Saturday, December 25, 2010
September 26, 2003 by s.z.
National Blog for Ann Day We just learned that today is "National Talk Like Bill O'Reilly Day." We find it unfortunate that people have to learn these kinds of things on the street, or from Atrios, but that's today's elite media for you: too busy killing our troops by reporting bad news to cover something that matters to REAL Americans. While we're bitterly disappointed that we didn't know this earilier (we've been practicing our "argghs" and "mateys" all year), we are somewhat comforted by the fact that Bill isn't going to particpate either. Here's part of the transcript where he confesses that he's just not up for talking like Bill OReilly anymore, and admits that his life is just a lie (Bill Breaks Down):
Anyway, since we missed the festivities, we are proposing our OWN event: National Blog For Ann Day. As you know (or don't care), this was announced in June (Because She Has More to Say, Alas):
Okay, I have been waiting and waiting, but nothing has happened. No ire, no thoughts, no Left getting a load. Nothing. Apparently, Ann has performance anxiety or has run out of invective or something. So, I propose that we help her out by doing a day of blogging for her. It can be any day which is convenient for everybody. Just let me know when it is this time, okay? 4:54:34 PM  |
Spry VS Spy Okay, you're going to have to endulge me on this. Investigating cases of suspected espionage is a subject I actually know something about. Therefore, Mona Charen's latest article (in which she asks the question Who Can You Trust?, and implies that that the answer is "Not the Muslims!" and ends up blaming the still-developing Guantanamo Bay espionage mess on political correctness run amuck) managed to annoy me a tad, mostly because it makes no sense. Follow along, while I set her straight and tell you WAY more than you ever wanted to know about this topic, if you have the inclination. If you don't, come back later and I promise that I will deliver my report on Magic Meat Pie (it turns out that the magic is in the gravy!) Plus, I'll tell you all about new wife Mary Sue Parsons and how she overcame her husband's verbal abuse ("bride's biscuits," he called them) with the help of Aunt Jenny, Spry, and an affair with Biff Henderson. AND, I'll tell you about what my confidential source (Ivan) found out about Spry by eliciting incriminating information from My Little Margie. But now, it's spy time. Mona begins her piece:
Because providing spies is the height of hospitality (4-star hotels offer at least one per floor, available, day or night, for all your espionage needs), and the fact that Ahmad al Halabi, the Baklava Spy, is said by authorities to have "expressed sympathy for and had unauthorized contact with the detainees" (thus proving his guilt as a spy) unquestionably means those prisoners are living the life of Reilly, and so the stupid Europeans should shut the hell up. She goes on to recount what the press has said about James Yee, the Spying Chaplain, who converted to Islam, resigned his commission to study Islam and Arabic in Syria, then rejoined the Army and was assigned to Guantanamo.
I don't mean to quibble while Mona is working herself into a dudgeon, but wouldn't the purpose of the court maritial be to determine if Yee is guilty of espionage (which seems a stretch, based on the information presented so far), while it would be for God to judge the sincerity of his religious beliefs? For even if he was found guilty, that wouldn't necessarily mean that he was lying about what he thought Islam was all about--he could just be a BAD Muslim who couldn't live up to his religious ideals. You know, like how Robert Hanssen was a devout Catholic, but a bad one who sold secrets to the Russians for money. And how Jonathan Pollard was not a shining example of Judaism, despite his attempts to say that he did what he did for his religion. Their crimes are not an indictment of Christianity or Judaism, but merely of themselves. Mona then asks irately:
Actually, we don't (me and Mona, that is) know anything about how closely the US military scrutinized Yee before they assigned him to Guantanamo. It's entirely possible that they did a probing investigation into his background, asked him all kinds of intrusive questions, and then polygraphed him in an effort to ascertain the truthfulness of his answers, and found him as blameless and loyal as Mona, despite having spent time in Syria. And even so, he could be a spy now. People are not immutable, you know. And it's also possible that the military didn't do anything beyond the norm (for a Secret clearance, that would be checks with other government agencies for records of criminal activity or known security problems) to vet Yee, because they had a job to do, a notably short list of people who could do it, and no inclination to spend the time and money to do meticulous security screenings for the hundreds of people that it takes to keep the facility running. We just don't know at this point what the Army did or didn't do, just like we don't know exactly what Yee did, and what Syria has to do with anything. The "chaplain referrals" that Mona is talking about would actually be "Ecclesiastical Endorsements, from a DoD recognized endorser," and are nothing more than somebody who can speak authoritatively for a particular religion saying that they think an applicant would make an okay chaplain. (Per the Army's Chaplain Recruiter Brochure, the endorsement must state that you are "A clergy person in your denomination or faith group; Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army; and Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Military.") The Army is responsible for the checking out the rest of the applicant's credentials and fitness, and for only assigning him to appropriate positions. So, it's not like the Army's mistake here was listening to "The American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council" when it said, "That Yee is a really good guy; you should ignore his time in Syria, let him back in the Army, and then send him to your secret facility in Cuba. And then you should look the other way while that al Halabi guy whom you've had under investigation since November (and who has nothing to do with us anyway), collects info from your prisoners there. That's what we think would be best, and you'd better do it or we'll tell everybody you're politically incorrect." That did not actually happen. So, while Mona is right that maybe we shouldn't be asking groups whom we know aren't on the up-and-up to vouch for chaplains (read her article if you want to know which Muslim associations shes drops a dime on), the fact that the group which recommended Yee is alleged to have ties with another group which was founded by a guy who sympathizes with Hammas, does not have anything to do with Mona's question of "How is it possible that a man who spends four years in Syria is not more closely scrutinized by the United States military?" Mona concludes:
It just IMPLIES it.
Check twice about their affiliations before doing what exactly? In her haste to declare Islam "widely infected with the radical virus," she never said what she wants our government to do. I suppose she means "check all domestic Islamic groups by, um, tapping their phones, infiltrating their mosques, and checking their library records before we let them recommend any more chaplains to serve in our overseas facilities housing al-Quaida prisoners," but since that doesn't seem like something that comes up that often (or has anything to do with the spy investigations currently in the news), I don't know how helpful a recommendation this really is.
No, of course not. Because it obviously was political correctness (But refresh my memory of what instance -- providing a Islamic chaplain for the prisoners? Allowing Muslims in our armed forces? Not just killing the prisoners in the first place?), that got us into this situation where a chaplin endangered our entire nation by having some lists of names in his possession. And we can never, ever let it happen again. Okay, tirade over. You can go about your business now. 5:13:16 AM |
September 25, 2003 by s.z.
I DO Believe in WMDs, I Do, I Do, I DO!
National Security Advisor Condoleezza was on Bill O'Reilly's show tonight, advising him on the steps the nation is taking to keep him safe from vicious NY Times terrorists.
No, actually, the White House remembered that Bill had said, "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clear he had nothing [WMDs-wise], I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." And just like Santa Claus going to Macey's to restore little Natalie Wood's faith in miracles, or Clarance coming down from heaven to renew Jimmy Stewart's faith in the FDIC, they sent Condi to restore Bill's faith in the Bush administration.
While I didn't see the show (my house is a "Yes-Spine Zone"), I did read the Fox News online transcripts (Condi Saves Christmas). Sadly, it appears that the transcriber for the show has been arrested for espionage and the janitor is filling in, since we got a lot of this kind of thing:
O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the USA (UNINTELLIGIBLE) send a couple of divisions up there, in conjunction with American Special Forces, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?RICE: We have very good cooperation with the Pakistanis. That's why we are being so optimistic (ph)...(CROSSTALK)O'REILLY: I don't mean to sound (UNINTELLIGIBLE).RICE: Probably not the right word (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Um, I theorize that O'Reilly and Condi were cussing up a storm, and in deference to her position, Fox is pretending they couldn't make out that part of the conversation. But why the need to indicate that the optimimism is just phonetic?
Anyway, despite all the garbles, the transcript does give us the White House Yes-Spin on lots of stuff. For example, that while we haven't actually found any WMDs in Iraq, Bill does not have to apologize to the nation and can continue to trust the Bush administration because:
RICE: We went to war -- the president has led (ph) the people to war because this is a dangerous tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction before.
So, Saddam USED to have weapons that posed a threat to us, so we sent our troops in now, to prevent him from destroying our past. Something like that.
But unstoppable truth-teller O'Reilly was unsatisfied:
O'REILLY: All right. But on March 30, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, said this, he said, "We know where the WMDs are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." That turned out to be a mistake.RICE: Well, they're still searching. The areas around Tikrit and Baghdad happens to be one of the most difficult areas, of course. It's in the Sunni triangle
So, the WMDs are really there, but in the Sunni Triangle, which, like the Bermuda Triangle, sometimes lets things slip into another dimension. But we'll find them, all right! We have Leonard Nimoy on the case!
Okay, the subject of WMDs dealt with, and Saddam and Osama located (Saddam has slipped through the Sunni Triangle, and Osama is in "Afghanistan, Pakistan, someplace in that area"), we can move on to more important topics, like invading France.
O'REILLY: Why don't you send a couple of American divisions over to get Jacques Chirac? Can we do that? And...RICE: We're always going to have our differences with the French.
[snip]O'REILLY: Jacques Chirac and France have hurt this country and put our servicemen in jeopardy. Am I wrong?RICE: Well, I think that the French position is not one that we would have taken. We think that...O'REILLY: But they put our service people in jeopardy.RICE: And we think, Bill -- and I think this is what Americans are reacting to -- after all that was done to liberate France in World War II -- that we could have expected better cooperation. But that's behind us now.O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) American servicemen.RICE: No, I don't...
Since Condi undoubtedly had Secret Service protection during this visit to the Fox News Planet, Bill couldn't cut off her oxygen for refusing to agree with him that France endangered our servicemen by sneering at them. But I bet he called her a bitch behind her back.
So, let's move on to the next threat to our National Security: Kennedys!
O'REILLY: All right. How about a couple of divisions to get Ted Kennedy up in Hyannis (ph)? Can we do that? American divisions?[snip] Look, I'm not a partisan guy. I mean I'd vote (ph) for anybody. But I think Kennedy is saying that President Bush -- and you work with him very closely -- contrived the war in Texas for political gain.
And anybody saying something like that is putting our service men in danger, and that's treason! Am I wrong? AM I WRONG? But Condi just called it "a very unfortunate comment," and took Ted to task for bad manners in war time.
RICE: I would just ask everybody to be civil. Everybody should be pulling together now to deal with the situation that we have in Iraq. This is a historic and important moment for American security, and certainly we can get past our differences and support the policy.
See, this is the President's Big Day, and so we should just support his policy, even if we think that it's killing American servicemen for no good reason. But after this is all over and the policy either suceeded or failed miserably, THAT will be the time to talk about it.
O'REILLY: All right. You know there are some people actually rooting against the Bush administration for political purposes. They want to see chaos in Iraq. They want you to fail so that the president won't be reelected and somebody else will. What do you think? Is that un-American to carry that point of view?RICE: Bill, I think we can have debates about anything. About policy, about how we've handled it, how it's going to turn out. I think that's perfectly American, and it's a good thing to do. Let's just keep it civil and let's keep it at the level of debate...O'REILLY: All right. (UNINTELLIGIBLE), right? Maybe I would. No, I wouldn't.
I think Bill's garbled last remark was:
"All right. Be civil to people who have opposing viewpoints and not accuse them of treason. Novel idea. Hmm, that's something I could start doing right here, to make the world a better place! Maybe I would. No, I wouldn't".
Then our dynamic duo talks about Iran for a while, and Bill is bitterly disappointed to hear that the administration is going to use cooperation, diplomacy, and the UN to deal with them, instead of A-bombs.
O'REILLY: But don't you understand -- I mean, I'm sure you do, and I know you have to be diplomatic -- there's not this sense of urgency on the part of many countries in the world to help the United States. We're at risk here. We're target number one. In Belgium, they don't care.
They just don't care, the bastards! Our President is calling on them to send us troops and money, and then they get all pissy when we tell them if they don't do things our way, we're taking their ball and going home. Here we are, fighting a war that they didn't agree to, but will they bail us out? NOOO! And now we're in remote personal danger in our own country, just like people who aren't priviledged to be Americans, and they couldn't give a damn! I say we nuke the Belgians too.
But wait, a hero approaches to unite the world in dealing with Iran, Texas-style! It's George Bush, international sex symbol.
RICE: Can I tell you something, Bill? This president, because he's strong and steadfast and speaks the truth, is making more progress on getting international pressure on Iran than was made in the last...(CROSSTALK)O'REILLY: I read "The New York Times" today. And "The New York Times" said that President Bush is a total buffoon and nobody likes him and he's not making any progress.
And Billy said that Sally said that The NY Times said that George Bush is icky and smelly and that nobody wants him on their kickball team 'cause he's got cooties. So we should invade them too, don't you agree? Well, DON'T YOU?!?
But she doesn't, and neither will she agree with Bill that we should have deadly electric fences around our borders to keep out terroristic Mexican migrant workers and Canadian news anchors. She says the Prez has a better plan, which apparently involves a "Mission Impossible"-style plot to make Mexicans think that they're already in the U.S. through the strategic use of false Walmart storefronts and California recall rhetoric. Bill indicated that he can't get down with that, nor with her Bart-killing policy, but he does like her Selma-killing policy.
RICE: OK. Well, one out of three isn't bad.O'REILLY: No. Listen, the mail is going to say, although you're an idiot, we love Dr. Rice. I know what the mail is going to say. Last question for you. President has dropped 21 points in the favorability polls since last spring -- 21 points. Why?RICE: The president?O'REILLY: Yes.RICE: Because this president is dealing with America's problems. And he's a president who is in touch with Americans.
LOL. Yes, and I love his plan to inspire the nation to lose confidence in him by keeping in touch with the citizens. If his advisors are smart, they'll keep him incommunicado before his approval ratings drop any lower.
O'REILLY: But why would he fall 21 percent?RICE: The president -- first of all, I think one has to look at polls. And he was at astronomically high levels. But see, when you go out there and you talk to Americans, they trust this president. They know that this president is doing everything that he can on the war on terror.
And that's why he's dropping in the polls--we know he's doing everything he can, and we see what a mess he's making of things. And then we think, "Well, if this is the best he can do, maybe it's time we let Gary Coleman have a shot at the job."
RICE: They know that the economy is starting to recover. They trust this president.
Um, no and no. Sorry Condi, but thanks for playing Spin Zone with us. You get a case of Rice-a-Roni, plus a copy of Bill's new book, Who's Picking Out a Thermos For You?
Now, let's review what we've learned:
First, our nation's enemies, in descending order of how much we hate them, are:
1. Iraq
2. France
3. Kennedys
4. North Korea
5. Terrorist Illegal Aliens
6. The NY Times
7. Iran
1. Iraq
2. France
3. Kennedys
4. North Korea
5. Terrorist Illegal Aliens
6. The NY Times
7. Iran
Second, the WMDs and Saddam have fallen through the Sunni Triangle, and so will either reapear in the middle of a WWII sea battle, or will get eaten by a giant turtle.
And third, the President is strong and steadfast and tells the truth, and so the nations of the world want to do our bidding. But he is in touch with the American people, and so his approval ratings are going down.
Help this helped.
2:10:43 AM
September 24, 2003 by s.z.
A few other items before I turn in: 1. I'd like to thank the illustrious TBOGG for the kind mention and the link. I'd also like to thank all of you for visiting our humble blog, and for your great comments. We're new at this, so it's all very heady and exciting to us. We thank you for your support. (Whatever happened to Bartyles and Jaymes anyway? Think they ran off with Aunt Jenny to start a free-love commune in Nantucket and make Spry Wine Coolers?) 2. There's this, taken from the Washington Post story Translator Accused of Spying :
You know, I was thinking that posibly the guy was just a misguided dope who had foolishly acceded to requests to deliver letters and news for the prisoners being secretly held in Guantanamo. But then I read about that unauthorized baklava, and I knew he deserved the death penalty! 3. What do you make of this (Fire Retardant Leaves Chemicals Behind in Women)?
On the one hand, I guess this is scary news, since these chemicals are known to impair attention, learning, behavior, etc., in laboratory animals, and if they did the same thing to human fetuses, we might get a generation of hyperactive, undisciplined kids who would sit behind you on long plane rides and kick your seat. On the other hand, it is good to know that my breasts are flame retardant. BTW, for an interesting look at how news is reported, here's the Reuters headline: Toxic Flame Retardant Found in U.S. Breast Milk, and their quote from the Flame Retardant industry: "ALB.N of Richmond, Virginia, one of the companies that makes the flame-retardant chemicals, said it was working to find out if the chemicals are dangerous. And here are the UPI versions: Fire Retardant Found in Breast Milk, and "Peter O'Toole of the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum said human effects can't be extrapolated from rodents" And AP, from a Texas paper: Breast milk of Texas Woman Has High Levels of Chemical, and "A Spokesman for the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, an industry group, said PBDEs are safe. 'I think when you balance the two out, the benefits of fire protection far outweigh the risks,' said spokesman Peter O'Toole." So, either worry or don't, depending on the news service your paper subscribes to. 4. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow. 4:26:23 AM |
Magic Meat Pie Wins the Pennant! Magic Meat Pie Wins the Pennant! Gets Chosen As Regrettable Food Experiment #3 Yes, in a hotly contested election that was decided when Dave and Mary both voted twice, Magic Meat Pie has trounced its hated rival, Pineapple Parfait Cake. And yet the pie has won a moral victory, since people like Elizabeth voted for it out of concern for my health and well-being after the rigors of Stuffed Frankfurter. So, Pineapple Parfait gets to be Vice Regrettable Recipe, and I'll prepare it next week. (In case you missed the press release, we're trying to capitalize on the success of the "Julie/Julia Project"(in which Julie cooked all the dishes in the Julia Childs' classic and so gained blog fame and fortune) by cooking some of the alleged food in the James Lileks classic The Gallery of Regrettable Food. And we're letting people vote on the dish I prepare next, because we just happen to believe in a little something called AMERICA!) Now the winner will announce its plans for its term in office. It goes a little something like this:
I don't want to cast aspersions about lack of candor or hidden agenda, but I've never before encountered a recipe containing ellipses. I wonder what it means . . . .but there actually IS a recipe for baking power biscuits on page 39
So it's not the lack of baking powder biscuits which they are trying to hide . . . but I don't like that lack of certainty regarding the milk . . .and where am I going to get a floured board? Anyway, I'll do my shopping tomorrow and will try concocting this dish tomorrow. I'll take photos so you can share the magic. I will even taste the stuff, but if it gives me rabies, you'll have to take me out and shoot me. Oh, and I actually did some research into Aunt Jenny. It seems that she WAS the town gossip, and the people in the recipe book really WERE all having affairs, illegitimate babies, and amnesia. Here's the real life story (Aunt Jenny Radio Show) :
So, when I tell you the story of Magic Meat Pie, I'll try to include some sin, suffering, and scandal. And lots of lots of Spry, of course. 3:13:29 AM |
The Good, the Bad, and the Deluded  As we noted earlier, Sunday's "Dateline" interview of Bill O'Reilly concluded with Bill saying that he belonged in the Old West, a golden age when a man could gun down a low-bellied snake like Al Franken without consequences. This dream of living in the west of 150 years ago and shooting Al is a recurring one with Bill. For example, back in June on his radio program, he said:
Yes, that is a nice fantasy for Bill to hold onto as he goes from talk show to talk show to plug his book (instead of Al), and is inevitably asked about his archenemy's book (instead of his own). But whenever Bill brings up the idyllic days when men were men, women were women, and Bill was the Man With No Name (presumably, because Fox had copyrighted it), we have to wonder if Bill would actually have played the Clint Eastwood role in the REAL old west. It is our opinion that if he wasn't the town coot (playing the Walter Brennan role, or maybe Ruth Gordon's), he'd probably have spouted his highly opinionated fair and balanced guff in the Tombstone Gazette. A typical column might haved started:
Somebody would have inevitably called Bill on his bluster, and contradicted his claim that he won the Grand Prize at the county fair for his Bread & Butter Pickles (he'd later claim he never said HE won, he said WE won, meaning that it was the little woman who actually produced the pickles; and besides, it was an honest mistake that he said "Grand Prize" when he meant "honorable mention"). And Bill would have told the runty, fat guy with glasses that those were fighin' words, and to meet him on Wilshire Avenue at high noon the next day. And then, of course, Bill would have forced his employer to subcontract the gunfight for him, maybe hiring Tom Tyler and those other two guys from Stagecoach to bushwhack Franken as he rode into town. But is possible that Bill would have squinted, and would have worn a serape or some other form of shawl. 2:33:44 AM |
September 23, 2003 by s.z.
When Losers Opine, Women Vote Democratic
Ah, the gender gap. The term was invented in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was popular with male voters (who liked the idea of blasting things from platforms in space, and were also partial to chimps), but was less popular with women (who were tired of cleaning up broken space toys and chimp poop). Since there are more women in this country than men, and women turn out to vote more than men do, it could be a big problem if your candidate doesn't appeal to women.
That's why, starting circa 1996, Republicans were delighted to find that if you measured the gap differently, it went away! See, if you found statistics that showed that married women, by and large, vote the same as men, then you could write off the entire female sex and base your platform on manly policies that appeal to MEN! If anybody said that polls showed that women weren't going to vote for your guy, you could say, "The married women are on board with us, and they're the only women who matter anyway, since THEY caught a man!" You could discount the rest as eccentric maiden aunts who "respond to liberal rhetoric about 'compassion,' 'caring,' etc., rather than to conservative rhetoric about individual rights and fiscal responsibility." Or else they are black and Hispanic, and therefore single mothers who just want to keep the Welfare checks coming. Or else they are frustrated old maids, who look to the government to take care of them because they can't find a man to do the job. You could then refrain from bothering about those vaguely repellent "women's issues," and get back to business as usual.
Dennis Prager must have been suffering from writer's block, since he decided to use this moldy old chestnut for his TownHall column this week. But he found a way to make it denigrate not just women, but also single people, African-Americans, "nontraditional families," etc. And he ticked me off. So, let's take a gander at his key points, and see if they makes us want to vote Republican. I'll jump in whenever I can't stand it anymore.
Single women, especially single women with children, tend to vote Democratic, while married women, especially married women with children, tend to vote Republican.Why is this?
There are two primary reasons.One is that women's nature yearns for male protection. This is a heretical idea among the well educated whose education is largely devoted to denying the facts of life.
Yes, gettin' educated just plants the dang-fool notion in their heads that they can take care of themselves, and that's why we ought to keep 'em barefoot, pregnant, and illiterate.
But it is a fact of life that can easily be proven: Extremely wealthy women almost always seek to marry men who are even wealthier than they are. Actress Jane Fonda had more money than almost anyone in America, yet she married Ted Turner, a man who had even more money than she.
Well, if Jane married Ted, then clearly Dennis is right about "extremely wealthy women," a statistically significant group, "almost always" marrying wealthier men, and this PROVES "the fact" that women want to be taken care of. End of story. This is bad news for extremely wealthy men, who apparently don't have what it takes to attract extremely wealthy woman and so will have to settle for just regularly wealthy ones. But it's good news for women everywhere, who can now quit work and either let a man or the government take care of them.
Given women's primal desire to be protected, if a woman has no man to provide it, she will seek security elsewhere -- and elsewhere today can only mean the government. In effect, the state becomes her husband.
But the sex isn't very good. And she asks it to come and kill spiders for her and to take out her trash, because she's just a woman and biologically incapable of caring for herself, but it never does. And when the state lies to her, telling her that it's off to Iraq to seek weapons of mass destruction when it's REALLY fooling around, then the women gets very mad and wants a divorce. Happens all the time.
This phenomenon has frequently been commented on with regard to the breakdown of many black families. The welfare state simply rendered many black men unnecessary and therefore undesirable as spouses: Why marry when you can get more benefits from the state while remaining single (and get even more money if you have children while remaining single)?
Um, because the state sex isn't very good, and you still need somebody to kill your spiders?
And of course, it's only "many" black women who have children out of wedlock just to get benefits from the state, and it's only "many" black men who are "unnecesary" because they can't take care of their woman as well as the welfare check can. But hey, now that we've neatly categorized the African-Americans. men AND women, and their reasons for voting Democrat, we can dismiss them and get back to our thesis of why women are inferior and need Republicans to look out for them.
For the married woman, especially if she has children, two primal urges work against her having a pro-big government attitude. Her urge to be protected, which is now fulfilled by her husband, and her primal urge to protect her nest are now endangered by the government, which as it grows, takes away more and more of her family's money.
And women are slaves to their primal urges, the poor dears. Sure, they might read extensively, research candidates, and TRY to make an informed opinion, but when it comes right down to it, they will instinctually vote for the Republican candidate, since their biology tells them to protect their nest, which is being endangered by the state tax on golden eggs.
But let's recap Dennis's arguement so far: Women yearn for a man's protection, i.e, his money. Single women vote Democrat because they don't have a man, and so look to the state to be their boyfriend. Married women vote Republican because they have a nest and selfishly don't want to use any of their their twigs for the good of the group. In both cases, women sounds like such twits that they shouldn't even be allowed to vote (which I bet is what Gary really thinks in his heart of hearts).
But let's hear his second reason:
The other reason married women are less likely to be liberal and vote Democratic relates to maturity and wisdom.Just about everyone -- a man as much as a woman -- is rendered more mature and wiser after marrying. This is not an insult to singles. It was as true of me as of anyone else.
"Calling you singles immature and stupid is not an insult -- after all, I used to be as childish and unintelligent as you are, until I got married and became the wise, evolved being I am now."
If you're single, ask any married person -- happily or unhappily married -- whether or not marriage has matured them.
Ask them if marriage hasn't aged them overnight, rendering them feeble, crippled, and mentally incompetent. And then ask yourself if these people should be allowed to vote.
Narcissism becomes far less possible in marriage than in the single state. And just as marriage decreases narcissism, it increases wisdom.
Despite the lack of any cited proof, and all of your experience to the contrary, just trust Dennis on this. In fact, other than his anecdote about Jane Fonda, he hasn't provided any backing at all for this theories. I guess we're just meant to accept them because they sounds so good. But here's my competing theory, which I find even MORE valid than Gary's, since I cite a Ph.D:
Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics who has written several books on the subject of the differences in male and female communication, says that women primarily value intimacy and friendship, and seek to maintain connection with others by getting and giving empathy and support. They "minimize differences, try to reach consensus, and avoid the appearance of superiority, which highlights differences." They are more concerned with being liked than in having status. Men, on the other hand, tend to group themselves hierarchically; they are socialized to seek status over connection, and to value independence over intimacy. They tend to see life as a contest in which they struggle to gain the upper hand, try to one-up competitors, and seek to keep others from pushing them around.
So, based on Tannen's research, my theory is that women vote Democrat because the party's emphasis on reaching out to others, helping those in need, opening the playing field to those of other races, eliminating some of the hierarchies between rich and poor, etc., appeal to women's needs for everyone to be happy.
My theory further states that men who haven't worked out their issues from growing up tend to vote Republican because they are still trying to break away from their mother, need to prove their independence, and want to tell the government that it's not the boss of them. They also want to preserve the hierarchies, because how else could they tell if they were winning over anybody else? They are also likely to boss around their wives, and to have hissy fits if they learn she plans to vote differently from them (and thus render their vote impotent, limp, and unmanly).
So, it's a "fact of life" that women naturally want to vote Democrat, because that appeals to their nuturing natures. However, women married to men who vote Republican will also vote Republican, to avoid maritial dischord. And mature and intelligent men will vote Democrat, because they realize that they can get more status by being mature and intelligent and playing well with others than by trying to suck up to Bill Gates by giving him another tax break. And childish, stupid, narcissitic men who write columns for TownHall will tend to vote Republican, and will have wives who are stockpiling money in secret back accounts so they can leave their protectors and vote any way they want to.
That's my theory. If Dennis thinks he can prove his over mine, I'm willing to listen.
Anyway, here's his big finale.
Am I implying that increasing one's maturity and wisdom works in favor of the Republicans and against liberalism and the Democrats? Absolutely. Wisdom and contemporary liberalism are in conflict. That is why the vast majority of people who change their politics as they get older (and presumably wiser) change them from liberal to conservative.For all these reasons, the Democrats know how important it is for them to expand dependency on government and to promote "alternative families" rather than the family that consists of a married man and woman with children.
"For all these reasons (women are helpless, blacks are lazy, liberals are stupid babies, and old, rich people want to hang onto their wealth), the Democrats are passing out goverment crack and forcing people to watch all those new fall shows about 'alternative familes' who zing each other with snappy insults but learn important lessons every week. Because, as everyone knows, a homosexual marriage with children does not promote wisdom and does not decrease narcissism because, well, it just doesn't. And those single mothers who work full-time and then come home to the full-time job of raising their kids are pretty self-centered, what with their belief that they should be paid the same as a man, even though they aren't one. And those other 'alternative families,' like single women who care for a sibling with Downs Syndrome, or retired couples who take in an elderly parent, or single men who adopt handicapped children, etc. are all a blot on the Republican landscape, and need to be eliminated so they don't vote Democratic, since they're just in it for the government handout, even though they probably don't get one. But in any case, I have proven that I am superior to women, singles, homosexuals, poor people, people of color, and Democrats, and so I AM NUMBER ONE!"
And with that Dennis's work here is done, and I'm going to bed.
3:29:49 AM
September 22, 2003 by s.z.
I Want His Intestines On a Stick, With a Side Salad and Mashed Potatoes
Mel Gibson presumably wants Frank Rich dead (again), his cat dead, and his lungs on a skewer after reading Rich's NY Times column of the 20th (The Greatest Story Ever Sold), in which Rich accuses Mel of baiting Jews to spark controversy to sell his movie. Rich also scoffs at Mel's Bill O'Reillyish claims of being in danger from his vast collection of powerful enemies:
Mr. Gibson says that he trimmed a scene from "The Passion" involving the Jewish high priest Caiaphas because if he didn't do so "they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come to kill me."Who is this bloodthirsty "they" threatening to martyr our fearless hero? Could it be the same mob that killed Jesus? Funny, but as far as I can determine, the only death threat that's been made in conjunction with "The Passion" is Mr. Gibson's against me.The New Yorker did, though, uncover one ominous threat against the star: "He's heard that someone from one of his hangouts, the Grand Havana Room, a Beverly Hills smoking club, said that he'd spit on him if he ever came in again."Heard from whom? What is the identity of that mysterious "someone"? What do they smoke at that "smoking club"? Has the Grand Havana Room been infiltrated by Madonna's Kabbalah study group? I join a worried nation in praying for Mr. Gibson's safety.
Along those lines, alert reader Wes posted some intelligent, thought-provoking and really funny comments and questions regarding our original story about Mel's threats against Rich's bowels (go here: Intestines and read the comments for that day to see them in their entirety).
And while I am no expert on the new Hollywood fad of eating the viscera of NY Times writers, I did find information speaking to some of Wes's remarks, and will provide them (some of the comments, and the data I uncovered) here for your edification:
Wes writes: I was especially impressed by Mel's "intestines on a stick comment." I mean, any self-respecting superstar in a public spat can rejoin with the same-old boring, logical rebuttal against a critic, but it takes a really graphic imagination to demand a critic's "intestines on a stick."Makes one wonder about the inspiration for that request. A scene (reluctantly) cut from Braveheart? A delicacy served up in one of Hollywood's more, uh, offbeat restaurants? Was Mel ticked off about losing the Hannibal Lecter role to Anthony Hopkins?
I think the answer is revealed in that same New Yorker piece in which Mel made his famous remark about dead dogs and sticks and such. I found a copy of it at Free Republic (The Jesus War), and was struck by this passage:
It is not surprising, perhaps, that in the service of realism the signal trait of “The Passion” is its relentless violence. When Gibson directed the Oscar-winning 1995 film “Braveheart,” about the folkloric Scots hero William Wallace, he reshot only one scene -- and that was in order to more graphically depict the image of enemy horses impaling themselves upon sharpened wooden stakes.
So, Mel just has a thing about sharp wooden objects and impalement. (To learn just what caused this fixation in the first place would take a psychiatrist and years of therapy, but I'm guessing a weenie roast gone horribly wrong.)
Also, in the same article Mel said:
I've always wanted to make a Viking movie. You've got Alfred the Great in Wessex, this English king, saying, 'All the Danes are coming up the river here, we've got to defend ourselves.' And these guys hop off the boats and they're all hairy and they're scary and they've got axes, and some of them are berserkers and they're doing flips and twirls and they just wanna rape and kill, you know?
And since his passion for authenticity wouldn't allow Mel to have a horde of Viking show up, do flips and twirls, and then kill and rape the bastards who crucified Our Lord, he had to vent his berserker rage on Frank Rich's internal organs.
Plus, there is this passage in the New Yorker piece:
In Anaheim, Gibson showed a trailer of the film to a convention of the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship, and received a standing ovation. Afterward, the daughter of the organization's president laid hands on Gibson and asked Jesus to “bind Satan, bind the press, we ask you, Lord.”
So, it's apparent that Rich, by being a member of the press, is in league with Satan, and we all know that Devil's Food Cake makes mighty tasty eating, and so, presumably does Spawn of Satan's Food Guts.
Wes continues: And why did Frank Rich in particular inspire the "intestines on a stick" request? I know that Frank Rich was knocking Mel and all, but is there something that sets him apart from the other New York Times columnists in the shish-kebabbed jejunum flavor department?
Good question. I can only assume that the other writers' viscera had been already spoken for. Ann Coulter presumably gets Maureen Dowd's liver because Maureen dissed the Pres by implying he really isn't smarter than Ann. Bill O'Reilly has had dibs on Judith Maslin's kidneys ever since she gave Al Franken's book a positive review. I don't know about the other columnists and the comparative tastiness of their organs, but I did find this information in a piece about the health risks of eating Philippine street food (Pinoy Health):
IUD is skewered chicken intestines, grilled until it becomes brown in color. [Note: I never knew that's how they made IUDs.] A close relative is the isaw, which is the local name for grilled pork innards. IUD’s and isaw can be had from 3 to 5 pesos per serving on a stick.Between isaw and IUD, it is more hygienic to eat pork intestines. Chicken intestines are so small that some vendors don't seem to care about cleaning it. Chances are, you get a taste of intestines spiced up with chicken feces. This author had the misfortune of unwittingly having to taste the succulent sweetness of milky chicken manure creeping right inside those grilled chicken innards.
So, it's probably something like that.
Back to Wes : Somehow, I'd never before been prompted to contemplate the culinary virtues of newspaper columnists' viscera. Yes, I know, Mike Tyson pioneered this whole sample-your-opponent thing with that fight against Evander Holyfield a while ago but, alas, we must remember that Iron Mike was merely gnawing on Evander's ear-- an *external* organ. Mel Gibson, in contrast, has raised the bewildering prospect of internal organ barbecues.
Yes, but per the New Yorker, right after Mel made his famous "I Wish Frank Rich was an Oscar Meyer Wiener" remark, Paul Lauer, Mel's Marketing Man, immediately chimed in with:
“The thing you have to understand is that the distance between Mel's heart and his mouth is greater than the distance between his imagination and his mouth.
I think what Lauer was trying to say is that Mel's eyes are bigger than his stomach, and so even though he might WANT Rich's intestines on a stick, he couldn't eat them all, and would end up having to take some of them home in a doggy bag (along with Rich's dog).
At the very least, the columnists at the New York Times will have a new, highly personal issue to debate amongst each other.
Very true. And also some uneasiness about accepting any invitation which begin "We'd like to have you for dinner."
So, thanks, Wes, for giving us all something to think about if we ever aspire to being a NYT critic. And also some interesting new ideas for Thanksgiving.
4:17:40 AM
September 21, 2007 by s.z.
Here's another little item from our Fermented Irony files: it's from an ad for "Wate-On Tonic," which reminds you that "Modern eating habits often lead to underweight condition simply because many foods depended on by thousands of Americans don't contain enough calories."  So Don't Let This Happen to YOU! Make sure you that when you visit Miami Beach, you aren't being shadowed by Grandma Skeletor. Oh, and the news about our country's frighteningly under-caloried foods reminds me that thanks to an absentee ballot submitted by Ivan, Pineapple Parfait Cake now leads Magic Meat Pie, 3 to 2. With the final deadline of tomorrow night approaching quickly, it looks like an easy victory for pineapples and perversion over good, old-fashioned cannibalism --unless somebody else votes, of course. 8:51:10 PM |
Showdown at the Lying Liars Corral; Plus, A New Feature: Fermented Irony I was idly channel surfing (the Emmys having disrupted my normal Futurama/Simpsons viewing) when I caught the Bill O'Reilly interview segment on "Dateline." I have to say that for a guy who thinks his mission in life is to publicly humiliate anyone he disagrees with, Bill is an awfully sensitive bully. (Some might even claim that Bill is getting paranoid, what with his insistence that his enemies will do ANYTHING, including moving Bill's childhood house out of Levittown, just to hurt his feelings.) But my favorites moments from the interview were: 1. Bill calling himself the "quintessential Irish warrior." 2. Bill explaining that since age two he's been on a crusade against unfairness. 3. Bill saying that he really belongs in the Old West, and that if this was Dodge City, there'd be a showdown with Al Franken, "and only one of us would be left standing." But let nobody say that Bill doesn't take ribbing well . . . or else he'll KILL you! With that, let me introduce a new running feature for the blog: Fermented Irony. Here's Scott's description: "In their day, straight reportage, grade school primers, or earnest entreaties to consumers to smoke more cigarettes. But after years of careful aging between slick covers, what was yesterday's quotidian grape Flavor-Aid has matured into a ripe postmodern vintage that will appeal to today's discerning irony connoisseur. With top notes of inadvertent self-parody and sweet undertones of fruity cluelessness, these fine brews, such as Chateaux de Photoplay 1958, will make excellent additions to your cellar or birdcage." This new feature is based on the fact that my basement contains several boxes of mildewing magazines (circa 1935-70) which I purchased at an estate sale for $10. I also have a collection of vintage textbooks designed to brainwash small children into washing their hands and drinking their milk; some rare Smurf and Bionic Man Christmas LPs; plus other junk that I need to justify owning. So, Fermented Irony. Stay tuned for the true-life drama of "Can Rock Hudson's Marriage be Saved?" Be watching for the story of who "Rugged Richard Simmons" prefers spend his time with. Prepare yourself for the erotic adventures of Betty, Tom, and Susan, and their encounter with creepy Mr. White and ride on "The Big Train." But for today, here's the Duke, from the back cover of American Legion Magazine (per their mags, the Legion existed, at least in the late '50s, to root out Commies, have conventions where they could meet hookers, and to smoke):  Not much we need to say about that one. But we like to think that if Wayne hadn't succombed to lung and stomach cancer, that he and Bill O'Reilly could have shared the pure pleasure of a smoke while they plotted how they'd shoot Al Franken and frame Jimmy Stewart for the crime. 8:02:08 PM |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)