It's fucking 2008 people!

Cowards.

It's not about your fucking convenience

On the way home this evening, I overheard several people talking about how inconvenienced they were by a few hundred dirty fucking hippies who had the temerity to briefly remind them about the clusterfuck that started five years ago today. They had been made late to work, late to a meeting, late to dinner by protesters blocking traffic, blocking entrances, and stridently refusing to block out the images of death occurring every day in the Middle East.

These people have no idea what inconvenience is.

Inconvenience is being displaced from your home by explosives or ethnic cleansing unleashed by this ill-conceived maelstrom.

Inconvenience is never seeing a loved one again because of an idiotic land grab to claim oil wealth and geopolitical advantage.

Inconvenience is losing your limbs, your eyesight, your hearings so that the dauphin king can overcome his daddy issues.

Inconvenience is losing your life for no fucking reason at all.

The thirty minutes you had to wait in traffic doesn't mean shit compared to the inconveniences visited upon millions of people because of this stupid fucking war. So stop your bitching.

If I may spew

What bullshit. Two and a half assumptions here drive me especially fucking crazy.

1a: Women are sexual sirens who must minimize their seductive capabilities lest they drive one-half the population mad and to depravity.
1b: Men, once captivated by the siren's song, will stop at nothing to sate their most base desires.

Ergo, women who don't shield their sexuality are responsible for whatever ill befalls them. Granted I'm a sample of one, but sufficed to say, whatever you women are doing to get me to notice you, it works. Also sufficed to say, uh... it's never driven me to sate my most base desires by force.

2: Women don't know the difference between "regret" and "assault."

Bringing teh scary

Note to GOP: this shit is past its expiration date.

via dday

Good gravy

I've just spent half an hour wading through a listserv flame war where adults were acting like petulant children and self-professed revolutionaries demonstrated they didn't have a lick of political sense. Do I really want to continue reading e-mails written by a bunch of white academics braying about how their working class backgrounds render them authentically oppressed and thus able to criticize certain hierarchies?

Singled out again

Amidst the morning rush to work, I was again singled out of the crowd by the LaRouche Youth Brigade to receive their latest informative publication. I'm too polite to say, "No, I don't want your stupid fucking magazine."

One quick observation - as I implied before, LaRouche thinks that the Devil is in my laptop in the forms of the blogosphere, Facebook, and the Wikipedia. Yet the man has a website. I imagine this is something akin to 16th Century pamphleteers passing out tracts on the evils of the Gutenburg printing press.

A bathroom moment I wish you all could have shared

I don't think of myself as some sort of backwoods rube. While my tastes might trend towards the more downscale, I have some sense of sophistication. I have a developed taste for high end whiskey and good beer. I know my salad fork from my dinner fork from my dessert fork. But this evening, I came face to face with a phenomenon which marked me as so not the urban sophisticate.

I attended a holiday party at a trendy bar here in DC. When I was ready to leave, I wanted to attend to nature's call before taking the train ride home. Upon arriving in the facilities, I spent a good minute staring at a trough. Was it a urinal or a fountain? It was a wall of shimmering water cascading down upon some decorative looking rocks. Why would they place such a nice art fountain in the bathroom? Why would a urinal look so refined?

Confused, I ended up opting to pee in the standard issue crapper - better to go with (in) what you know than end up having someone walk in on you taking a leak in the ambiance.

Stupid is as stupid does

Queen of academic wingnuttia Candace de Russy approvingly cites the following statistic at (ahem) Phi Beta Cons:

Even though almost 100% of the violence in the world today is perpetuated by followers of the Islamic faith, and roughly 0% is initiated by followers of any other, the media continuously chooses to lead us to believe that it is almost normal for "youths" of "undefined affiliation" to spontaneously react to an accident with violence and mayhem.

So remember kiddies: wifebeaters, drug cartels, street gangs, and Columbian death squads - Muslims, the whole lot.

To whom it may concern

Do you know what makes me more churlish than normal on my morning commute? Having to witness you make out on the Metro. I haven't had enough caffeine (or alcohol, for that matter) to deal with the involuntary spectacle of you sticking your tongues down each other's throats or having to overhear your pillow talk. Please reserve your tonsil-licking for the Metro's usual after 9 PM amorous hours and allow the rest of us to wallow in our morning surliness.

Signs o' the times

Russian hipsters now dressing like American hipsters. Viva la globalization!

Profiles in douchebaggery

I'm sure this is an encore appearance for DHo in the profiles, but his latest unhinged rant (which he, of course, is only relaying to us from a proxy as a courtesy) typifies the mindset of those who continue to mindlessly cheerlead the carnage in the Middle East. Here, Horowitz informs us that the only reason that blogger Andrew Sullivan has recanted his earlier enthusiasm for the misadventure in Iraq is because he's afraid that further support for the war will impede his ability to get laid.

And that's the whole narrative, isn't it? Anyone who opposes the war is giving in to their baser instincts - playing politics, being prone to an irrational bout of Bush Derangement Syndrome, wanting a piece of ass, anything but being concerned about the innocent lives being used as toy soldiers - while those who continue to march us into folly upon folly are pure of heart and firm in belief.

It's bullshit, but DHo has taken it to an entirely new level.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Hey, did you know that being poor in the United States is totally awesome? It's true, according to economist Walter F. Williams, who somehow garnered a job at George Mason University spouting gibberish like this:

Poverty is not static for people willing to work. A University of Michigan study shows only 5 percent of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 remained there in 1991. What happened to them? They moved up to the top three-fifths of the income distribution — middle class or higher. Moreover, 3 in 10 of the lowest income earners in 1975 moved all the way into the top fifth of income earners by 1991. Those who were poor in 1975 had an inflation-adjusted average income gain of $27,745 by 1991. Those workers who were in the top fifth of income earners in 1975 were better off in 1991 by an average of only $4,354. The bottom line is: The richer are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.

To summarize:

• 95% of the bottom fifth of income earners in 1975 made into the top 60% of the income distribution by 1991.
• 30% of the "lowest income earners" (which he never defines, but I'll assume he means those in the bottom quintile) in 1975 made it into the top 20% of the income distribution by 1991
• The average income of the bottom quintile grew seven times as much as the top quintile from 1975 to 1991

Cute. Williams is actually right, as far as income goes, but relying on that measure omits aggregate measures of wealth. Income only measures what people bring home in a paycheck (does it also include income from rents?), but measures of wealth factor in the value of property, stock holdings, and - most importantly - debt, as well as income. Using those measures, the growth in wealth of the top quintile has far outpaced everyone else (and we won't even talk about the top 5 or 10%). In 2000 (see p. 8), the net worth of the top quintile of households increased by some $24,000 since 1998, while the net worth of the bottom quintile increased by $1300 (to $7300). The middle three quintiles showed much more modest gains as well. The median net worth of the top quintile is nearly 27 times that of the bottom quintile. I don't have comparable income measures from the 1998-2000 period, but the 1991 figures that Williams refers to (tables 5, 6, & 7 - good lord, how many people are spouting this shit?) show the median income of the top quintile to be less than twice that of the bottom quintile.

Where I'm from, having a net household worth of $7300 is not good. Sure, it's more assets than a huge chunk of the developing world has, but it's hardly the good times that Williams makes it out to be. Williams is an asshat (as I would expect a GMU economist to be) and is trading in on the statistical and economic ignorance of Americans in order to push the line that any sort of income redistribution program is completely unnecessary because, hey, the poor are getting richer faster than the rich! Which is bullshit. But what do I know - 97% of poor people have a color TV. Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Reading between the lines

In a WaPo article in which oil experts speculate that an attack on Iran is unlikely because of the turmoil it would cause in the oil markets (like that scenario stopped the last few wars), this little snippet caught my eye:

"Certainly when you lose 2.5 million barrels a day of Iranian production, which is the most likely case scenario, that will literally just make the market go berserk," al-Awadi said. Asked whether the companies he worked with had contingency plans, he said, "The oil industry does not have contingency plans. We are not military people."

The senior executive from the European oil company said that his firm does not have contingency plans, either. "You come to a point where you say it's indefinable," he said. "You sit around and ask, 'What would we as a company do differently?' The answer is nothing. You deal with it at the time."

Given that the demand for oil is famously inelastic, am I wrong for reading those comments as "Contingency plans? It's you sorry fuckers who are going to need a contingency plan! When all hell breaks loose, we plan on locking the gates, pouring the margaritas, kicking back with our feet on the desk, and watching those petro-profits roll on in!"

Just say no

Is there any reason for me to believe that the latest promised "fight" over supplemental war funding will end with anything other than Congress forking over $46 billion to continue the clusterfuck in Iraq?

Don't mess with my kid

We have a general rule of thumb in our family - if someone doesn't like l'il wobs, we generally agree that said person is a bad, bad human being. This evening we went to an Octoberfest gathering and met a woman who was not only immune to his charms, but actively disliked him.

First, she took his chair. We've spent a lot of time teaching l'il wobs that if he wants something that another person is using, he should ask if he can have it. Polite, civilized behavior, right? So, this woman just goes over and snags his chair for her friend who had just arrived. When the kid comes back and finds his chair gone, he's upset. I offer him my chair, but he's three, and wants "his" chair back. No big deal, I take my chair over to the gentleman who had been offered l'il wobs purloined seat and offer to trade him. He's very nice about it and trades seats, but ms. chair thief rolls her eyes.

Next, l'il wobs really likes to help people, and so he was offering to fill up everyone's beer at the keg. It was pretty freakin' cute, and everyone got a kick out of the three year old kegmaster, except, of course, ms. mckilljoy. When l'il wobs offered to refill her beer, she told him that he can't pour beers until he's 21. It's not like he was doing keg-stands, but I suppose this woman needs to affirm her moral superiority by depriving a small child the happiness of helping her out.

On top of all this, this woman was making all sorts of obnoxious disapproving clucks around ms. wobs the entire evening. I kind of knew she was trouble when we arrived. Who arrives at a party with her partner wearing matching Che Guevera t-shirts (tucked in, no less)? Who sits around and brags about her closet full of yuppie radical shirts (like "Against the Neoliberal Tide") that she obviously breaks out for the protest du jour (or evening soirée)? I'd expect that from your college sophomore, but from a woman who looked to be in her fifties?

Humorless, child-hating biddies like her give us lefties a bad name.

Facts, schmacts

As we continue our investigation into the use of powerful, hallucinatory horse tranquilizers by prominent... uh, well-known... ok, dime-a-dozen right-wing hacks, we stumble across the sad case of Dennis Prager who, when not drooling on himself as he lolls around in a stupor, is engaged in a nonsensical diatribe against the truthlessness of "the Left":

In the hierarchy of leftist (as opposed to traditional liberal) values, truth is below other values, such as equality, opposition to war, the promotion of secularism and a number of other highly regarded values on the Left.

Wait a minute... you mean to tell me he's sober and he actually believes this shit? Well, he's got to have something to back it up, right?

The first example is what is known as political correctness. Leftist denial of what is true is so widespread that we have a term for it, political correctness. There is no comparable right-wing political correctness, i.e., denying truths so as not to offend right-wing values or certain groups.

He's right, there's no such thing as political correctness on the Right. Why, they would never spew hypocritical outrage over an ad criticizing war leaders (while they themselves slimed military veterans of the opposition party). Nor would the Right seek to intervene in the highly personal individual decisions around end-of-life issues in order to appease their base. They would under no circumstances try to file a harassing lawsuit that would cost the job of a professor who believed that teaching the Old Testament story of creationism as literal truth was inappropriate for a course on Western Civilization. And, of course, the Right always tells the truth about Iraq. Everything's great, and getting better all the time! Nope, not one bit of political correctness at all.

Textbooks. A prime example of the Left's view of truth is its changing the goal of high school American history textbooks from telling truth to promoting self-esteem among minority and female students by depicting more women and more non-whites in American history textbooks.

Yet another valid point. Discussing the contributions of Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, and Martin Luther King Jr. aren't really "telling truth" so much as they're feel-good exercises in morale building. We all know that women and minorities have contributed absolutely nothing to this country!

"Bush is a liar." Currently, the most widely repeated lie of the Left is that President George W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is repeated so often ("Bush lied, people died") that many Americans now believe this. But it is not true. There were valid reasons for anyone to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Saddam had used them in the past; he refused to allow unfettered inspections; he was the major foreign sponsor of Palestinian terror; and most important, virtually all Western intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD.

Of course he didn't lie! Bush believed - and still believes - every damn word he's uttered. So saying that Bush is not a liar may be technically correct; it's much more accurate to say that Bush refused to believe reams of evidence which contradicted his myopic view. Bravo, Prager!

Callling [sic] liberals "unpatriotic." Another lie of the Left is that Republicans and conservatives regularly label opponents of the war in Iraq "unpatriotic."

Again, Dennis is dead-on. Conservatives have never called liberals unpatriotic. Treasonous, sure. Traitors, you bet. But never unpatriotic. Oh, wait...

The homeless, heterosexual AIDS, and rape. For years, mainstream leftist news media purveyed false information supplied by Mitch Snyder, the major left-wing activist on behalf of the homeless. Likewise, we were told by gay and AIDS activist groups that AIDS "doesn't discriminate," meaning that heterosexuals in America were as likely to contract the HIV virus as homosexuals. It was never true in America (Africa may be another story for other reasons). Feminist groups have offered statistics on rape and sexual violence that are patently false.

First of all, real classy pegging as a liar a man who has been dead for seventeen years. Of course, the National Coalition for the Homeless are just repeating his lies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are well known fabricators when it comes to the rates of same-sex and opposite-sex transmission of HIV, as well as sexual assault. I'm sure Dennis is going to come back here with some solid evidence that will demonstrate to us all what a bunch of truth-challenged fibbers these leftists all are. Right Dennis?

Dennis...?

You're sure he's not 'round back snorting lines of ketamine?

A few questions

Should I be pleased that the WaPo has dedicated a blog to fact-checking the statements of the 2008 candidates, or pissed that it took them this long to hit on the idea? And who wants to bet that the fact-checking will keep to trivial statements like "Americans are getting fatter and stupider?"

What I learned on the internets today

According to Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner, the votes of a handful of Republican Senators on a procedural matter that would move residents of DC a step closer to democratic representation in an institution in the nation where they are - allegedly - citizens are a "move to the left."

Well, at least he's honest about the GOP's take on democracy. It's leftist drivel.

Jonah's holding

Mama's little Goldberg has gotten hold of some powerful pills if this statement is any indication:

Me: I think history will be kinder to Bush than all of the smug prophecies and assurances that he's the "worst president ever" suggest. But, I'd be surprised if he's ranked alongside Reagan.

I'll leave alone the assertion that Reagan was a "great" president, and I'll probably just have to suck it up and admit that the dominant historical narrative for the foreseeable will be that Reagan "won" the Cold War (again, a dubious proposition). Given all that, Bush won't even come close to being alongside Reagan. Sorry, Jonah. Bush isn't the worst president ever (that spot will be retained by current basement dweller James Buchanan - Bush only precipitated a civil war in somebody else's country). I mean, can we name a success for the Bush presidency, besides winning an election (yes, just one election)? He managed to turn universal goodwill into international disdain over the course of a dozen months after 9/11. His War on Terror has actually caused terrorism to increase in the intervening six years. NCLB? Failure. Social Security reform? Failure. Civil liberties? Thoroughly trashed. Government corruption? Endemic. His poll numbers are downright Nixonian. He's leaving the GOP in disarray. His fiscal policies have turned surpluses into deficits.

Seriously, I can't think of one thing that the Bush Administration can legitimately claim as a success, other than orchestrating a string of electoral and political wins. Not one thing.

Now, to be fair to Jonah, who is, after all, high as a kite, I don't think history will be much crueler to Bush than his contemporary critics. We all know he is the dauphin king, a dolt who failed upwards to greatness. No, history will be much crueler to the rest of us for letting him get away with the damage he's caused.

Mutually Assured Destruction

In Soviet Russia, sitcom laughs at you:

A drumbeat of anti-Americanism may be coming from the Kremlin these days, but across Russia people are embracing that quintessentially American genre, the television sitcom, not to mention one of its brassiest examples. And curiously enough, it is the Russian government that has effectively brought “Married With Children” to this land, which somehow made it through the latter half of the 20th century without the benefit of the laugh track.

[...]

These days, American visitors in Russia could be forgiven for thinking they had stumbled upon some bizarre realm of reruns. Adaptations of two other shows, “Who’s the Boss?” and “The Nanny,” are also popular here.

I hope arms negotiators are keeping tabs on this - we cannot get caught up in a sitcom race, and we must prevent the Reds from unleashing the awesome powers of "Growing Pains" or, god forbid, "Full House."