That’s it, I have officially become a full-fledged WSU Cougar fan January 29, 2008Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Soviet of Seattle, Sports.
1 comment so far
UW has fallen off my list of acceptable schools. The place is a rat’s nest; Todd Turner the former AD, tried to right the ship and has been since fired for not securing enough wins; current football coach Ty Willingham is on the hot seat for the same reason.
As one wrote on this seattletimes.com poll: “Nice guy Ty but in over his head. Nice guys finish last. UW deserves better.”
Well, you imbecile, let’s see what you get when you secure what UW better deserves.
Convicted of assault and accused of rape, star player received raft of second chances
That is current Tampa Bay tight end Jerramy Stevens, former Husky (NOT a graduate, despite his claims) who has multiple raps for DUI, rape and parole violation.
The man is an out-of-control scumbag who was enabled by the UW, its coach, boosters and administration. The UW went so far as to try to “out” the name of the freshmen woman he was accused of raping in 2000, simply to pressure the poor girl into calling off her civil lawsuit against the UW, as King County prosecutor Norm Maleng wouldn’t press charges against the star Husky tight end.
To hell with the UW, Tampa Bay, Husky football and King County justice. Seattle sucks. The only people there worth rooting for are the Mariners, suffering Sonic fans, Mike Holmgren and Ty Willingham, who is gonna get axed next year for not winning enough and the UW and it’s idiot boosters can then bring in another win-at-all-costs coach.
Mamacita sounds off on Hillary, Rick Moran on Obama January 27, 2008Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Politics, Stupid Party vs Evil Party.
add a comment
. . .this is why the Presidential election coming up has me concerned. The ONLY candidate on any side that I felt motivated by, Fred Thompson, has pulled out (and he did a poor job of campaigning to begin with). This leaves the Republicans with Money (Romney), defense (Giuliani) and pro-life (Huckabee) with a strange maverick in the lead with whom I agree on almost nothing (McCain). Combine Romney’s money with Giulani’s stand on defense, Huckabee’s social conservatism and McCain’s momentum, and there you have a good candidate.
But only one of those schmoes can win at a time, and each has serious problems. Romney stands for nothing, Giulani is a social conservative’s worst nightmare, Huckabee talks to God, and like I said, McCain is nuts.
The problem is, ONE of these fools simply MUST win in November, because the alternatives are worse.
Barack Obama (via RightWingNutHouse):
I have often referred to Obama as an empty suit. The analogy is apt because despite his obvious gifts, Obama has not fleshed out many of his basic, fundamental principles and how they would play a role in his presidency. Just what exactly does he stand for besides the vague platitudes about “hope” and “change” that pepper his speeches like little dollops of whipped cream? Where is the rock to which he tethers his beliefs?
I don’t think this is a question of intellectual laziness but rather it is a matter of not having spent enough time confronting, questioning, strengthening, and ultimately adopting in his own mind the bedrock foundation of a political philosophy. This is especially true because Obama, more than any other liberal politician in a couple of generations, really does want to re-define liberalism.
But to this point, there simply isn’t any “there” there. There are position papers. There is a nebulous appeal to some idealistic “crusade” to remake politics in America. But there is nothing behind the curtain of campaign platitudes that would lead one to believe that Obama has given any serious thought about how these concepts play into an overall framework of beliefs that he can call his own.
For this reason, at the present time, Obama would make a terrible president – beyond the fact that I believe his policies to be wrongheaded and even dangerous.
Rick has very ably captured my fundamental uneasiness with Obama. Aside from the fact that he is a 100% ADA liberal in his voting record, “there is no ‘there’ there.”
Then there is Hillary. God help us all (or at least, Mamacita will help):
I could never vote for Hilary, and it’s not because of her sex. It’s because I see her as an enabler of a man whose personal life is disgusting. I see her as an enabler of a marriage that is a joke. I see her as an enabler of a man who tries to pass off his inability to keep it in his pants as a ‘disease.’ Please. I also see one/half of a couple whose values are so far removed from mine that I simply can’t accept them in any way. When I think of the Clintons, all I see is a dysfunctional family, a pack of liars, and a woman who stayed in an adulterous marriage so she could climb higher as a politician. I also see a person who supposedly represents a state in which she did not even live. This is a joke, too. Add to all this the fact that the Clintons are milking the taxpayers for all it’s worth by charging the Feds rent for the extra residence they built to house the Secret Service agents – to the tune of the equivalent of their mortgage on that million-dollar home they bought to establish residence in New York – that’s a 10,000 mortgage, folks -this means that the taxpayers are paying the Clintons’ salaries, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, and the salaries for their 12-man staff. Looking out for the common people? The Clintons don’t know what a common person is. They don’t hang out with common people. No, I don’t want either of them representing me in any way. The Clintons are a joke. Worse, they are a joke without a punch line. A never-ending build-up without any resolution. He is a grinning, selfish, horny old man, and she is a scary cackling oaf with a hard chromium finish. Both are scrambling up the political ladder on each other’s coattails, both are kicking the ladder away beneath them, and neither has a heart, or any kind of ethics other than the selfish kind.
No, I could never vote for Hilary, and I will never be able to endorse her in any way, unless she was running for National Joke, or National Bitch, or National Poster Woman for Dysfunctional Relationships, or Enabler of the Year, or some such.
God, that is beautiful writing, like Dante’s descriptions of the horrors of Hell was beautiful. And she is dead on again in describing why the woman simply MUST NOT become President. 8 more years of Clinton will ruin this country, not to mention ossify its politics. I could get to 28 years of married life with nothing but Bushes and Clintons in the White House.
That is not healthy for the country. Barack isn’t either. But Hillary herself is the kiss of death.
Pick one, Amanda, just one. January 26, 2008Posted by Administrator in Liberal Hypocrisy, Pandamansanity.
add a comment
My gog, this woman’s writing. Her knee-jerk compulsive feminism cannot allow her a moment’s peace, and it is now getting in the way of what little consistency might be found in her blatherings.
Case in point: An article deriding the tendency of some men to grope women when in close quarters. A wretched behavior, to be sure. Overall, I can’t say that I disagree with her general point, but her reflexive hatred of men keeps fouling the narrative.
On the one hand, gropers are recognized as a problem and dealt with accordingly. In Mexico City and Japan, this means female-only busses:
while the idea of the female-only trains and buses that have been built in Mexico City and Japan in response to the amount of harassment women get on the integrated trains frustrates my non-segregationist heart, it would be hard to pass up the female-only bus if given a choice in an atmosphere where I know that groping is on the way.
I can’t blame Marcotte for a moment. There is the possible canard of suggesting she is a hypocrite in functionally blessing de facto segregation. But on the other hand, if the men are going to act like pigs, then keep them on a bus meant only for pigs.
In Austin, gropers at rock concerts are supposedly forcibly ejected from the premises. And good for Austin concert security for getting rid of these creeps.
Amanda buttresses the discussion by noting that gropers do their dirt in places where there cannot be any witnesses, due to the confined nature of the space. Women in MC and Japan have had to make claims to authorities that groping took place, with no eyewitnesses. Similarly, women at Austin rock concerts complain to security, who surely did not see the groping take place, and nevertheless, they eject the cad immediately on the strength of the woman’s complaint.
No problem. Well they should, unless the woman proves (proves) to be making false report.
But Marcotte then turns it all on its head, as her reflexive man hatred flares up:
Harassers like to have the semblance of privacy before they act, to make the abuse seem unwitnessed in a world where men’s word is taken above women’s as a matter of routine.
So which is it, you silly twit? Women’s complaints are listened to, or they are routinely dismissed?
You can’t have it both ways, especially in your own article.
Amanda sticks foot in mouth, calls it tasty January 24, 2008Posted by Administrator in Creepiness, Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Liberal self-loathing, Pandamansanity.
add a comment
The woman is truly incredible.
She first says this:
morality is often about what we feel more than our reason,
(Where in GOD’S name did she come up with that definition? She pulled it straight out of her outdoor orifice.)
In her case, I suppose this is true. Floating ethics and morals make for more secure sleep, simple thinking at the expense of VERY uneasy neighbors.
Then she says this:
One thing I found amusing about the whole article is how it inverts the Christian right’s argument for their own existence, i.e. that humans are born with the stain of Original Sin and need their specific religion to wash the stain off, and without religion, people are immoral wretches.
Whatever. Typical bullshit from her, but she’s free, white, 21 and a blathering idiot, she can (and does) say whatever flits through the fever swamp that passes for her brain.
Later that day, here comes this:
Here’s why I personally don’t feel weird in the slightest about abortion:
Abortion doesn’t hurt anyone.
I don’t want children.
Now THERE’S a big surprise!!! Damned inconvenient, they are. Gets in the way of her worship of the god Orgasm.
She is getting more evil by the day.
Wow January 22, 2008Posted by Administrator in Family, Music.
add a comment
Now, compare this:
(the kid is Eddie’s son, Wolfgang) Near as I can tell, the latter image is from last August (Eddie went into rehab in March, I believe).
I have ranted at length in here about alcoholics and their levels of denial. . .but the woman I have ranted about seems to be doing better. . .and doesn’t Eddie look like a million bucks compared to his old self?
Here’s praying that both of these folks can persist in their sobriety.
Amanda Marcotte: The Face of Evil January 18, 2008Posted by Administrator in Creepiness, Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing, Pandamansanity, Pro-Life.
add a comment
I don’t actually think this is an issue that’s painted in shade of gray. “Shades of gray” only comes into the equation for me when actual, feeling beings are killed or forced to suffer for reasons that are understandable,* but as fetuses are unfeeling balls of flesh that have brain activity far below the sort of animals we thoughtlessly kill in animal shelters and farms every day, I find there to be no complexity. In a battle between what is still technically a feeling-free parasite on a woman’s body and a living, breathing, feeling woman, the latter wins hands down, and there’s no complexity or shades of gray there.**
Whew. Nasty, evil shit, plain and simple. Not only is this the parasite argument in its horrific splendor, but Peter Singer would marry this monstrous excuse for a woman given her explicit rejection of his specious “speciesism”.
It goes on to address the issue of the unavoidable -even for her twisted logic- of late-term abortions:
**Later term abortions are a fraction of abortions, and of those, there’s a fraction that are in the gray zone of fetal development where it might feel pain. These are undoubtably (sic) uncomfortable, but since most occur when the fetus is already dead or in literal self-defense of the woman, I still feel that there’s no reason for these abortions to be controversial.
Of course not. First, you employ the “immature nervous system/lower-than-animal/parasite argument. When you find yourself justifiably challenged on that point, simply go with the brute force approach. The mother was there first, ergo, she wins out. All the issue has to be is one of her own “mental discomfort” and the baby is literally thrown out with the bathwater, and in Marcotte’s evil cosmology, that should cause no trouble whatsoever.
The woman is a monster.
They are only controversial because anti-choicers who agitate against them lie to people by not telling them the very understandable reasons these are performed. What’s not morally gray? Lying to people to cause unnecessary suffering to others. That’s always wrong.
You’re right on one point Amanda, you trashy animal. Lying to cause unnecessary suffering IS always wrong. And YOU’RE doing the lying, saying that to abort is no issue, not a concern.
It will haunt those poor mothers for the rest of their lives.You lie to say that it should not.
Of course, if YOU ever abort, it won’t trouble you. You killed your conscience and encased the corpse in concrete years ago.
I cannot argue with this logic January 17, 2008Posted by Administrator in Humor, Sports.
add a comment
. . .and the man just beat my SeaHags. Yet, I will root for him to the bitter end.
Before he can complete (his Super Bowl victory lap), though, Chuck Norris descends from the firmament and challenges him to a duel (in a dojo, like Dwight vs. Michael), but (Brett) Favre will raise his hand, the desert winds will cease, and he will solve absolute zero. Then, he will beat Chuck Norris – decisively – but his injuries will require painkillers.
Amanda for once grasps obvious, then instantly travels back to her normal state, LaLaLand. January 15, 2008Posted by Administrator in Idiots, Pandamansanity.
add a comment
The woman is incredible.
She cites from the NYTimes that notes veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are returning from the war struggling with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Some of them are getting violent with loved ones here at home, mistaking home troubles for serious troubles on the front and getting violent.
This is of course tragic and not at all new. PTSD has in some form or other been recognized in veterans from at least WWII, if not WWI, and no foreign conflict has been free of victims of this disorder. Couple this with the pathetic state of care provided by the VA nowadays, and you have the makings of a sad state of affairs.
But it is not new, and so long as there are many humans on this earth, there will be sin, war, fighting, death, fear and PTSD.
Now I am sure that the NYTimes will spin this issue on its head. Here is Amanda’s psychotic take on it:
There’s not much to say to this.
Now if, for once in her addled, feverish life, stop there, all would be well and good. There really isn’t a whole lot to say about this.
But no, she has to go on.
I just recommend reading the entire article. It’s pathetic how this country managed to completely forget the long-term, widespread devastation war brings back home, and now that we’re deep in this shit, it’s too late for take-backs.
Honey, we have NEVER faced this issue well. All we do is fight, and once the fight is over, we try to get on with our lives. It is not right, OK, but it is how we deal with things.
At this point, it is still not to late for her to retrieve some sense of rationality, if she again, would simply SHUT THE HELL UP.
Asking too much.
And we’ll probably forget it again next time someone’s rattling the saber and everyone’s waving flags and right wingers are starting blogs, sure that this war is going to be the one that makes them forget the anxiety that’s plagued them ever since they made the mistake of dropping their pants and pulling out their rulers.
And there we have it once again, ladies and gentlemen. The patriarchy is -again- the architect of all evil.
The woman is deranged.
add a comment
. . .sans religion, of course. The man is an incoherent blowhard on that topic. But Ed Luce of FT.com had lunch with Hitchens recently, and the Brit Blowhard vented his spleen on a number of topics, many of which I was surprised to learn that I share:
On Bill Clinton:
. . .unfortunately for me this crest and cusp has already occurred, in that someone who was at Oxford with me has already been the president of the United States and he turned out to be a real scumbag.”
I am aware Hitchens has a low opinion of Clinton. He has written about it extensively. But I didn’t know they went back such a long way. “I’m never going to get closer than that – to having someone of my lot in the highest position,” he continues.
“And I hated every minute of it. I felt Clinton represented the worst of the 1960s. He had none of the virtues of the 68-ers – the soixante-huitards – who at least felt they were fighting for other people’s interests and that the world might be changing – as opposed to the solipsism and narcissism of most of the baby boomers. They [Clinton’s sub-category] were merely the sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. Not that we despise that of course.
On Hillary Clinton:
Does he feel that she also embodied the vices of the 1960s?
“Not at all,” he replies enthusiastically. “With her it’s too many of the virtues. She’s a perfect example of how the 1960s have mutated into – I hate the term political correctness but I suppose it’s unavoidable. In other words they have changed from people who said they wanted complete freedom of speech on campus, into people who now want to police the campus. She represents that mutation to mere perfection.”
Hitchens is in the familiar, articulate form I recognise from his television appearances, and is being quite unreasonable. I have no intention of stopping him. So he goes on: “And then going from sexual freedom to saying that any unwanted advance is a case for the dean or the rape crisis centre – all of this re-infantilising – ‘put that fag out, don’t drink, or wait for a drink until you’re 21’ – all this is an absolute negation of it but with the same complete sense of rectitude. I find it utterly nauseating.”
Recently, BobandTom suggested that Hillary was unelectable because every time she talks, no matter what the topic, she seems to be “yelling at you.” A behavioral manifestation of her chronic sanctimony. Hitchens has NAILED the fundamental problems with both Clintons: Bill is an overgrown, hyperactive three-year old, and Hillary is the overwrought mother of same who compensates for her inability to control him by trying to control everyone else.
Hitchens even sounds off on when he discovered radical Islamism was a Bad Thing.
Nope, not on 9/11/01:
. . .it was St Valentine’s Day 1989,” he says. “Can you remember what happened on that day?” I rack my brain but all I recall was having dinner alone. “That was the day Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.”
I recall that day vividly, thinking to myself, “Who IS this bearded idiot who thinks he has the moral authority to condemn a writer. One of fiction, for that matter.”
In the end, this is why I was not at all surprised that it was a horde of radical Islamists at the control on 9/11.
Hitchens is still a blithering idiot when it comes to religion, but I find his political instincts to be rather spot on.