the party by of and for ignorant whites and rich assholes.
>
That I wrote that the Republican Party is now the party by of and for ignorant whites and rich assholes.
>
To reduce cognitive dissonance all of us will say:
>
At least X and/or Y passed/didn't pass!
PS: I didn't use "cognitive dissonance" in a wholly proper way. OCD wanted to let you know that I know.
>
At least X and/or Y passed/didn't pass!
PS: I didn't use "cognitive dissonance" in a wholly proper way. OCD wanted to let you know that I know.
>
Pat Buchanan will say:
>
Something somehow regarding Israel that reminds us he hates Jews but loves their real estate.
>
Something somehow regarding Israel that reminds us he hates Jews but loves their real estate.
>
Conservative/Republican pundits will say:
>
Certainly it can't be denied that the W. Administration's current handling of the Existential* War On Terror made it easier for Obama to win because, had there been a terrorist attack -- especially in the US -- voters would have been more inclined to vote for McCain. That there wasn't is a credit to the current president, who we haven't talked about for months and has done a lot of important things for the country when we weren't paying attention.
(Person making comment, and likely the host or anchor of whatever show this is said on, takes it as no-need-to-even-speak-about-it-obvious that United States-ians vote for Republicans when they're scared.)
*Existential: (1) Of, relating to, or affirming existence. (2) a: Grounded in existence or the experience of existence: empirical. b: Having being in time and space. (3) [translation of Danish eksistentiel & German existential] : existentialist.
Existentialism: A chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.
Calling the War On Terror "Existential": "Existential" is a hard word to understand, and does OK in the speeches it is made to be part of. And calling terrorism an existential threat, strictly, is true: Terrorism exists and it is a threat.
But I don't think Republicans in DC and governors' mansions go in for the "analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad."
Existentialism recognizes moral relativism, and the GOP mocks moral relativism.
All of which makes everything perfect: The Bush Administration's Existential War On Terror is entirely contradictory.
Which is icing when your war is against terror: a state of intense fear. An idea! A feeling! A state of mind!
--Back on track (well, back to the one I switched to after the first paragraph): No matter what we call whatever conflict we're in, if we are, it must be won.
How?
Since universal health care was an idea cooked up by socialists and would help all US citizens and not only corporations (though it would help them immensely) or people who have so much money that they hire other people to tell them how to spend it, I will not ask for universal health care. Instead, I would like the government to know that my state of terror -- intense fear -- would almost entirely be eradicated if I was bought a new MacBook.
This war is about winning hearts and minds. The above is how to write me off as a big Mission Accomplished.
Well... Since the US is spending $5,000 per second waging its Existential War On Terror for Hearts and Minds, I'm going to get greedy and ask for a completely geeked-out MacBook Pro. Still cheaper than a second in Iraq.
...But shit. I'm already on our side. No heart or mind to win.
(In retrospect, it's nice to have written the above -- and for it to be the truth -- since the PATRIOT Act -- which was made law for the purpose of Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism -- has taken away at least one of my liberties: the freedom to know what freedoms have been taken away by acts of Congress and the White House.)
So, then, here's how to win our existential war existentially: Let's get our soldiers out of Iraq, where it is very easy for them to get very hurt and/or very dead, let Iraq take care of its own shit with, in part, its budget surplus--
Aside: How many times does Iraq's government have to implore us to remove our soldiers, and how many times do we have to steadfastly, resolutely, rebuke them? We have an easy out we refuse to take because, in part, idiocy has become a virtue and the White House sets the standard. And damned high.
--and give the soldiers kick-ass MacBooks?
Throw in new iPhones too.
Which would be cool but, of course, still too little. But at minimum (which it would be close to) it would be a nice addition to what our returned soldiers have received since 2002: the denial of proper health care, horrible pay, horrible name it.
Christ. Let's teach the world to sing al-fucking-ready.
(This post: with thanks to m-w.com.)
>
Certainly it can't be denied that the W. Administration's current handling of the Existential* War On Terror made it easier for Obama to win because, had there been a terrorist attack -- especially in the US -- voters would have been more inclined to vote for McCain. That there wasn't is a credit to the current president, who we haven't talked about for months and has done a lot of important things for the country when we weren't paying attention.
(Person making comment, and likely the host or anchor of whatever show this is said on, takes it as no-need-to-even-speak-about-it-obvious that United States-ians vote for Republicans when they're scared.)
*Existential: (1) Of, relating to, or affirming existence. (2) a: Grounded in existence or the experience of existence: empirical. b: Having being in time and space. (3) [translation of Danish eksistentiel & German existential] : existentialist.
Existentialism: A chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.
Calling the War On Terror "Existential": "Existential" is a hard word to understand, and does OK in the speeches it is made to be part of. And calling terrorism an existential threat, strictly, is true: Terrorism exists and it is a threat.
But I don't think Republicans in DC and governors' mansions go in for the "analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad."
Existentialism recognizes moral relativism, and the GOP mocks moral relativism.
All of which makes everything perfect: The Bush Administration's Existential War On Terror is entirely contradictory.
Which is icing when your war is against terror: a state of intense fear. An idea! A feeling! A state of mind!
--Back on track (well, back to the one I switched to after the first paragraph): No matter what we call whatever conflict we're in, if we are, it must be won.
How?
Since universal health care was an idea cooked up by socialists and would help all US citizens and not only corporations (though it would help them immensely) or people who have so much money that they hire other people to tell them how to spend it, I will not ask for universal health care. Instead, I would like the government to know that my state of terror -- intense fear -- would almost entirely be eradicated if I was bought a new MacBook.
This war is about winning hearts and minds. The above is how to write me off as a big Mission Accomplished.
Well... Since the US is spending $5,000 per second waging its Existential War On Terror for Hearts and Minds, I'm going to get greedy and ask for a completely geeked-out MacBook Pro. Still cheaper than a second in Iraq.
...But shit. I'm already on our side. No heart or mind to win.
(In retrospect, it's nice to have written the above -- and for it to be the truth -- since the PATRIOT Act -- which was made law for the purpose of Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism -- has taken away at least one of my liberties: the freedom to know what freedoms have been taken away by acts of Congress and the White House.)
So, then, here's how to win our existential war existentially: Let's get our soldiers out of Iraq, where it is very easy for them to get very hurt and/or very dead, let Iraq take care of its own shit with, in part, its budget surplus--
Aside: How many times does Iraq's government have to implore us to remove our soldiers, and how many times do we have to steadfastly, resolutely, rebuke them? We have an easy out we refuse to take because, in part, idiocy has become a virtue and the White House sets the standard. And damned high.
--and give the soldiers kick-ass MacBooks?
Throw in new iPhones too.
Which would be cool but, of course, still too little. But at minimum (which it would be close to) it would be a nice addition to what our returned soldiers have received since 2002: the denial of proper health care, horrible pay, horrible name it.
Christ. Let's teach the world to sing al-fucking-ready.
(This post: with thanks to m-w.com.)
>
Monday, November 3, 2008
I have to mow the lawn tomorrow, too.
>
The kind of people who look forward to watching Meet the Press every Sunday know that, by all calculations, the only possible outcome of tomorrow's election is Obama's victory. Some of these people will use this knowledge to justify not voting tomorrow.
I'm already doing it.
>
The kind of people who look forward to watching Meet the Press every Sunday know that, by all calculations, the only possible outcome of tomorrow's election is Obama's victory. Some of these people will use this knowledge to justify not voting tomorrow.
I'm already doing it.
>
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Don't hope for the best.
>
Socialism, as constructed by Marx and Engels, never can work because it holds that, if people live in conditions under which they are truly equal and also free from need and want, they will finally be able to exercise their basic, and primary, inclination to treat all others as they would treat their own self in all others' situation.
To put part of that another way: Keeping any form of government running (which all citizens -- all others -- are constantly engaged in) keeps people from being able to be good to one another. To be fair.
And it is in people's nature to be.
That it, in fact and practice, is not, made socialism the perfect tool for some people who hated humanity and could admit to themselves that all others did too. Marx and Engels created a system so perfect that knowing its fundamental flaw allowed for unimaginable atrocities.
Including a world in which David Brooks writes a column for the New York Times.
>
Socialism, as constructed by Marx and Engels, never can work because it holds that, if people live in conditions under which they are truly equal and also free from need and want, they will finally be able to exercise their basic, and primary, inclination to treat all others as they would treat their own self in all others' situation.
To put part of that another way: Keeping any form of government running (which all citizens -- all others -- are constantly engaged in) keeps people from being able to be good to one another. To be fair.
And it is in people's nature to be.
That it, in fact and practice, is not, made socialism the perfect tool for some people who hated humanity and could admit to themselves that all others did too. Marx and Engels created a system so perfect that knowing its fundamental flaw allowed for unimaginable atrocities.
Including a world in which David Brooks writes a column for the New York Times.
>
It's crazy, but it's true.
The song that is ceaselessly playing in my head should address itself to people "when [they] get caught between the moon and New York City" because the use of "if" instead of "when" suggests it's possible not to get caught there.
*Copyright acknowledged to the douchebag(s) who wrote and/or own the rights to this song.
*Copyright acknowledged to the douchebag(s) who wrote and/or own the rights to this song.
Knocking doesn't entitle you to come in.
They can be anyone from police to parents, but when you're in the middle of sex and they suddenly come in your room, fifty-one percent of you wishes you lived in a world in which the others and the girl you're with would simply give you just five more minutes.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
I know you.
I watched an elephant brain be dissected on a television show about elephants. The brain was being chopped up to further support that elephants have good memories. Their ability to know a lot about the places they go, the things they see, and the elephants they roam around with is very important to their society.
This made me wonder -- a bit tangentially -- if, maybe, memory is vital to the creation of emotions in beings. Do emotional attachments naturally spring from deep understandings of things and beings?
Is to know, know, know him, truly, to love, love, love him?
Today I think that familiarity with a thing needn't breed opinions and feelings for that thing. ...Familiarity doesn't, necessarily, cause value judgments to be made.
But I think they are in most cases.
(But I'm quite likely to think the opposite tomorrow.)
*Addition, November 2: Insects are the most successful animals of this age, and they must intimately understand their surroundings, places in social hierarchies, etc, but they exhibit no emotional attachments.
I'm now calling this one as: Mammals tend to form emotional ties and opinions of things because their brains are constructed in such a way as to make forming them likely.
New one: Do emotions make a species more or less fit for its environment (for survival, long-term) due to the display of emotions being a something mammals do simply to attract mates?
--But first: Do emotional displays attract mates? Is that what they're for?
("Obviously not" is my immediate reaction. ...More attention will be given to this in a future post. This post is likely to start out with me writing that the two questions I asked in the above paragraph were stupid.)
This made me wonder -- a bit tangentially -- if, maybe, memory is vital to the creation of emotions in beings. Do emotional attachments naturally spring from deep understandings of things and beings?
Is to know, know, know him, truly, to love, love, love him?
Today I think that familiarity with a thing needn't breed opinions and feelings for that thing. ...Familiarity doesn't, necessarily, cause value judgments to be made.
But I think they are in most cases.
(But I'm quite likely to think the opposite tomorrow.)
*Addition, November 2: Insects are the most successful animals of this age, and they must intimately understand their surroundings, places in social hierarchies, etc, but they exhibit no emotional attachments.
I'm now calling this one as: Mammals tend to form emotional ties and opinions of things because their brains are constructed in such a way as to make forming them likely.
New one: Do emotions make a species more or less fit for its environment (for survival, long-term) due to the display of emotions being a something mammals do simply to attract mates?
--But first: Do emotional displays attract mates? Is that what they're for?
("Obviously not" is my immediate reaction. ...More attention will be given to this in a future post. This post is likely to start out with me writing that the two questions I asked in the above paragraph were stupid.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)