News. Sports. Fun. Life. (And, it's pronounced muh-DARE-ee)

Welcome to
Thursday, July 02 2015 @ 11:32 AM CDT

View Printable Version

Senators Saying Stupid Things

“I know you feel that you’re a victim,” she said. “If you would be more careful, maybe you wouldn’t be victimized as frequently.”

The slut! Wearing that little thing, walking down that street, at that time of day?. She was asking for it!

Wait, what? That was spoken by Claire McCaskell, loathsome and corrupt Senator from Missouri, to the admittedly loathsome and creepy "Dr. Oz?"

Oh. That's completely, totally different. Because androphobia. After all, girrrrls rule, boys drool, right? Guys need to be careful. Women, on the other hand, don't. Especially with what they say, apparently.

With all the blather about the "war on women," how about a little attention to the ongoing, rampant "war on men?" Think of that the next time you watch a TV commercial where the dopey husband is set straight by the long-suffering, smarter-than-he-is wife . . . or daughter.

It's everywhere. You're soaking in it.

Check your prejudices.

And because people can be stupid: the second paragraph in this post is what is called sarcasm. It's a rhetorical technique. It can confuse the easily confusable. Sorry about that. Get smarter.
View Printable Version

Proposed new names for Washington's NFL football team

Since "Redskins" is doubleplusungood, I present this list, in no particular order:

10. Washington Lobbyists
9. Washington Beltway Bandits
8. Washington Bureaucrats
7. Washington Corruption
6. Washington One Percenters
5. Washington Dictators
4. Washington Apparatchiks
3. Washington Erasers
2. Washington Federales
1. Washington Elitists

Just a few ideas off the top of my head . . .
View Printable Version

The words of our President

Our first President, that is, not the person occupying the office at this moment. In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, dated April 28, 1788:
In answer to the observations you make on the probability of my election to the Presidency (knowing me as you do) I need only say, that it has no enticing charms, and no fascinating allurements for me. However, it might not be decent for me to say I would refuse to accept or even to speak much about an appointment, which may never take place: for in so doing, one might possibly incur the application of the moral resulting from that Fable, in which the Fox is represented as inveighing against the sourness of the grapes, because he could not reach them. All that it will be necessary to add, my dear Marquis, in order to show my decided predilection, is, that, (at my time of life and under my circumstances) the encreasing infirmities of nature and the growing love of retirement do not permit me to entertain a wish beyond that of living and dying an honest man on my own farm. Let those follow the pursuits of ambition and fame, who have a keener relish for them, or who may have more years, in store, for the enjoyment.

I have often said that the only person who can be trusted with the office of the President is somebody who manifestly, honestly, does not want it.

View Printable Version

Underpants Gnomes, or The Road to Hell

Those of us who watch this process--on climate change, health care, minimum wage, and a host of other issues, and despair of ever getting our fellows to think through the consequences of their good intentions now have a bit more scientific evidence behind us. From BBC comes a story titled The best way to win an argument. The article describes research led by University of Colorado researcher Philip Fernbach. I'll let the abstract of the paper written by Fernbach and his colleagues begin:

People often hold extreme political attitudes about complex policies. We hypothesized that people typically know less about such policies than they think they do (the illusion of explanatory depth) and that polarized attitudes are enabled by simplistic causal models. Asking people to explain policies in detail both undermined the illusion of explanatory depth and led to attitudes that were more moderate (Experiments 1 and 2). Although these effects occurred when people were asked to generate a mechanistic explanation, they did not occur when people were instead asked to enumerate reasons for their policy preferences (Experiment 2). Finally, generating mechanistic explanations reduced donations to relevant political advocacy groups (Experiment 3). The evidence suggests that people’s mistaken sense that they understand the causal processes underlying policies contributes to political polarization.

View Printable Version

ConHugeCo -- They CARE!

A parody (?) of every amorphous, vapid, feel-good multinational corporate advertisement you have ever seen in your life . . .
View Printable Version

"Let Them Eat Cake!"

I dunno why. That just kinda popped into my head tonight for some reason.
View Printable Version

Uncomfortable questions

Why exactly should voting be easier to do than buying a beer at a bar?

I mean, in theory, anyway, anybody who buys an alcoholic beverage at a bar has to show an ID to prove they're of age, right?
View Printable Version

What does the farmer say?

View Printable Version

North Dakota Weather Alert

Via Ace of Spades HQ. Language warning for the easily offended, although if you have to put up with this most recent manifestation of "global warming"/"climate change", swearing comes pretty naturally:
View Printable Version

How To Land In Your Boss's Doghouse For Christmas

Step 1: Have your Superstar Opinion Writer, who made his name with a ferocious defense of free speech when it was under attack in Canada (of all places!), pen a typically biting and satiric piece on Le Affair Robertson.
Look, I’m an effete foreigner who likes show tunes. My Broadway book was on a list of “Twelve Books Every Gay Man Should Read.” Andrew Sullivan said my beard was hot. Leonard Bernstein stuck his tongue in my mouth (long story). But I’m not interested in living in a world where we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells. If it’s a choice between having celebrity chefs who admit to having used the N-word in 1977 (or 1965, or 1948, or whenever the hell it was) and reality-show duck-hunters who quote Corinthians and Alec Baldwin bawling out some worthless paparazzo who’s doorstepping his family with a “homophobic” slur, or having all of them banished from public life and thousands upon millions more too cowed and craven to speak lest the same fate befall them, I’ll take the former any day.

Superstar Opinion Writer (you know, the ferocious defender of free speech) stooped to repeating two very old, very hoary vaudeville-style jokes as examples of speech that is simply no longer allowed in today's society. Well . . .

Step 2: Have the Editor for said Superstar Opinion Writer affect the vapours that Superstar Opinion Writer would stoop to such unseemly, uncivil, biting sarcasm, singling out, of course, those very jokes that Superstar Opinion Writer identified as using language which . . . er . . . causes the vapours among the vaporous. Horrors!
By way of criticizing speech, I’ll say that I found the derogatory language in this column, and especially the slur in its borrowed concluding joke, both puerile in its own right and disappointing coming from a writer of such talent.

Er, yeah. I'll take "missing the point" for 200, Alex? But wait! There's more!

Step 3: Superstar Opinion Writer replies, bluntly and directly, to his Editor:
It is a matter of some regret to me that my own editor at this publication does not regard this sort of thing as creepy and repellent rather than part of the vibrant tapestry of what he calls an “awakening to a greater civility”. I’m not inclined to euphemize intimidation and bullying as a lively exchange of ideas – “the use of speech to criticize other speech”, as Mr Steorts absurdly dignifies it. So do excuse me if I skip to the men’s room during his patronizing disquisition on the distinction between “state coercion” and “cultural coercion”. I’m well aware of that, thank you. In the early days of my free-speech battles in Canada, my friend Ezra Levant used a particular word to me: “de-normalize”. Our enemies didn’t particularly care whether they won in court. Whatever the verdict, they’d succeed in “de-normalizing” us — that’s to say, putting us beyond the pale of polite society and mainstream culture. “De-normalizing” is the business GLAAD and the other enforcers are in.

One of the greatest lines in Hollywood movie history was uttered by Clint Eastwood, in the movie Magnum Force.

"A Man's Got To Know His Limitations."

For Step 4, and to provide a counterexample to Dirty Harry's mordant observation, the Editor defensively doubles-down on his ill-considered rebuke of Superstar Opinion Writer:
The point is basic courtesy, Mark. It’s that you could mount your opposing argument without insulting people. Sure, you have the right to insult people, but I can’t sympathize much with someone who exercises that right just to prove it exists, which seems to have been part of your rhetorical strategy. What I would like to de-normalize is boorishness, whatever its content. I would do that by criticizing your manners, not by “indefinitely suspend[ing]” you, which would not be my decision anyway.

No, Mr. Editor, that is not the point at all. There's a term on the Internet for what you have just done: beclowning yourself.

Step 5, the denouement, in which we see that Bosses generally don't appreciate it when underlings beclown themselves on the Internet. True to this rock-solid principle, we see said Editor getting very publicly, directly, and thoroughly slapped down by his boss, the Publisher.
I believe Mark Steyn’s new column is a triumph, and wrote him on Friday to say that. The ensuing critical take on it by my colleague, Jason Steorts, left my head shaking.
. . .
The Left does not distinguish about the field of battle, culture, or state. Its goal is . . . the goal. If the desire is to shut you up, Duck Dynasty Commander or Mark Steyn or NR, they will find a way. This isn’t some academic exercise — it is a fight. So we must deal with reality, and not build artificial constructs.
. . .
Mark’s column referred to an old Bob Hope joke about whether a California gay-rights law would become compulsory, and the stink in the air is that — compulsion. For the left, the fight is about silencing critics and, even worse, forcing people and institutions to do those things — provide abortifacients, accept gay marriage — they find wrong, and sinful.
. . .
Fruits? Compulsory acceptance and even forced participation are the fruits the Left intends to harvest.

There's another old Internet saying for what just happened here: "That's gonna leave a mark."

Pun intended.