IS, UH, REFORMED. I was going to let this one go. I really was.
Even though Mrs. CP abruptly announced to me that she could no longer
support Ohio State football even if it was one of the abiding
sentimental legacies of my late mother. I understood her:
In Saturday’s game against Navy, [Ohio
State quarterback] Terrelle Pryor put the word “Vick” on his eye black
(”Mika” is his sister’s nickname). As far as I know, he still had
it on in the second half. He had a very questionable quote after
the game, saying “Not everybody’s the perfect person in the
world. I mean everyone kills people, murders people, steals from
you, steals from me, whatever. I think that people need a second
chance, and I’ve always looked up to Mike Vick, and I always will.”
She was further upset by early reporting that OSU Coach Jim Tressel's
first response was evasive and even flippant. I looked up the record
and Tressel seemed more protective and guarded than casual:
He's a kid, but he had to perhaps expect that this could be
Tressel: I think that's
probably -- you would think, but on the other hand, Terrelle's of the
opinion that, you know what, I'm not any big deal, I haven't done
anything, and like anything else, whether it was a coverage read or a
defensive guy not playing a gap or whatever, these are all moments that
we can learn from, but again, I guess I would refer back to the fact
that you have -- you would have to know him the way I know him to
understand that he didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, to be
insensitive to something that someone feels strongly about, that's just
If there's ever anyone that feels bad about something or downtrodden
about something, he's the first one there with his arms around them,
that's just the way he is. So as they say, it is what it is and you
learn from what you learn from and it's -- to go back to your original
question, I don't know the answer to that because if someone came in
and wanted to put "Mom" on their eye patch or their wrist, I've got a
tough time questioning that.
And so that's part of life and I'm sure Terrelle -- he's one of those
guys that he feels terrible about anything that's not just right. And I
know he doesn't feel good that that disappointed someone. And his
intention would never be to make anyone disappointed about something
and that's just his nature and we all sometimes miss the mark, but as I
say, teachable, learnable moment.
Well, "Mom" and "Mika Vick" aren't exactly the same kind of entry on an
eyepatch, but what a coach says in public and what he says to his team
in private can be two different things, and I also don't believe that
Terrrelle Pryor is actually endorsing killing people or killing dogs.
He took plenty of heat for what he said in Columbus, and he's taking
plenty of heat for it from Mrs. CP. Michael Vick is nobody to look up to. Who would hide this fact from a dumb, naive kid? But it's easy enough to give the kid a second chance, at least until he smashes his girlfriend's face or beats his dog to death.
As I said. I was going to let it go. Until I read Michael Wilbon's
column. Which rubbed me the wrong way. A lot. Here
The folks in the Buckeye State like it
when Terrelle Pryor is throwing or running for touchdowns, when he's
playing quarterback for them. But if
he feels something they don't feel, if he keeps his own opinions and
not theirs, specifically on the subject of Michael Vick, they don't
like the 20-year-old college sophomore so much. Some of them
dislike Pryor intensely because he likes Vick and had the nerve to say
so publicly by putting "Vick" on an eye-black strip during Saturday's
game. You can read the columns, the Buckeye message boards and see how
many think he's dumb, or stupid, or a disgrace to his team and his
This is the world we live in, where
it's not enough to have your own feelings; you have to pound everybody
else until they believe exactly what you do. It's too bad Pryor isn't
eloquent enough to express himself any better than he did following
Saturday's game, when he said in defense of supporting Vick,
"Not everybody is the perfect person in the world. Everyone does ...
kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me. I just
feel that people need to give him a chance."
It's an almost incoherent defense,
really, the suggestion that "everybody murders or steals." Then again,
we're talking about a college sophomore who, not surprisingly, plays
football better than he speaks. I deal with enough college students,
not all of them athletes, who increasingly are numbingly inarticulate,
which isn't the same thing as being stupid. While Pryor ought to be
able to express himself with a little more clarity, he also ought to be
able to like or dislike pretty much whomever he wants without having
outrage directed his way.
When Pryor walks onto a football field or into a college classroom,
where disagreement was encouraged once upon a time, and declares how
much he likes Vick, groupthink (or more precisely, nothink) kicks in. Fans have taken the partisan politics of
Washington to other areas and overrun the internet with pitchforks.
Heaven forbid a player or coach expresses an opinion or anything that
anyone anywhere disagrees with. If Pryor weren't so talented,
well, they might even call for him to be benched this week against
What Pryor said that isn't offensive,
to me anyway, is "I always looked up to Mike Vick and I always will
because I still think he is one of the best quarterbacks." People want
to pass a law now making it illegal to say anything that isn't hateful
about Michael Vick? Last I checked, he served nearly two years in
prison for his crimes. Move on.
The level of intolerance that people
so boldly express now is stunning and even worse, quietly accepted.
Same thing was evident in Kentucky where John Calipari sent a team
jersey to President Obama (which he filmed for his Facebook page) and
came under such heat for it that the post had to be deleted. Don't think for a minute that race under
the guise of conservatism has nothing to do with this.
I've never been a Mike Vick fan, particularly, and thought he deserved
jail time for his heinous crimes. But
the sanctimonious criticism directed at anybody who suggests that Vick
should have a second chance or that people should simply let him be,
has become ugly. And if young Pryor is bold enough to take the heat for
simply speaking his mind, even if the sentiment is unpopular, some of
us ought to be bold enough to stand with him. [boldface added]
Michael Wilbon should know better than to conflate morality with
"feelings." Before he went to Northwestern University's School of
Journalism, Wilbon attended St. Ignatius Prep, where, presumably, he
gained an education in Christian moral doctrine. His insistence on
further confusing moral outrage with political and racial prejudice is
downright repellent. There's a whole catalogue of hypocrisies he's
committed here, and I am
going to call him on them.
Things Wilbon is dissimulating about, to the detriment of those he pretends to care about:
1. Professional athletes have to care what people think of
them. Like all entertainers. If he cares about Terrelle Pryor, he
should make it clear that making enemies in the audience is a very bad
idea, economically and professionally.
2. "It's too bad Pryor isn't eloquent enough to express himself any
better than he did following Saturday's game." Too bad? How about
tragic, pitiful, fatal? Yes, people are inclined to be forgiving about
the missteps of youth, but we're not exactly innocent about the
implications of what young people say anymore. Hell, the whole popular
culture is designed to rub old noses in the grime of youthful
relativism, isn't it? You can expect all you want that post-adolescent
parents and grandparents will accept whatever whims young idiots have
latched onto for the moment, but you cannot demand that we accept what
we regard as unacceptable because the faces who spit in ours are young,
unmarked, and education free. In case Wilbon can't see it, let me make
it clear for him. People are entirely free to write off Terrelle Pryor
as a person of no interest without even trying to "pound everybody else
until they believe exactly what you do."
3. "I deal with enough college students, not all of them athletes, who
increasingly are numbingly inarticulate, which isn't the same thing as
being stupid." Excuse me? Not the same thing? Ever heard the
phrase "distinction without a difference"? Is that what they taught you
at St. Ignatius and Northwestern? That having a moral conviction, a
story, some demonstrable facts were all that mattered? That if you
couldn't find some way to extract them from your skull in a form
understandable by other people they were still Pulitzer worthy?
4. "What Pryor said that isn't offensive, to me anyway, is 'I always
looked up to Mike Vick and I always will because I still think he is
one of the best quarterbacks.'" I'll come back to this one.
5. "The level of intolerance that people so boldly express now is
stunning and even worse, quietly accepted." Intolerance has to do with
things like fashion, hygiene, and manners. It's an idiotic word when
you apply it to to matters of fundamental human behavior. Can I be
"tolerant" of wifebeating? Pedophilia? Killing? Animal cruelty? As long
as they act sorry afterwards? Sorry, Michael. (Whichever one answers...)
6. "Don't think for a minute that race under the guise of conservatism
has nothing to do with this." I'll come back to this one, too.
7. "But the sanctimonious criticism directed at anybody who suggests
that Vick should have a second chance or that people should simply let
him be, has become ugly. And if young Pryor is bold enough to take the
heat for simply speaking his mind, even if the sentiment is unpopular,
some of us ought to be bold enough to stand with him." By all means
stand with him. As long as you're still standing with him when his
career goes nowhere and he's tending bar in Dublin, Ohio, 25 dreary
improverished years from now.
But you won't be there, will you Michael Wilbon? You're just using Terrelle Pryor for your own
expedient political purposes. Because there are a whole lot of things
you'd be more forthcoming about if you really cared about Terrelle, or
race, or young people, or even all your political ideals. But you don't
really care about those things. You're just another hypocritical
liberal mass media parasite.
Name calling? Yup. But I can prove it all. You make your living in and
from the world of professional sports. You know -- not kidding, you KNOW -- that the mysterious
difference between the dazzling college stars who fizzle in the pros
and the Hall of Fame all stars in every professional sport is almost
always disciplined intelligence, an ability to work as hard and
productively at the mental aspects of the game as the physical. You
also know that reading, writing, and 'rithmetic figure strongly in this
hidden part of the excellence equation. No, they don't have to be scholars, but being a
person with the attributes of a scholar is indispensable.
That's why the speeches at the Hall of Fame inductions are usually so
moving. Outfielders, point guards, goalies, offensive linemen, and
murderous linebackers step up to that podium and wow us because they
have a sense of history, personal humility, emotional memory, family,
language, and character that makes them momentarily eloquent and
usually overcome. Illiterate, narcissistic psychopaths need not apply.
When brutes do creep into the mix on the basis of pure physical skills,
they are, well, embarrassments, and they may have made fortunes but
they don't rest comfortably in the eternity of the game. Yeah, it's
probable that O.J. Simpson was
the greatest NFL running back who ever lived, better than Brown,
Sayers, and Payton. But whose story would you rather repeat to your
children? And would you still defend Terrelle Pryor if he put O.J. on
his eyeblack because he was "the greatest back ever"?
But you choose to defend stupidity on behalf of stardom and high draft
status while overlooking the one supreme service you could provide to the people of your
race you are so hypersensitive about. You could, not to put too fine
point on it, tell young people the truth. What's that?
What IS that, kemo sabe?
Now hear MY RACIAL RAGE.
I understand you pitched a one-hitter when you were a high-schooler,
Michael. Did you ever think you were going to be in the White Sox
starting rotation? No? Why not?
Because you weren't an idiot.
At St. Ignatius you also paid attention in math class and you knew that
there are only about 10,000 jobs in professional baseball, most of
which pay almost nothing. Compared to jobs for smart well educated
people, which amount to maybe 50
million. Which are far FAR greater odds than any that
exist for making a living at professional basketball. How many NBA
jobs? 500? If you care as you say you do, how can you not stump the
country, night and day, imploring kids to learn everything they can in
school, as opposed to offhandedly reporting that college students of
all kinds are "numbingly inarticulate"? Oh. That's right. You have a
career to look after, WAPO savant...
YOU MAKE ME COMPLETELY SICK. The only hope for young people who have
athletic talent and less than stellar academic talent is to find a
sport in which they might earn a scholarship for the purpose of getting
a real education that could
lead to a job, graduate school, or other
knowledge-based opportunity. Swimming, diving, gymnastics, wrestling,
soccer, baseball, volleyball, lacrosse, etc, etc. Which mean run like
hell from both basketball and football, the worst dead ends in terms of
college opportunity there are. Less than one percent make the pros. The
other 99 percent have no time to go to class and finish as 7-11 clerks
with lifelong physical disabilities well after they've had their 48
minutes on national TV.
What do YOU do? You comment in your cultured, sanctimonious way about
only the most high visibility sports, and you make excuses for the
total illiterates who are exploited by the American collegiate athletic
system and discarded afterwards, except for the celebrated one percent
who get to be privileged thugs, given endless second chances, by you,
in the professional marketplace. Because they give you something to
talk about. And patronize the rest of us about. On air. Screw you.
Terrelle Pryor will be a non-story in the professional ranks. He's an
athlete. But he's as doomed as Michael Vick. Whose inexplicable
failure to be a great NFL quarterback is easily explicated by the fact
that he's -- barring some unlikely intervention by wise, stern men who care -- a
fantastically athletic but narcissistic, semi-literate, psychopathic
punk Just like Vince Young. He'll never look
like a living statue at the Canton induction ceremony, applauded by his
physician, professorial, and otherwise professional children and his beloved wife of 30 or 40
years. Take my bet: Vick (and Pryor after
him if the cycle isn't broken) will spend more time in prison than
delivering motivational speeches. Just
Still objecting, Wilbon? What would you tell Terrelle in private if you
weren't defending him from the
fancied army of intolerant white people
who actually have moral standards? You'd tell him to grow up. You'd
tell him to get an education. Like YOU did. You'd tell him to watch and learn from
the dignity of men like Jamie Dukes.
You should have seen his lesson on NFL
Gameday Scoreboard to his co-hosts about being "the
face of the franchise." Impressive.
Yeah, I know who he is. He
puts you to shame in terms
of pure character stature, Wilbon. Even if he didn't go to private
Catholic school. He's actually learned
something from his Florida State education.
Being a man isn't about race. It's about, uh, well, being a man.
Something Terrelle Pryor will never learn if he reads your columns.
Top points for the first person who can document the tongue lashing
Michael Vick administered to Terrelle Pryor for having picked the
wrong NFL idol... and extra credit for the substitute idols he
suggested to the very fine young man who worships the ground he walks
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Pres pays his token
ORDINARY GOODNESS. Was Obama at
Ground Zero on this first anniversary of 9/11 to occur during his
presidency? No. But he showed up at the Pentagon and registered his
usual dry-eyed vote, "Present."
Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and
members of the Armed Forces, fellow Americans, family and friends of
those that we lost this day -- Michelle and I are deeply humbled to be
Eight Septembers have come and gone. Nearly 3,000 days have
passed -- almost one for each of those taken from us. But no
turning of the seasons can diminish the pain and the loss of that
day. No passage of time and no dark skies can ever dull the
meaning of this moment.
So on this solemn day, at this sacred hour, once more we pause.
Once more we pray -- as a nation and as a people; in city streets where
our two towers were turned to ashes and dust; in a quiet field where a
plane fell from the sky; and here, where a single stone of this
building is still blackened by the fires.
We remember with reverence the lives we lost. We read their
names. We press their photos to our hearts. And on this day
that marks their death, we recall the beauty and meaning of their
lives; men and women and children of every color and every creed, from
across our nation and from more than 100 others. They were
innocent. Harming no one, they went about their daily
lives. Gone in a horrible instant, they now "dwell in the House
of the Lord forever."
We honor all those who gave their lives so that others might live, and
all the survivors who battled burns and wounds and helped each other
rebuild their lives; men and women who gave life to that most simple of
rules: I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
We pay tribute to the service of a new generation -- young Americans
raised in a time of peace and plenty who saw their nation in its hour
of need and said, "I choose to serve"; "I will do my part." And
once more we grieve. For you and your families, no words can ease
the ache of your heart. No deeds can fill the empty places in
your homes. But on this day and all that follow, you may find
solace in the memory of those you loved, and know that you have the
unending support of the American people.
Scripture teaches us a hard truth. The mountains may fall and the
earth may give way; the flesh and the heart may fail. But after
all our suffering, God and grace will "restore you and make you strong,
firm and steadfast." So it is -- so it has been for these
families. So it must be for our nation.
Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric
act and who plot against us still. In defense of our nation we
will never waver; in pursuit of al Qaeda and its extremist allies, we
will never falter.
Let us renew our commitment to all those who serve in our defense --
our courageous men and women in uniform and their families and all
those who protect us here at home. Mindful that the work of
protecting America is never finished, we will do everything in our
power to keep America safe.
Let us renew the true spirit of that
day. Not the human capacity for evil, but the human capacity for
good. Not the desire to destroy, but the impulse to save, and to
serve, and to build. On this first National Day of Service and
Remembrance, we can summon once more that ordinary goodness of America
-- to serve our communities, to strengthen our country, and to better
Most of all, on a day when others sought to sap our confidence, let us
renew our common purpose. Let us remember how we came together as
one nation, as one people, as Americans, united not only in our grief,
but in our resolve to stand with one another, to stand up for the
country we all love.
This may be the greatest lesson of this day, the strongest rebuke to
those who attacked us, the highest tribute to those taken from us --
that such sense of purpose need not be a fleeting moment. It can
be a lasting virtue.
For through their own lives –- and through you, the loved ones that
they left behind –- the men and women who lost their lives eight years
ago today leave a legacy that still shines brightly in the darkness,
and that calls on all of us to be strong and firm and united.
That is our calling today and in all the Septembers still to come.
May God bless you and comfort you. And may God bless the United
States of America. (Applause.)
Um. Yeah. Empty, arid words and the Great Manipulator's resort to
And I have to say one nasty thing. Those of you who lost family on 9/11
and signed the same petition Van Jones did -- you have forfeited my
sympathy. Sorry. That's just the way it is.
For all the rest there is still the inconsolable sadness that only
those who live every day with deep loss can ever understand.
Let us defend this republic against ALL who who would do it in.
ME. So. On a post
I didn't even write, Steve from Canada decided to unload on
InstaPunk.com in half a dozen comments on some Lost Weekend sort of night.
That's okay. We don't charge rent for our Comments section. But
something happened between him and another commenter that we have to
respond to. First, here's a concatenation of multiple "Steve" comments:
has never produced a Mozart nor a Beethoven.
Precision Marine drill with bagpipes still makes me tear up. Seriously,
Marines rock. Ask any Canadian grunt in Afghanistan...
I will grant you one mulligan -- Hendrix. But that's it.
Punk? Fucking give me a break! I lived trough the 1970s same as you,
'cept I wasn't permanently PCP brain-fucked to the point where I ever
-- EVER -- thought that punk culture was anything other than the nadir
(until now) of US decline. Punk by definition is ugly, anti-Christian
and just plain irrelevant to anyone who gives a shit about 6,000 years
You know what pisses me off?
It's like having a perfect older
brother who would always bail you out when you made stupid kid mistakes.
All that swept away with one election. You fucking monumenatally
egostically stupid Americans elected a communist immediately after
waging a 50 year cold war against communism.
It's like dieting -- a year of watching calories is undone by a
month-long cake binge. Your 200 years has yielded: a population even
Canadians are disgusted by. Fuck you and your martial culture!
Let's see you take over Southern Alberta. You'd get 100 feet and
there'd be a military cease-and-desist. We really might as well have
10th century Rome as a "threat".
Thanks to you fucktards I've had to buy new shotgun shells, sight in
the old deer rifle, wire the 163 year old house for a generator, and
set in provisions.
And we aren't going to fight any more
wars for you. Find us in the mountains and the villages, one by
Losers. Fuck you. ..
While we're in the mood, there is one
IP contributor who loves to make assholish remarks about Canadians.
Last week: two more dead. US
Fuck you, TruePunk. Fuck you up
the arsehole with a gun barrel. [boldface
Next, here's the rebuttal from our own "Billy Oblivion," who's as
certain in his own way as Steve is in his:
Dude, back off on the Meth a bit.
Seriously, life lasts longer when you don't do that shit.
Punk wasn't any more anti-christian than anything else in the late 70s
and early 80s. I've known a lot of punks of various kinds, and most of
them had personal relationships with religions that gave them good
reason for their attitudes. Some were still very strong in their
beliefs in god, some weren't. And given how the major churches in
America were behaving (RCs covering up child sexual abuse for example,
and the rise of the Send Me Your Money mega churches), they (the
churches) deserved every bit of the abuse they got...
I've been a fairly hard core punk/Deathrock type (hung out with a lot
of Goths in the 90s) since highschool and while yes, there is a strong
currently of anti-religion in Punk, it goes right along with the rest
of the anti-authoritarianism and nihilism that was a product of and a
reaction to 70 something years of progressive politics in American and
Western Europe (1900s-1970s). I can't find the article(s) now, but
there was some stuff published that indicated a deliberate attempt by
socialist/communist organizers in England to co-opt the punk "movement"
there. Obviously it had much more success there (Crass, Sub-Hum-Ans (as
opposed to the Canadian Subhumans, which was a totally different band)
for example had ardent and obvious left wing politics. But then Britain
always was further left than the US.
American *has* produced the likes of Mozart's and Beethovens in terms
of talent, but our cultural tastes ran along very, very different
lines. In the US we didn't (until FDR) have a real patronage system, so
talent had to find popular acclaim to keep working, not just critical
acclaim or the pleasure of one man.
Europe produced Bach and Brahms.
America produced Johnny Coltrane, Miles Davis, Fats Domino, Charlie
Parker and Duke Ellington. And the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo.
Canada is really screwy. Your snipers rock, your Royal Engineers
impressed the hell out of my father in Korea (which takes a lot. He was
a fairly tough guy). It's disappointing that your soldiers aren't as
well respected inside you country. And your "Human Rights Commission"
needs to be put down with prejudice (BTW, feel free to name 8 or 10
American departments, commissions, councils or whatever that also need
a single .22 shot to the back of the head). [boldface added]
Which is where I, TruePunk, have to step in. First of all, thank you,
Steve, for reminding everyone of the truly outstanding posts InstaPunk
has done about Canada (1,
which I also didn't write. Their deep-down goodness and truth
speaks for itself and requires no additional rhetoric from yours truly.
Second, I have to note the schizophrenia of the "phrenzied" abuse of
the U.S. in the context of this extraordinary confession: "It's like
having a perfect older brother who would always bail you out when you
made stupid kid mistakes." Is that so? Yeah, we are the older brother
and, as such, we've been everywhere and faced everything important
before you, almost always with an eye out for your safety as the
resident shrimp, and most of your accusations are as easily dismissible
as the tantrums they are. You hate us, you love us, understood. We
really don't care. When push comes to shove, we'll see to it that
nothing awful happens to you. Even if we give you noogies afterwards
for inconveniencing us.
And I don't care at all about your debate with Billy over the origins
of punk. At all. Or your childish tirade about me, TruePunk. Fine. Have
at it. If you ever do piss me off, look out. I'll tear you a new one
faster than you can churn out 50 new deranged comments. Right now, I
don't care to.
BUT. There's an exchange between Steve and Billy that I can't let pass
America has never produced a Mozart nor a Beethoven.
Billy: Europe produced Bach
America produced Johnny Coltrane, Miles Davis, Fats Domino, Charlie
Parker and Duke Ellington. And the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo.
What an unmitigated load of noisome crap on both sides.
You're both assholes, for different but complementary reasons. I'll
demonstrate why one at a time.
Steve's assertion is meaningless. Nobody but Austria ever produced a
Mozart. Nobody but Germany ever produced a Beethoven (or Bach). Nobody
but Britain ever produced a Turner, Shakespeare or Dickens.
Nobody but Poland ever produced a Chopin. Nobody but Italy ever
produced a Michelangelo, da Vinci, or Puccini. Nobody but France ever
produced a Debussy, Satie, Piaf, or Voltaire. Nobody but the Russians
ever produced a Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, or Tolstoy. Nobody but Spain
ever produced a Goya, el Greco, or Gaudi. Nobody but Norway...
Are you starting to get it yet? Genius is always unique. But, by the
way, nobody but Canada ever produced... uh, Gordon Lightfoot and Celine
Dion? The Mozart/Beethoven argument hardly qualifies Canada as a
superior to the United States.
Phooey. Steve, you're a fool.
Which leads me to Billy Oblivion's response, which is, honestly, the
real reason I'm responding to such duelling nonsense at all.
"Johnny Coltrane, Miles Davis, Fats Domino, Charlie
Parker and Duke Ellington." Unhhh. So
tired of this pretentious bullshit. Soooo
Yeah. Only a tiny handful of black musicians are available to stake
America's claim to a contribution to the music world. What
fucking politically correct horseshit.
America's contribution to the world of music is so huge it surpasses,
by far, even the accomplishments of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and every
other genius composer whose works are played in symphonic halls around
the world. America democratized
music. And it's not just a black thing. America added multiple new genres to the world of music:
Broadway, country, blues, jazz, rock and roll, and, yes, even pop,
which if it has given us Britney Spears has also given us Judy Garland
and Frank Sinatra.
What a small-minded vision it is that surveys American musical history
and can only cite the heroin jazz of Johnny Coltrane, Miles Davis, and
Parker with a nod to the ancillary contributions of Fats Domino and
Duke Ellington. What utter crap. Leaving Louis Armstrong off this list
is a sure sign of incompetence, even given the myopic narrowness of the
It tires me out even to try to list the key figures in American music,
and I'm not going to try to connect anyone to the obviously abundant
YouTube files of Cole Porter, Jimmy Rodgers, Scott Joplin, Jerome Kern,
George Gershwin, Aaron Copland, Woody Guthrie, "Blind" Lemon Jefferson,
Leadbelly, Aerosmith, Bing Crosby, Johnny Cash, Artie Shaw, Patsy
Kline, Beebe King, Elvis Presley, Muddy Waters, Bunny Berigan, Roy Orbison, Samuel
Barber, Nina Simone, Bob Dylan, Hank Williams, Sinatra, Garland,
Brubeck, Doris Day, Tom Waits... aaagh, forget it.
To leave anybody out is an automatic crime. But the list of Americans
is so long it hammers the memory to mush.
What the hell is wrong with you people? To think that music is a
vulnerability of the American
contribution is moronitude. To think that
the rebuttal of such a lame assertion is a function of a handful of
artists from one ethnic group is imbecility.
TruePunk says: YOU'RE BOTH FUCKING IDIOTS.
As for the rest of you, go to YouTube and rediscover the incredible
volume contribution of American artists to music. Trust me. It will
help you forget just how ugly TruePunk gets when he reads nonsense from
Thursday, September 10, 2009
FOR WHAT? He really
thinks we're fools. But he's figured everything wrong. People don't
care what he wants or promises or pretends is in the healthcare bill of
his fantasies. They care about what's actually in the bill that's
working its tortuous way through the small intestine of the senate and
the large intestine of the house. And they're afraid of what noxious
abomination [sp?] will be excreted into their faces at the end of that
process. Obama's narcissistic celebration of his private delusions had
nothing whatever to do with that gross, physical reality. The entire
show may as well have taken place in some alternate universe. That's
how little it had to do with our
Which is why there's nothing more that needs to be said about it.
Plenty more, perhaps, that needs to be said about him and his
despicable party, but there's plenty of time for that later.
Healthcare Kills People
profit motive is a clumsy goody-two-shoes machine.
In operation it's the equivalent of a mechanical Sisyphus.
. The clip above is the only one I was able to find of a 1971
movie called The Hospital
starring George C. Scott and Diana Rigg. It was an exceptionally dark
comedy about a big city hospital and all the ways the medical system
can kill you through negligence, apathy, carelessness, incompetence,
defeatism, despair, paperwork, and, yes, random insanity. Here it's
been turned into a music video, and I'm well aware that many
well-intentioned liberals will regard it as an artistic argument for
government-run healthcare as a superior alternative to the
antediluvian free-market healthcare they're trying to eradicate.
But to illustrate the relevance, I offer this comment on the work from
coverage of the movie:
I had never paid much attention to this
flick until I learned that Paddy Chayefsky - author of the brilliant
"Network" - was the scriptwriter. His work there had instructed me as
to his genius, so when 'Hospital' appeared on TMC, I was anxious to see
it. I was not disappointed. Looking at both this film and "Network" it would seem that his big theme is the
absurdity, inanity, and sheer viciousness of large human enterprises
(e.g., hospitals, networks) against the sanctity of individual
experience and the human spirit, and all of it delivered with a
knife-edge sense of utterly black humor. "Hospital" is as black of a
comedy as "Network" is, and the excellent cast, led by the incomparable
Scott, does his work full justice. This is a keeper; definitely not to
miss. [boldface added]
The emphasis throughout is on human failings, which you don't have to
be a genius to recognize as the bete-noir liberals are trying to
preempt through government interventions.
My point today is that such high-minded intentions are doomed to
failure. Liberals of this stripe are guilty of fundamental errors of
both perception and logic. More importantly, these errors are intrinsic
to their entire philosophy of social contracts and the role of
government versus the role of free individuals. My argument is not even
principally economic, even though it involves some few primitive
economic ideas. At base I'm dealing with two far more basic elements:
size and consequences. The difference can be understood best by seeing
where these elements conflict with popular notions of economics.
For example, in a complex system, we can begin to believe that there is
an organization which is "too big to fail." That is, the immediate
consequences of its failure seem so catastrophic that liquidation must
be prevented at all costs.
But at the more primitive level I'm considering here, there is a
supervening axiom: there is such a thing as an organization that is too big to survive. Why? Because it
contains too many people who are too far removed from consequences to
respond efficiently to crisis and change.
The logic error is that the downfall of large organizations is the
profit motive. That's why lefties hate capitalism. The truth is that
the profit motive is the one (effectively moral) stick that pushes
large organizations toward human responsibility despite all the human
failings of the people who compose them. Companies that abuse, cheat,
or take their customers for granted lose business to competitors who
don't. The one exception: monopolies. The customers they abuse, cheat, and take for
granted have nowhere to go.
Where do we see monopolies in present day life? The state division of
motor vehicles. Utilities -- electric and natural gas. Most municipal
and metropolitan newspapers. Small town hospitals. And almost all paid government services: the
Post Office, municipal "public servants," police, and trash collection.
(Today is trash day here. I can walk out to my rural road right now and
see township-provided trash receptacles sprawled everywhichway on the
asphalt, up and down as far the eyes can see, where they've been
carelessly hurled by the people who provide us this "service.")
[Hey, let's hear it for the "walk slow"
esthetic of government employees. You know, the oh-so-glacial change of
shift at the Post Office, the
turtle-like speed with which your car is put through state inspection
by slovenly uniformed people who can't be bothered to say "Hiya, how're
ya doing today?") (corporate culture, anyone?), or County Clerks who
ignore you at the desk while they finish gossiping with their
co-workers until they, uh, finally, look up and barely acknowledge your
No mystery. They don't care. Our
satisfaction is no part of their incentive.]
Is this a unique failing of government employees? No. It's the kind of
tunnel vision people default to when they encounter too many other
people in the course of a working day. They stop seeing other people as
other people and start seeing them as units of annoyance. Why do we
associate this behavior with government employees? Because they have no
explicit, immediate incentive to do otherwise. Which, in the corporate,
sickeningly "for-profit" world, means being nice to the customer or
getting fired because offending customers hurts, uh, profits.
Is this a depressing notion? Yes. But it's also enlightening and
encouraging. If capitalism -- meaning economic competition -- is "war
by other means," it means for-profit corporations are conducting their war by forcing employees to
be, well, altruistic: anticipating customer objections, responding to
them, preventing them, and where necessary, placating them, all in the
name of self-interest.
Companies that thrive for a long time are the equivalent of the archaic New Yorker ideal of the "Old Lady
from Dubuque." They don't want to offend anybody. That's why they have
made themselves hapless victims of political correctness. They labored
to remain apolitical even in circumstances where it seemed suicidal,
and -- with almost incredible irony -- held themselves to a standard
indistinguishable from generic Christianity or Confucianism: they
expected their employees to treat customers as the company would like
to be treated. In fact, they demanded of the corpus of their employees
that the organizational standard was higher than any individual
standard a church could expect. Friendliness. Honesty. Generosity.
Forgiveness. Turning the other cheek to a fault. And when they failed
at this, as they did sometimes, they went docilely out of business. The
profit motive made the conceptual individual of the corporation more
moral than most of its constituent members. The breaking point always
seemed to come from too much success, when a company like IBM or GM got
so hugely successful that its top managemnt forgot the Golden Rule.
Which is, in economic terms, a sign of old age, senility, and doom.
(And government organizations of every kind.)
When a corporation gets so big and so remote from its end customers
that the decision makers come to believe that the market is looking for
opportunities to buy from them alone, without their having to earn the business, the organization
has gotten too big and must die. I once worked for a computer company
like this. It died. And it deserved to die. That's the cruelty of
capitalism. But zombie organizations are far worse. Zombie
organizations are those whose employees don't ever have to see anyone
as customers. They are paid on the basis of seniority, tenure, paper
credentials, and connections. They have no responsibility to serve
anyone but themselves. That's the government model. And it's exactly
like that of the universities where all our smartest experts are
supposed to be coming from. Why wouldn't they hate capitalism, which
insists that you prove your value to the organization in terms of
But universities get away with providing no measurable service. They
can get away for a long time with providing degrees that amount to no
real education or capability. The fruit, or lack of it, of their
performance won't be measurable for another generation at least. Their
graduates who can't think or create won't be adjudged failures until
most of them are dead. What a pefect gig.
But healthcare. There's the rub. A monopoly on healthcare will produce
catastrophic results in no time flat. People who know something and still don't care because they have
no incentive to will produce millions of victims almost from the
git-go. When there's no profit motive, doctors, nurses, orderlies,
technicians, and the population of bureaucrats that will exceed their
number will all be able to adopt the "walk slow" mentality, and
no one will be able to make a one-to-one connection between their
self-interest and the delayed surgeries, withheld drugs, coerced
deaths, and convenient decisions that make their lives easier in a
system where consequences are mostly random, superfluous, and
It's entirely natural, almost an occupational inevitability, that
doctors and nurses become cold about death and other human costs of
their mistakes. It's a hard thing to deal, every day, with the fact
that people in your care will die routinely, sometimes horribly. But we
make a huge mistake when we cover the God complex that often results
with the comforting camouflage of a bureaucracy that forgives all in
the name of statistical normalization.
Our best bet is, has always been, to make them compete with each other
to keep us and our loved ones alive. That's
what rouses them from their arrogant indifference to matters of life
and death. Give it over to the government and they are not just likely
but certain to conspire in the ego-inflating delusion that they are
entitled to decide who among us should live and who should die.
Which is anti the bone-simple
incentive of capitalist entrepreneurs to please their customers by
exceeding their expectations.
Government. Being in charge. Knowing better. Smarter than all the rest
of us put together. Do you really want to put doctors together with the government? In
charge? To decide life and death matters about the rest of us? (Jeez.
How many documentaries have you see about doctors who murdered their
spouses because, well, they were in the way...?) The people who get
off on playing God and making rules will make rules, and the people who
get off on bossing other people around and enforcing rules will sit
behind their desks and administer death to millions without a second
thought. They're the strong right arm of the only thing government is
good at. The rigid application of force. (There's a whole other
discussion we won't get into here about why this works in the military.
But it's not really a contradiction. Just a lone exception.)
Capitalism is the native resistance of the rest of us. No. Doctors don'tget to decide. The government
doesn't get to decide. We get
to decide. Because we know better than any of the smart and powerful
what matters in and about life. Because we're customers of enterprises
that don't make money if we think they're assholes.
I'll close with a simple thought experiment. Imagine that your small
town has not one but three DMVs. Not one but three local hospitals. Ya
think they might treat you differently if you walked into one, got no
service, and had the option of going to one or two others? Ya think?!
Now: do you want more or fewer local competitors for your custom?
So tell me why the profit-motive is immoral.
It seems like a crowbar up the ass of the immoral to me.
But that's just me.
aren't nice. But if they
don't care what you think, they die.
It's a fight that's never done. That's the bitch of it. The idiots who
think they can run the rest of our lives better than we can never EVER
give up. That's the meaning of Sisyphus.
We've been, appropriately I think, corrected
in our movie selection by commenter Bill:
Behold the kind largesse of government healthcare.
I don't know what's supposed to be significant about 9/9/09, but
some people apparently do, or think
they do. But people think a lot of different things, don't they? That's
the theme here today, an atypical (for us) roundup of what some of the
thinkers are thinking, with an emphasis on the ones we tend to agree
with. (We're not going to keep repeating "read the whole thing;" in
most cases that's what we recommend and the excerpts here are generally
teasers, not nutshell summaries.)
For example, the big story in the MSM yesterday was the president's
speech to schoolkids, which we were told ad nauseam made all of us who
had reservations about it look like jerks. The message was basically,
"Move on, nothing to see here," with time out for the usual gratuitous
insults from the White
House and its apologists.
Most conservatives meekly subsided after the text of the speech was
published in advance. But not all of them. We liked what Heather MacDonald
had to say:
The overheated right-wing pundits were
on to something after all. Obama’s speech to the “nation’s
students” was pompous, ridiculously long, chock-full of ed-school
bromides, and wholly beyond a president’s proper role.
Why should students study, according to Obama? Because they will
develop “critical thinking skills” from “history and social studies”
that will allow them “to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and
discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free.”
How about studying because you will gain actual knowledge–not just
“critical thinking skills”–that will lift you out of ignorance?
How about for the love of learning and beauty? How about because
There was, of course, another big story the MSM didn't want to talk
about because they hadn't talked about while it was becoming a big
story: i.e., the Van Jones affair. Rich
Lowry is naming names:
The New York Times managed not to
mention the Jones controversy until he quit. Times readers learned that
he was dead without ever hearing that he was sick. It must have been a
little like waking up in Stalin-era Russia to find that a commissar in
good standing had unaccountably been erased from history. Charles
Freeman, a rabidly anti-Israel Obama appointee for a top intelligence
job, suffered the same strange fate — undone by a controversy the Times
didn’t deign to notice until it ended.
What coverage there was yesterday consisted mostly of explaining away
all the unacceptable entries on Jones's resume. John
McWhorter of the New Republic, for example, was contemptuously
With the Obama Administration letting
Green Jobs czar Van Jones resign, questions as to whether these people
have any spine are becoming sadly legitimate. What, precisely, would
have been wrong with letting Glenn Beck and the others keep screaming
their heads off about Jones’ purported radical intentions? Why not do a
Glinda and dismiss this nonsense with a breezy “You have no power
After all, we are faced here not with serious charges. There are no
modern-day Whittaker Chambers in this crowd. The Republican smears
against Obama of late are nonsense, pure and simple...
As for Jones calling Republicans idiots [ED. not the word Jones used],
the way things are lately plenty of Republicans are doing that too, and
quite a few of them are hardly above making the charge of Democrats.
And Jones’ flirtation with Communism was brief and partly rhetorical.
There are genuinely committed Communists, but Jones’ life story gives
no indication of his being one. I knew quite a few “Communists” in
college who are now mowing their lawns and working as management
I especially like the airy assertion that "Jones’ life story gives no
indication of his being" a committed communist. Who would know the
difference between "committed" and "reformed" better than David
Here's what he told Glenn Beck in a recent
interview on the subject:
When you are a radical, you believe
that you are in the army of the saints, a righteous person, and it's
immoral. And if you — you know, I just read actually Van Jones' book,
"The Green Economy," and you can see he defends himself against people
who say he's selling out.
That's the big thing you can't do. If you sell out, then you become
vilified. I mean, I've been — you know, I'm just totally vilified on
the left. So, there's — everybody in the left understands, you know, I
don't want to be a sellout. And it's actually something I said to
myself when I was young.
So, you can always tell when a
radical has changed, because they tell you they're changed, and they
understand what's wrong with the left, and what's wrong with the
left is its agendas, what it actually does — not what it says, but what
it does. [boldface added]
Providing cover for the radical lefties who haven't sold out is one of
the prime reasons for the czar approach to staffing the Obama
administration. This is the reason why so few people have even heard of
key appointees like Ron
Holdren, and Mark Lloyd.. They're
being smuggled in (and sometimes out)
almost invisibly, with no accountability to congress or the
constitution. According to the American
Spectator, this is all part of
a deliberately clandestine "outreach" to the extreme left wing of the
The White House shouldn't expect the
furor over Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at
the White House Council on Environmental Quality Van Jones to go away
just because he's resigned, says a former Obama Administration
transition team member, because "the same problems that they created
with Jones's hiring are there for others and they don't seem to care
about the political damage these people may inflict."
According to several White House sources, Jones was hired for his
"green jobs czar" positions over concerns raised by the White House
Counsel's Office, after Jones's background materials came back with
several of what were termed "inconsistencies" in the Standard Form 86
Questionnaire for National Security Positions.
The principal driver of such staffing choices is one of Obama's most
senior and longstanding advisers:
The counsel's office places part of the
blame on the Office for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public
Engagement, which is overseen by Obama Senior Advisor and Assistant to
the President Valerie Jarrett. Jones's "czar" job was created by the
OIAPE, and Jarrett interviewed Jones for the position. In speeches
before far-left groups over the past five months, Jarrett touted
Jones's hiring, in part, because the groups, many of which count 9/11
truthers and radical environmentalists and anti-capitalists as members,
were familiar with Jones's brand of anti-Americanism and economic
"This wasn't simply Valerie Jarrett rubberstamping her guy," says a
White House source. "You don't fill a position like this without his
hire being approved at a couple of different levels at least."
But Jarrett did view Jones as a critical member of the administration
for her outreach efforts, in part, because he was so well known and
respected in the radical-left world the administration is counting on
to help with issues like health care and cap and tax, and, more
importantly, campaign efforts in 2010.
Late in the article, there's an extremely sinister nugget of
information about another of Obama's czars and his true mission:
Jarrett also had a hand in recruiting
Obama friend Cass Sunstein, a former colleague of the president's at
the University of Chicago Law School, and now administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of
Management and Budget. Known inside the White House as the "Regulation
Czar," Sunstein is tasked with developing regulations around the
policies for environmental, healthcare, and safety issues.
According to administration sources, Sunstein's
office is looking for ways to impose through the regulatory process
those Obama White House health care, environmental, and labor policies
that do not survive the legislative process.
"The goal from this White House is to
have as much nonspecific language passed by Congress in policy areas
like health care and the environment and then use Sunstein's office to
put in place the regulatory language called for by Congress that gets
us to where we want to be. It may very well be the most
important job in this administration, given the lack of success we may
have on Capitol Hill," says a White House source. [boldface added]
Here's what's fascinating. This notion of bypassing the annoying faults
of the democratic process is becoming a mainstream whisper among
so-called liberals. Here's NYT columnist Thomas Friedman (h/t Jonah
Goldberg) in his latest op-ed:
Watching both the health care and
climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the
following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party
autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by
a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can
also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the
politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move
a society forward in the 21st century...
China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and
rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and
energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it
owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including
boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.
Our one-party democracy is worse. . . .
In the link, Jonah Goldberg properly notes that Friedman's position is
Liberal Fascism. But his brief exegesis reminds us that Doctor Zero has
an excellent essay providing clear definitions of what
fascism really is. It's not to be missed. A teaser only:
world is sick of parliamentary politics. This is an idea that
occurs in every strand of collectivist thought. Collectivists only
revere democracy until it has voted them sufficient power… then
democracy becomes a cumbersome inconvenience that allows selfish,
ignorant fools and corporate shills to interfere with the brilliant
work of great men. The Democrats fleeing from town hall meetings are
also sick of parliamentary politics, as is the President who defiles
American government with dozens of unelected, unconfirmed,
unaccountable “czars.” Parliamentary politics proved very inconvenient
for the President’s health-care takeover and cap-and-trade bills, and
have been driving global-warming cultists mad with frustration for
Why is fascism bad? It seems like a ridiculously understated question,
similar to asking why cancer is bad, but the answer is important. The
grisly ornaments fascism has worn in the past should not distract from
the deeper reality of what it is, and why it fails. The essential flaw
of fascism is that it elevates the State to control of its citizens,
because controlling the economy requires control of the people. A
corporation is a voluntary association of people, not an inanimate
machine that can be reprogrammed painlessly by wise government
advisers. The people who comprise corporations must be kept alienated
from the government’s supporters – fascism requires enemies, and turns
feral quickly. The government does not require a majority of the people
to support it, in order to maintain power.
This deep fascistic tendency is probably the reason for Camille
Paglia's latest, and quite eloquent, expression of dismay and
confusion about the behavior of contemporary "liberals." She can't
imagine what's gotten into them all. A juicy slice:
Why has the Democratic Party become so
arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak
for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the
party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with
journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical
absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their
worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such
professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about
big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in
expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy.
This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and
anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
How has "liberty" become the inspirational code word of conservatives
rather than liberals? (A prominent example is radio host Mark Levin's
book"Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto," which was No. 1 on
the New York Times bestseller list for nearly three months without
receiving major reviews, including in the Times.) I always thought that
the Democratic Party is the freedom party...
But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile
toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders
tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy
product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought
and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education
in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college
application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic
that it's invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down,
promote "critical thinking," which sounds good but is in fact just a
style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms ("racism,
sexism, homophobia") when confronted with any social issue. The
Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés
that it's positively pickled.
How pickled? A few exhibits that none of us should expect the correctly
educated professional class of mainstream journalists to get upset
about or even investigate if they can get away with it.
No American president has ever
attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating
at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes
that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar
Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right —
will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that
the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and
a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison.
After all, who among us is not for world peace?
Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous
diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn’t just
decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24
agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the
month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice,
speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United
States assumed the council presidency, is this: “The session will be
focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly,
and not on any specific countries.”
But forget all that. Our attention is supposed to be focused elsewhere
-- on the dangling shiny object the president will wave at us tonight
from his teleprompter
Up at Camp David over the weekend, we
mostly worked really hard on the Congressional speech for Wednesday
Because we expect the Wednesday speech to be at least as popular as the
school speech, we had the Camp David staff sit in to applaud during the
speech so we could time out exactly how long it would take us to get
through the full speech.Usually a Big Guy tour de force - like there is
any other kind of Big Guy speech - takes up to 90 minutes if he has
something he really wants to say. And boy, does he have a lot to say on
We were really surprised that Big O was able to read the speech in
under 10 minutes. I mean it was just crickets in the room; which makes
me wonder what kind of health insurance those Camp David guys have...
Doctors left a premature baby to die
because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21
weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following
national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be
given medical treatment.
Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son
Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.
She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even
moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special
care baby unit.
Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.
Good luck with that Miss Capewell. They'll probably be as attentive to
your concerns as all the intellectuals in both parties are to the
ridiculous alarms being raised here by Sarah
[L]ook at one way Mr. Obama wants to
eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an
Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely
unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs.
In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president
suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political
channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost .
. . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and
elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately
lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels?
Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many
Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made
themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a
wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this
cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats'
proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions
affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government
overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.
That should give you all plenty of reading to do on this inauspiciously
auspicious rarity of a calendar date. But I'll give you one more thing,
this time something to watch, because it's both a reminder of how our
president views our country and a palate cleanser, because he is so
thoroughly demonstrably wrong. Go here
and watch Mr. Bill Whittle on the subject of American
Exceptionalism. It's well worth waiting through the little introductory
commercial to see.
Happy Ninth, if that's what it is.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Speak Ill of the Dead Loudly, Unsparingly, and Immediately
THIS IS WHAT THE TED KENNEDY DEATH MEDIA COVERAGE WAS. There were two types of comment on Ted Kennedy's death: Blind, idiot praise, and "I may not have agreed with him, but nice nice nice blah blah blah BS BS BS." People who should have known better, like Orrin Hatch, were too busy, in fits of utter narcissism, showing tact instead of pointing out what a piece of crap the late Senator was.
Even our own InstaPunk decided honesty won't be appropriate until a whole year has passed (though to his credit, he did brutalize the laws of physics to bring you that article [ED.: 363 days] ahead of schedule).
A year. Insane. If you ask me, the autopsy and subsequent public flaying of guts shouldn't take place much longer than... what's today?... two weeks, is about right.
You know what? Not even two weeks. Right away. The second after a guy like that dies. Immediately. In a just world, here's how it all would have gone down.
- Every red state-- and every blue state with more sense than Massa-God-Damn-Chusetts-- should have erupted in jubilation the moment they heard the sentence "Senator Edward Kennedy died today...." American skies should have been lit up like the Fourth of July. Bowing to what should have been immense public pressure, Obama should have declared the day a national holiday. Balloons of Kennedy's face should have been filled to bursting in joyous effigy.
- Every press agency-- AP, Reuters, UPI, et. al.-- should have dug up the negatives of every picture of Kennedy in their archives, and burned his face out with a lit cigar; like how the ancient Egyptians scratched and carved the faces of disgraced pharaohs out of pyramid walls.
- And, at the carnival, don't forget the wall of funhouse mirrors that should have recreated the timeline of Kennedy's weight gain. The last mirror squashes your reflection into a pencil-thick line, three miles wide.
- The Pope and the cardinals should have crashed his funeral to perform a mock exorcism, but with vomit instead of holy water. Midway through Obama's eulogy. Right after the sublimely audacious statement "Through his own suffering, Ted Kennedy became more alive to the plight and suffering of others," Benedict should have kicked the door in shouting "The Power of Christ compels you!" over and over, as he and his homeys stormed the catafalque, swinging those metal incense balls like bolas.
- Vatican City should have been evacuated for weeks, and covered from border to border in exterminators' tents. To symbolize a much-needed delousing of the whole Catholic religion, following the long-awaited end of Senator Kennedy's affiliation with the faith.
Of course, the moment for such timely denunciation has passed. However, there remain actions that can -- must -- be taken.
- Kennedy's Senate seat can still be torn out of the Senate floor by the bolts, scrubbed, boiled, then burned to ashes, and the ashes scooped up and burned again. All 300 million American citizens should line up, single file, to the spot where the seat once sat for an opportunity to strike the ground with a 436-pound (Kennedy's weight when he died) sledgehammer. Once every man, woman, and infant in the nation has had a turn, the earth under the rubble should be salted.
- Bush can dust off one of his unused Medals of Freedom (you know he stuffed a few down his pants on moving day), and award it to brain cancer. The American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society can issue a joint statement announcing a one-week "ceasefire" with brain cancer, during which no chemo, surgery, or any other aggressive action will be taken against brain cancer. Billboards bearing the slogan "Give brain cancer a break!" or "Thanks, brain cancer!," and depicting brain cancer patients giving a thumbs-up, can still be erected.
- Everyone who voted for Kennedy, even once, should be forcibly enrolled in a new sex offender-style registry. Since, as with sex offenders, rehabilitation is impossible, Kennedy voters should be forced to stay 500 yards away from any location where political activity takes place -- city halls, polling booths, street corners, etc -- and barred from communicating online with anyone of voting age. A website should be set up where people can see what Kennedy voters live near them. We'll call it MaryJosLaw.com
- Mandatory sterilization for Kennedy's kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews, and anyone more closely related to him than, say, a 7th cousin, must be carried out. Including relatives by marriage. I'm sure some of them have managed to never murder by neglect, or kill the progress of any American minority group with "kindnesses" like affirmative action, but we simply can't take that chance.
- Kennedy's remains should be reinterred at the bottom of Chappaquiddick. With a backhoe.
And you know what else? This all goes double for Harry Reid, when he finally kicks off. Which will probably be 40 years from now, of natural causes, peacefully in his sleep. Piece of crap.
UPDATE. Forget murder and legislative poison. Ted Kennedy is literally a traitor. Literally. Still researching, but the picture is clear:
In return for the Soviet Union's resources and aid in defeating Reagan's re-election bid, Kennedy offered to sponsor and coordinate a PR tour for head USSR cock Yuri Andropov.
This is the same USSR that killed more Russians than Nazi Germany killed Jews, and would have turned the whole of the earth into a prison planet, if the US hadn't kept them in check long enough for them to collapse under the weight of their own evil. If you need a reminder.
The above prescriptions aren't enough for a man who would collaborate with that power. Here's an addendum:
- Ted Kennedy should be cloned, and the clone tortured for his entire life. When the clone dies, clone again and repeat. For the next thousand years. Longer.
And not with any of this weenie "stress position" slumber party torture, either. Real torture. Torture-torture.
And never explain to any of the clones why they must live in inexhaustible pain and misery. A guilty conscience might take some of the edge off. Let them live in unending agony, uncomprehending desperation, and utter existential horror in every minute from birth to death.
Have a problem with that? Fine. Build a time machine, go back to '41, and swap him with Rosemary right before the sharpened scoop goes in. Don't like that either? Then shut up. Torturing his clones with needles and fire until the sun goes dark is the only moral option remaining.