Monday, March 20, 2006
Thanks to Goofy Willis, I just realized how to blog: title, intro, long quote, insult, eg,
Once an idiot, always an idiot. Pass the glazed ones. Yes, all of them. Yes, and dip them in the gravy.
Lessee, Glenn Reynolds is a law school professor & author & God knows what else; and Oliver is..? David Brock's pudding boy? And if you heard that one of them ate puppies, which one would you think of first..?
Some People Never learn
posted by Oliver Witless (between lunch 2 and lunch 3)
How do you deal with someone who says something this stupid:I am an Al Gore guy. Gore was the first politician I liked (in ‘88 when he first ran for president) and while he was veep, Clinton had the heart but Gore had your brain. I’ll go to my grave believing Al Gore would have been a truly great president.
Once an idiot, always an idiot. Pass the glazed ones. Yes, all of them. Yes, and dip them in the gravy.
Lessee, Glenn Reynolds is a law school professor & author & God knows what else; and Oliver is..? David Brock's pudding boy? And if you heard that one of them ate puppies, which one would you think of first..?
Sunday, March 19, 2006
I'm still pondering the matter of how liberals and lefties avoid admitting that they made a mistake.
Follow me:
1 - they don't admit that they make mistakes. No no no, not quite right (although maybe too close for comfort.)
2 - they admit making mistakes in the sense of collective 'we', that is, we made a mistake by not promptly supporting, say, Castro, that's why he becames a communist. (Never the individual 'we made a mistake by not realizing that Castro was a communist all along.') Closer and sometimes happens... but not quite...
3 - they admit that they made a mistake in the sense that they did something wrong, in spite of the very best minds (theirs) giving it their very best effort. The dual implication being that (a) they really didn't make a mistake because (b) anyone else would have done no better and most likely worse.
Kind of like Dr Zoidberg in the "what if" episode: Leela has killed the Professor and, after examing all the pretty obvious evidence, pronounces the crime unsolvable.
Follow me:
1 - they don't admit that they make mistakes. No no no, not quite right (although maybe too close for comfort.)
2 - they admit making mistakes in the sense of collective 'we', that is, we made a mistake by not promptly supporting, say, Castro, that's why he becames a communist. (Never the individual 'we made a mistake by not realizing that Castro was a communist all along.') Closer and sometimes happens... but not quite...
3 - they admit that they made a mistake in the sense that they did something wrong, in spite of the very best minds (theirs) giving it their very best effort. The dual implication being that (a) they really didn't make a mistake because (b) anyone else would have done no better and most likely worse.
Kind of like Dr Zoidberg in the "what if" episode: Leela has killed the Professor and, after examing all the pretty obvious evidence, pronounces the crime unsolvable.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Oh, and Goofy Willis seems to think that the race of the accused is important. I bet the 1960's Robert Byrd would have thought so. (It must have been Karl Rove who made George Wallace block the door to the college, don't you think..?) Maybe it's time for posters that will enable the enlightened to tell the difference between, say, Condi Rice and Al Sharpton. (Here's a hint: which one can say, "No thank you, I'm full" ?)
While we're at it, think of Oliver bending over the stove to take out his TV Dinner. Now try to imagine if you can see the stove.
While we're at it, think of Oliver bending over the stove to take out his TV Dinner. Now try to imagine if you can see the stove.
Tim Blair (link at left - so be a mensch and scroll down a little) is outraged by the appearance of the sandwich he purchased. Whereas the loons who can be counted on to state under oath that taking a black & white photo of your butt with a whip handle stuck in is a study in chiaroscura... (and I'll bet you two good hot dogs and a shot of Georgi that I misspelled it...)
What the hell was I thinking of ten minutes ago? Oh yes, a glance at Blair reminded me. The lefties can't understand why so many of their voters (eg, union members) vote Republican - here's why, jackasses: working class people - hey it's 9 pm and I'm working, and I do database work, for God's sake - like the idea of the government supplying a safety net in terms or unemployment insurance and medicare and the like, but they don't like the safety net that says "You can't have a gun in your home to protect yourself because you might hurt someone but the constitutional rights of criminals are sacred" and "Welfare should be a life-long right because you can't punish those poor innocent children because their parents made a mistake" (even if they made that mistake six or eight times in ten years) and "You can't put a creche in front of town hall even though no one except the ACLU objects to it but it's important that our children study the ways of Islam and Gaia" and "Free speech is sacred, but we must regulate it to protect it..." And on and on. They were sure they were going to win it all and they were sure that Reagan was just a last-gasp step ruling-class-fighting-to-the-finish step backwards, and now look: a retarted retard who flew jets and graduated Yale and Harvard has stolen all those elections. Well, Cheney figured out how to steal the elections. Or maybe Rove. Or maybe Rove and Cheney - my God, it's a conspiracy - where is that Feingold censure?
I saw a day or two back that Al Gore did a speech down in Florida, and the guy who does the often hilarious DummiesFunnies (I hafta fix the link, I think) noted that there may be a push for Kerry to run again.
I said it before and I'll say it again: don't be surprised if the Dem ticket in 2008 is Al Gore & Hillary Clinton or John Kerry & Hillary Clinton. It's the dirty deal that brings one of the two about that we'll need the blogosphere to bring to the surface.
Night night.
What the hell was I thinking of ten minutes ago? Oh yes, a glance at Blair reminded me. The lefties can't understand why so many of their voters (eg, union members) vote Republican - here's why, jackasses: working class people - hey it's 9 pm and I'm working, and I do database work, for God's sake - like the idea of the government supplying a safety net in terms or unemployment insurance and medicare and the like, but they don't like the safety net that says "You can't have a gun in your home to protect yourself because you might hurt someone but the constitutional rights of criminals are sacred" and "Welfare should be a life-long right because you can't punish those poor innocent children because their parents made a mistake" (even if they made that mistake six or eight times in ten years) and "You can't put a creche in front of town hall even though no one except the ACLU objects to it but it's important that our children study the ways of Islam and Gaia" and "Free speech is sacred, but we must regulate it to protect it..." And on and on. They were sure they were going to win it all and they were sure that Reagan was just a last-gasp step ruling-class-fighting-to-the-finish step backwards, and now look: a retarted retard who flew jets and graduated Yale and Harvard has stolen all those elections. Well, Cheney figured out how to steal the elections. Or maybe Rove. Or maybe Rove and Cheney - my God, it's a conspiracy - where is that Feingold censure?
I saw a day or two back that Al Gore did a speech down in Florida, and the guy who does the often hilarious DummiesFunnies (I hafta fix the link, I think) noted that there may be a push for Kerry to run again.
I said it before and I'll say it again: don't be surprised if the Dem ticket in 2008 is Al Gore & Hillary Clinton or John Kerry & Hillary Clinton. It's the dirty deal that brings one of the two about that we'll need the blogosphere to bring to the surface.
Night night.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
You probably saw Sen Feingold (seemingly of Howard, Finegold and Howard) on the ABC morning blather hour with Stephanopolous. Wants to introduce a motion to censure Pres Bush about listening in on international wireless phone calls. Attn Sen Frist: Go For It. Let's see how many Dems in the Senate will go along with the idea that it's just wrong to listen in on calls between here and a cave in Afghanstan.
What was Willis blathering on about the other day? Oh, yes, what it means to be a progressive. To a great extent is seemed to mean, once we lefties get something we want, we cannot go backwards but must go forward until we get something else we want. His mommy may have been a squirrel, you know. Hey, that could be a book - "Why Daddy is a Progressive" with a picture of a walrus eating a donut.
I continue to ponder imponderables, ie, why lefties think the way they do. Hard to really wrap one's head around it, you know. I have noticed (and probably said elsewhere) that lefties seem to be incapable of admitting they were wrong. Oh, someone like Kerry might admit that he selected the wrong year for the Chateau de Neuf Pape du Teresa Pomme du Terre at dinner last week and Bill Clinton will fess up when he's been caught and can't talk his way out of it (think of his little broadcast about his relationship with Monica - what started as a friendship, etc) but in politics? Nah - if crime went up after the ban on handguns, it only means that crime would have gone up even more if we hadn't fought the good fight against the NRA and brought in the ban that the people really wanted, and now what we need is a ban on long guns. Did that asshead Jimmy Carter give us a fiasco in Iran? No no, would have turned out even worse if we'd done something else, like left the Shah in poer and the Ayatollah in Paris (or wherever he was.)
(In passing, 'what the people want' is a topic that I must return to, but I am already putting on my shoes and cigar while proofreading...)
But it occurs to me that lefties actually can admit to being wrong and yet at the same time deny being wrong : we were wrong to support (fill in the name of any friendly king, president or, okay, yes, dictator) but... rather like the priest in the old days who says that the plague was because of our sins, but in a way that implies (if it doesn't outright say) that we the people were wrong for the way we behaved and he the preist was wrong for not forcing us to listen to him in the first place. Oh, it only they had listened to us (or we had listened to them), this plague of locusts/bubonics/al qaida-ists could have been avoided!
An important related part of leftist thinking (I've probably already said this) is that they alone can solve the problem (any problem, pick one.) You recall the idea from 2004 or so that Bush's 'angry' behavior was due to his being a "dried up drunk", ie, someone who had a drinking problem but just stopped drinking instead of going for treatment? Definite leftist thinking. You didn't follow our advice: that fact that the problem seems to have gone away (even if for many years) doesn't really mean anything, because only we know how to truly get the to root (or root cause) of the problem. You think that passing a right-to-carry gun law is the reason violent crime went down, but just you wait.
Oh, that brings me to another oddity of leftist thinking: the demand that we act immediately (translation: pass the legislation that we want and sign it into law right away) followed by the expectation that we will later accept that the problem was much much worse than even the most pessimistic expert (eg, Ted Kennedy) had thought so it might take a couple of years or decades or generations to actually solve the problem. As opposed to, oh, you conservatives got your tax cut passed and signed into law last year: where is the huge economic boom you promised us? (Remember the "Contract with America"? Oh of course you do. I wish I could credit the correct person for this goofy argument, but I recall some well known political commentator or politician or the like saying that the Republicans broke their promise to the American people - yes yes I know that the Contract only promised to bring specific pieces of legislation to a vote in the House of Representatives, but by implication you implied that you would actually make these promises into law, so by implication YOU LIED! Which is like... well, not like FDR or Lyndon Johnson saying that we'd stay out of this war or that war , but...)
Oh, that brings me to another thought: the leftist has the oddest way of making promises and then saying insisting swearing that he had no choice but to break that promise. You remember Clinton and the middle class tax cut? Jimmy Carter saying that the price of natural gas should be deregulated (letter to exGov of Texas John Connally before the election in 1976), and then saying that there was no reason to lift the price ceiling on natural gas because it was going to run out in about two decades (and then the Wall Street Journal discovered a Carter administration study that claimed there was a thousand years of natural gas to be had if the price could justify drilling for it - and I remember the WSJ later running an editorial piece noting that they received a request to be quiet about this from people at EXXON OF ALL PLACES...)
Oh, and are the f'king Republicans in NYS going to run someone against Hillary? She has a ton of money in the campaign bank for a 2008 presidential run, and I want that money spent NOW. I will personally go to train stations and hand out Hillary Sucks Big Garbonzo Beans fliers if the Republifuckingcants will make a Republifuckingcando effort in New York, for cry-sake.
my my - alcohol and exhaustion do make a person verbose...
Hey, why did the hooker dress in duck feathers? Because she wanted to go down... does that joke work? I dunno. Strong man in Warsaw - power Pole... fishing pole... pole vault... hey, where does a polish bank... oh phooey I already said the punchline.
Film note: I bought a just released 2 DVD set of Buster Keaton's Columbia short films (c 1940.) Hardly in the same league as the shorts he did in the early 1920's, but much better than the two "Educational" shorts he did in the mid 1930's which are on the excellent 11 disk 'complete' Keaton silent movie collection, and much better than the movies Laurel & Hardy did for Fox and MGM in the 1940's. Some of the Keaton Columbia shorts are actually pretty decent, especially if you like the Three Stooges - a lot of familiar faces and a lot of familiar sound effects. (One is pretty much a remake of a Stooges short, I don't remember the title, in which the Civil War has begun, and Moe & Larry join the Confederate army, only to find that Curly joined the Union army.) Perhaps the real problem, besides the fact that Columbia Short Comedies were done on the cheap and hasty, is that Keaton was frequently 'teamed' up with someone, and Keaton didn't really need a partner. (Pace to fans of Big Joe Roberts, who was less a partner than an excellent supporting actor.) That having been said, Monty Collins could be quite funny (although, compared to Keaton, he was too much of a 'blatant' comic - heavy on the face making and loud reactions, which made him a decent opposite in some Three Stooges shorts - think of the one in which he plays the Stooges' mother); and Elsie Ames (according to the rather low key commentary, a sort of nightclub act variety dancer) made a pretty decent opposite, since she could take a hard fall fairly well; and Dorothy Appleby (a regular from the Stooges films) wasn't a bad choice when playing the Keaton character's young lovely wife. Just not the best stuff from someone who did a fair amount of best stuff.
oof. I am out of alcohol. That means that God wants me to go home. Or fall down, I know it's one or the other...
Oyez. Must run. Bye now.
What was Willis blathering on about the other day? Oh, yes, what it means to be a progressive. To a great extent is seemed to mean, once we lefties get something we want, we cannot go backwards but must go forward until we get something else we want. His mommy may have been a squirrel, you know. Hey, that could be a book - "Why Daddy is a Progressive" with a picture of a walrus eating a donut.
I continue to ponder imponderables, ie, why lefties think the way they do. Hard to really wrap one's head around it, you know. I have noticed (and probably said elsewhere) that lefties seem to be incapable of admitting they were wrong. Oh, someone like Kerry might admit that he selected the wrong year for the Chateau de Neuf Pape du Teresa Pomme du Terre at dinner last week and Bill Clinton will fess up when he's been caught and can't talk his way out of it (think of his little broadcast about his relationship with Monica - what started as a friendship, etc) but in politics? Nah - if crime went up after the ban on handguns, it only means that crime would have gone up even more if we hadn't fought the good fight against the NRA and brought in the ban that the people really wanted, and now what we need is a ban on long guns. Did that asshead Jimmy Carter give us a fiasco in Iran? No no, would have turned out even worse if we'd done something else, like left the Shah in poer and the Ayatollah in Paris (or wherever he was.)
(In passing, 'what the people want' is a topic that I must return to, but I am already putting on my shoes and cigar while proofreading...)
But it occurs to me that lefties actually can admit to being wrong and yet at the same time deny being wrong : we were wrong to support (fill in the name of any friendly king, president or, okay, yes, dictator) but... rather like the priest in the old days who says that the plague was because of our sins, but in a way that implies (if it doesn't outright say) that we the people were wrong for the way we behaved and he the preist was wrong for not forcing us to listen to him in the first place. Oh, it only they had listened to us (or we had listened to them), this plague of locusts/bubonics/al qaida-ists could have been avoided!
An important related part of leftist thinking (I've probably already said this) is that they alone can solve the problem (any problem, pick one.) You recall the idea from 2004 or so that Bush's 'angry' behavior was due to his being a "dried up drunk", ie, someone who had a drinking problem but just stopped drinking instead of going for treatment? Definite leftist thinking. You didn't follow our advice: that fact that the problem seems to have gone away (even if for many years) doesn't really mean anything, because only we know how to truly get the to root (or root cause) of the problem. You think that passing a right-to-carry gun law is the reason violent crime went down, but just you wait.
Oh, that brings me to another oddity of leftist thinking: the demand that we act immediately (translation: pass the legislation that we want and sign it into law right away) followed by the expectation that we will later accept that the problem was much much worse than even the most pessimistic expert (eg, Ted Kennedy) had thought so it might take a couple of years or decades or generations to actually solve the problem. As opposed to, oh, you conservatives got your tax cut passed and signed into law last year: where is the huge economic boom you promised us? (Remember the "Contract with America"? Oh of course you do. I wish I could credit the correct person for this goofy argument, but I recall some well known political commentator or politician or the like saying that the Republicans broke their promise to the American people - yes yes I know that the Contract only promised to bring specific pieces of legislation to a vote in the House of Representatives, but by implication you implied that you would actually make these promises into law, so by implication YOU LIED! Which is like... well, not like FDR or Lyndon Johnson saying that we'd stay out of this war or that war , but...)
Oh, that brings me to another thought: the leftist has the oddest way of making promises and then saying insisting swearing that he had no choice but to break that promise. You remember Clinton and the middle class tax cut? Jimmy Carter saying that the price of natural gas should be deregulated (letter to exGov of Texas John Connally before the election in 1976), and then saying that there was no reason to lift the price ceiling on natural gas because it was going to run out in about two decades (and then the Wall Street Journal discovered a Carter administration study that claimed there was a thousand years of natural gas to be had if the price could justify drilling for it - and I remember the WSJ later running an editorial piece noting that they received a request to be quiet about this from people at EXXON OF ALL PLACES...)
Oh, and are the f'king Republicans in NYS going to run someone against Hillary? She has a ton of money in the campaign bank for a 2008 presidential run, and I want that money spent NOW. I will personally go to train stations and hand out Hillary Sucks Big Garbonzo Beans fliers if the Republifuckingcants will make a Republifuckingcando effort in New York, for cry-sake.
my my - alcohol and exhaustion do make a person verbose...
Hey, why did the hooker dress in duck feathers? Because she wanted to go down... does that joke work? I dunno. Strong man in Warsaw - power Pole... fishing pole... pole vault... hey, where does a polish bank... oh phooey I already said the punchline.
Film note: I bought a just released 2 DVD set of Buster Keaton's Columbia short films (c 1940.) Hardly in the same league as the shorts he did in the early 1920's, but much better than the two "Educational" shorts he did in the mid 1930's which are on the excellent 11 disk 'complete' Keaton silent movie collection, and much better than the movies Laurel & Hardy did for Fox and MGM in the 1940's. Some of the Keaton Columbia shorts are actually pretty decent, especially if you like the Three Stooges - a lot of familiar faces and a lot of familiar sound effects. (One is pretty much a remake of a Stooges short, I don't remember the title, in which the Civil War has begun, and Moe & Larry join the Confederate army, only to find that Curly joined the Union army.) Perhaps the real problem, besides the fact that Columbia Short Comedies were done on the cheap and hasty, is that Keaton was frequently 'teamed' up with someone, and Keaton didn't really need a partner. (Pace to fans of Big Joe Roberts, who was less a partner than an excellent supporting actor.) That having been said, Monty Collins could be quite funny (although, compared to Keaton, he was too much of a 'blatant' comic - heavy on the face making and loud reactions, which made him a decent opposite in some Three Stooges shorts - think of the one in which he plays the Stooges' mother); and Elsie Ames (according to the rather low key commentary, a sort of nightclub act variety dancer) made a pretty decent opposite, since she could take a hard fall fairly well; and Dorothy Appleby (a regular from the Stooges films) wasn't a bad choice when playing the Keaton character's young lovely wife. Just not the best stuff from someone who did a fair amount of best stuff.
oof. I am out of alcohol. That means that God wants me to go home. Or fall down, I know it's one or the other...
Oyez. Must run. Bye now.
Monday, March 06, 2006
I just drove in from Boston and boy are my rims tired.
Valerie Plame's name is leaked and the media demands investigations and jail time for those who would endanger our National Security. The New York Times reveals secret programs that just might have prevent one or two real threats to national security and the media is squalling about Freedom of the Press.
Once of the advantages about being past 50 that I've begun to notice: you know how you're talking to a really hot girl and you start to get one of those embarrassing erections? I don't have to worry about that any more.
Hillary is suddenly concerned about foreign control of port operations. Not Red Chinese control of ports, mind you...
Hey, where does a Russian Moslem get milk from? From a Mosque Cow...
Where do you find the richest cattleman in Russia? Go all they way east and you'll eventually find Vlad of Vast Stock.
Leroy: Where you at? Latisha: McDonald's. (Think about it...)
I see that there are actually two people who want to run against Hillary Rodent Clinton for the NY senate seat this year. I will happily support and work for either one, if it means HRC needs to spend lots of money to have her landslide victory.
Oy... no time to proofread...
Valerie Plame's name is leaked and the media demands investigations and jail time for those who would endanger our National Security. The New York Times reveals secret programs that just might have prevent one or two real threats to national security and the media is squalling about Freedom of the Press.
Once of the advantages about being past 50 that I've begun to notice: you know how you're talking to a really hot girl and you start to get one of those embarrassing erections? I don't have to worry about that any more.
Hillary is suddenly concerned about foreign control of port operations. Not Red Chinese control of ports, mind you...
Hey, where does a Russian Moslem get milk from? From a Mosque Cow...
Where do you find the richest cattleman in Russia? Go all they way east and you'll eventually find Vlad of Vast Stock.
Leroy: Where you at? Latisha: McDonald's. (Think about it...)
I see that there are actually two people who want to run against Hillary Rodent Clinton for the NY senate seat this year. I will happily support and work for either one, if it means HRC needs to spend lots of money to have her landslide victory.
Oy... no time to proofread...
