Best, Worst, and First

This remains my all-time favorite answer from an undergraduate history exam. It comes from the first batch of tests I ever graded from the US history survey (American history from 1877) and is a student's attempt to identify and explain the historical significance of "The Birth of a Nation" (the question did not identify it as a film, though we watched it in class). This is verbatim:

"Birth? Defined, 'birth' is an origin, a new beginning, a starting point. Nation? Defined, 'nation' is a place implying a sense of community, group, a sort of social unity. 'The Birth of a Nation' is the origin, the beginning of a community, social unity in the United States, particularly in Chicago where urbanization, industrialization, and immigration played a huge role in the success of the nation. Immigration begins the progress of industrialization with foreign people coming to the states in search of labor, freedom, and equality. Their labor enhances the workload, increases production, forcing industrialization to boom. Land laborers and factory workers are used frequently and is necessary for such success. Increase of population in small areas where work is nearby causes urbanization. Urbanization increases as production increases and immigration continues. Sometimes segregating certain groups of people, workers and bosses, or even certain races, for example Little Italy, Little Village, Cabrini Green, Greektown, Chinatown, etc....The movement of people from fields to the city originates a new social unity, 'The Birth of a Nation.'"

If you read it again with the cadence of a piece of slam poetry, it gets even better.

Those Darn Forgiving Democrats!

538 has this brief item on Mark Sanford's inability to find a woman in the United States to fuck. Interesting theory:

"The two big fish that have gone down on this issue in the past eighteen months, Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards, both seemed to be punished more sharply for their hypocracy and attempts at cover ups than for the scandals themselves. Ironically, both Spitzer and Edwards are Democrats, the party which theoretically could be more forgiving to this type of behavior.

Bottom line for Sanford: fess up, get back to work, and try not to look like a hypocrite, because that seems to be the thing that sinks people in the American voters' eyes the quickest."

In a word, wrong. I mean, not only that the writer spelled "hypocrisy" wrong, but two other errors of analysis stand out as well. First, the Democrats are not the "forgiving party," as anyone with eyes and ears will tell you. How forgiving are homos feeling today? How much "wait and see" charity is Obama receiving from those without healthcare, those with healthcare, labor, immigration advocates, and (again) those pesky too-loud-for-their-small-numbers gay people? None, virtually.

Now, sure, we're talking about infidelity under the original post, but I think there is a psychological condition here that is often overlooked by analysts who instead settle for the easy characterization of liberals as namby-pamby, weak-willed, and as a result amoral, "forgiving" people. Not so at all. Democrats and liberals, if you think about it, are some of the most vindictive, petty, and rigidly "moral" little assholes in the world.* I would give you Joe Lieberman, but he don't live here no more. Instead, I'll trust that you can think back to the election and all the posturing coming from all corners of the left, in which an endless stream of self-righteous blowhards attacked each other and the candidates without mercy, without reason, and as though they were fighting for Jerusalem itself. And you think these people forgive moral failings? What?

The other, lesser point here is this: people, voters, whatever, like Brad Penny on Joe Girardi, don't give two fucks about disgraced politicians "looking busy." They hate John Edwards because he has everything wrong with him: he seemed too good to be true and he was. He is from the South (still a handicap in the Democratic Party). He looks good? I guess? ...and liberals have a love/hate thing with good-looking people. And finally, he isn't bourgeois-messianic --he has actually met and, like, worked for poor people -- and that's what Democrats want these days; we're bascially split up into rabbinic cults and we're fighting over the orthodox interpretation of scripture. Obama was and is our flawed, middle class Jesus.

South Carolina Republicans are the only people who care about Mark Sanford (who, by the way, has to have the worst office staff in politics. Nice cover for the boss, guys. Clap. Clap.). My guess is that more of them are upset by his apparent need to fuck a 'furriner than the fact that he screwed around on his family on Father's Day.

*College professors, architects, and intellectuals most of all.

Disgraced Neocons: Neoconservatism Shits Rainbows

Apparently there is some assertion in regards to the late state of Iran (not that any of us, in America, have heard jack shit about that. But hey, baseball is on and we still have celebrities to gawk at -- why would anyone care about millions of Iranians rioting in the streets?), that with freedom and democracy apparently on the march, at least for a little while until the tanks roll in, neoconservatism and specifically the takeover and bungling of Iraq are owed a big thank you.

Is Charles Krauthammer in the room? Because that smells like horse shit.

But Andrew Sullivan and his astute readers will have none of it. And good for them. Ratfuckers like Krauthammer, Rove, Perle, and the rest should keep quiet and give thanks that, in America at least most of the time, we don't chase you down the street and fuck you up for being a fascist.

It takes mere simple language to demolish the pride of simple minds:

"Democracy and freedom are not neoconservative ideas--they do not get to own those concepts. The neoconservative idea is about how to get there, and in this singular distinguishing aspect they have been proven wrong over and over again, leaving disaster upon disaster in their wake."

And really, when you've seen the video below, the saddest fucking thing I've ever seen in my life, you come back to the realization that people like Krauthammer don't realize they should feel bad about the stolen moments from all our lives they take with their pathetic scribblings and sick fantasies. And now, after facilitating the murder of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, they want a medal for Iran. Let's make it large and heavy, and throw them in the river.

The Real Problem

This review of the new movie, "Away We Go" (oh so cute), written by Dave Eggers and his concubine, tries to walk the line between dissatisfaction and critical detachment, but staggers off course somewhere.

I think the real problem with this film is that it was written by the beast with two navels, Dave & Vendela, and is about "Burt & Verona" -- nope, don't see any problems yet -- which is to say, it's a movie about the two people who wrote the movie. That is a hell of a problem, and if movie tickets in Sausalito cost $15 each, then this film better gross $75, since Dave & Vendela will no doubt see it twice as a couple and then Dave will go back with one of their cats and see it again. But no one else in America should be asked to give two fucks about these simpletons and their perfect, icky love. I don't know anything about Vendela Vida, but if she fucks Dave Eggers then she is at least partly responsible for his tedious, jackoff products.

You know how people used to say stupid things like "in a few years, we'll look back and laugh"? Well, my fondest wish is that, in a few weeks, we'll all think about this movie and then have to run, not walk, to the nearest receptacle and take a big, runny shit thinking about this piece of "art," a shit that only loosely captures the utter stink rolling off this whole concept. And with any luck, there'll be a Dave Eggers book nearby to wipe with.

Not In Journalism!

That's the answer to the question at the end of this post by Andrew Sullivan.

In response to a pair of neocon cocksuckers in the New York Times, Sullivan writes, "But why is the New York Times giving a platform at this moment to people who got the Iraq war so terribly wrong? Are there no consequences for total neoconservative failure?"

No, dude. Have you not noticed that the same dildos that ran the Republican machine into the ditch, then lit it on fire, then spiked it with thermite, then dropped a boulder on it are still running the operation? I mean, are you blind? It's always about Israel, no matter how much most people don't care, or how irrelevant Israel may be to the topic at hand.

Now, in this case, Israel is germane. But here you have, as I said, a pair of utterly subservient and unimaginative neocon cocksuckers, and they want you to know that, like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and every other good, dumb little Republican stooge in the United States, you should just take them at their word. It's all right there on the page, after all. There is no context, subtext, bigger idea, framework, ideology, or anything else behind what Republicans or neocons say or do; it just...is. Take it or leave it. But don't ever try to decipher what they said, because they will shut you down because you "don't get it," and you made the fatal mistake of trying to impute thought and design to their klutzy, ragged scrawls and mewls. Just take Ms. Pletka at her word: she doesn't have any motives! Which is another way of saying, she admits she doesn't have anything to say, and if she thought she did, she wouldn't know where to begin. This person doesn't know what you're talking about!

Get a shovel. Dig a hole. Hit a conservative on the head. Bury the body deep.

Yes. Only Iran Would Do That.

Daily Kos is such a waste of brain-time.

"When a thuggish government is so desperate that it has to photoshop pictures of its own rallies to give them more credibility vs. the opposition rallies, it's in some serious trouble."

I give you George W. Bush

Sayeth the mighty blogger at Kos:

"This is not really that big of a deal, except as a metaphor for the Bush campaign's casual relationship to the truth. "

But, of course, people like me were screaming in 2004, literally shouting at the tops of our lungs, that the neocons' and George Bush's wanton desire to lie about every single thing was not just a big deal, but was in fact the whole fucking problem.

But Kos & Krew thought it was cute, apparently. See how 4 extra years of reality twisted their lame asses around? Fucking lazy fucks.

Pirates are the Velociraptors of 2009

How did I get on this mailing list?


From: Lamb, Susan <susan.lamb@ncdcr.gov>
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Subject: Program Focuses on Pirate Myths Versus Reality


                                     PIRATE MYTHS VERSUS REALITY

           Do Jack Sparrow's adventures in "Pirates of the Caribbean" even
come close to the reality of life on the high seas during the Golden Age of
Piracy, from 1689 to the 1720s? How has the popular perception of pirates
influenced the historical interpretation of piracy?

          Find out during the program A Pirate's Life for Me? on Saturday,
June 27, at 2 p.m. at the N.C. Museum of History. Dr. Charles Ewen, director
of Archaeology Laboratories at East Carolina University, will separate myths
about pirates from historical evidence. Admission is free. To register, call
919-807-7922 by June 24. A reception follows the program.

          How do romanticized stories of piracy in movies compare with the
harsh realities of a buccaneer's violent, blood-thirsty lifestyle? The
answers may surprise you. Ewen's examination of historical documents and the
archaeological record suggests that maybe Hollywood hasn't gotten it all
wrong. He will also highlight books, such as Treasure Island and Peter Pan,
and their place in popular culture.

  This program is presented in conjunction with the exhibit Knights of the
Black Flag at the N.C. Museum of History. The exhibit explores the legacy of
pirates, from ancient times to the present. Intriguing artifacts, legends
and history bring their ruthless adventures to life. Showcasing many
pirate-related objects, Knights of the Black Flag includes the largest
collection of artifacts ever exhibited from the shipwreck believed to be
Blackbeard's flagship, Queen Anne's Revenge.


Susan Friday Lamb
Public Information Officer
N.C. Museum of History
Office: 919-807-7943
Fax: 919-733-8655

TARP? More like FUNNEL! Zing!!

Would people have a better or worse opinion of the bailout provisions, specifically TARP, if they knew that, according to GAO, the government is owed and may have received $2.9 billion in dividend payments from troubled banks? Sure, it's a drop in the bucket in a trillion-dollar scheme, but it's not negligible.

And hey, while we're asking stupid questions, why the fucking hell doesn't the government report on these payments? Am I missing the hidden drawback to telling the taxpayers that hey, yeah, we're actually getting some of that money back?

Dead Blue Jesus

Meant to post this a long time ago. There's now a Jesus-on-the-cross license plate in Florida. But Jesus, he is blue. And looks like an Anglo (or at best, northern Italian).

See here.

You could, if you were an asshole (you are, though, so it's cool!), customize the lettering on the plate, with 3 letters on each side of Jesus' dead blue body. The comments section for the linked post is a must-read. My three favorites: ILB BAK, IMA JEW, and GOT WUD. Maybe GEE THX or LIL HLP. Or YSO BLU. Or 2L8 4ME.

Oh man. That is weird.

Whipping Boy?

Man, I'm really starting to not like this guy. Look, men in America have turned into pussies. If it's not "country music" purporting to tell the tales of "men" who miss their daddies, their dogs, and dangummit! their old buddies (you bunch of fucking girls!), then it's gangsta rap peddling an obviously-phony, moth-eaten old plot about the power and the money, the money and the power. Oh, and the bitches. Never forget them.

That's pretty much settled in our cultural memory bank. What's not, and linked above, is this weird interpretation of modern black American life that holds the men somehow outside the realm of study and understanding. The author wants to make a point about women and welfare/workfare and he does it fair enough. But men, those damn inscrutable black men, well they just cannot be understood except as "losers" whose lives in reality probably amount to fleeing child support and being unemployable. And, there's the "white hand." Never forget that, either.

There is an interesting and unconscious omission that happens at this point in the aforementioned article, p. 4. What if we followed the female links a little farther, would we find that black men in part are socially and economically handicapped by the women in their lives? I'm a big "nurture" guy and I think that it's weird when mothers come out to shelter and defend their grown-ass male children from everybody from the cops to the teachers to the judges to the media. In fact, I'm not sure I know any black men who don't have a dependent relationship with all the women in their lives, and that's got to mean something. What, after all, is the value and the effect of having a permanent, unconditional emotional/financial crutch that stays hidden at your pleasure (like, for example, when you're out laying the groundwork for that pesky "loser" status) and then can be summoned whenever you are in need?

Revisit This When You Have Time

This dumbass took 2 pages to say what can be summed up in two words?

The Problem With "Taxing" Drunk Driving

Nate Silver has a good statistician's idea. What is a "statistician's idea"? I just made that term up. But it means an idea that, by the numbers and when plugged into any fancy model or regression analysis (you can tell I only have the vaguest notion what these things are), makes real good sense. While I'm no big city mathematician, but just a simple, country cognoscente, I have a problem with both the original idea and the new and improved idea. The original idea was to tax liquor a bit more and use the proceeds to pay for national healthcare. My problem with that is Silver's, too: drinking, as such, isn't really a societal ill. What is an ill is being drunk and, in addition (whenever you get an if-then, it's hell on applicability), being out in public and operating a vehicle or picking fights or, if in private, having physical altercations with family members, and such. Besides, how is drinking to be singled out as the first, best source of healthcare revenue? How about taxing fatty foods, or taxing people who don't exercise or whose BMI's are in the "Whoa, fatty!" range? (BMI, though, is total horse shit; it was invented by a 19th century mathematician, Adolphe Quetelet -- actually born in 1796! -- using body data from scrawny immigrants and laborers. So yeah, it accurately describes the Belgian ditch-diggers of 1835. And?)

But the proposed remedy, to tax drunk drivers $8000, is hardly better in practical terms. Silver acknowledges this, but on the grounds that people will stop getting DUI's if it costs $8000. The very beginning of this argument is flawed, however, because Silver bases his math on the number of arrests for DUI, not the number of convictions. As anyone who's ever been or known someone who has been arrested for DUI, or anyone who's walked around a college town can tell you, people fight DUI charges pretty hard. There are lots more lawyers out there getting DUI charges dropped than doing just about anything, judging by the number of shingles in Bloomington, Chapel Hill, Urbana, New Haven, and so on. Moreover, DA's often throw the cases out and, even when one goes to trial, the defendant often escapes with a suspended license and a relatively paltry fine -- less than 10% of $8000 anyway. DUI, second to assault, is becoming our national tragic joke if it isn't already.

Now imagine how much harder people would fight a DUI charge if it cost $8000. Imagine how loathe DA's would be to prosecute those cases if they knew that the defendant would spend up to, in theory, $7999 to get out of the charge.

Like I said, this is a very good statistician's idea. But it doesn't seem to have a lot of practical merit.

Speaking of Morons

Is this real?

"Dude, Don't Be A Dumbass"

Quote:
"Mark Krikorian of the National Review had a far more important question for his readers:

'So, are we supposed to use the Spanish pronunciation, so-toe-my-OR, or the natural English pronunciation, SO-tuh-my-er, like Niedermeyer?'

"Good question Mark! What did you learn?

'Most e-mailers were with me on the post on the pronunciation of Judge Sotomayor's name (and a couple griped about the whole Latina/Latino thing - English dropped gender in nouns, what, 1,000 years ago?). But a couple said we should just pronounce it the way the bearer of the name prefers, including one who pronounces her name "freed" even though it's spelled "fried," like fried rice. (I think Cathy Seipp of blessed memory did the reverse - "sipe" instead of "seep.") Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent's simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to.'"

I hate to pile on to the Top 10 Conservative Idiots, which usually covers all the bases, but they missed some big ones in this post. Here goes:

Jesus fucking Christ you pea-brained mouth-breather. Let's begin near the beginning and allow me to clarify your first "point," which really was pointless: what distinguishes Spanish speakers from English speakers is that they use gendered ADJECTIVES and VERBS, not just nouns -- and anyway, dummy, we English speakers use gendered forms of nouns all the fucking time such as "he," "she," "Jim," "Nancy," "Mr. President," so, what? You obviously don't know what that means, but the word you thought you were using is ADJECTIVE or VERB. ADJECTIVE or VERB, you fucking worthless piece of shit! "Latino" is an adjective as well as a noun, just like "cowboy," as in "The Latino walked into the cowboy store."

I hope you choke to death in front of a second-grade Spanish class as your gasps for help fall on confused ears! What will you say, "Help, it cannot breathe! It needs Person Teacher to call Person Medical! Little Persons, assist it!"? Ay yi yi!

Point the second is so much more stupid. You're going to bitch at people who want their names pronounced in certain ways? Why? Haven't you ever met anyone named "Kuntz"? Guess how they want you to say the name. There's one way they don't want you to say it!

You would think, wouldn't you, that an obvious racist, Aryan-loving douchebag like Mark Krikorian would know that somebody who spells their last name "Fried" and pronounces it "freed" is a fucking German, and that in the Germanic languages when one encounters an "i" and an "e" together, in any form, in any word, well, as my German teacher used to say: "When 'i' and 'e' go walking, the second one does the talking!" So, yes, you numbnuts slob, when you say the name "Fried," you say it like "freed." It's not as funny (but then, only 5-year-olds and Republicans think that's funny), but it's ethnically and linguistically correct. Oh, and the awesome confusion Mark had about how to pronounce "Seipp"? Nevermind that, again, you just say it the way she wants it said (asshole!); the point still stands: It's "sipe." The "i" is second.

Holy fucking shit. I hate this guy. And then he tried to douche it up with some horseshit about "a monophthong over a diphthong" -- which you know he copped from the respondent without crediting it, because Mark Krikorian has shown he is the sort of person who can hardly write in English, let alone think about its structure! -- and that's where I decided to mock him and fuck with him if I ever see him in public, like, for example, in a store looking confused as he searches in vain for some clothes for his kids, only to realize that all the signs have un-gendered nouns on them, like "Boys" and "Girls."