jump to navigation

Eyes? April 25, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Polls.
add a comment

Your Eyes Should Be Brown (but, they aren’t. . .)


Your eyes reflect: Depth and wisdom

What’s hidden behind your eyes: A tender heart

What Color Should Your Eyes Be?

COLA just got very expensive April 24, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Environmentalism, Global Warming, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing.
add a comment

Actually, Pepsi might be the only thing whose price is NOT rising right now. But in these times of skyrocketing fuel prices coupled with rising food prices, the Cost of Living Adjustments are not going to keep up. . .leaving many of us on the margin with some difficult choices to make.

But, as usual, the Anchoress raises an interesting point re: biofuels. Like so many of the current fad beliefs -reality TV is quality programming, American Idol showcases real talent, Obama is the Messiah, all political candidates are really different this time around, the world is warming due us Bad Humans- this one struck me as more than a little unlikely to “solve all of our problems.”

Consider: Biolfuels have the following, immediate effects on the world that we have generally come to believe are undesirable:

  1. They really do nothing to encourage conservation in consumers
  2. There is no real conservation of fuel at all, in fact, it is likely that more fuel is consumed in producing biofuels. Harvest and fertilizations processes consume much petroleum. Granted, there is a “free” exchange that occurs through photosynthesis, but much of this is then offset by the planting and harvest petroleum uses.
  3. Significant increases in fertilizers add to the river run-offs that are purportedly damaging sea-life off of river mouths, most notably the Mississippi.
  4. Most damning, the food supply becomes limited, driving up prices and limiting access.

We are hearing about food riots in developing countries, and the press is making hay about Sam’s Club limiting bulk purchases of rice. Like anything reported by todays Yellow Journalists, the context of these reports needs to be taken with a large block of salt.

Yet. This hearkens back to the Anchoress’ point: Is the use of food for energy consumption -rather than for human consumption- morally acceptable?

Yeah, it’s bad policy. But I’m wondering if it is also immoral?

I’m sure that sounds extreme, and I don’t mean to. It also sounds very Roman Catholic, but I can’t help that; it seems to me that there is a morality question here – is it ever right to burn food for energy when people are hungry?

Taking a line through the idea of things being used for the purposes intended, one might call burning for food both “disordered” and (when doing so threatens humanity) “intrinsically evil.”

I just know it makes me uncomfortable as hell to consider burning fuel to zip down to Walt Disney World, if it means people somewhere else are struggling to get fed.

Well, from my perch, she should not be questioning herself. She’s dead right. It is morally indefensible to be burning food for our own comfort while others are starving.

Welcome to 21st Century Liberalism. Where We Burn Our Own Food While Third World Indigents Starve.*

*(And don’t forget, we’re the party of the Little Guy!!!)

Two bulldogs in a fight. . . April 23, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Idiots, Politics, Stupid Party vs Evil Party.
add a comment

. . .ugly ones, at that.  That is the Democratic primary race.  What we have here are two nasty, trim and at one time in-shape bulldogs in a vicious fight-for-their-lives; the loser more or less dies.

The winner?  Gets the dubious distinction of going off into another fight, this time with a pit bull.  This pit bull may be aged, but he is battle tested (in more ways than one) and is very well rested.

Hillary is amazing.  She pretty much is single-handedly assuring that we will have a President McCain.

Then there is this Danish joke that gives a chuckling European read on this ridiculousness (from PianoGirl via Anchoress):

From a Danish associate:

“We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election. On one side, you have a b*tch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a b*tch who is a lawyer. On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?

B16 April 18, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Catholicism.
add a comment

I have very little to say.  I’ve been following a bit on the Internets.  Much of the expected stuff comes floating up.  Democrats don’t want to endorse Benedict as he is so relentlessly Pro-Life:

(Senator Barbara) Boxer(D, Cal) put that on display once again today, when she temporarily blocked the passage of a Senate resolution honoring the visit of Pope Benedict XVI.  The resolution, offered by Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, was deemed offensive to Boxer in two areas, and wouldn’t allow the measure to move forward until the language was removed.  One of the clauses dealt with religious expression in public places.  Boxer certainly can’t have that.

But the line in the sand clause to Boxer was this one, which you can read at Politico.com.

“Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life;”

Boxer can’t handle that.  Big surprise.

And that B16 is getting all kinds of stuff about the abuse scandal.  Mark Shea and Anchoress have fine comments on that.

In the end, I have little to add, as I’ve mentioned earlier due in part to the fact that I am busier than I have perhaps ever been.  Ever.

Sad, in that so much of how I identify myself is through my Catholicism, and this Pope is doing bang-up job of continuing and amplifying the legacy of JPII.  I was excited when he was elected, and I’ve never lost that excitement.

But that’s all I have to add.

Great overall round-up to be found at the Anchoress here.

Again, Why Bill Simmons rocks UPDATED April 17, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Idiots, Sports.
add a comment

I haven’t been reading him as much lately. I dunno, maybe it’s because his writing has dropped off (I have not one iota of proof for that), or it’s because I’m directing a show and my leisure time has dropped into the negative regions, or maybe my tastes have just changed. I’ve given up on radio rock, listening only to classical, jazz and news from Northwest Public Radio, and this despite the fact that they play their idiotic series on “Climate Connections” every morning on Morning Sedition Edition.

Who the hell knows?

But anyway, Simmons gave his yearly column on the NBA MVP, LVP and ROY, and here’s part of what he had to say about the ROY, Oklahoma City (not YET, f***buckets) Seattle’s Kevin Durant:

Of all the cruel footnotes for the Sonics getting hijacked from Seattle by a group of guys who have been proven to be lying sleazeballs, losing the chance to follow a potential superduperstar pains Sonics fans nearly as much as losing their team. Despite impossible circumstances, Durant managed to forge a connection with a broken city that tried like hell not to care about him because it didn’t want to get too attached, yet ended up getting attached to him, anyway. Over everything else, that’s why he’s the 2007-08 Rookie of the Year. Keep your head up, Seattle. Life ain’t fair.

I’ve kept quiet about these asshats from the get-go. When Howard Schulz, the whining gasbag Starbuck’s gazillionaire, sold out to a bunch of Sooner jarheads, I feared that the Sonics were OKC-bound, despite the new owner’s claims that they would work in good faith to keep the team in Seattle.

That has proven to be a pile of horseapples, to no one’s surprise. Schulz is now trying to play CYA by suing the Sooner Hijackers (great name for the team if they move, don’t you think?) for ownership of the team, claiming that they hoodwinked Schulz.

That’s bullshit, of course. He KNEW what was about to happen. He was just tired of his NBA plaything and wanted out while making cash.

But, in the end, barring a miracle, the Sonics will become the OKC Hijackers. They won’t have the name, the colors or the retired numbers, but they will have Kevin Durant, damn them. And THAT part ain’t fair at all.

UPDATE:

Here’s his commentary on the MVP. Now, I went in expecting to see LeBron up there. Simmons has him 4th. 4th.. WTF is up with that?

I feel for him for two reasons: That’s a 20-win team without him, and it’s hard to imagine any 24-year-old NBA player averaging a 30-8-7 and finishing fourth in the balloting. Alas, that’s where we are. He’s the most terrifying player in the league, the guy with the best chance of winning a playoff series by himself, a force of basketball nature unlike anything we’ve seen since Young Shaq, someone who spawned more debate, hope and general intrigue than any young player since Jordan. And he’s fourth. Incredible.

Well, OK, whatever. I skip to the MVP. Kevin Garnett. A man I have always highly respected, probably the best -bar absolutely none- NBA player to come straight out of high school.

Until LeBron. James is the ManChild of ALL TIME for the NBA.

But still. Garnett over James?

But, here’s Simmons’ defense:

But that’s not why I’m picking him. On May 22, 2007, professional basketball was effectively murdered in Boston. Garnett transformed every single facet of the franchise upon his arrival, from playing for the Celtics to coaching them to following them to owning them to working for them. What he did can’t be measured by statistics; it can’t even be measured in a few paragraphs like the section you’re reading right now. It would belittle what he did. He transformed the culture of the team. He taught everyone to care about defense, to care about practice, to care about being a professional, to care about leaving everything they had on the court, to stop caring about stats and start caring about wins. He single-handedly transformed the careers of three young players (Rajon Rondo, Leon Powe and Kendrick Perkins), one veteran (Pierce) and one coach (Doc Rivers), all five of whom could have gone the other way. He played every exhibition game like it was the seventh game of the Finals. During blowouts, he stood on the sidelines and cheered on his teammates like it was a tight game; because of that, the bench guys did the same thing for the starters and basically turned into a bunch of giddy scrubs on a 14-seed in a March Madness upset during every game.

The best word for him would either be “contagious” or “selfless.” By Thanksgiving, the entire team was emulating him. Every time a young player got carried away with himself during a game — like the time Perkins started going for his own stats or the time Rondo snapped at his coach — KG was there to set him straight and scare the living hell out him. Every time one of his teammates was intimidated, KG had his back. Every time one of his teammates got knocked down, KG rushed over to pick him up; eventually, four teammates were rushing over to help that fifth guy up, and that’s just the way it goes with the team now. Every time an opponent kept going for a shot after a whistle, KG defiantly blocked the shot just out of principle. Eventually, everyone started doing it. No shots after the whistle against the Celtics. That was the rule. It was a series of little things, baby steps if you will, but they added up to something much bigger.

There’s more, much more.  See for yourself why this guy is still one of the best around.

Amanda asserts the absurd. . . April 16, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Idiots.
add a comment

. . .she’s saying that she can’t help herself in being such a monstrous female dog.

I don’t accept that there’s a dimension to self outside of the physical body. In fact, I think there’s potential social benefits from getting past the idea of free will. How many dumb conservative ideas come back to the notion that strength of will is the major factor? From welfare (they need to choose their way out of poverty!) to the Iraq war (it’s a matter of wanting to win bad enough!) , there’s this obsession. We have tons of very privileged white men who think they do better than everyone else because they chose their fate, and the rest of us are just bad choice makers.

Naturally, this lets her off the hook for being such a huge monster.

OK, Amanda. There is no free will. I therefore blame the environment for sneaking up behind you and planting my booted toe in your sanctimonious ass. You can’t hold me accountable. I simply could not help myself.

Nothing like a good, old-fashioned generality to fire up your day April 14, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing, Pandamansanity, Pharyngulism, Politics.
add a comment

Those brainless f***buckets at Pharyngula and Pandagon are at it again.

PZ, on the Texas, FLDS nightmare:

Here, let me ruin your morning, just in case you hadn’t already heard the story of this raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

(snip)

I think “fundamentalist” has become a synonym for “misogynistic pedophile”.

/Irony/ Nope. No generalities here. /Irony

What an asshole. Yes. In the cosmology of Herr Doktor Myers, if one is a “conservative” Christian, one therefore must:

  1. Hate women, and
  2. Have deep urges to mate with younger members of the species.

Well, last I checked, being a conservative Catholic (note: Quick test to determine this. If you think Pope Benedict is mostly a good guy and the idea of Catholic universities ought to, well, you know, teach basic Catholic doctrine, you too are a conservative Catholic) means I’m a conservative Christian.

In PZ’s book, that means I’m a “fundie.”

Which then means I must hate women and lust after kids.

I’ll say it again: What an asshole.

As for my misogyny, ask my co-workers, who for nearly 20 years have been women. Ask my wife. I doubt highly any of them will suggest that I am a misogynist.

As for my incipient pedophilia according to Herr Doktor Myers, bad news. Almost 18 years working with kids grade K-12, and you know what? I’ve managed to keep my hands off of ALL of them.

It’s easy, really. The very concept of pedophilia frankly grosses me out. Besides that , I still lust after my wife, and that keeps me fully occupied, thank you very much. Perhaps Herr Doktor Myers knows something about Jimmy Carter’s “lusting in the heart” that I do not. But I don’t want the details if he does.

But I must then be a liberal. Herr Doktor Myers’ theory demands that this be so.

Hmm. Fucked up in the basic computations, Herr Doktor. Back to the fantasyland mill drawing board.

Meanwhile, there is Amanda the Berserk:

like all the other little empires Warren Jeffs has built, it’s a religious patriarchy taken to its logical conclusion, i.e. built around the practice of raping underage girls. (bold by ed)

So, I guess the Pope all along has been lusting in his heart to build little compounds to rape little girls. What absolute fever-swamp idiocy.

She blathers on:

Considering that atheists supposedly have our own fundamentalists, I’m sure any day now we’ll find out that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are running rape farms where they swap daughters with their friends because Darwin told them they have a right.

Frankly, I would not normally expect this of Dawkins and Harris, but I would not at all be surprised that some of the more lunatic fringe of their particular stripe in fact WOULD think that is a good idea. In fact, some already do.

But the question that PZ raises—why does it always come back to misogyny and pedophilia with religious nuts who push it too far?

PZ didn’t raise a question, Sister Moonbat. He was talking out of his ass. I think he was about 50% serious when he wrote that. You of course take it all too seriously.

Now, of course, most fundie Christians don’t slide towards polygamy, because there are laws and rules and restrictions against it.

What.

A.

Bitch.

SHE can make it appear my “misogyny” is being raised, though the fact is, I don’t hate women.

I just loathe Amanda Marcotte. If she were male, I’d be just as outraged.

It’s not the rules that forces most people -conservative or liberal, whomever- to avoid pedophilia; it’s the fact that the very idea of it is repugnant. This is especially true for conservatives. I wonder how many members of NAMBLA, who are fighting to legalize pedophilia, are registered Democrats, good, “free-thinking” liberals who desire to legalize what is deep in the hearts of all sex-sodden Democrats.

See how much fun generalities can be, you two morons?

The final irony to this is the fact that Amanda subtitles her little moronicy as part of the “Sunday Freethinker Sermon”.

Free-thinking my blue ass.

UPDATE: Then PZ, the absolute barking-mad asshole, berates some poor old guy who demolished two Porsches.

Total damage: £60,000.

So what does the senile twit say afterwards? You guessed it:

It was a miracle I got out alive and I put it down to the power of prayer and God looking after me.

Why was he praying to wreak havoc on expensive German cars?

Cars (at least Porsches, good. Old men with bad driving skills who invoke God? Bad. Myers? Asshat of the first water).

See, I haven’t read the dolt for weeks. Amanda links to him, I see what foolishness he is raving about now, and again, I go off the end.

Bastard is bad for my health.

In which I actually tilt at Rachel Lucas April 12, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Death and Dying, Family, Leviathan, Politics.
1 comment so far

Rachel is capital P Pissed OFF because of her tax bill.  And I cannot say that I blame her.  $11K is one helluva chunk of change to fork out at the end of the tax season.  I should like to know why her rate is so high, as I get the impression that being self-employed has something to do with it . . .and that smells.  Why are small-businessmen taking it in the shorts?

But, as Rachel is wont to do , when she gets pissed, she rants and has a tendency to do some carpet f-bombing.

Are you on welfare? FUCK YOU.

Do you have children you can’t provide everything for all by your widdle self? FUCK YOU.

Are you on unemployment because you just can’t find a job that’s good enough for ya? You don’t want to work at McDonald’s temporarily because you have a college degree? FUCK YOU.

Are you hoping for a bail-out because you’re too stupid to buy a house you can afford? FUCK YOU.

Are you a federal employee who has anything to do with making the government inefficient, bloated, and more costly than necessary? FUCK YOU.

Let’s cut the crap: Do you take any money from the federal government for any purpose due to your own poor decision-making? FUH-HUH-HUCK YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL.

Seriously. I hate those people and everything they represent. They’re the worst kind of parasites, sucking vortexes of need and stupidity, and I am genuinely enraged that I spend a huge chunk of my life working for those people. They take and take, never giving SHIT back, and you know what the actual worst part is? We put up with it!

Ahem.

Well then.

I placed in bold those items that I suspect that she would be on me like stink on cheese for engaging in.

Welfare?  My family receives state medical benefits.  I do not.  But as I am head of the household, I guess I have to say that “I” benefit from them.

And I have seven children.  Since that then results in a sizable tax benefit, then I guess I also get to receive the “F” bomb for this as well.

The last bold paragraph comes about because I -apparently- benefit from the earlier two.

I italicized the one paragraph because I used to work in public schools.  Got the hell out when I found the ridiculous interpretation of the 1st Amendment too much to stomach.  This, combined with the union mentality that provided tenure to the most experienced and generally, most disillusioned teachers, thereby both affirming and entrenching the Peter Principle to a nauseating degree, I got the hell out of the there and into private education.

While I sympathize with her anger and laugh at her language, I have to disagree that everyone who may be benefiting from government “largesse” -even if it is by receiving lower tax bills- is somehow becoming an automatic leech on the rest of society.

Truth in advertising:  I receive government “benefits” of health care for my kids, and lower tax bills due to having children and due to the fact that I am “buying” my own home.   And not with a bleeping subprime mortgage, either.  Those Ponzi schemes were a) not heavily advertised here in Washington, and b) seemed too damned good to be true; and I see that my reasons for being distrusting of such loans has been proven all-too-correct these past few months.

Now, I am not going to defend the welfare.  It is there, my kids need coverage, I cannot get them coverage and feed them at the same time.  Does that mean I cannot take care of them adequately?  By Rachel’s definition, perhaps.  But then, Rachel’s definition presents a pernicious threat to society that I’ll get to in a minute.  If the state withdrew the welfare, I would suck it up and pay as needed.  I would not complain to Olympia or DC.

But in advocating for that absolute flat tax rate with no deductions, common taxpayers such as me will get hit, and hit hard, with long-term consequences that would in the end damage the Republic.  They are:

  1. Lower home ownership rates, which would exacerbate the already-widening gulf between rich and poor as landlords get more and young families get hosed.
  2. The birth rate would drop.  Take a look at modern Italy or recent France or England to see the dangers to a culture associated with a declining birth rate.  The decay of the Republic is to follow, as the burden of caring for an increasingly aging populace falls more and more on those childless remainders.
  3. Those that WOULD still be having kids in Rachel’s universe would be the wealthy.  Assuming they actually procreate, this then results in an increasingly elitist society, with only the wealthy actually able to afford the birthing and rearing of children.  Francic Galton might have liked this concept.  We should not.

Re: #1.  Home ownership, despite the beating it has taken in recent months due to irresponsible lenders and borrowers, is still one of the most reliable means of savings left to us.  But much of what makes that manageable for many middle class citizens is the tax break on interest paid that then makes the large payments workable.  Take away that tax break, and either the housing market collapses further, or, as I said above, marginal families are forced to rent, the rich get richer, and personal savings rates decline even further than they already have.

Re: #2:  Res ipsa loquitur.

Re: #3:  Children are considered by a healthy society not only as valuable gifts, but by their government as future producers.  My wife and I spend a helluva lot of resources on our children, both time and money, with the idea that they be successful adults.  Now, do I rear them so that the State can have productive workers.

Oh, HELL no.

But, the State wisely (for once) views these children as investments for the future.  To tax parents when they are (in some ways) literally killing themselves to rear decent future workers is not only bad policy, but counterproductive.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I did not have these kids so that I could get a break from Uncle Sam.  Hell, at the time I didn’t even KNOW about the break.  But you may bet that many parents not so hot on the idea of having kids -such as Rachel Lucas- would swear off of them forever if they realized that Uncle Sam was in effect going to soak them for having kids.

I’m telling you:  That tax benefit helps the entire country.  And as the country becomes more and more fixated on the idea that procreation and orgasm are mutually exclusive goals, that break becomes even more important.

Cynical?  Yeah, I know.

The Rumble I would pay to see. . . April 7, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Pandamansanity, Pro-Life, Smart People.
add a comment

. . .would have the generally awesome Rachel Lucas in one corner and the pestiferous, pathological Amanda Marcotte in the other.  I really think Lucas would -in some combination- beat the living physical shit out of Marcotte and destroy Marcotte’s arguments.

Couldn’t say which would come first, though.

Lucas on abortion:

But the second reason I see abortion as anathema to how I want to live my life shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s read this site for long: personal responsibility. To me, the vast majority of abortions (in the U.S., that’s all I’m talking about here) are a direct result of an utter failure to behave in a rational, responsible, thoughtful fashion.

If you don’t want to be pregnant, then don’t get pregnant.

(snip)

a whole LOT of abortions are done on grown women who are not in poverty, who weren’t raped, and who have no medical contraindications to pregnancy. They just don’t want to be pregnant.

(snip)

I had a college friend who told me that the reason she was having her SECOND abortion was because the pill was too much of a pain in the ass to take every day at the same time. So, abortions aren’t a pain in the ass? Is that a fact? Going to a doctor, getting sedated and anesthetized, getting up on a table, having that doctor put a vacuum into your uterus to suck out everything inside, and enduring physical pain for hours or days afterward, is easier than shoving a pill in your mouth every day at the same time? Easier than making your man wear a condom covered in spermicide while you use a diaphragm? A monkey could do it. I told her that. She said, “Actually, yes, I’d rather get an abortion once a year than take the pill every day.” There are people who simply don’t think abortion is any different from birth control.

And then. there’s this:

You have to give up the idea that anyone who’s opposed to abortion is just being an oppressive misogynist dickhead because that is patently untrue in most cases. Like I said about Planned Parenthood, only the most obnoxious assholes make the news. Most pro-lifers, when it comes down it, are simply horrified at the idea of destroying a baby, even if it is inside a woman who doesn’t want it. And yeah, you can say, “Well then they should be lining up to adopt those babies!” My answer to that is, bullshit. It’s not their fault the unwanted baby exists in the first place. Just because someone doesn’t want a baby to die, which is a perfectly acceptable way to feel, doesn’t mean they should feel obligated to raise that baby as their own.

Now, Rachel is a fan of Planned Parenthood -as far as contraception goes- and she and I would part ways in terms of agreement at that point.  But dammit, she’srational, so much moreso where Marcotte is just rigidly crazy in her berserk, mondo 3rd-wave feminism.

Damned funny April 7, 2008

Posted by Administrator in atheism, Humor, Idiots, Pharyngulism, Science.
add a comment

I mean, gut-bustingly so.

But here’s the funny part:  It is Pythonesque in its approach.  Meaning, it’s poking fun at both science and religion.

Now, the ironic part is that the Brights just don’t get what it’s really about.

Look, you fools, go re-watch the first part of the video, before the rap.  You clowns are being schooled.  The rap then schools both camps.

Mark Shea has a great takedown on this.

If I could find a way to host videos on this blog, this is the first one I’d put up.  It’s devastating.