February 22, 2004 by s.z.

World O'Crap Bookclub Selection Bush Country : How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insaneby John Podhoretz (Author) Book Description In this rousing, persuasive, and hugely entertaining book, John Podhoretz says that George W. Bush has earned a place in the pantheon of great American chief executives---and shows in one amazing detail after another how Bush's success has driven some of his critics into a pathological frenzy. Yes, Podhoretz's thesis is that George is the bestest President since, oh, Abraham Lincoln, and while the liberals don't like him, it's just because they're jealous of him 'cause he's doing such a good job.  Oh, and they also hate him because they're anti-Semites who are mad that he invaded Iraq, since that was what Israel wanted.  Sure, when George took office he was an inexperienced doofus who owed everything to his family connections, but 9/11 changed everything, transforming lowly Cinderella into a beautiful Princess, riding in the coach of War President and wearing the glass slippers of statesmanship (one of which he lost somewhere).  The new president took a nation more obsessed with reality television than with the reality of international terrorism and girded it for the long struggle that lay ahead. He has presided over two major military campaigns to stunning success, initiated tax cuts whose dimensions have awed critics and fans alike, and brought his party into the twenty-first century. I can't write anything to top that.  Way to go, publicist for St. Martin's Press! Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly Podhoretz claims that the president is, in fact, an intelligent, savvy, principled and honest leader, who responded to the September 11 tragedy with inspiring courage and determination. Bush's presidency will be remembered as "one of the most consequential... in the nation's history." Podhoretz even claims that Bush is "the best presidential speaker" since Franklin Roosevelt. 'Cause he is, you know!  Everybody says so! (And by "everybody," I mean "nobody, not even his mother.") Publisher's Weekly indicates that Pod rebuts liberal libels, like "Bush is a moron," "Bush is a fanatic," "Bush is a liar," "Bush is Hitler," and "Bush is a cross-dressing pedophilic necrophiliac."  (Well, I just thought of that last charge, but I invite Pod to try to refute it.)  Personally, even without reading John's book, I am willing to accept that Bush isn't a moron, since he does have an IQ above 75 (it's at least 90).  And Bush doesn't care enough to be a fanatic, he merely aligns himself with fanatics for political purposes.  And while the President's grandfather reportedly had secret business dealings with the Nazis, there is no evidence (except for classified CIA files) that George W. is what resulted with a plan to clone Adolf went awry when scientists removed too many stem cells.  But I don't know how Pod can defend George on the "liar" charge, what with all the lying. Booklist offers more about what the book covers: From Booklist In this riposte to Bush bashers, New York Post columnist Podhoretz takes two tacks: ridiculing the denigrators of Dubya and extolling him as a great president. Naturally, the author's red-meat sections will entertain aggrieved Bush supporters, as Podhoretz runs with journalists' or politicians' quotations to the effect that Bush is stupid, illiterate, a ventriloquist's dummy for the oil industry, too religious, out to destroy the welfare state, and a lying liar who tells lies, to paraphrase a certain apoplectic comedian. These and other accusations Podhoretz slams under chapter headings as "crazy liberal ideas" and, for good measure, questions Bush critics' logic or even mental condition. Because you'd have to be crazy not to love this President! Let's hear a couple of Customer Comments: Great read, February 20, 2004  Reviewer: A reader from Charlotte, NC USA This book takes the liberal myths and logically demolishes them one by one. Another reviewer asked "I mean, who honestly can say with a straight face that Bush is a decent without breaking into unstoppable fits of laughter?" I think the answer is that there are about 3000 people who died on 9/11 who can say that Bush is decent without laughing - along with a bunch more of us. So, Bush is apparently getting great, non-laughing  reviews among the dead -- which would explain that necrophilia. And here's a another reviewer who gives the book 5 stars, even though it won't be released until Monday: Response to "Witless Celebrity Bio.", February 18, 2004  Reviewer: A reader from Powder Springs, Georgia USA I doubt that the author of this witless diatribe ever cast a vote for George W. Bush or any other Republican candidate for any office whatsoever. Oh, I bet that Podhoretz has voted once of twice, and he proably voted Republican on those occasions. These intemperate comments could come only from one of the fanatic haters on the far left wing of the Democratic Party.  John Podhoretz is a "preposterous clown," "one of those hard core propagandists who sees a chance to make a quick buck."   If you can't answer your opponents arguments denigrate the man. It's called the ad hominim falacy - a favorite debating technique of the current crop of Democratic candidates and pundits. "The only point here is to cash in on the rubes out there --"  This statement alone gives the author away as a card carrying member of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Who else would express such utter contempt for the average citizen? Personally, I think that the average citizen has better uses for his money than buying a book by John Podhoretz -- and better sense than to buy it, no matter how much money he has.  But as my mother always said, "Rube is as rube does," so we'll see who springs $25 for a copy of this book.  My guess: nobody, since it will be remaindered any day now; by summer, various right-wing foundations will be giving out points (redeemable for trips to the Reagan ranch) if you'll just take a copy of it.  But if might be worth a read, since it sounds like the funniest political humor book since Ann Coulter's latest book Lese Majesty: How Max Cleland Took Payment From the Commies To Blow Off His Own Limbs In Order to Someday Make George Bush Look Bad. 11:27:34 PM

comment [] trackback []

"Does catty gossip help women snare a mate?" Sadly, no!  (Phrase used with permission of Sadly, No! enterprises, if you consider "permission" to mean "we don't think he'd come to America just to sue us"). Anyway, here's part of the news story which posed this question (funny spelling due to the fact that it's an Australian news story -- I could have used a U.S. or Canadian item about this scientific study, but I really liked this headline): Women who are ovulating find other women less attractive, says Canadian research. But not everyone is convinced this means women put down other women's attractiveness as part of a competition for men. Psychologist Dr Maryanne Fisher of York University in Toronto reported her research in the Royal Society's journal Biology Letters. [snip] The study assumed one potential strategy of women competing for males was to make rivals appear inferior, a phenomenon Fisher called derogation. "It is probable that women compete in terms of attractiveness since this is one of the primary criteria used by men when selecting mates," she wrote. "Furthermore, because hormones influence the mate-selection process, they may also mediate competition." The experiment involved asking 57 female and 47 male university students to say how attractive a set of females and male faces were, shown as random photographs on a laptop computer. Fisher also asked the women which part of their ovulatory cycle they were in. Fisher excluded homosexual and pregnant students from the study, as well as those who had recently used oral or intravenous contraceptives, antidepressants, or had missed ovulatory cycles. "During periods of high oestrogen, competition, and hence derogation, increased, as evidence by lower ratings of female facial attractiveness. By contrast, oestrogen levels did not significantly affect ratings of male faces," reported Fisher. She argued that while the theory of female competition was "controversial", her findings suggested a potential competitive process. While I don't have any expertise in sociology, biology, or any of them other -ologies, Rush Limbaugh told me it doesn't matter, as long as I'm loud and obnoxious.  So, I say that Dr. Fisher is WRONG in her conclusions about what her study means.  Dr. Fisher claims that because women in the fertile part of their cycle gave other women lower "attractiveness" ratings, it means that the women were dissing the competition in order to snare men for sex on the days they could get pregnant.  However, since the women in the study presumably weren't subconsciously interested in getting having children with Dr. Fisher, and didn't spontaneously say nasty things about the looks of other women (they were asked to provide opinions, which they did), the theory doesn't work, per me. No, I'd say that what Dr. Fisher's study shows is that Mother Nature doesn't want women having lesbian experiences during their fertile days, which is why other women don't look all that attractive to them then.  Biology seems to be telling women, "If you're going to be bi-sexual, limit it to when you aren't ovulating," biology being quite practical about these things. I'd also like to say that if I tell a man, "You know, that Jennifer Lopez isn't really all that hot, what with her big butt and all," it's not going to enhance my mating possibilities in the slightest, since it's very unlikely he's then going to think, "You know, she's right -- J.Lo really is actually quite plain, and therefore unworthy of my sperm ... but that S.Z. now seems quite beddable, which I never noticed before."  And besides, none of the men I know has a shot at mating with Jennifer Lopez in the first place.  6:48:51 PM

comment [] trackback []

Rush Helps a Crushed Student Let's examine how Rush advised a crushed conservative student by reviewing this transcript entitled Dealing With Feminazi Professor 101 (Rush's title, not mine): CALLER: I am a 21-year-old college student. I go to Northern Illinois University, and I'm taking a class in sociology called marriage, family, and social change. And the class I'm in, the professor is widely biased, liberal feminazi. The first day of class she wrote up on the board, "there is no single definition of marriage," and underlined it. RUSH: Wait, when was this first day of class? CALLER: This first day was class was around August 27th. I'm sorry, January 15th. RUSH: January - okay, so just within the past okay, a month ago, a little over a month ago? CALLER: Yeah, exactly. RUSH: "There is no single definition of marriage," a feminazi professor wrote this and underlined it on the blackboard. Wow, in a class on "Marriage, Family, and Social Change," the teacher wrote that on the blackboard on the first day of class.  What a feminazi!  For even though Merriam-Webster's dictionary offers several entries for marriage (marriage, celestial marriage, common-law marriage, marriage of convenience, mixed marriage, open marriage, proxy marriage, and shotgun marriage) each with their own definition ("marriage" itself has 3), what the bitch should be teaching her students is: "Marriage is a great institution -- but who wants to live in an institution?" -- Groucho Marx.  Anyway, back to the Socratic dialogue between "Caller" and "Rush." CALLER: Yeah, exactly. She's been teaching this, I took the class, it was supposed to be on marriage and everything she says has her liberal slant on it and since that day she's gone on to promote gay marriage and actually break down your conservative marriage between a man and a woman. I mean she constantly talks about the domestic abuse and bashing men and all this for just her conservative normal definition of marriage while trying to promote gay marriage. RUSH: Is this feminazi married? CALLER: No. Of course not. RUSH: Of course not, yeah. CALLER: She made a point of saying on the first day, don't call me Mrs., I'll never be a Mrs. my whole life. RUSH: Oh, so we've got an angry babe. CALLER: Oh, yeah. RUSH: This woman has some serious trauma in her past, there’s no question, that she has not yet dealt with. CALLER: Right. RUSH: And she is taking her trauma out on you. This is one of the insights which Rush gained from all that expensive therapy he got at the rehab ranch.  He's learned that when you spew out negativity, it means that you have serious trauma in your past.  The feminazi probably was stood up by her date for the senior prom.  Rush presumably was alternately overprotected and belittled by the mother he both worships and despises, while his cold and aloof father pretended that David was an only child. Let's hear more of Rush's analysis of the professor: RUSH: [T]his feminazi instructor who has got all this trauma in her past and taking it out on you. What she's doing is burdening you with her shame. She's got some shame because the trauma that's happened to her in her life, and she's dumping it on you, and it's not yours.   CALLER: Right. RUSH: Whatever happened to her in her life is not your shame or anybody else's in that class, and it ought not be subject matter for discussion disguised as a curriculum, but that's exactly what it is. I will guarantee you that's what it is. When this woman first announces I will never be a Mrs., don't call me a Mrs. and then starts talking about what predators men are in traditional marriages I can guarantee you what this woman's past is. CALLER: Right.   [snip] RUSH: Well, you're dealing with an arrogant elitist as well and that attitude is designed to cover up for the shame she feels over whatever this trauma is. I'll guarantee you, she probably has a pet German shepherd that's her best friend. You know what Rush means by that last remark, don't you: that any woman who would talk about same-sex marriage and domestic abuse in marriage, and who would ask to be addressed as Ms. is undoubtedly doing kinky things with German shepherds.  It just follows.  Anyway, the kid explains that he's the only student out of a class of 40 who will argue with the prof (because he's the only Rush fan in the group), but he's having a hard time convincing her that she's wrong because she's experienced and knowledgeable about the subject, while the kid only knows that she keeps mentioning things he doesn't believe in.  (Just that day he told her, "You know, everything you're presenting as fact contradicts everything that I believe as fact, so how can I argue with that when you as a professor, you're supposed to be teaching me, so it's impossible."  To which the professor presumably told him, "Then stop arguing, dickweed.") Rush says that the student's little story "illustrates a larger reality" which Rush read about in some column at TechCentral, by some guy (our guess: Edward Feser, whom we mentioned a couple of days ago).  And that larger reality is that if you look at the curriculum of any major university, you can translate it to "we are here to mold, promote, and indoctrinate liberalism."  That is, you can translate it that way if you are burdening the university with your shame from being the only college dropout in a family of lawyers. But Rush tells the kid that should stand up for what he believes, because Rush did it once, and he got fired.  (But only because the "pure pathological liar" whom Rush told off for "lording over me what better things you know and what more you know" was the pet of the station manager.)  And the point of Rush's inspiring anecdote  is that being verbally abusive is the way to get respect: The more you do this and the more you become accustomed to it, the more respect that you will get. You may never see it; you may never see the signs of it; you may never have somebody tell you they respect you, but they'll have far more respect for you. They may even be, I don't want to say the word intimidated, but they're not going to think you're a pushover and a softy if he stand up for it and they may tease you, but they're not going to push you around or any of that sort of thing. If they do make fun of you it's only because you're making them nervous. When somebody makes fun of you they're telling you more about who they are. See, even though people don't SAY they respect Rush, and they don't look like they respect him, and they even make fun of him, it only means that they respect him.  Trust him on that.  Oh, and everything they say bounces off of him and sticks to them.  That's what the shrink told him in rehab. The kid asks for help in putting this feminazi in her place, because every time he tells her that's she wrong about everything (and is also going to hell), she just comes up with "a lot of, you know, facts and book facts and stuff like that" (the bitch!)  But since the caller can't give Rush any examples of anything which the prof said that might be rebuttable, Rush tells him to go do some research on the subject, and to pick up some book learning of his own.  He advises the caller to stop looking for shortcuts, and to stop expecting Rush to fight his battles for him.  But in the end, "it's not just statistics and facts or statistics that win arguments, it's oftentimes passion and the art of persuasion and, you know, almost a stubborn devotion to your passionate belief." For Rush has no facts at all, but because he's stubbornly passionate about stuff, his listeners THINK he's right.  And that's all that matters.   But I doubt Rush actually helped the kid, who is going to have to marry a man now, since Rush didn't give him any facts about why he shouldn't. 3:26:42 AM

comment [] trackback []

Spot Bush, R.I.P. President Bush's dog Spot, the 15-year-old English springer spaniel who had remained eager to please despite increasing health troubles, died on Saturday. [snip] Mrs. Bush has often said that - especially with Bushes' two daughters off at college - talking about and playing with the dogs and the family's much more reclusive cat, Willy, make up a significant portion of the First Couple's entertainment. But let's not discuss what makes up a significant portion of the Bush twins' entertainment these days. And maybe it's just me, but as much as I enjoy playing with my pets, talking about them just isn't that big a source of entertainment in my life (for me or the people around me).  I guess that's why I'm not President. 12:16:07 AM