Tuesday, August 31, 2010

He may not be a muslim but he sure is an elitist pig.....

Mr. B pointed out the Brian Williams interview with Obama the other night, knowing that some of the issues raised are some that I've ranted about before.  As I watched the interview and they got to the point about the Pew survey (which I firmly now believe was deliberately designed, question-wise, to make the American public look like dolts) and how, according to that survey, a growing majority of Americans feel that Obama is muslim, hearing his dismissive non-answers about that and the ever-present birth certificate issue just about made my blood boil. 

Do I really care about his religion?  No, no I don't.  And I don't think that the majority of Americans do either......  Except if his religion (the religion/culture in which he was raised/imprinted, not the one to which he now professes) is shading American policies, both foreign and domestic.  As Mr. B pointed out, the religion of the Commander-in-Chief has been a point of concern in the past--when JFK was elected (first Catholic president), folks were worried that he would start implementing Vatican-like policies here in the U.S.  The press made a big hairy deal about George W. Bush's religion, spinning it to make him look provincial. 

And here's the problem...  when the Department of Justice (I use that term loosely) is not prosecuting the USS Cole bomber, and the President of the United States is bowing and scraping to a foreign (muslim) potentate (among others, the man--and I use that term loosely--just can't seem to stand up straight) then it does seem to those of us with a half a brain, that his upbringing is in fact coloring his policies and by default, the policies of the United States towards countries like Israel and Iran

Now, as for the birth certificate brouhaha.  He's says, quite snarkily, that he can't go around with it pasted to his forehead.  Well, the problem is that no one, except for one Hawaiian official (apparently) has seen it at all.  You want the controversy to go away, cough it up.  McCain had to since he was born in the Panama Canal area in order to prove his citizenship.  Hells Bells, I had to in order to just get my freakin' passport.  It's the same mindset that makes Congress exempt themselves from the rules and regulations that we peasants are supposed to follow.

Of course I'm kind of using reverse logic on this--something along the line of a cop showing up at the door and wanting to search our house "If you don't have anything to hide, why won't you let us look?"  But I think this reticence shows a complete disregard for the American people.  He dismisses us out of hand with platitudes and an elitist attitude that we're just supposed to accept what he says.  The American public is not as bovine-like as the MSM and the Legislaturist class (term from David Weber) would think and talking down to us while providing nothing but empty air will not work anymore.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Happy Birthday (belatedly) to Sir Sean Connery

As a tribute to the first and, IMO, the best, onscreen James Bond who turned 80 yesterday:

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Some clarification might be necessary..... Obama's religious proclivities

There has been a lot of brouhaha in the press about an increasing number of the American public answering a Pew Survey feel that Obama is actually a muslim.  I don't really think that the American public feels that because he's said that he's a Christian and we generally take people's word for something like that.  However, I think that the survey instrument is at fault because it does not allow for nuance. 

I think that an increasing number of the American public feel that Obama was RAISED a muslim, since we know that he attended muslim school and there are documents that say that his parents listed his religion as muslim for school applications and such.  It's interesting that the muslim world, which seems so eager to declare fatwas and death threats, has not jumped on and declared Obama to be apostate since he was muslim (or was claimed to be) and has converted to Christianity, which would carry a death sentence in most muslim countries.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Hubris, thy name is Education

We've seen it on a much smaller scale in our area--the head of athletics at a nearby school 'exploring' the idea of putting a $100,000 sound system in the empty soccer field across the street (but we can get a very good academic discount, the whining goes....) until they got busted by Mr. B who contacted the school board president and everyone else who would listen to put a stop to that dumb-ass idea.

But really, in cash-strapped Los Angeles, California (hmmm... Cause, let me introduce you to Effect) they spent $578 MILLION on a K-12 school designed to house 4,200 students in a system where they have a 50% dropout rate.  There are fine murals, marble statuary, historical preservation pieces of the original building, a park, a swimming pool....  I'm sure it's completely frickin' lovely.

I'm equally as sure that the fine art, the marble statuary, the history, and the park will be covered in graffiti in no time flat.  According to the article, 3,000 teachers have been laid off, they've shortened their academic year, and cut other programs.  But this building is for The Children--to give them a "really impressive environment for learning"--to show them the beauty of the world that they can't POSSIBLY appreciate because I'm betting art history was one of the programs CUT.  But  the cost of raw materials was SO HIGH when they were building it, so goes the justificatory whimper.

Hubris is defined as arrogance or excessive pride or self-confidence.  In Greek tragedy (something those students will never hear about due to the cost of the opulent new building), hubris leads to the eventual downfall of the transgressor (definitions from dictionary.com).  Let's hope the public wakes up and starts realizing that part of the problem with this country is that those in charge of educating the children really don't give a rat's ass about education and are striving to maintain an illusion--form over function.  Let's hope that their hubris does lead to their downfall.

ETA:  Check out this link at Big Government for more information on the rising costs of education and the flatline/decline of actual learning....

Monday, August 23, 2010

Power grab--Federal style

Well it seems that no crisis will be wasted when it comes to power grabbing by the federal government.  On the heels of the recall of eggs, the FDA says that they need to have more power in order to 'to put in place these preventive controls and hold companies accountable.'  Right now the FDA does not have the power to call an egg recall--only the industry does.  Call me cynical, but this seems to be another way to get yet another industry under the thumb of the federal government--beginning the controlling of sources of food. 

Once they get their hooks firmly into one farm industry, the rest will fall like dominos, IF the American public allows it.  Problem being, and this has been the modus operandi all along--they say they are doing it for the greater good--to keep people healthy, etc. etc.  This nanny statism has to stop.  There is no state where I can find non-pasteurized apple cider.  I'd be willing to sign any number of wavers because the pasteurized stuff just doesn't have the same kick to me.  People have to start standing up and realizing that life has consequences, some big, some small, but letting the feds wrap us in bubble wrap and feed us milquetoast and pablum (or soylent green for that matter) is not the answer.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Excerpt from The Tracey Ullman Show

IMO this is one of the funniest skits EVAH!  In it, Tracey's rival in a dance contest has stolen her knickers and her partner doesn't know.  The look on the partner's face at 'the reveal' is priceless.....

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Spinning the news on the Ground Zero mosque--AP guidelines

Okay, we know that the folks on the Journolist were creating common memes and spinning stories regarding Obama.  So now the AP is doing the same thing regarding the Ground Zero mosque (which they don't want to call the Ground Zero mosque.  They are, of course, reinforcing Obama's backpedal position on the Ground Zero mosque as well.  So WHY does anyone believe anything these propagandists say??

Bite me Matt Lauer--This is a rant-type post

rant on:

I don't know why I torture myself in the morning by leaving the TV on after the morning news, but I did, and the Today show came on.  Matt Lauer, that hack for the Left, was interviewing Rudy Giuliani about the NYC mosque.  It is so hard for me to watch when someone is so arrogantly BLATANTLY biased (or is either without an original thought and is merely repeating the meme of the day as given to him by his lords and masters).  Giuliani was trying to point out how, while the mosque folks have every right to build it, by proceeding, they are taking what he referred to as "the warrior way" of Islam (I think by that he means the conquering, everyone convert kind of Islam) instead of the "healing way" or the peaceful Islam and so it's a bad idea and should be built elsewhere.  So Lauer (did I mention he's a hack and shill for the Left?) tries to pull out the Pelosi meme and say that the folks who are questioning the wisdom of building the mosque at Ground Zero are the ones who are starting trouble (paraphrase), yadda, yadda, yadda.  Giuliani I think managed to keep the conversation on track, despite them pulling out a speech of his from 2002.

Matt Lauer is one of the faces of the out-of-touch, elitist, non-questioning "journalist" talking head cadre.  I wish I could just reach through the TV and give him  a bitch-slap of common sense.

:Rant off

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Diametrically opposing viewpoints--First Amendment and the Quelling thereof

Via Insty, two posts regarding the proposed NYC mosque project.  I read them back to back and the complete opposite viewpoint were rather stark.  First we'll talk about Pelosi--she wants begin investigations of the folks who are questioning the funding and the motives of those wanting to build the mosque. 

So there are people out there who, while not questioning the RIGHT of those to build the mosque, question the MOTIVES for and more importantly, the FUNDING for this project.  This does not coincide with La Pelosi's presumed multi-culturalist/let's be sensitive to everyone BUT those in our great country views of the world, therefore questioning is wrong and she will do her best to bring the might of the federal government down on those who question authority (previously the most patriotic duty of a citizen-Pre-Obama/Pelosi/Reid).

Contrast this with an editorial from the New York Post, wherein the author further reads the First Amendment and notices that there is a little something in there about petitioning the government for 'redress of grievances' as well as Mayor Bloomberg finally recognizing the fact that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, even when it does not agree with him rather than chastising opponents and telling them they are being intolerant bigots (in essence, not a quote).  It's interesting that his turnaround came very closely on the heels of the connection between Bloomberg and a financial hub in Dubai.  (ht Mr. B).

The thing we need to remember is that free speech isn't.  It is a right that must be jealously defended or else folks like Pelosi, with her threats of retribution, or the PC crowd and their lawsuits causing us to self-censor (which is worse) may well successfully quell dissent and our individual voices and the First Amendment will effectively cease to be.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Happy Birthday Maureen O'Hara!

She's 90 today.  As a celebration, below is a scene from McClintock! (one of my favorite movies).

Monday, August 16, 2010

Confusing freedom of religion and commerce.... Obama and the Ground Zero mosque

Leaving aside the question of Obama jumping into what was earlier deemed to be 'a local matter'.  It's the fact that he (and others) are saying that the people have a right to build a mosque under the aegis of freedom of religion.  I have to say that I'm getting pretty tired of this particular meme.  Mr. B has it right, this is a freedom of commerce issue, not a freedom of religion issue.  The religion card is the new race card (since the race card has been maxed out).

Part of the problem with the religion card is that it can only be used by non-Christians (much like the race card can only be used by non-whites).  And the muslims are starting to max out their use of the religion card with this mosque project (please see the connotations of the name of the project for some additional clarity).  It is almost like they are wanting to provoke a fight, just to see what will happen.  So they can show how anti-muslim the American people are.  The problem is that these radicals are pushing too far (and they are radicals) and it could very well lead to the backlash that the American public has been trying very hard to avoid (please note that the Americans have been trying to avoid this fight but  we can only take so much).

At the base of it, these bullies have every legal right to build their momument to cowardice and killing--as long as their paperwork is in order (and in New York, the right amount of $$ will make that happen).  They are pulling the religion card in order to try to make the American public pull back from their criticism of the project.  But they know and we know what this project really stands for--muslim conquest.

The best way to fight this project was suggested by Mr. B--whoever sold the property to them for the project, whoever agrees to work on the project, whatever unions are involved in this project--put their names up on billboards so the American public can know who can be bought--which NYC organization care more about $$ than about doing what's right.  This project will never, literally, get off the ground if they can't find the workers to do it.  And if the NYC unions come out against it, then it's dead in the water.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Divide and Rule--What Kant said about Perpetual Peace

Okay, I admit it.  I went to a liberal arts school.  It's taken me a while, but I've recovered and hopefully taken the best parts away with me.  One of my favorite courses was philosophy.  Of course I was the only one who read and actually started conversations but there you go.  I'm a nerd.  But anyway, something that's been bothering me for a while (I think there will be several posts with variations on a theme) is Divide and Rule--because I'm seeing it EVERYWHERE.  All of the social dichotomies, EPA rules, the maxed out race card, etc.  Maybe I need to start folding a tin foil hat, but here is installment 1.0.

There have been a lot of folks, most with more insight and brainpower than me, who have written about Divide and Rule (in older days, Divide and Conquer).  Sun Tzu mentioned the strategy in The Art of War, Caesar used it, the Old French Republic used it, Machiavelli discussed it, the Brits used it, Bacon, Madison, and Jefferson talked about it.  And now it's come down to the United States government using it against its own people in order to control and maintain control of the populace.  In Appendix I of "Perpetual Peace; a philosophical essay" by Kant, he discusses three methods for maintaining control over the populace.  See if they look familiar to you--I've bolded some pertinent passages.....

i. Fac et excusa. Seize the most favourable 
opportunity for arbitrary usurpation either of the 
authority of the state over its own people or over 
a neighbouring people; the justification of the act 
and extenuation of the use of force will come much 
more easily and gracefully, when the deed is done, 
than if one has to think out convincing reasons for 
taking this step and first hear through all the ob- 
jections which can be made against it. This is 
especially true if the first case mentioned, where 
the supreme power in the state also controls the 
legislature which we must obey without any reason- 
ing about it. Besides, this show of audacity in a 
statesman even lends him a certain semblance of 
inward conviction of the justice of his action ; and 
once he has got so far the god of success (bonus 
eventus) is his best advocate. 
Hmmmm... Democrats own the House and Senate (for now).  Democrat in the White House.  I'm seeing something here....
2. Si fecisti, nega. As for any crime you have 
committed, such as has, for instance, brought your 
people to despair and thence to insurrection, deny 
that it has happened owing to any fault of yours. 
Say rather that it is all caused by the insubordi- 
nation of your subjects, or, in the case of your 
having usurped a neighbouring state, that human 
nature is to blame; for, if a man is not ready to 
use force and steal a march upon his neighbour, 
he may certainly count on the latter forestalling 
him and taking him prisoner. 
Continuing Bush derangement syndrome.  Continued blaming of all problems on Bush, even though it was a Democrat congress that caused a bunch of the problem.
3. Divide et impera. That is to say, if there 
are certain privileged persons, holding authority 
among the people, who have merely chosen you 
for their sovereign as primus inter pares, bring 
about a quarrel among them, and make mischief 
between them and the people. Now back up the 
people with a dazzling promise of greater freedom ; 
everything will now depend unconditionally on 
your will. Or again, if there is a difficulty with 
foreign states, then to stir up dissension among 
them is a pretty sure means of subjecting first one 
and then the other to your sway, under the pretext 
of aiding the weaker. 
There are too many instances of this.  Choose your own.

 Kant also says the following--which seems to be a direct commentary on our executive branch as it stands today.  I have again bolded some interesting parts:
It may be that despotizing moralists, in practice blundering, often violate rules of political prudence through measures they adopt or propose too precipitately; but experience will gradually retrieve them from their infringement of nature and lead them on to a better course. But the moralizing politician, by glossing over principles of politics which are opposed to the right with the pretext that human nature is not capable of the good as reason prescribes it, only makes reform impossible and perpetuates the violation of law.

Instead of possessing the practical science they boast of, these politicians have only practices; they flatter the power which is then ruling so as not to be remiss in their private advantage, and they sacrifice the nation and, possibly, the whole world. This is the way of all professional lawyers (not legislators) when they go into politics. Their task is not to reason too nicely about the legislation but to execute the momentary commands on the statute books; consequently, the legal constitution in force at any time is to them the best, but when it is amended from above, this amendment always seems best, too. Thus everything is preserved in its accustomed mechanical order. Their adroitness in fitting into all -circumstances gives them the illusion of being able to judge constitutional principles according to concepts of right (not empirically, but a priori). They make a great show of understanding men (which is certainly something to be expected of them, since they have to deal with so many) without understanding man and what can be made of him, for they lack the higher point of view of anthropological observation which is needed for this. If with these ideas they go into civil and international law, as reason prescribes it, they take this step in a spirit of chicanery, for they still follow their accustomed mechanical routine of despotically imposed coercive laws in a field where only concepts of reason can establish a legal compulsion according to the principles of freedom, under which alone a just and durable constitution is possible. In this field the pretended practical man thinks he can solve the problem of establishing such a constitution without the rational idea but solely from the experience he has had with what was previously the most lasting constitutions constitution which in many cases was opposed to the right.
 Those who do not learn from history (or philosophy) end up with an Obama for president.  I guess that liberal arts education came in handy after all.

Quote of the day... from Greg Gutfeld

As you may or may not know, Greg Gutfeld has announced plans to open a gay bar catering to muslims near the site of the proposed mosque that is in the planning stages of being built near Ground-Zero.  His reasoning is the same as those wanting to build the mosque--understanding and tolerance.  And if New York rules and regs don't preclude a bar from being within XXX feet of a house of worship, then go for it.

Of course the left, being totally ball-less when it comes to actually taking a stand against those who kill gay folks (by stoning, by putting them in a sack and throwing them down a hill--if they survive, they're hung by the neck until they are dead) says that he's being intolerant and an islamaphobe, etc.  In other words, they're hypocrites and they can't stand to be called out.  And in any case, he admits that the gay bar thing is meant to be a provocation--but not towards muslims, towards the above mentioned hypocrites.

That said, his response to the charges of being provocative and religiously intolerant earns my vote for quote of the day:

Anyway, when half-wits are half-right, does that make them a quarter- cretinous?
I so much have to find a way to use that sometime........

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Double standards or Equality, what equality??

I had my WTF moment the other but had a problem putting it in a larger context.  Well, today there is an article (ht, Insty) about sexual harassment and separate standards defining sexual harassment.  I think that the latest definition of sexual harassment is "when one employee makes continued, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, to another employee, against his or her wishes."   I think back in the day it used to be when a supervisor kept making the moves and the employee, for fear of losing their job or some other retribution, felt that they had to comply.  But now they have women talking about men's packages (and not meaning the size of their wallets) and in general behaving in a way that would get a man fired, but since they're women, it's okay.  But it's NOT okay and it's just a symptom of the double standards permeating our society.  As examples:

Whites can be racist, no other race can be.
Women can make sexual comments and innuendos towards and about men; men cannot reciprocate (or be accused of reciprocating) without getting reprimanded or fired.
Building a mosque at a site of an atrocity perpetuated by Muslims is 'building bridges'; putting a gay bar for muslims next door to that mosque is not "considering the sensibilities of Muslims" and so won't build dialogue.

I've got a blogpost on divide and rule building in the back of my head that will bring all of this together but am trying to find a particular quote.  More later.

Monday, August 9, 2010


rant mode on....

Okay, so some stupid bint decides to whack a guy for sexual harassment and the accusation is discovered to be unsubstantiated and unfounded.  HOWEVER, the guy or his assistant apparently didn't do due diligence when filling out paperwork so he got canned for not filling out paperwork accurately.  BUT the bint who caused the paperwork to be examined through her action of accusing the guy of sexual harassment is really sorry that the guy lost his job (after he paid her for something that is undisclosed at this time).  The paperwork in question had other people's names on expense reports when he was with her and she got paid for work that she apparently didn't do (hmmmmm.... color me skeptical).

Okay, so that's all very sordid and dumb but the part that gets me is that she was paid $5000/evening to 'greet' people at company functions.  She's pretty and all but really.... her ta-tas (or something) must be made of gold to get that much money for saying 'hi' and making proper introductions.  Okay, another part is that she's 'saddened' by the fact that a guy whom she accused of harassing her sexually lost his job.  Did she just make the accusation as a lark??  Needed the cash??  Not enough company functions??  It's not like she's intellectually lacking but her judgment seems to be a bit off.  Paid off for her though.....

Accusing someone of sexual harassment is not something that should be done lightly, as apparently she did.  It's something that's going to follow this guy (I don't think he's going to be hurting with his $26 million parachute) but geez louise it's just plain wrong on several levels. 

rant over.....

Higher Ed and the Bursting Bubble

Glenn Reynolds had a great piece on the bursting of the Higher Education bubble in the Washington Examiner (found here).  He points out that the reason that higher education tuition has gone up so much, especially in the past few years, is because it COULD.  Institutions of higher learning could increase their tuition by several percentage points annually because students could just borrow more (and go further into debt).

I think that part of the reason that people are/were willing to put up with these increases is because of the perceived value for their dollar.  With the media and organizations such as Lumina Foundation beating the higher education drum and combining that beat with the POTENTIAL of greater earnings with a college degree, the American public has been lead down the primrose path of believing that the path to success can only be found when you've passed through the venerable gates of higher education.  As Reynolds notes (rightly IMO), "...a college degree is an expensive way to get an entry-level credential."

As soon as people realize that college is not necessary, that elite universities are really not that much better than the one down the street, and that going into extreme debt for a degree that will avail you, in some cases, nothing in the marketplace then the bubble will burst and colleges and universities will have to look at their processes and expenditures a bit more closely.  I'm betting once that happens that professorial arguments of 'professional development' and that 'important' conference in Bangladesh just won't fly.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Close call.... lions and tigers and bears, oh my.....

Via Southern Rockies Nature Blog.....  Pictures from a trail camera in Condon, Montana.  Picture of a female jogger in typical jogging clothes.  Picture of a mountain lion---two minutes before the jogger passed by.  I'm of the mind that if you're dumb enough or have enough hubris to think that humans are always at the top of the food chain so you take NO precautions whatsoever, you deserve to get nommed. 

Kind of like those folks who go "back to nature" and go backwoods camping and are shocked SHOCKED when a bear attacks or any other critter has the sheer audacity to actually not want them in their territory and lets the humans know in no uncertain terms.  Sorry dude, if you can't maintain your food chain primacy and you venture into another creatures' territory, you're on your own. 

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Reciprocal blogging goodness--Big Dick's Place

Mr. B pointed out that I've been added to the blogroll at Big Dick's Place.  I'm The Midwest MILF over there.  This is totally cool for a couple of reasons 1.) because I read his blog all of the time (just never at work because I don't work in a porn shop--link NSFW) and 2.) we've never met in person, but he's put me in the MILF category based solely on my writing/mind.  And that makes me feel pretty good.  I've been meaning to add him to my blogroll, so now he's on the sidebar.

Insiders and Outsiders...

I've seen quite a bit on the 'net lately about the growing rift between the eliterati/educated/fishbowl class and the rest of us.  Borepatch has a great post this morning (ht, Mr. B-who has also posted on the subject ) as well as Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner (here and here, respectively).

Borepatch notes that really none of the folks who self-purport to know what's best for the rest of us, know how to THINK and that when confronted with anything outside of their fishbowl, they essentially freeze.

Tapscott quotes from Rasmussen, whose polls are regularly showing a growing disconnect between the 'Political Class' (aka the Fishbowl/Ruling class or to get a little more earthy about it, the Wanker class) and Mainstream America (aka the rest of us, the plebes, or as the PC class thinks of us--the cousin-humping rednecks). 

Both articles I think have at their hearts, the same idea.  Those, who through their contacts and their acceptance to 'elite' schools (whose below-standard undergraduate education is a not-so-well-kept secret) have deemed themselves able to prescribe (in the case of Obamacare, literally) what is good for the rest of us while exempting themselves from the laws and rules that they are passing is creating a gap in this country--dividing our house.

And the problem is that they don't see that this is a problem--that they don't understand that rule of law is rule of law for EVERYONE, including them.  They don't understand that above everything else, the American spirit is one of freedom and that the one of the reasons that our ancestors came here was to affirm their right to choose their own destiny--right, wrong, or indifferent.  That the more they try to control us, the more we will become uncontrollable because it is against the very nature of our beings--the natures that come from our ancestors, to be controlled.

But as long as they maintain control of our political and academic systems, this gap will grow as will their sense of entitlement.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Okay, so the way I'm reading it--White House involvement with Wikileaks...

So apparently the White House, using New York Times reporters as its agent (hmmmmm), asked the foreign national holding American secrets to "to redact information that could … harm personnel or threaten operations or security."  This according to Robert Gibbs, the official White House spokesman hack.  So what I'm reading, and correct me if I'm wrong...  

Firstly, reporters from the New York Times are acting as agents of the White House.  Not terribly surprising considering the Journolist and all but does add some weight to the argument that the Main Stream Media is actually the Make Believe Media (from Susan Swift at bigjournalism.com).  When the media is acting as a agent of the government, then the media cannot be trusted.

Secondly, the White House knew about the documents and did nothing more than direct their media-linked agents to try to redact them.  So this makes the White House complicit in the release of the documents.  Which makes them traitors.

Am I off base here??

Hooray! Obama is stumping for Giannoulias......

Since it seems that the glow from the Annointed One brings the kiss of death in the polls I think it's a great thing that he's coming to Chicago for a fundraiser with Giannoulias.    I think he's zero for three now-or three for three, depending if you're looking at it from the Democrat/re-election point of view or from the point of view of the rest of the world--NJ Governor race (stumped for Corzine), Virginia Governor race (stumped for Deeds), and MA Senate race (stumped for Coakley).  Considering that they are running from him like rats in a sinking ship in Atlanta today, I guess he's gotta feel useful somehow and I think that his time is best served stumping for folks who will hopefully now lose.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

The quelling of dissent......

Via Instapundit, an article from the Volokh Conspiracy regarding Obama's piping-hot-brilliant idea to truthfully discuss race and gender issues 'around the water cooler'.  As Insty states and Volokh points out, such frank discussions could get the folks (IMO, the white folks at least, and especially the patriarchal oppressors white males) involved in the water cooler discussion sued/reprimanded/otherwise slapped down.

Because of the perpetuation of harassment law to the point where anything that might possibly offend someone is a sue-able offense, I can't see where frank conversations could lead to anything good, except for opening up more positions to meet diversity targets for an employer.

That aside, how can there be a frank and honest conversation when the likes of Shirley Sherrod is bellowing without any cause or proof that Andrew Breitbart wants to see all blacks back in slavery, where the President of the United States, without knowing the facts of a case of a run-in between a black colleague and the police automatically called racism on the white officer, where the former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission says that 'tainting the Tea Parties with charges of racism' is a good strategy for the Democrats.

The problem with frank conversations, is that someone is liable to get their feelings hurt if they get told something that they don't want to hear.  I think that this is part-and-parcel of the victim/oppression mentality indoctrination that leads to things like the Duke Lacrosse brouhaha (see Durham in Wonderland for full coverage).  Since the society as it has evolved under the liberals, wants to perpetuate victim mentality, if someone hears something they don't like, they can take it up the line and get the person reprimanded or even fired or they can take a person to court and will probably win a hefty lawsuit.

There has to be a level of trust between folks to have an honest conversation.  There has to be an understanding that you might be told something that you don't want to hear, that you might say something that the other person doesn't want to hear, but that maybe at the end, as adults, you can work through to an understanding.  At this point and with the rules in place, that trust cannot exist and so those conversations cannot happen 'around the water cooler'.

BIrds do it, bees do it.....

Okay, this time it was just the bees, but I got your attention, didn't I?  I was merrily mowing the yard when all of a sudden I got attacked by a swarm of bees (must have run over something).  Mr. B, not related to the afore-mentioned bees, having heard me yelp, spotted me coming around the corner with the swarm around my head, a panicked (probably pretty humorous from a different standpoint) look on my face, and the mower moving as fast as it would go.  He got me stopped, got the bees brushed off of me and got an anti-histamine down my gullet.  Grand total, two stings, so not bad, thanks to his quick thinking--since my brain was in lizard-flight mode.

Bathroom wit

Okay, this made me laugh first thing this morning....  Via Big Dick's Place.  It's amazing the humor you can find in bathroom graffiti.....

Why the Obamas weren't invited to Chelsea's wedding....

Okay, I don't care that she's getting married, I don't care how much it cost.  I don't even care about the guest list really but I did think that it was interesting that Hillary's boss wasn't invited.  Back in the day, it was considered to be an insult to not invite bosses and the like to such occasions, even if you didn't like them.  Most of the time, this was understood and the boss would have enough class to reply with a 'regrets' and send a nice gift.  Even Al Capone understood this basic nicety--it would in many cases be too much of a hassle for him to attend, so presents were sent in lieu of his presence. 

However, the Obama's have shown themselves to be social clods--from the tacky gifts to Gordon Brown and family (non-Brit-playable DVDs and helicopters from the White House gift shop) and the IPod given to the Queen of England to Michelle's email requesting birthday wishes and a donation to Dear Barak (even though she's going to be in Spain probably on the taxpayer dime for his big 49th birthday).  Not only would they not understand that their presence would detract from the wedding itself, but I don't think they would understand that an autographed picture of The One is not a good replacement for the china in the bride's registry.  So I don't blame the Clintons a bit for keeping the Obamas off of the guest list.