July 2008

Where did Obama come up with this crazy shit?

Obama’s statement yesterday about Republican scare tactics is merely the latest in a string of statements in which he suggests that certain Americans are intrinsically racist, and those Americans aren’t just confined to political opponents.

Some Americans are…racist?  Not just Republicans?  Why that’s…that’s preposterous! [audible hrumphs from around the room]  Historical fact: The last of the American racists (I believe it was Jesse Helms) died in July, pushing America from 99.9999999999% to 100% pure non-racist.  We’re whiter cleaner than Ivory-fncking-soap now.

But seriously, you know what I find particularly charming: the racists who don’t really try to hide their racism (depending on the n***r jokes in question and their immediate company), but who insist that racism doesn’t exist anymore and get offended when someone suggests that it’s still out there.  This indignant reaction is not necessarily limited to when someone accuses them, personally, of racism mind you.  They tend to bristle even when general statements are made to that effect that racists still, you know, exist. 

Anyway, it’s a lovely little two step of self-awareness/self-parody.  Roy has more.

Update: Just to illustrate a point, could you imagine the succession of exploding heads around pundit-dom if someone reacted with such incredulity to a candidate’s suggestion that some Americans are actually anti-Semitic?  Hell, for some groups, pretending that anti-Semitism lurks behind every corner is the go-to cudgel with which to beat the brows of political opponents. 

But racism?  Nah.  That ended sometime around 1968.


I mean, that’s what this is, right?

Like Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain confuses opposition to an unnecessary war with a lack of spine and an unwillingness to use force when the nation is truly in danger. Obviously, Mr. Obama is untested as a commander in chief and his trip was intended to reassure voters. But Mr. McCain is as untested in this area as Mr. Obama, and it is hard to imagine a worse role model than the one Mr. McCain seems to be adopting: President Bush.

Many voters are wondering whether a McCain presidency would be an extension of Mr. Bush’s two disastrous terms. If the way Mr. McCain is running his campaign these days is an indication, Americans don’t have to wait until next January for the answer to that one.

Buh-buh-but he was in a prison camp!  Which makes him a foreign policy wiz!  Due to reasons the pure of spirit understand instinctually!  What could have caused them to indulge in such unhinged political hate speech?

Well, that certainly didn’t take long. On July 3, news reports said Senator John McCain, worried that he might lose the election before it truly started, opened his doors to disciples of Karl Rove from the 2004 campaign and the Bush White House. Less than a month later, the results are on full display. The candidate who started out talking about high-minded, civil debate has wholeheartedly adopted Mr. Rove’s low-minded and uncivil playbook.

“How Frightful!” exclaims the Grey Lady, the official Dissapproving Schoolmarm of Our Precious Democracy.  And with that, McCain can pretty much forget about capturing the all-important “finishing school moms” demographic.

At this year’s ESPY Awards, ESPN decided to award the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage to Tommie Smith and John Carlos, the two men pictured above that raised the black power fist at the 1968 Olympic Games.  While that might seem like a long overdue acknowledgement and attempt to repair the historical record, Jonah Goldberg ferrets out the truth behind this sportslamoliberafascist conspiracy:

Is it even worth trying to remind people today that the black-power salute was, for those who brandished it seriously, a symbol of violence – rhetorical, political and literal – against the United States? It was the high sign for a racist militia, the Black Panthers, which orchestrated the murder of innocents and allied itself with America’s enemies. In today’s lingo, you might even say black power was “divisive.”

Leaving aside the question of what exactly “rhetorical” violence is, I appreciate Goldberg’s outrage at the preposterous notion that black Americans might have had legitimate reasons to harbor anger at the United States in 1968.  I mean, can someone say “Culture of Victimhood”!  Like that ungrateful whiner Toussaint L’Ouverture, who had the termerity to lash out against France.  This, even after his French master had freed him from bondage and given him an education.  I mean, the French government even went as far as to declare full equality for all Haitians in 1792, and L’Ouverture repaid their ongoing paternal magnanimity by expelling the French colonial assistance-providing guys some five years later. 

Like L’Ouverture, Smith and Carlos simply failed to grasp just how much the savage, murderous, dehumanizing brutality that their people had been enduring for centuries was starting to get a little bit better.  Whatever happened to being grateful for the little things?

Another important distinction is that this was 1968, not 1938. By the end of the 1960s, America had seen two decades of steady – if too slow – racial progress. The black-power vision of an irredeemably “racist Amerikkka” was all but blind to the desegregation of the military, the accomplishments of Owens and Robinson and the civil-rights acts of 1957, 1960, 1964 and even 1968. One hopes ESPN disagrees with those views as well.

Exactly! Their protest might have made a smidgen of sense in 1938 (but the upraised fist is just unnecessarily frightening symbolism regardless).  Back then, their actions would have led to a prompt death via a mob of whites feeling personally wronged, rather than just an avalanche of death threats, public ostracization and an intense backlash (media outlets like the Associated Press and sports journalists like Brent Musberger compared Carlos and Smith to Nazis, and Carlos’ first wife committed suicide amidst the turmoil).  

And really, with all that progress going on, what was there to complain about?  Why the grudge against America in that era of hope and reconciliation?  Some facts: In 1968, no black civil rights leaders were being killed.  There were no riots, no police brutality with impunity, no pervasive discrimination, no ongoing segregation, no poverty legacy – just lots of people being blind to color like Jonah.  The last recorded lynching occurred in 1968 for heavan’s sake, and instead of a thumbs up, or a thanks America, we get this disrespectful, dare I say “presumptuous,” call for the empowerment of a long disempowered minority!  

Goldberg’s refreshing and balanced take on this proud era in American history (which ESPN has decided to sully by recognizing these “self-indulgent” negro revolutionaries) reminds us all, yet again, how foolish African Americans are to be voting for Democrats, and how the Republicans are the true champions of African American causes.  The Party of Civil Rights if you will.


Bonus Goldberg Fucktardity:

But even a more benign view of the salute shouldn’t obscure the intense contradictions of ESPN’s decision to honor Carlos and Smith. Both men were members of the Olympic Project for Human Rights, which wanted a complete black boycott of the ’68 Olympics. The group considered an entire generation of heroic black athletes, including Jesse Owens and Jackie Robinson, to be Uncle Toms.

Yes, and Carlos and Smith were so committed to the cause of said boycott that they didn’t even sit out the games themselves.  In that spirit, henceforth I shall be joining a group dedicated to convincing my fellow New Yorkers to boycott all establishments that serve alcoholic beverages for their refusal to serve me lagavulin for $5 a pint.  My dedication to the cause shall be manifested in my insistence on extending my pinkie finger every time I imbibe my beverage.  That’s roughly the same as a boycott from what I hear.

Orson Scott Card endorses treason:

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to “gay marriage,” is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

[… blahzee bloozee blooble for 500 pages …]

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn’t require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

In a chilling post-script, activist, uh, elected officials have just expanded gay marriage rights in Massachusetts, in direct defiance of the Bible, or Darwin, or something.  I think this means my wife has to let me start dating, although I may have to start dating guys – I’ll have to go down to the DMV so the fine public servants there can update me on the current status of my personal life.  John McCain, only your Family Values™ can preserve the sanctity of marriage!

If Obama becomes our first Afro-Homo-Elito-Atheist Muslim President, and with both houses of Congress likely controlled by the DhimmifeatocRATs, expect to see so, so much more of this.  And this.

Dave Neiwert on Mark Noonan’s Ft. Sumter:

In Tennessee this weekend, the chickens came home to roost when a gunman named James David Adkisson walked into a Unitarian Universalist Church and began shooting. So far, two people are dead, and seven more were wounded. He was saying “hateful things,” according to all the news reports.

Naturally, right-wingers like the Ole Perfesser tried to fob it off on “Christian haters” — Adkisson was the son of a church deacon and evidently hated going to church. But that also ignores the fact that he identified himself as a “Confederate.”

Now, MSNBC is reporting this morning that Adkisson targeted the church because of its liberal politics. A four-page letter police recovered, according to Knoxville police officials, referred constantly to his “stated hatred for the liberal movement.”

Right-wingers love to “joke” about mowing down, rounding up, and otherwise “wiping out” all things liberal. It’s become a standard feature of conservative-movement rhetoric. And whenever anyone calls them on it, they have a standard response: “Aw, c’mon — it’s just a joke!

In reality, of course, rhetoric like this has historically played a critical role in some of the ugliest episodes in American history, as well as thousands of little acts of xenophobic brutality: functionally speaking, it gives violent — and frequently unstable — actors permission to act on these impulses. People like this always believe they’re standing up for what “real Americans” think — and the jokes tell them that this is so.

This was a violent attack on liberals. It was inspired by years of wingnuts talking about how much they hate liberals and wish they could do something about them. This man did. But watch the people who have been telling these “jokes” run away from any culpability for it.

And let us remember when.  There are endless examples of the sort of rhetoric Neiwert is talking about, coming from low talk radio barkers and high government officials, and all points in between.  I’d say that this rhetoric is more damaging in the way it relentlessly stupidizes political discourse in this country than in what it may encourage mentally unstable individuals to do – although I doubt I’d say it to the victim’s families.  That said, it would be nice if this rhetoric could receive as much media attention as the fact that someone on the internet somewhere said “wanker”.

Lots of exasperation over this:

Passing acquaintances collide in a moment of transcendent passion. They look at each other shyly and touch tenderly during their Paris cinq à sept, exchange some existential thoughts under exquisite chandeliers, and — tant pis — go their separate ways.

Sarko, back to Carla Bruni. Obama, forward to Gordon Brown. A Man and a Man. All it needed was a lush score and Claude Lelouch.

Once again, it falls upon me – and me alone – to explain the freaky, freaky world of the internets to you. Very well:

Maureen Dowd is not trying to convince anyone that Obama is gay. She is not trying to undermine Obama in any way – I suspect she likes him very much, and dearly wishes that he remain in the public eye for as long as possible. Maureen Dowd is merely one of the countless practitioners of a new and democratic literary genre called “slash fanfiction”. But The Editors you ask What is this “slash fanfiction” you speak of? It sounds dangerous and creepy.” Normally, Dear Readers, you know there’s nothing I like better than answering your pig ignorant questions. But, in an unrelated development, I seem to have just vomited in my mouth. So I’ll let Wikipedia handle this one:

Slash fiction is a genre of fan fiction, largely written by women,[citation needed] that focuses on the depiction of romantic (and often sexual) relationships between two or more male characters, who may not be engaged in relationships in the canon universe. While the term originally was restricted to stories in which one or more male media characters were involved in an explicit adult relationship as a primary plot element, it is currently more generally used to refer to any fan story containing a pairing between male characters.

And there you have it.  She does it constantly: Al Gore is effeminate.  John Kerry enjoys poetry and musical theatre.  John Edwards is “metrosexual”.  True, none of these columns actually describe a physical relationship, but you can see the scene being set: hetrosexuals by all outward appearance, there is still that chance that, if the circumstances were right – if the right woman could imagine the perfect circumstances – they could be … available. Later columns, unpublished, unpublishable, no doubt explore these forbidden, thrilling fantasies further. “Global Warming [squick:MPreg]” where a vulnerable Al Gore finds that a night with a very masculine Hillary Clinton has him more than just lactating! “Nantucket Revisited”, wherein Barack Obama recalls a youthful indiscretion with a charming, teddy bear-toting school chum, the languid and dissolute Lord John Kerry. And, of course, the shocking and depraved “Clintigula”, about which the less said, the better. Especially when I’m eating.

Why does she write this sort of thing? Because she’s a freak. Indeed, I strongly suspect she is a freaky freak who likes it all freaky. And you know what? That’s okay. It’s okay. It’s a free country, and everybody is uniquely special, and we’re free to be you and me. This was the secret devil message fed to me in every episode of “The New Zoo Revue”, and I’ll be god damned if anyone’s going to deprogram me now. You go, Modo!

Why does the New York Times publish it? Dude, how would I know? Why do people dress up like the fucking Get Along Gang and fucking gang bang each other? One of the very, very few comforts of my otherwise doleful existence is that I don’t actually have to understand why people do insane shit, and thank God for that small mercy. I guess they’re just freaks like that.

… Oops!  An earlier version of this post made the unforgivable error of confusing plushies and furries.  I’m totally going to Hell.

The past 10 seconds of my life:

1) I go here, and read:

He [Barack Obama] goes and picks up a pair of 16 kilo weights and starts curling them with his left and right arms, 30 repetitions on each side. Then, amazingly, he picks up the 32 kilo weights! Very slowly he lifts them, first 10 curls with his right, then 10 with his left.

2) I think to myself: “I bet that …”

2a) “… you can get pretty far in Germany without any understanding of the English system of measure.”

2b) “… Vox Day’s penis just retracted.”


Now, Obama obviously keeps himself in shape, but either his magical negritude [!!!] is much more powerful than I’d previously believed or this German reporter is at best mistaking pounds for kilos. I have lifted weights regularly for 20 years and at 17 inches in circumference, my arms should be significantly stronger than Obama’s appear to be in the famous beach photo. I do use the 32-kilo dumbbells occasionally myself, but only for shoulder press and even then for just four reps. Granted, I do both pull-ups and straight bar before getting to dumbbell curls, but I start with reps of ten at 35-40 kilos on the straight bar using both arms and 14 kilos for the single-arm exercises. I finish with four reps at 50 and 20, respectively. At no point have I ever used more than 22 kilos for one-arm curls and that was when I was hitting the weights very hard while using creatine.

This is just like Babe Ruth calling his own shot, especially if that epochal moment in sporting history occurred during a game of tennis ball T-ball in his living room.  It’s nothing like Obama hitting a 3-pointer, though, which is totally unimpressive.

… On further consideration, I may just be an internet loser whose epitaph will read: “Laughed whenever someone said ‘Althouse‘.  Survived by his 200 cats.”  I will have to console myself with my large and powerful arms, which are exactly 5% larger and more powerful than Mr. Day’s at all times.

Next Page »