The Bradley Manning case just got weirder today. Because apparently he (she?) is now Chelsea Manning. He had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder back in Some Year I Don't Care To Spend Time Looking Up and admitted to a counselor that he wanted to be a woman in 2009, well before he started dumping classified documents. Suddenly, old and new media blew up with stories about Bradley. Or Chelsea. Or whatever.
There was much speculation and debate. Why did he wait until just now, if he thought about becoming a woman four years ago? Is it because women don't serve in Leavenworth, only men? Do taxpayers have to pay for his hormone treatment, (If his lawyer gets his way, we will) and should we have to? In response to these questions, the PC Gestapo launched into action. Merely asking these questions was bigotry. Also, anyone failing to refer to "her" as "she" was immediately dubbed Hatey McRacist. Members of the press who failed to comply were decried by lib/progs.
I, like many people, don't care what he does with his junk. I don't care to know anything about his various personal habits. He can take all of the hormones he wants, but we shouldn't have to pay for it. Nor should he be able to use this to dodge Fort Leavenworth. What I'm amazed by is just how upset the lib/progs of the world are that we haven't all decided to say "she" or "her".
Failing to adhere to the canons of sensitivity is apparently a crime against humanity. Lib/progs finger wag and lecture about transgender rights and say that Manning claims to be a she, therefore she is. This sounds surprisingly similar to someone screaming that "the science is settled!" The science isn't settled. Psychology is still more art than science, meaning there is a lot of judgment involved. Issues such as transgender are not based solely on empirical evidence, but also on the opinions of various psychologists.
There is even such a thing as "transgender regret." This is where someone undergoes sex change therapy, and then has second thoughts. Don Ennis, a producer at ABC, is a recent example. He went through the therapy, and changed his name to "Dawn". Recently, he told the world he wants to be Don again. Apparently, to mention that there might be this sort of regret is hateful to Manning supporters. I think some dude regretting this seems like an entirely plausible reaction. Especially if he went the whole way (Ennis didn't, apparently) and lopped off his unit.
No one I've spoken to (Read: gotten into a shouting match/twitter war) with on the left cares that don't care what Manning does to himself. Failing to accept everything and use the right pronouns makes me automatically hateful and homophobic and blah blah blah. Not that I'm bothered by this. Recent experience with the extreme left suggests that when one calls me a bigot, it doesn't mean I am a bigot. It just means they've run out of intelligent things to say. But what does annoy me slightly is that it's fairly clear that lib/progs assume that their way is the only way, despite the fact that there's still plenty of unsettled science. We must call Manning "her" or "she". Bradley is now Chelsea. Any who fail to accede to the wishes of the lib/progs does so on pain of death.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
The Argument is Settled, Provided You Agree With Me
Over the course of two days, SCOTUS has rendered controversial rulings on the Voting Rights Act and gay marriage. Two serious issues that inflame passions on both sides. Decisions which could echo through history. And the reaction to these extremely weighty cases has been...absolutely hilarious.
When section four of the Voting Rights Act was ruled unconstitutional, the reaction from the left was unsurprisingly indignant. Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC bemoaned her "loss of citizenship". Chris Hayes, also of MSNBC, was "physically enraged" by the act of "judicial activism. Apparently, the rights of minorities to vote has been completely obliterated. Well, not quite.
Section one of the voting rights act makes voter discrimination illegal. It's still illegal. Section five makes certain areas with a history of racism clear any changes in voting procedures with the federal government. Section four identified which states (as well as a few random counties and so forth) are subject to this. The original formula was to apply this scrutiny to any area that used a "test or device" (i.e. literacy test) and whether half of eligible citizens were voting, or at least registered. As of November 1st, 1964. This was updated in 1968 and 1972, but not since then. So under VRA as it was before the ruling, a state, county, or township that had a literacy test or not enough registered voters in 1972 had to clear any changes in voting policy with the feds. Even forty years later. The South has changed ever so slightly since then. Jim Crow is long gone.
Huffington Post's Howard Fineman snarkily noted that anyone who thought the South had improved significantly should spend some time there. Thus evincing that he hasn't spent any time here recently. Or that if he has, he's stayed within one of the few liberal bubbles in the South. A more sensible response came from liberal Fox News contributor Bob Beckel, who noted that there are still a few remote counties that have these problems. And he's right. That's why they're "remote". We make our racists live all the way back in the woods now. And if one of these jurisdictions did have voting irregularities, it's highly unlikely it would sway a vote. In most of these places, the voter turnout could be five people, and that would be an 83% turnout.
SCOTUS lacks the power to rewrite the law, only Congress does. So instead of leaving an obsolete law in place, they chunked it and forced Congress to finally update it. Not too unreasonable, if the last update to the formula was in 1972. 50 years ago, Congress passed a law that prevented inappropriate tests related to voting, and updated it in 1968 and 1972. And this was a great thing. Now these jurisdictions are subject to a test that is forty years out of date. But when SCOTUS threw out this inappropriate test, it was not a great thing. I guess inappropriate tests are only okay when they have pre-approval from MSNBC.
Fast forward one day, and the same people are singing the praises of the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act. And the reaction from the left is exactly the opposite. No cries of judicial activism here. Rachel Maddow spiked the football and said "This is now decided as a nation. The argument is won." Because apparently SCOTUS had spoken and SCOTUS is always right. Oh, wait.
Obviously, there's going to be (and already has been) push back from conservatives on this. (Personal opinion on DOMA: vast indifference, like most things). But according to the left it's now The Settled Law of the Land. Which is why these reactions are leaving me in stitches. "Settled law" is a contradiction in terms. All laws are subject to constant revision. To use another controversial example, abortion was legalized after Roe v. Wade. But recent advances in neo-natal care make third term babies far more viable. They used to be just fetuses with only a small chance to live, but now this viability suggests that they are living beings with rights in the third term. Thus, Roe v. Wade is not "settled". As time passes and society evolves, old rulings may become obsolete and thus may require updating for our current environment. This is also true for DOMA and the VRA.
That's why I roll on the floor when I hear spew like this from the punditocracy. Nothing is settled. Congress will (eventually, maybe) update the VRA. States will pass new laws regarding gay marriage. The law, even the Constitution, is a constant work in process. So a vote against VRA is not the end of the world and a vote against DOMA does not settle the argument. It just advances the argument. A little. The stupendous level of ignorance from the chattering class is what has my sides splitting. An argument is only settled when SCOTUS rules in their favor. How could this be funny? Well, I only laugh to keep from crying.
When section four of the Voting Rights Act was ruled unconstitutional, the reaction from the left was unsurprisingly indignant. Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC bemoaned her "loss of citizenship". Chris Hayes, also of MSNBC, was "physically enraged" by the act of "judicial activism. Apparently, the rights of minorities to vote has been completely obliterated. Well, not quite.
Section one of the voting rights act makes voter discrimination illegal. It's still illegal. Section five makes certain areas with a history of racism clear any changes in voting procedures with the federal government. Section four identified which states (as well as a few random counties and so forth) are subject to this. The original formula was to apply this scrutiny to any area that used a "test or device" (i.e. literacy test) and whether half of eligible citizens were voting, or at least registered. As of November 1st, 1964. This was updated in 1968 and 1972, but not since then. So under VRA as it was before the ruling, a state, county, or township that had a literacy test or not enough registered voters in 1972 had to clear any changes in voting policy with the feds. Even forty years later. The South has changed ever so slightly since then. Jim Crow is long gone.
Huffington Post's Howard Fineman snarkily noted that anyone who thought the South had improved significantly should spend some time there. Thus evincing that he hasn't spent any time here recently. Or that if he has, he's stayed within one of the few liberal bubbles in the South. A more sensible response came from liberal Fox News contributor Bob Beckel, who noted that there are still a few remote counties that have these problems. And he's right. That's why they're "remote". We make our racists live all the way back in the woods now. And if one of these jurisdictions did have voting irregularities, it's highly unlikely it would sway a vote. In most of these places, the voter turnout could be five people, and that would be an 83% turnout.
SCOTUS lacks the power to rewrite the law, only Congress does. So instead of leaving an obsolete law in place, they chunked it and forced Congress to finally update it. Not too unreasonable, if the last update to the formula was in 1972. 50 years ago, Congress passed a law that prevented inappropriate tests related to voting, and updated it in 1968 and 1972. And this was a great thing. Now these jurisdictions are subject to a test that is forty years out of date. But when SCOTUS threw out this inappropriate test, it was not a great thing. I guess inappropriate tests are only okay when they have pre-approval from MSNBC.
Fast forward one day, and the same people are singing the praises of the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act. And the reaction from the left is exactly the opposite. No cries of judicial activism here. Rachel Maddow spiked the football and said "This is now decided as a nation. The argument is won." Because apparently SCOTUS had spoken and SCOTUS is always right. Oh, wait.
Obviously, there's going to be (and already has been) push back from conservatives on this. (Personal opinion on DOMA: vast indifference, like most things). But according to the left it's now The Settled Law of the Land. Which is why these reactions are leaving me in stitches. "Settled law" is a contradiction in terms. All laws are subject to constant revision. To use another controversial example, abortion was legalized after Roe v. Wade. But recent advances in neo-natal care make third term babies far more viable. They used to be just fetuses with only a small chance to live, but now this viability suggests that they are living beings with rights in the third term. Thus, Roe v. Wade is not "settled". As time passes and society evolves, old rulings may become obsolete and thus may require updating for our current environment. This is also true for DOMA and the VRA.
That's why I roll on the floor when I hear spew like this from the punditocracy. Nothing is settled. Congress will (eventually, maybe) update the VRA. States will pass new laws regarding gay marriage. The law, even the Constitution, is a constant work in process. So a vote against VRA is not the end of the world and a vote against DOMA does not settle the argument. It just advances the argument. A little. The stupendous level of ignorance from the chattering class is what has my sides splitting. An argument is only settled when SCOTUS rules in their favor. How could this be funny? Well, I only laugh to keep from crying.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
The Greatest Conspiracy Ever!
Given the amount of time I spend goofing around on the Internet and social media (which is what I do when I should be working), it's only a matter of time until I start bumping into the loonier side of cyberspace. Every nutty conspiracy theory there is is out on the web. I've been inundated with this kind of crazy for hours every day, except for the moments where my boss walks by my desk and I have to pretend I'm working. And I finally noticed a common pattern.
All of these conspiracy theories were created by communists. Commies. Oh, yes. That is the only explanation that makes sense. All of the greatest conspiracy theories are obviously created by communists. The faking of the moon landing, aliens at Area 51, the assassination of JFK, the various Rothschild, Illuminati, New World Order conspiracies, and the worst, 9/11 truther conspiracies, are all created by communists to advance a communist agenda.
They do this because the truth makes communists look bad. The moon landing was an early indication that American capitalism would blow right past Soviet communism. Communists thought they had the edge in the space race, but suddenly America was back in the game. When America successfully completed the first moon landing, communists couldn't let people believe that capitalism was actually superior. So they invented the myth that the moon landing was faked. A pack of communist lies that claimed the moon landing was a pack of capitalist lies. Irony, anyone?
The aliens at Area 51 is a similar example. Area 51 is a real place. It's a part of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The truth is that there was (and probably still is) Air Force research being conducted at Area 51. Crazy, mad scientist, ARPA/DARPA stuff. American enterprise was rapidly making Soviet communism obsolete. The Soviets couldn't let the world believe that the innovations that we made were the product of capitalism. So they cobbled together a half-assed theory that we were actually stealing the ideas from aliens. Damn Commies. Couldn't handle the fact that we were just way more innovative than them.
This isn't the only thing they thought we stole. All of Illuminati, New World Order, Rothschild conspiracies have a similar theme. A shadowy cabal of businessmen, bankers, and whatever controls the entire world's wealth. America is apparently controlled by a few families, like the Rockefellers. Uh-huh. One look at the Forbes 400 disproves this. 70% of the 400 wealthiest Americans are self made billionaires. Many are household names on the list, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Charles Schwab, George Lucas, and Donald Trump just to name a few. There is a Rockefeller on the list. He's tied for 151. Less than the five I just mentioned. How can a few families control all of the wealth, when so many self made billionaires are richer than one of the supposed conspirators? The answer is simple. Commies. They can't handle the fact that capitalism allows people to thrive and be successful in a single lifetime. So they claim that some rich people must have stolen it. The old "behind every great fortune is a great crime" canard.
The last conspiracy led to another goofball theory that was apparently manufactured by the Politburo. When faced with happy people enjoying the fruits of capitalism, communists swung into damage control mode. Western society is "decadent" according to the commies of the world. This was raw denial on the part of the USSR. The commies couldn't admit that things were just better here. They didn't want people to look around at the bread lines and start dreaming of a life in America. So instead, they pushed the idea that we were weakening ourselves. Slowly poisoning ourselves with debauchery. We stole all the money and were living frivolously. Anything to prevent the people living under communism from seeing the obvious truth: communism was a failure waiting to happen.
The JFK assassination theories are a little different. They're a deflection of guilt. The guy who actually killed JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a member of the communist party. The party couldn't have people believing that a communist murdered the American president. So the commies acted like it was a shadowy conspiracy, a convoluted, Byzantine intrigue produced by American capitalism. Anything to avoid having people realize that the actual murderer was just another naive chump duped by communism.
The 9/11 truther conspiracies are a product of the even more naive neo-communists. Communism rightly became extinct. It's political Darwinism; the unfit system perished and the fittest system survived and thrived. But a few leftover douches from the 60's occasionally con some young people into pushing the various quaint and archaic notions of communism. We see this today with Anonymous and the Occupy movement. And it should come as no surprise that plenty of these nuts are in love with the 9/11 Truth idea. Youtube is full of the Truthers at Occupy rallies and Anonymopes demanding an investigation of the 9/11 "false flag" attack.
For the commies, it was absolutely critical that the United States not appear in any way sympathetic after 9/11. The neo-commies would have us believe that 9/11 was a giant conspiracy by the corrupt shadowy cabals that rule the United States and stole the world's wealth devised it as an elaborate power grab. Of course, they already control the world's wealth, according to various other communist theories. So I'm not sure how much power they could grab for. That is irrelevant, though, since logic and reason are not things Occupunks and Anonymopes concern themselves with. America overreached when it responded to 9/11. The simple explanations are that this was political opportunism or, far more likely, a natural reaction that came from fear. But if the world believed that, it would disrupt the commie narrative that capitalism is evil. So they threw together a theory about planned demolitions.
There it is. The one true conspiracy. Communists invent all other conspiracy theories to advance their discredited ideology. All of their conspiracy theories about capitalism and the New World Order are actually an elaborate conspiracy to install a communist New World Order. Of course now that I think about it, does it make sense to assume there is an conspiracy every time I hear something that doesn't fit what I believe? Could this belief that communists are behind everything be the product of paranoia; another Red Scare? Maybe these conspiracy theories exist because there are lots of disaffected nuts in the world who jump on every screwy theory, especially the Anti-American ones, that they can find. That's a much simpler explanation. Nah, screw it. Occam's Razor is for pussies. Commies are behind everything. Damn commies.
All of these conspiracy theories were created by communists. Commies. Oh, yes. That is the only explanation that makes sense. All of the greatest conspiracy theories are obviously created by communists. The faking of the moon landing, aliens at Area 51, the assassination of JFK, the various Rothschild, Illuminati, New World Order conspiracies, and the worst, 9/11 truther conspiracies, are all created by communists to advance a communist agenda.
They do this because the truth makes communists look bad. The moon landing was an early indication that American capitalism would blow right past Soviet communism. Communists thought they had the edge in the space race, but suddenly America was back in the game. When America successfully completed the first moon landing, communists couldn't let people believe that capitalism was actually superior. So they invented the myth that the moon landing was faked. A pack of communist lies that claimed the moon landing was a pack of capitalist lies. Irony, anyone?
The aliens at Area 51 is a similar example. Area 51 is a real place. It's a part of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The truth is that there was (and probably still is) Air Force research being conducted at Area 51. Crazy, mad scientist, ARPA/DARPA stuff. American enterprise was rapidly making Soviet communism obsolete. The Soviets couldn't let the world believe that the innovations that we made were the product of capitalism. So they cobbled together a half-assed theory that we were actually stealing the ideas from aliens. Damn Commies. Couldn't handle the fact that we were just way more innovative than them.
This isn't the only thing they thought we stole. All of Illuminati, New World Order, Rothschild conspiracies have a similar theme. A shadowy cabal of businessmen, bankers, and whatever controls the entire world's wealth. America is apparently controlled by a few families, like the Rockefellers. Uh-huh. One look at the Forbes 400 disproves this. 70% of the 400 wealthiest Americans are self made billionaires. Many are household names on the list, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Charles Schwab, George Lucas, and Donald Trump just to name a few. There is a Rockefeller on the list. He's tied for 151. Less than the five I just mentioned. How can a few families control all of the wealth, when so many self made billionaires are richer than one of the supposed conspirators? The answer is simple. Commies. They can't handle the fact that capitalism allows people to thrive and be successful in a single lifetime. So they claim that some rich people must have stolen it. The old "behind every great fortune is a great crime" canard.
The last conspiracy led to another goofball theory that was apparently manufactured by the Politburo. When faced with happy people enjoying the fruits of capitalism, communists swung into damage control mode. Western society is "decadent" according to the commies of the world. This was raw denial on the part of the USSR. The commies couldn't admit that things were just better here. They didn't want people to look around at the bread lines and start dreaming of a life in America. So instead, they pushed the idea that we were weakening ourselves. Slowly poisoning ourselves with debauchery. We stole all the money and were living frivolously. Anything to prevent the people living under communism from seeing the obvious truth: communism was a failure waiting to happen.
The JFK assassination theories are a little different. They're a deflection of guilt. The guy who actually killed JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a member of the communist party. The party couldn't have people believing that a communist murdered the American president. So the commies acted like it was a shadowy conspiracy, a convoluted, Byzantine intrigue produced by American capitalism. Anything to avoid having people realize that the actual murderer was just another naive chump duped by communism.
The 9/11 truther conspiracies are a product of the even more naive neo-communists. Communism rightly became extinct. It's political Darwinism; the unfit system perished and the fittest system survived and thrived. But a few leftover douches from the 60's occasionally con some young people into pushing the various quaint and archaic notions of communism. We see this today with Anonymous and the Occupy movement. And it should come as no surprise that plenty of these nuts are in love with the 9/11 Truth idea. Youtube is full of the Truthers at Occupy rallies and Anonymopes demanding an investigation of the 9/11 "false flag" attack.
For the commies, it was absolutely critical that the United States not appear in any way sympathetic after 9/11. The neo-commies would have us believe that 9/11 was a giant conspiracy by the corrupt shadowy cabals that rule the United States and stole the world's wealth devised it as an elaborate power grab. Of course, they already control the world's wealth, according to various other communist theories. So I'm not sure how much power they could grab for. That is irrelevant, though, since logic and reason are not things Occupunks and Anonymopes concern themselves with. America overreached when it responded to 9/11. The simple explanations are that this was political opportunism or, far more likely, a natural reaction that came from fear. But if the world believed that, it would disrupt the commie narrative that capitalism is evil. So they threw together a theory about planned demolitions.
There it is. The one true conspiracy. Communists invent all other conspiracy theories to advance their discredited ideology. All of their conspiracy theories about capitalism and the New World Order are actually an elaborate conspiracy to install a communist New World Order. Of course now that I think about it, does it make sense to assume there is an conspiracy every time I hear something that doesn't fit what I believe? Could this belief that communists are behind everything be the product of paranoia; another Red Scare? Maybe these conspiracy theories exist because there are lots of disaffected nuts in the world who jump on every screwy theory, especially the Anti-American ones, that they can find. That's a much simpler explanation. Nah, screw it. Occam's Razor is for pussies. Commies are behind everything. Damn commies.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Christmas: An Excuse For Family, Friends, and Co-Workers to Slowly Poison Us
I was on my way to spend Christmas with my family in Georgia, and I stopped in a gas station not far from Savannah. Given that I'd been on the road for over six hours, I felt an urge to use the facilities. While performing the necessary tasks in the men's room, the janitor, who was busy cleaning, said "So, are you ready for Christmas, or are you ready for it to come and go?" Initially, I was perturbed. Problem one, the guy was being too damned happy. I rarely approve of happy people, because I think they're unrealistic. Problem two, he started a conversation with a guy standing in front of a urinal. Major faux-pas. Eyes forward, no talking, and tend to your business is proper bathroom etiquette.
But I overcame my initial annoyance with the guy, because I realized I had no idea how to answer his question. After some thought, I answered honestly and said "That's not a bad question." He thought this was hilarious. I was somewhat disappointed in myself for unintentionally making a guy who was already unnecessarily happy even happier. My inability to answer with a resounding yes was quite simple. I'm not a Scrooge or a Grinch (although I am occasionally a grouch), but I have noticed a downside to the Christmas season. Specifically 5-15 extra pounds. It happens each year.
The evidence of this was confirmed earlier today, when my boss said "Hey, have you put on weight?" If it's not already obvious, my boss has the tact equivalent of, say, Archie Bunker. Or Oscar the Grouch. Or Archie Bunker after he gets his ass kicked by Oscar the Grouch. Or vice-versa. The point is he has limited social skills. But he's not afraid to speak his mind, and he wasn't wrong. Still, I don't want to hear comments on my weight gain from friends, family, and co-workers. This is like drug-pushers telling addicts they have a problem. This was their idea.
Here's why it's their idea. It starts in early December. The biggest clients of my employer and the people who sell things to my employer (payroll provider, benefits provider, etc.) send us gifts for Christmas. This usually means food, which is laid out in a common area to tempt all passersby. Then the people I work with (including boss-guy) bring in leftovers from various Christmas parties. The food in question is not exactly health food. On the contrary, it tends to be assorted forms of sugar-coated lard drowning in cholesterol sauce.
Then I go home for Christmas, and it gets worse. First step, dinner with the immediate family. In Southeast Georgia. Where the only thing we don't fry is the iced tea, and that's just because we haven't figured out how. Yet. Then the next day is dinner with the extended family. Which is a potluck dinner. In the South, that means a smorgasbord of waistline increases and myocardial infarctions waiting to happen. Including ten different desserts covered in molasses or chocolate or both. And iced tea. Of course. Sweet iced tea; loaded with sugar. None of that pagan-style "unsweet" (shudder) iced tea.
As a parting gift, parents, aunts, uncles, etc. give me as much of their leftovers to take home with me as they can. Old people are like that. They pretend it's out of generosity, but they're really just jealously clinging to their remaining years of life. They figure I've got quite a few more left than they do, so if lose a year or two I'll still have a few decades to play with. Never mind that they're slowly poisoning me with the most unhealthy (but admittedly awesome) food on the planet.
So why not throw it all out? Nuh-uh. When you're raised in a culture that celebrates frugality (we use leftover pickle jars as drinking glasses), wasting all that food is sacrilege. Besides, the food is just too good. I can't resist, even though it could kill me. Moth to the flame. So Christmas alone results in double digit weight increase and multiple carb comas. And it takes a week to go through the leftovers.
This means New Year's Eve is just insult to injury. At precisely the moment I finish the Christmas leftovers, I'm beset by a holiday involving the eating of buffalo wings, fried chicken, barbecue, hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, and onion rings. Not to mention imbibing lots of alcohol. No wonder so many people make a diet their New Year's resolution. Our greatest dietary sins are committed just prior to the end of the year, so our penance begins in January. Fortunately, the raging hangover on January 1st is a not so subtle reminder that I need to start behaving myself.
So, yeah, Random-Guy-In-Gas-Station-Bathroom. I was ready to indulge in an eating orgy for a week, AKA Christmas. But I was also ready for it to come and go, hoping that the damage wouldn't be too great. Yeah, boss. I did put on a few pounds. Truth is, I don't really regret it. It's ironic that I choose what's considered by most Americans to be the holiest time of year to indulge in one of my favorite sins. Gluttony. I know I'll have to make up for it somehow over the next few weeks or months. Maybe I did take a year or two off of my life. But it was worth it.
But I overcame my initial annoyance with the guy, because I realized I had no idea how to answer his question. After some thought, I answered honestly and said "That's not a bad question." He thought this was hilarious. I was somewhat disappointed in myself for unintentionally making a guy who was already unnecessarily happy even happier. My inability to answer with a resounding yes was quite simple. I'm not a Scrooge or a Grinch (although I am occasionally a grouch), but I have noticed a downside to the Christmas season. Specifically 5-15 extra pounds. It happens each year.
The evidence of this was confirmed earlier today, when my boss said "Hey, have you put on weight?" If it's not already obvious, my boss has the tact equivalent of, say, Archie Bunker. Or Oscar the Grouch. Or Archie Bunker after he gets his ass kicked by Oscar the Grouch. Or vice-versa. The point is he has limited social skills. But he's not afraid to speak his mind, and he wasn't wrong. Still, I don't want to hear comments on my weight gain from friends, family, and co-workers. This is like drug-pushers telling addicts they have a problem. This was their idea.
Here's why it's their idea. It starts in early December. The biggest clients of my employer and the people who sell things to my employer (payroll provider, benefits provider, etc.) send us gifts for Christmas. This usually means food, which is laid out in a common area to tempt all passersby. Then the people I work with (including boss-guy) bring in leftovers from various Christmas parties. The food in question is not exactly health food. On the contrary, it tends to be assorted forms of sugar-coated lard drowning in cholesterol sauce.
Then I go home for Christmas, and it gets worse. First step, dinner with the immediate family. In Southeast Georgia. Where the only thing we don't fry is the iced tea, and that's just because we haven't figured out how. Yet. Then the next day is dinner with the extended family. Which is a potluck dinner. In the South, that means a smorgasbord of waistline increases and myocardial infarctions waiting to happen. Including ten different desserts covered in molasses or chocolate or both. And iced tea. Of course. Sweet iced tea; loaded with sugar. None of that pagan-style "unsweet" (shudder) iced tea.
As a parting gift, parents, aunts, uncles, etc. give me as much of their leftovers to take home with me as they can. Old people are like that. They pretend it's out of generosity, but they're really just jealously clinging to their remaining years of life. They figure I've got quite a few more left than they do, so if lose a year or two I'll still have a few decades to play with. Never mind that they're slowly poisoning me with the most unhealthy (but admittedly awesome) food on the planet.
So why not throw it all out? Nuh-uh. When you're raised in a culture that celebrates frugality (we use leftover pickle jars as drinking glasses), wasting all that food is sacrilege. Besides, the food is just too good. I can't resist, even though it could kill me. Moth to the flame. So Christmas alone results in double digit weight increase and multiple carb comas. And it takes a week to go through the leftovers.
This means New Year's Eve is just insult to injury. At precisely the moment I finish the Christmas leftovers, I'm beset by a holiday involving the eating of buffalo wings, fried chicken, barbecue, hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, and onion rings. Not to mention imbibing lots of alcohol. No wonder so many people make a diet their New Year's resolution. Our greatest dietary sins are committed just prior to the end of the year, so our penance begins in January. Fortunately, the raging hangover on January 1st is a not so subtle reminder that I need to start behaving myself.
So, yeah, Random-Guy-In-Gas-Station-Bathroom. I was ready to indulge in an eating orgy for a week, AKA Christmas. But I was also ready for it to come and go, hoping that the damage wouldn't be too great. Yeah, boss. I did put on a few pounds. Truth is, I don't really regret it. It's ironic that I choose what's considered by most Americans to be the holiest time of year to indulge in one of my favorite sins. Gluttony. I know I'll have to make up for it somehow over the next few weeks or months. Maybe I did take a year or two off of my life. But it was worth it.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Oliver Stone's Revision of US History - Should I bother?
I'm toying with the idea of buying "The Untold History of the United States" by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. Not because I think I'll learn anything from it, but because I occasionally like to remind myself that there are crazier people in the world than me. Granted, it seems premature to pass judgment on a book I've not read. On the other hand, anyone who knows me can attest to the fact that I'm a terrible skinflint. If I'm going to blow $15-$20 on a book, I better know it's going to be worth it.
What I have to go on so far is the talking points coming from Stone and Kuznick, through interviews and snippets of the Showtime documentary which follows the book. Presumably these are summations of his main points designed to induce me into buying. Therefore, purchasing the book would expose me to more of the same. I will assume that these interviews and clips are mere previews for what is contained in the book, because that's how books and other media are sold. So what are some of these talking points?
I. The United States Didn't Win World War II, the Soviet Union Did
Stone contests that the USSR lost more people at Stalingrad and Kiev than the US did in the entire war. Which is true, although losing more people doesn't necessarily equate to accomplishing more. The USSR pushed the Nazis out of Eastern Europe and ultimately took Berlin at great cost. These were important accomplishments, but are only part of the story.
First of all, the Soviets had no involvement in pushing the Germans out of North Africa or the Mediterranean. But more importantly, they did next to nothing against the Japanese. They declared war on Japan on August 8th, 1945. Which also happens to be the day before the Nagasaki bombing. They were barely involved in the Pacific theater.
In Europe, they played a major and important role, perhaps even the key one. Holding the line at Stalingrad (actually, Russians prefer Volgograd these days because Stalin was a douche, but I guess I shouldn't nitpick too much) prevented Germans from having access to Russian oilfields. German Tiger tanks were notorious gas guzzlers, even compared to other tanks. And that's saying something. If the Soviets hadn't held there, it's very possible that the Battle of the Bulge (where the Germans literally ran out of gas), would have ended differently. And any idiot can see the value of taking Berlin.
But to ignore Japan is to ignore, let's say, 47% of the war. In the Pacific, the USSR was Ivan come lately. The Soviets invaded Manchuria after the US had pushed the Japanese all the way back across the Pacific. Strangely, Stone tries to contend that the Japanese were ready to surrender before Hiroshima, but the thing that convinced them to surrender was the Russian invasion on the day of the second bombing. So we didn't have to bomb them because they were ready to surrender but they weren't really ready to surrender until the Soviets attacked after we bombed them. I'm getting a bit cross-eyed.
Stone tried to qualify his remarks in an interview with CBS, and stated that Russia won the war on land. Nah. North Africa is land. France and Italy are land. And strictly speaking, the Solomon Islands and the Phillipines and Iwo Jima and Okinawa count as land. And stop acting like the naval contributions don't count. Taking back the Pacific is a big deal, and the Soviets had nothing to do with it.
II. American Exceptionalism is a False Idea
In the same interview where he qualified his claims that the Soviets won World War II by saying they won on land, Stone claimed that American Exceptionalism (viewing ourselves as an indispensable nation), makes us incapable of being a "global partner.". Other statements he made were to claim that no other country considers themselves indispensable and dictates to others and China has no history of aggression.
Wow. Where to begin. I'm pretty sure Nikita Khrushchev saying "We will bury you!" and "Communism is the wave of the future!" was at least implying that he thought the Soviet Union was indispensable. Also, controlling Eastern Europe for decades sounds kind of like dictating to others. So the guys who he just got done praising for winning World War II are suddenly ignored after World War II. Maybe he doesn't ignore them in the book. But he's not exactly selling me on the book with this. I could get a twelve pack of beer for the same amount, and I'm not sure that the book's worth as much yet.
As for the Chinese, they did a fair amount of dictating as well. For example, they did some dictating to Tibet. After they took it over circa 1950. So unless Stone considers 1950 to be pre-history, China does have some aggression in its history. But I guess that would make World War II pre-history too. I'm getting more confused here.
But I need not restrict myself to what happened decades ago. The Chinese spend plenty of time bullying nations in Southeast Asia, mostly in disputes over the South China Sea. I'm pretty sure bullying counts as aggression. The Chinese government also does all sorts of aggressive things against its own people, like running them over with tanks for protesting. Or throwing them in jail for writing books. Or putting their wives under house arrest when they win a Nobel Prize for said book.
The Russians have done plenty of dictating to neighboring nations, sometimes using alternative means of persuasion, like poisoning candidates for president of Ukraine. Also, I think the assorted Syrian shenanigans being perpetrated by Putin count as dictating to others. With bombs and stuff. I guess the only time things like this are worth considering are when America does them.
They miss the obvious. America is the most powerful nation in the free world, and we are not partners with everyone. There is no moral equivalency between us and the repressive government in a place like Russia, and certainly not the extraordinarily repressive government in China. We may not be enemies, but we should compete with them. We need to be a message to the world that freedom works better than repression, and we're the only ones capable of standing up to the world's biggest repressors. That's what makes us indispensable.
We haven't always been perfect and admit that, something the Russian and Chinese governments, past and present, avoid doing. We designed a system that is based on ideas, not ethnicities, races, or nationalities. And it's also a self-improving system. So we may underperform at moments in time (slavery, racism, sexism, the list goes on), but our system is designed to overcome these failings. We gradually (sometimes too gradually) learn from our own mistakes and continually get better and more free, while the Russian and Chinese governments continue to silence dissent and suppress freedoms. That's what makes us exceptional.
III. American Imperialism
The co-author Peter Kuznick, claimed in an overly sympathetic interview with Tavis Smiley that this history is from the viewpoint of the victims. Right, America victimizes the world. Yawn. He goes on to explain the birth of American imperialism. America is the evil empire. Double yawn. America seeks global domination. Please. There were some times in early history where we had some expansionist adventures, but in the twentieth century that's not quite true.
We didn't willingly enter World War I or World War II. We resisted getting involved in the first until an American cruise liner was attacked. We were dragged into the second when Hawaii was attacked. Prior to these attacks, we were inclined to keep to ourselves. After the war, we were the only free country not in shambles, facing Soviet aggression. We took on the role of the superpower of the free world, because no one else could. If we are an empire, we are the first one ever that didn't become an empire willingly. We did so to combat a larger, stronger empire bent on repression and global domination. We were the only ones who could. It's probably more accurate to call us a counter-empire. We don't want to rule the world; we want to make sure no one does.
In the Smiley interview, he said he was proud of Showtime, because the documentary wasn't the sort of thing that would be shown on normal TV. There's a reason why these things aren't shown on normal TV. These three ideas are classic canards of extreme lefties. They go out of their way to diminish American achievements, then claim that America is a regressive force in the world while ignoring actual regressives in the world.
Well, I've made up my mind. The assorted lunacies I've heard so far have only served to reinforce my belief in America and Americanism. The authors' addiction to obsolete ideologies has increased my allegience to the ideology that rendered them obsolete. Reading the entire book can only make me more patriotic. Also, I'm a sucker for good comedy. If the whole book is this crazy, it should produce a few thousand laughs for me. That's always worth $15-$20.
What I have to go on so far is the talking points coming from Stone and Kuznick, through interviews and snippets of the Showtime documentary which follows the book. Presumably these are summations of his main points designed to induce me into buying. Therefore, purchasing the book would expose me to more of the same. I will assume that these interviews and clips are mere previews for what is contained in the book, because that's how books and other media are sold. So what are some of these talking points?
I. The United States Didn't Win World War II, the Soviet Union Did
Stone contests that the USSR lost more people at Stalingrad and Kiev than the US did in the entire war. Which is true, although losing more people doesn't necessarily equate to accomplishing more. The USSR pushed the Nazis out of Eastern Europe and ultimately took Berlin at great cost. These were important accomplishments, but are only part of the story.
First of all, the Soviets had no involvement in pushing the Germans out of North Africa or the Mediterranean. But more importantly, they did next to nothing against the Japanese. They declared war on Japan on August 8th, 1945. Which also happens to be the day before the Nagasaki bombing. They were barely involved in the Pacific theater.
In Europe, they played a major and important role, perhaps even the key one. Holding the line at Stalingrad (actually, Russians prefer Volgograd these days because Stalin was a douche, but I guess I shouldn't nitpick too much) prevented Germans from having access to Russian oilfields. German Tiger tanks were notorious gas guzzlers, even compared to other tanks. And that's saying something. If the Soviets hadn't held there, it's very possible that the Battle of the Bulge (where the Germans literally ran out of gas), would have ended differently. And any idiot can see the value of taking Berlin.
But to ignore Japan is to ignore, let's say, 47% of the war. In the Pacific, the USSR was Ivan come lately. The Soviets invaded Manchuria after the US had pushed the Japanese all the way back across the Pacific. Strangely, Stone tries to contend that the Japanese were ready to surrender before Hiroshima, but the thing that convinced them to surrender was the Russian invasion on the day of the second bombing. So we didn't have to bomb them because they were ready to surrender but they weren't really ready to surrender until the Soviets attacked after we bombed them. I'm getting a bit cross-eyed.
Stone tried to qualify his remarks in an interview with CBS, and stated that Russia won the war on land. Nah. North Africa is land. France and Italy are land. And strictly speaking, the Solomon Islands and the Phillipines and Iwo Jima and Okinawa count as land. And stop acting like the naval contributions don't count. Taking back the Pacific is a big deal, and the Soviets had nothing to do with it.
II. American Exceptionalism is a False Idea
In the same interview where he qualified his claims that the Soviets won World War II by saying they won on land, Stone claimed that American Exceptionalism (viewing ourselves as an indispensable nation), makes us incapable of being a "global partner.". Other statements he made were to claim that no other country considers themselves indispensable and dictates to others and China has no history of aggression.
Wow. Where to begin. I'm pretty sure Nikita Khrushchev saying "We will bury you!" and "Communism is the wave of the future!" was at least implying that he thought the Soviet Union was indispensable. Also, controlling Eastern Europe for decades sounds kind of like dictating to others. So the guys who he just got done praising for winning World War II are suddenly ignored after World War II. Maybe he doesn't ignore them in the book. But he's not exactly selling me on the book with this. I could get a twelve pack of beer for the same amount, and I'm not sure that the book's worth as much yet.
As for the Chinese, they did a fair amount of dictating as well. For example, they did some dictating to Tibet. After they took it over circa 1950. So unless Stone considers 1950 to be pre-history, China does have some aggression in its history. But I guess that would make World War II pre-history too. I'm getting more confused here.
But I need not restrict myself to what happened decades ago. The Chinese spend plenty of time bullying nations in Southeast Asia, mostly in disputes over the South China Sea. I'm pretty sure bullying counts as aggression. The Chinese government also does all sorts of aggressive things against its own people, like running them over with tanks for protesting. Or throwing them in jail for writing books. Or putting their wives under house arrest when they win a Nobel Prize for said book.
The Russians have done plenty of dictating to neighboring nations, sometimes using alternative means of persuasion, like poisoning candidates for president of Ukraine. Also, I think the assorted Syrian shenanigans being perpetrated by Putin count as dictating to others. With bombs and stuff. I guess the only time things like this are worth considering are when America does them.
They miss the obvious. America is the most powerful nation in the free world, and we are not partners with everyone. There is no moral equivalency between us and the repressive government in a place like Russia, and certainly not the extraordinarily repressive government in China. We may not be enemies, but we should compete with them. We need to be a message to the world that freedom works better than repression, and we're the only ones capable of standing up to the world's biggest repressors. That's what makes us indispensable.
We haven't always been perfect and admit that, something the Russian and Chinese governments, past and present, avoid doing. We designed a system that is based on ideas, not ethnicities, races, or nationalities. And it's also a self-improving system. So we may underperform at moments in time (slavery, racism, sexism, the list goes on), but our system is designed to overcome these failings. We gradually (sometimes too gradually) learn from our own mistakes and continually get better and more free, while the Russian and Chinese governments continue to silence dissent and suppress freedoms. That's what makes us exceptional.
III. American Imperialism
The co-author Peter Kuznick, claimed in an overly sympathetic interview with Tavis Smiley that this history is from the viewpoint of the victims. Right, America victimizes the world. Yawn. He goes on to explain the birth of American imperialism. America is the evil empire. Double yawn. America seeks global domination. Please. There were some times in early history where we had some expansionist adventures, but in the twentieth century that's not quite true.
We didn't willingly enter World War I or World War II. We resisted getting involved in the first until an American cruise liner was attacked. We were dragged into the second when Hawaii was attacked. Prior to these attacks, we were inclined to keep to ourselves. After the war, we were the only free country not in shambles, facing Soviet aggression. We took on the role of the superpower of the free world, because no one else could. If we are an empire, we are the first one ever that didn't become an empire willingly. We did so to combat a larger, stronger empire bent on repression and global domination. We were the only ones who could. It's probably more accurate to call us a counter-empire. We don't want to rule the world; we want to make sure no one does.
In the Smiley interview, he said he was proud of Showtime, because the documentary wasn't the sort of thing that would be shown on normal TV. There's a reason why these things aren't shown on normal TV. These three ideas are classic canards of extreme lefties. They go out of their way to diminish American achievements, then claim that America is a regressive force in the world while ignoring actual regressives in the world.
Well, I've made up my mind. The assorted lunacies I've heard so far have only served to reinforce my belief in America and Americanism. The authors' addiction to obsolete ideologies has increased my allegience to the ideology that rendered them obsolete. Reading the entire book can only make me more patriotic. Also, I'm a sucker for good comedy. If the whole book is this crazy, it should produce a few thousand laughs for me. That's always worth $15-$20.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Quranic Crybabies in a Grown-Up World
In totally unsurprising news, goofball Civil-War-moustached preacher from Gainesville, Florida has been tied to something offensive to muslims. Again. Apparently, some real estate guy in California made a movie that portrays Mohammed (a muslim no-no) as a crazy, child-raping, philandering, torturing, conquering whack-job (a big muslim no-no), and Gainesville preacher man was somehow in on it. Also unsurprisingly, various muslims in North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia are pitching fits.
First, it's okay to be angry. Plenty of movie makers have made Christians look like idiots over the years. I get the outrage. I've also seen the YouTube trailers, unlike most of the protesters. The movie insults Islam with its content. It also insults one of America's greatest religions (Hollywood) with its atrocious production values. These actors don't have the skill to be in a low budget porn movie. WWF wrestling is Oscar material by comparison. And I briefly felt the urge to set fire to the movie studio that produced this, because it seemed like it might actually be a public service.
But I got past that. That's what adults do. I have no problem slamming the filmmakers for their idiocy, but that's all I'm doing. Initially, that's all the aforementioned fit-pitching muslims did too. Loud, but peaceful protests were launched. Then some schmucks in Egypt decided to scale the U.S. embassy walls and tear down the flag. This is when protestors (normally just annoying pests) become agitators trying to intimidate us into silence.
This sort of reaction is all too common. The slightest insult to Islam results in riots and violence. It also results in dimwits flaunting their ignorance as to how the real world works. A 19 year-old in Egypt demanded that the movie be banned immediately. Sorry kid, the free world doesn't do censorship. Graffiti in Egypt read "If your freedom of speech has no limits, may you accept our freedom of action." If "freedom of action" means you're just going to protest, knock yourself out. Because it's free speech. But if freedom of action is a threat of violence, you might want to remember that our freedom of action includes Predator drones.
Slightly more disturbing is the reaction of some officials. The American Embassy's statement was “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” Abuse the universal right to freedom of speech? Wrong, fellas. The amendment exists precisely to protect this type of speech. That's why crosses dipped in urine and images of the Virgin Mary covered in feces are protected speech. It's offensive, but ideas that people find offensive are allowed, because sometimes they produce positive results.
For example, there was a time where the idea of a woman or a black person voting was offensive to many. Should we have shut down Women's Suffrage or the Civil Rights Movement because some people were offended? Being provocative is use of free speech, not abuse. The only abuse of free speech is not exercising it. Having said that, I'm not unsympathetic to the embassy's position. They were trying to distance themselves from the film in order to avoid retaliation. Not that it worked, but I get why they tried. They were trying to avoid getting killed. I generally try to avoid death as well. But we should not sacrific the Constitution on the altar of diplomacy.
The most violent incident occurred when some extremists in Libya, a country we helped liberate, used the confusion to attack our consulate in Benghazi. They killed the ambassador, a man who played a significant role in the liberation of Libya. There's gratitude for you. But several pundits decided to pin the blame on us. There are too many to list (use Google, you'll find them easily), but the most egregious is liberal pundit Sally Kohn, who tweeted "It's simple: US Ambassador is dead. Would still be alive but for reckless anti-Islam film. Doesn't excuse violence. Did provoke it." We brought it on ourselves.
This is an excuse common amongst husbands who beat their wives. Of course, plenty of muslim extremists are okay with wife-beating. There's a little more to this, though. Reports now say that the attack on the ambassador was planned long before this. So Sally Kohn is wrong, we didn't bring it on ourselves. This was just nutjobs doing nutjob stuff. The riots were in response to the movie, but not the attack.
But the key point here is that we should not be forced to avoid speaking our minds because we're afraid some crazy guy is going to light a fire. Protests are okay, but vandalism and assault are not. No one who believes in free speech should allow themselves to be intmidated into silence. If we remain silent because we're afraid someone will get violent, we've sold out the Constitution. If anything, we should keep being offensive so that the loonies of the world will learn to handle it like the decent people of the world.
Douchey preacher is a douchey. Most people agree on that. But in the free world, douchiness is not illegal. Countering offensive speech with other speech is how adults handle it. We don't set fires when some random guy does something stupid. We don't have riots when the a preacher burns Qurans on purpose, and we certainly don't do it when soldiers burn Qurans by accident. These things happen in the free world. You can't throw a temper tantrum every time it does. Grow up.
First, it's okay to be angry. Plenty of movie makers have made Christians look like idiots over the years. I get the outrage. I've also seen the YouTube trailers, unlike most of the protesters. The movie insults Islam with its content. It also insults one of America's greatest religions (Hollywood) with its atrocious production values. These actors don't have the skill to be in a low budget porn movie. WWF wrestling is Oscar material by comparison. And I briefly felt the urge to set fire to the movie studio that produced this, because it seemed like it might actually be a public service.
But I got past that. That's what adults do. I have no problem slamming the filmmakers for their idiocy, but that's all I'm doing. Initially, that's all the aforementioned fit-pitching muslims did too. Loud, but peaceful protests were launched. Then some schmucks in Egypt decided to scale the U.S. embassy walls and tear down the flag. This is when protestors (normally just annoying pests) become agitators trying to intimidate us into silence.
This sort of reaction is all too common. The slightest insult to Islam results in riots and violence. It also results in dimwits flaunting their ignorance as to how the real world works. A 19 year-old in Egypt demanded that the movie be banned immediately. Sorry kid, the free world doesn't do censorship. Graffiti in Egypt read "If your freedom of speech has no limits, may you accept our freedom of action." If "freedom of action" means you're just going to protest, knock yourself out. Because it's free speech. But if freedom of action is a threat of violence, you might want to remember that our freedom of action includes Predator drones.
Slightly more disturbing is the reaction of some officials. The American Embassy's statement was “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” Abuse the universal right to freedom of speech? Wrong, fellas. The amendment exists precisely to protect this type of speech. That's why crosses dipped in urine and images of the Virgin Mary covered in feces are protected speech. It's offensive, but ideas that people find offensive are allowed, because sometimes they produce positive results.
For example, there was a time where the idea of a woman or a black person voting was offensive to many. Should we have shut down Women's Suffrage or the Civil Rights Movement because some people were offended? Being provocative is use of free speech, not abuse. The only abuse of free speech is not exercising it. Having said that, I'm not unsympathetic to the embassy's position. They were trying to distance themselves from the film in order to avoid retaliation. Not that it worked, but I get why they tried. They were trying to avoid getting killed. I generally try to avoid death as well. But we should not sacrific the Constitution on the altar of diplomacy.
The most violent incident occurred when some extremists in Libya, a country we helped liberate, used the confusion to attack our consulate in Benghazi. They killed the ambassador, a man who played a significant role in the liberation of Libya. There's gratitude for you. But several pundits decided to pin the blame on us. There are too many to list (use Google, you'll find them easily), but the most egregious is liberal pundit Sally Kohn, who tweeted "It's simple: US Ambassador is dead. Would still be alive but for reckless anti-Islam film. Doesn't excuse violence. Did provoke it." We brought it on ourselves.
This is an excuse common amongst husbands who beat their wives. Of course, plenty of muslim extremists are okay with wife-beating. There's a little more to this, though. Reports now say that the attack on the ambassador was planned long before this. So Sally Kohn is wrong, we didn't bring it on ourselves. This was just nutjobs doing nutjob stuff. The riots were in response to the movie, but not the attack.
But the key point here is that we should not be forced to avoid speaking our minds because we're afraid some crazy guy is going to light a fire. Protests are okay, but vandalism and assault are not. No one who believes in free speech should allow themselves to be intmidated into silence. If we remain silent because we're afraid someone will get violent, we've sold out the Constitution. If anything, we should keep being offensive so that the loonies of the world will learn to handle it like the decent people of the world.
Douchey preacher is a douchey. Most people agree on that. But in the free world, douchiness is not illegal. Countering offensive speech with other speech is how adults handle it. We don't set fires when some random guy does something stupid. We don't have riots when the a preacher burns Qurans on purpose, and we certainly don't do it when soldiers burn Qurans by accident. These things happen in the free world. You can't throw a temper tantrum every time it does. Grow up.
9/11 - Move On, Never Forget, and Don't Nitpick About It
Today was the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. TV, newspapers, and the Internet were full of stories about the attacks and memorial services all over the country. Twitter was flooded with #NeverForget tweets. We shouldn't forget, and I don't think any of us will. But I've started to notice some ugliness in some places, and some silliness in other places.
I'll start with the ugliness. I've been seeing an increasing amount of "Move On" and "Get Over It" stories. Naturally, most of this is in the form of anonymous internet postings. This is fringe stuff, but I keep seeing more of it. It's usually the mewlings of extreme leftists or the febrile meanderings of conspiracy theorists.
The extreme leftist types don't see the way the country united after 9/11 as a positive thing. Instead, they see our memorials as an excuse for jingoism and neoimperialism. Pardon my French, fellas, but horseshit. The country with the most liberal immigration policy in the world cannot be considered jingistic. And I'll believe America is an empire on the day I get my first tribute payment.
The conspiracy theorists believe that we planned 9/11 to excuse invasions of other countries and domestic spying. There certainly has been some overreach in those areas. But we're out of Iraq, and attempts to spy on citizens are frequently called out in the press and in the courts. The "evidence" of the conspiracy theorists usually revolves around showing video of the towers collapsing, and claiming that the collapse could only be caused by a planned demolition. These spurious claims have been easily and laughably debunked by experts. So horseshit to you guys too.
The fact that the country united after 9/11 isn't a bad thing. It shows that we can still work towards a common purpose, something that doesn't happen often enough these days. To see this as something nefarious seems like anti-American nut rhetoric. I hesitate to accuse anyone of anti-Americanism because I know there is a potential for abuse. Like accusations of racism and socialism these days, it's frequently thrown out by someone who has nothing more intelligent to say. But I can think of no other reason for it. How else can one explain seeing a negative in the greatest strength of America: our ability to come together in a crisis. This unity is why we should never forget 9/11.
Now for the silliness. This morning I saw a story about how CNN was too busy covering the Kardashians to have a moment of silence at 8:46 AM, when the first plane hit. Enter manufactured outrage. Granted, everything Kardashian is inherently silly. But I don't think we should obsess too much about how other people remember the time of the first impact. I didn't remember either. There's a reason for that, but in order for that to make sense, it's important to know what I was doing on 9/11.
I was working in a call center in Atlanta at the time for a financial services firm. The center was open 24 hours, and I worked the night shift. So I didn't even wake up until mid-afternoon. It was a fairly typical day for me. On my way to work, I turned on the radio and put in a CD. While the CD was going in I heard a brief mention of an attack on the Pentagon, but it was so out of context I assumed it must be some talk radio pundits speculating on some obscure "what if" scenario. The likelihood of an attack on the Pentagon seemed ludicrous. Also, I was driving through Atlanta traffic, so I wasn't really paying attention.
When I got to work, I knew something was wrong. People weren't moving like they normally did. They huddled in small groups, whispering amongst themselves. There was a vibe there of general wrongness. Then I saw the overhead TV monitors, always tuned to CNBC to watch the market. But today they showed the towers in flames. I was stunned. It was beyond imagination.
I spent the next few hours trying to find out what happened to a few friends I knew in New York. They didn't work in the towers, but they worked in that part of town. Fortunately, they were all fine. For the rest of the shift, all we could do was sit and watch the reports. I don't know if we could have brought ourselves to work, but there wasn't anything to do anyway. The markets were closed. Our Virginia office, a stone's throw from the Pentagon, was completely shut down. All we could do is watch the reports in horror and wonder how and why this could happen.
Over the next few days, our horror and outrage would turn to hope at seeing solidarity as members of Congress huddled on the steps of the capital to sing "God Bless America". Our rage would gradually turn into determination when we heard the President's address a few days later. We all felt unified and a strength of purpose. It's important that we remember that feeling of unity, especially now that we face different crises. That unity can be dangerous if we lose ourselves in it (we got a little carried away in subsequent years), but it's a force for good when done responsibly. And unity is something we lack these days.
I never knew that the first plane hit at 8:46 AM, though. I was asleep at the time. That's why it's not such a big deal for me. And when I woke up this morning, I didn't even realize it was 9/11. When I saw the news, I noticed that the memorials were there, but less so than in previous years. That's why CNN would show a Kardashian at 8:46. Not because they've forgotten, but because we're moving on. Not in the nasty, heartless way spewed by extremists. We're moving on in an entirely natural, and entirely healthy way. I'm not worried that we'll ever forget. That's a lesson I learned from my parents. They can both tell me exactly where they were when they heard JFK was assassinated over fifty years ago. Fifty years from now I'll remember where I was when I heard about the 9/11 attacks, assuming I'm still alive.
I'm moving on too, which is why I had to be reminded that it was 9/11 today. The helplessness I felt when it happened is long gone. The lesson I'll remember, that we all should, is that no matter how bad things get, America can unite and bounce back. When we hear naysayers and nutjobs bashing 9/11, we should remind them of the tragedy and the fact that we unified and overcame it. And when someone else forgets a moment of silence, just let it go. They haven't forgotten the attack. They've just gotten over the pain and loss, and don't feel the need spend so much time on ceremony. It's not a sign of inconsideration; it's just a sign of healing.
I'll start with the ugliness. I've been seeing an increasing amount of "Move On" and "Get Over It" stories. Naturally, most of this is in the form of anonymous internet postings. This is fringe stuff, but I keep seeing more of it. It's usually the mewlings of extreme leftists or the febrile meanderings of conspiracy theorists.
The extreme leftist types don't see the way the country united after 9/11 as a positive thing. Instead, they see our memorials as an excuse for jingoism and neoimperialism. Pardon my French, fellas, but horseshit. The country with the most liberal immigration policy in the world cannot be considered jingistic. And I'll believe America is an empire on the day I get my first tribute payment.
The conspiracy theorists believe that we planned 9/11 to excuse invasions of other countries and domestic spying. There certainly has been some overreach in those areas. But we're out of Iraq, and attempts to spy on citizens are frequently called out in the press and in the courts. The "evidence" of the conspiracy theorists usually revolves around showing video of the towers collapsing, and claiming that the collapse could only be caused by a planned demolition. These spurious claims have been easily and laughably debunked by experts. So horseshit to you guys too.
The fact that the country united after 9/11 isn't a bad thing. It shows that we can still work towards a common purpose, something that doesn't happen often enough these days. To see this as something nefarious seems like anti-American nut rhetoric. I hesitate to accuse anyone of anti-Americanism because I know there is a potential for abuse. Like accusations of racism and socialism these days, it's frequently thrown out by someone who has nothing more intelligent to say. But I can think of no other reason for it. How else can one explain seeing a negative in the greatest strength of America: our ability to come together in a crisis. This unity is why we should never forget 9/11.
Now for the silliness. This morning I saw a story about how CNN was too busy covering the Kardashians to have a moment of silence at 8:46 AM, when the first plane hit. Enter manufactured outrage. Granted, everything Kardashian is inherently silly. But I don't think we should obsess too much about how other people remember the time of the first impact. I didn't remember either. There's a reason for that, but in order for that to make sense, it's important to know what I was doing on 9/11.
I was working in a call center in Atlanta at the time for a financial services firm. The center was open 24 hours, and I worked the night shift. So I didn't even wake up until mid-afternoon. It was a fairly typical day for me. On my way to work, I turned on the radio and put in a CD. While the CD was going in I heard a brief mention of an attack on the Pentagon, but it was so out of context I assumed it must be some talk radio pundits speculating on some obscure "what if" scenario. The likelihood of an attack on the Pentagon seemed ludicrous. Also, I was driving through Atlanta traffic, so I wasn't really paying attention.
When I got to work, I knew something was wrong. People weren't moving like they normally did. They huddled in small groups, whispering amongst themselves. There was a vibe there of general wrongness. Then I saw the overhead TV monitors, always tuned to CNBC to watch the market. But today they showed the towers in flames. I was stunned. It was beyond imagination.
I spent the next few hours trying to find out what happened to a few friends I knew in New York. They didn't work in the towers, but they worked in that part of town. Fortunately, they were all fine. For the rest of the shift, all we could do was sit and watch the reports. I don't know if we could have brought ourselves to work, but there wasn't anything to do anyway. The markets were closed. Our Virginia office, a stone's throw from the Pentagon, was completely shut down. All we could do is watch the reports in horror and wonder how and why this could happen.
Over the next few days, our horror and outrage would turn to hope at seeing solidarity as members of Congress huddled on the steps of the capital to sing "God Bless America". Our rage would gradually turn into determination when we heard the President's address a few days later. We all felt unified and a strength of purpose. It's important that we remember that feeling of unity, especially now that we face different crises. That unity can be dangerous if we lose ourselves in it (we got a little carried away in subsequent years), but it's a force for good when done responsibly. And unity is something we lack these days.
I never knew that the first plane hit at 8:46 AM, though. I was asleep at the time. That's why it's not such a big deal for me. And when I woke up this morning, I didn't even realize it was 9/11. When I saw the news, I noticed that the memorials were there, but less so than in previous years. That's why CNN would show a Kardashian at 8:46. Not because they've forgotten, but because we're moving on. Not in the nasty, heartless way spewed by extremists. We're moving on in an entirely natural, and entirely healthy way. I'm not worried that we'll ever forget. That's a lesson I learned from my parents. They can both tell me exactly where they were when they heard JFK was assassinated over fifty years ago. Fifty years from now I'll remember where I was when I heard about the 9/11 attacks, assuming I'm still alive.
I'm moving on too, which is why I had to be reminded that it was 9/11 today. The helplessness I felt when it happened is long gone. The lesson I'll remember, that we all should, is that no matter how bad things get, America can unite and bounce back. When we hear naysayers and nutjobs bashing 9/11, we should remind them of the tragedy and the fact that we unified and overcame it. And when someone else forgets a moment of silence, just let it go. They haven't forgotten the attack. They've just gotten over the pain and loss, and don't feel the need spend so much time on ceremony. It's not a sign of inconsideration; it's just a sign of healing.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Racism, the New Terror Alert
Every ten to fifteen seconds, I hear some pundit on the news or Twitter or something accusing Republicans of racism. I take a look at the Republicans being accused, and I just don't see it. I don't see clan robes or swastikas. I see what I always see, pundits and politicians spewing talking points. Not only is that not racist, it's not even unique to Republicans.
These claims seem increasingly ridiculous. Republicans note that Obama seems angry, and suddenly Toure' accuses them "niggerization", a new word he invented. Noting that the president angry is actually an attempt to paint Obama as an "Angry Black Man", which is totally racist. Then an MSNBC panel notes that the Republicans mention Chicago a lot, and there are lots of black people in Chicago. Therefore, each such reference is racist. It couldn't possibly be a reference to the corruption Chicago is known for (and has been known for since the early 20th century), it must be racism.
I had an epiphany after the umpteenth accusation. In the 2004 race, every time John Kerry made a speech or a public appearance or did anything that might give him momentum, then Homeland Security director Tom Ridge would appear, on cue, and tell the country there was a terror alert. I suppose this can't be proven, but the timing was a little too convenient.
Now Republicans are accused of racism in a similar fashion. Mitt Romney goes to New York and give a speech, and some protester is constantly screaming that he's a racist. Mitt Romney makes a wisecrack about his birth certificate and he's a racist. And now that the convention is on, accusations of racism seem to be drowning out everything.
That appears to be the point. Drown out the convention, distract attention, render any momentum useless. Just like the way terror alerts were used in 2004. A mild jibe about a birth certficate isn't racist. Calling the president "angry" or noting that he's from Chicago isn't racist. All of these accusations of racism prove one thing: Democrats are working double shifts at the outrage factory. I'm getting sick of it.
I haven't yet decided who I'm going to vote for. I'm not a partisan, because partisans do stupid stuff. Like invent reasons to be offended. These constant questionable accusations do nothing to change my opinion of Mitt Romney. If anything, they make me question the integrity of Democrats. I'll still be reserving my final decision until after the debates. But the manufacturers of race outrage are really making it difficult for me to give the president a fair shake. Keep it up Dems, and you're just going to make your guy look bad.
These claims seem increasingly ridiculous. Republicans note that Obama seems angry, and suddenly Toure' accuses them "niggerization", a new word he invented. Noting that the president angry is actually an attempt to paint Obama as an "Angry Black Man", which is totally racist. Then an MSNBC panel notes that the Republicans mention Chicago a lot, and there are lots of black people in Chicago. Therefore, each such reference is racist. It couldn't possibly be a reference to the corruption Chicago is known for (and has been known for since the early 20th century), it must be racism.
I had an epiphany after the umpteenth accusation. In the 2004 race, every time John Kerry made a speech or a public appearance or did anything that might give him momentum, then Homeland Security director Tom Ridge would appear, on cue, and tell the country there was a terror alert. I suppose this can't be proven, but the timing was a little too convenient.
Now Republicans are accused of racism in a similar fashion. Mitt Romney goes to New York and give a speech, and some protester is constantly screaming that he's a racist. Mitt Romney makes a wisecrack about his birth certificate and he's a racist. And now that the convention is on, accusations of racism seem to be drowning out everything.
That appears to be the point. Drown out the convention, distract attention, render any momentum useless. Just like the way terror alerts were used in 2004. A mild jibe about a birth certficate isn't racist. Calling the president "angry" or noting that he's from Chicago isn't racist. All of these accusations of racism prove one thing: Democrats are working double shifts at the outrage factory. I'm getting sick of it.
I haven't yet decided who I'm going to vote for. I'm not a partisan, because partisans do stupid stuff. Like invent reasons to be offended. These constant questionable accusations do nothing to change my opinion of Mitt Romney. If anything, they make me question the integrity of Democrats. I'll still be reserving my final decision until after the debates. But the manufacturers of race outrage are really making it difficult for me to give the president a fair shake. Keep it up Dems, and you're just going to make your guy look bad.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Chik-Fil-A and Kiss-Ins and Everything That's Wrong With America
Several days ago, when Chik-Fil-A came under fire because
it’s CEO spoke out against gay marriage, there was an outpouring of support for
the chain. Some of the supporters were
opposed to gay marriage. Others, like
me, were supportive of their right to free speech. Then gay rights proponents organized kiss-ins,
presumably to annoy Chik-Fil-A customers by exposing them to G-rated homosexual
acts. More recently, a supporter of gay
rights harassed a Chik-Fil-A employee in a drive-thru and posted a tape of it
on YouTube.
I’m amazed at how many people believe that annoying people
accomplishes anything. I’ve see examples
on both sides of the debate berating, mocking, or irritating their adversaries. It’s a fine way to waste time.
I saw several examples of this in my college days. I’ve been to several universities, both as a
student and a visitor. These
universities were in the south, and therefore quite naturally had a Baptist
student union. The Baptist student union
is effectively a frat house for students (like some Baptists) who don’t drink, or
for students (like most Baptists) who pretend they don’t drink. I came across an unusual gathering near one
such union.
Late one night as I was returning to the dorms, and I
noticed a group of students gathered outside across the street from the Baptist
student union. They were dressed
somewhat flamboyantly (dare I say, fabulously) and were facing the union. They were mostly talking and smoking
cigarettes, but occasionally engaging in, ah, intimate contact. It didn’t take long to figure out that this
was a group of gay students, given that the various shenanigans were either
between two men or two women. I also
noticed that their assorted groping and grabass activity became somewhat more
pronounced when someone was walking in or out of the union. In other words, they were pestering the
Baptists (admittedly, one of the more prudish and severe denominations) with
overt acts of gayness.
Although I’m generally not a fan of public displays of
affection, I don’t begrudge people, gay or straight, the right to occasionally
demonstrate fondness for each other. It
doesn’t take much effort to ignore them.
As long as they aren’t so mushy and sentimental as to make me violently
ill, I’m fine with it. But I’m not a fan
of annoying people to make a political point, because it’s an exercise in
futility.
The Baptists are not innocent in this either. Behold, I give you the Baptist
street
They mostly make a habit of telling college kids why they’re
going to Hell. For example, using
alcohol and smoking are hell-worthy offenses.
Wearing revealing clothing is also a no-no, which is why cheerleaders
with skirts that show their knees are common targets for the street
preacher. Typically, the street
preachers are little more than sources of amusement. Invariably, a large crowd of students gathers
around to giggle and trade jibes with the preacher. Occasionally, they do manage to aggravate one
of the cheerleaders. Or perhaps one of
the football players the cheerleader is with, resulting in an amusing foot
chase. But the one group they annoy more
than any other is other Christians.
More sensible Christians want to grab street preachers by
the collar, shake them, and say “Dude, you’re not helping!” They know that conversions using tirades
about hellfire and damnation have been ineffective since the Middle Ages. Even back then, such diatribes had to be
supplemented with more tangible (if less eternal) tactics, such as torture and
threats of gruesome death. But this
doesn’t deter the street preacher. In
his mind, he’s merely facing down oppression.
Other street preachers view him in higher regard when he’s ridiculed or
yelled at.
This is also why a group of gay people would troll the
Baptist student union. It does nothing
to convert Baptists to their way of thinking, it just makes them more popular
with people already sympathetic to them.
Baptists and other Christians call this “preaching to the choir.” It’s another way of saying “wasting time.”
This, I believe, is what’s wrong with America
Many of the people who supported Chik-Fil-A did so because
they cherish free speech and abhor the statements of politicians who threatened
to ban Chik-Fil-A in their cities solely because of the opinions of their
management. But others were simply
trying to annoy gay people. And the kiss-in
and the drive-thru incident were just examples of gay people and their
supporters annoying them back. The
kiss-in is particularly infuriating to me, because I know that if you want to
spend your idle time performing amorous acts, there are far more diverting
things that can be done in private.
Smooching in public seems … unambitious.
Word has it that gay rights activists are organizing a
countermove involving gay people going to Starbucks. I realize that Starbucks is one of the all
time greatest places to waste time and accomplish nothing, but I hope they’ll ignore
that temptation. I hope they’ll try to
be more like the Chik-Fil-A free speechers.
If they’re doing it to stand up for civil rights, it’s a worthwhile
thing. If they’re just going to stand in
a Starbucks and say nasty things about Christians, they’re squandering valuable
oxygen.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Gore Vidal and the Never-Ending End of American Civilization
Gore Vidal died today.
The left is in tears today. They’ve
lost one of their giants. Certain
members of the right may be jumping for joy.
I’m not the type to dance on graves.
But I get why Gore Vidal was frequently irritating to the right and to
independents like me.
Gore Vidal believed he was presiding over the end of
American civilization, an oft repeated and tiresome canard. Typically, we hear this from the left, but
occasionally from the right as well (Pat Buchanan, for example). The fact that America America
Nikita Kruschev claimed communism would bury America America Japan America Japan
And now we have the Great Recession. Gleeful radical pundits love to claim that
the free market has finally failed. Just
as they claimed several times before, demonstrating their ignorance about how America Cuba GDP in the 1940s, by a greater margin
than it does today. Every time someone
predicts the end of America
Despite these past trends, when the economy took a hit Vidal
seemed gleeful that the “American Empire” was “falling”. I find it peculiar that he thought of America America
He called us an empire because believed in an American
isolationist policy. This is an
antiquated idea that America
Despite being unlike any empire ever before, Vidal married
himself to the flawed “American Empire” doctrine and took every opportunity to
trash America America America Iraq Afghanistan
He also claimed that FDR invited attack at Pearl
Harbor to justify a war with Hitler. How did he do this? He cut off oil and other supplies to Japan China Iraq
Vidal’s presumed that he was the last of the greatest
generation of America America
Gore Vidal considered himself the last of a dying
breed. He was. But the loss of that breed is not a tragedy. Just a natural extinction. His is a breed that we’ve evolved past.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Why we need to politicize guns and gun control after the Aurora shooting, and how to do it right.
Immediately after a mass shooting, half of the politicians
and media personalities start pounding the drums for gun control. Then the other half says now is not the time
to address this; the “too soon” argument.
Then the first half says now is exactly the time, while it’s fresh in
our memories. Then the second half
accuses them of exploiting a tragedy to push a political agenda. They’re both kinda right. They’re both kinda dumb.
Now is exactly the right time to wonder why things like this
happen and how to prevent them. It’s
also the time to wonder why other murders happen (frequently for relatively mundane
reasons, like an argument over money), and how to prevent those. But we should
not dive automatically into gun control.
There were approximately 15,000 homicides in 2009 in the United
States U.S.
Homicide is a compelling reason, but not an overriding one. This is because gun control is not the only
way to reduce homicide. I’m not even
convinced that it would be effective at reducing homicide. Gun control proponents like to point out the
relatively low crime rates in Australia Canada Russia
In 2009, there were 16,000 homicides in Russia U.S.
There are other examples I’ve heard in the news that make me
wonder why we fixate on gun control. Gun
bans have been removed in D.C. and Chicago.
Murder is up (way up) in Chicago U.S.
Sadly, every time we try, we stray into a minefield of
political correctness. Murderers tend to
come from poor neighborhoods. Murderers
tend to come from single parent homes. Mentioning
facts like these tends to manufacture more outrage than results. There are plenty of other possible causes,
some controversial, some not. But they
all have to be explored if we ever expect to make a real change, even if we
risk hurting someone’s feelings. Hurt
feelings are preferable to more dead people.
So the left wing is right for saying we need to talk about
this now, but dumb for knee-jerking its way into gun control. The right wing is right to dispute this, but
dumb when they accuse the left of exploiting a tragedy. Exploiting
a tragedy to prevent future tragedies is an entirely worthwhile exercise. Just exploit it in a way that gets actual
results.
The political agenda that needs pushing is that we need
murder control, not gun control. Focusing
on gun control is just taking our eyes off of the ball. It’s times like this that I’m happily and
thankfully non-partisan. I hope they
eventually get it together. Before
anyone dies or anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)