Tony Kushner got one.
He wrote about ethnic cleansing and tried to lie his way into the position that Israel should never have been created.
Someone on the board at CUNY disagreed with giving him an honorary degree. Gosh, Brandeis gave him one in 2006, they're that intelligent, how come CUNY isn't intelligent enough to give him one?
As Prager says, "You can't be too far left."
I was a student at UCLA in the second half of the Seventies. That being the decade after the Sixties, one would think that the acceptability of leftwing thought would have been at its zenith, but no, students incapable of analyzing the intellectual iconoclasm of "question authority" graduated, finished growing up, and became college professors. They settled in nicely to reform the world by passing on their extreme leftism. Their students, the next generation of Americans, graduated around the turn of the century.
I knew this bunch, I was one of them, I lived among them, and despite the desperate measures UCLA took to keep students from meeting, discussing, hashing out, learning from one another, or making friends, I had many many political discussions with many of the roughly forty people who hung around the computer club in the Seventies. Most of them were liberal. I was liberal. We agreed that liberalism was good. We agreed that we were better people because we were liberals. We knew that our opinions were higher and more noble than any other opinions, because they came from around the world as well as from our own liberal roots that we had acquired in high school and even in junior high, though this varied from student to student.
We knew that "share the wealth" was good. We knew that capitalists were greedy bastards who kept other people from sharing in the immense bounties of this country. We knew, too, that this country had within it the resources to make everyone rich if they didn't fight the opportunity. Sure, there were lazy bastards who were just fine with being poor. But these lazy bastards tended to have children, and their children would grow up poor, deprived, malnourished, lacking opportunities, and educated to be like the rest of the Great Unwashed America.
That's right. Everyone else was a great unwashed one. We were the privileged knowledgeable few. That's because we were leftists and leftists always knew better.
This is liberalism. This is the self-aggrandising of all liberal and leftwing opinion. Left is good, conservative is evil. Nazis were right wingers, therefore right wingers are Nazis. Communism was good. Equality of all is what this country was founded on and this is a value we need to enforce today, even if it means legal strictures and the force of law. Inequality means persecution, oppression, and exploitation, all of which are straight from the devil. Therefore conservatives are demons and their ideas are demonic. Repress and suppress them, throw rocks at them, kill them.
My point is, or would have been if I had the energy to finish what I was driving at, that my university was so damned leftist there was no room for dissent or disagreement, and no need for discussion. And that's why today no conservative gets those honorary degrees or speaking engagements on anything like par with the leftist professors, guest authors, opinion wonks, and journalists from any college or university in this country.
Monday, May 9, 2011
"Noam Chomsky thinks Bush is much worse than Bin Laden."
What else do you need?
Chomsky, as a representative of the far left, and unfortunately one whom the press listen to as if he were authoritative on the subject of politics rather than on his field of expertise--linguistics!--is a nut. And he says stupid things like this, and has done all his life. How can you listen to someone from the far left any more than you listen to someone from the far right? It's because you've kidded yourself for years into believing that Leftist thought is normative and right wing thought is just evil. Nothing but evil, and needs to be attacked and degraded whenever possible, such that all right wingers become monsters, demons whom listening to is an act of evil.
This keeps the leftwing mind solidly closed. It's exactly like greeting a Jehovah's Witness at your door.
Chomsky, as a representative of the far left, and unfortunately one whom the press listen to as if he were authoritative on the subject of politics rather than on his field of expertise--linguistics!--is a nut. And he says stupid things like this, and has done all his life. How can you listen to someone from the far left any more than you listen to someone from the far right? It's because you've kidded yourself for years into believing that Leftist thought is normative and right wing thought is just evil. Nothing but evil, and needs to be attacked and degraded whenever possible, such that all right wingers become monsters, demons whom listening to is an act of evil.
This keeps the leftwing mind solidly closed. It's exactly like greeting a Jehovah's Witness at your door.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Idiot talker on Matt Lauer show.
On pathetic guest wants to whine over whether it's okay to cheer when the good guys kill the bad guys. "Is this justice or is it vengeance?" she howls, obviously unable to make any moral discernment. Apparently this product of the public schools, or perhaps of Crossroads School in western Los Angeles, is completely unacquainted with the concept of "justice". For decades (at least since the Sixties), her mentors have supplied her with the notion that all justice is just vengeance, apparently because no justice is allowed ever to be something that is dispensed in order to bring an element of "just (i.e. fair, righteous) consequences" to any action.
"Your children have already seen images of people celebrating the death of someone," says Lauer, to which I add: "Yup, and probably been spared a lifetime of nightmares because of it." When Prager said it was good for children to see good triumph over evil and it was good to see that "good men kill bad men" I remembered my childhood and how those ideas were reinforced by every good-guy/bad-guy show we ever watched. You'll note that even though MacGyver never once used a gun, he still managed to kill bad guys pretty often, almost every episode in fact.
Remember, it's the Left who gave us children who cry at the thought of Global Warming, and before them these children cried at the thought of A-bombs blowing them up in their sleep.
"Your children have already seen images of people celebrating the death of someone," says Lauer, to which I add: "Yup, and probably been spared a lifetime of nightmares because of it." When Prager said it was good for children to see good triumph over evil and it was good to see that "good men kill bad men" I remembered my childhood and how those ideas were reinforced by every good-guy/bad-guy show we ever watched. You'll note that even though MacGyver never once used a gun, he still managed to kill bad guys pretty often, almost every episode in fact.
Remember, it's the Left who gave us children who cry at the thought of Global Warming, and before them these children cried at the thought of A-bombs blowing them up in their sleep.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
"Republicans praise Obama; do you think it would have been the other way around?"
We already have an example, wherein many democrats had already offered some praise for George Bush's actions, but then were apparently instructed in how they ought to hhave twisted the event to the negative and criticized Bush for doing what he did.
I refer specifically to what Bush was doing on the morning of 9-11, reading a book to a kindergarten class. His aide leaned down and whispered the news of the destruction of the twin towers in New York City. Bush only paused for a moment, nodeed to the aide, and went calmly forward and finished the book.
At first the democrats having anything to do with the situation actually commended him for his calmness, praising him for not leaping to a panic, jumping out of his chair, frightening the kids, causing terror all around, and so forth. But within a few days, the song they were singing had acquired quite a few sour notes. Bush SHOULD have stopped reading and rushed off to Air Force One to hurry back to the White House.
This is a plainly idiotic approach to take. What was Bush supposed to do from the White House? He had everything he always takes with him, right there with him. So does Obama. I would be appalled if Obama were stupid enough to jump out of his chair and knock children flying as he rushed off to do NOTHING USEFUL.
But that's always the way with the Left. Ignore the issues, ignore the debate, just attack the person. Shame on you people. Well, at least you're consistently shameful.
I refer specifically to what Bush was doing on the morning of 9-11, reading a book to a kindergarten class. His aide leaned down and whispered the news of the destruction of the twin towers in New York City. Bush only paused for a moment, nodeed to the aide, and went calmly forward and finished the book.
At first the democrats having anything to do with the situation actually commended him for his calmness, praising him for not leaping to a panic, jumping out of his chair, frightening the kids, causing terror all around, and so forth. But within a few days, the song they were singing had acquired quite a few sour notes. Bush SHOULD have stopped reading and rushed off to Air Force One to hurry back to the White House.
This is a plainly idiotic approach to take. What was Bush supposed to do from the White House? He had everything he always takes with him, right there with him. So does Obama. I would be appalled if Obama were stupid enough to jump out of his chair and knock children flying as he rushed off to do NOTHING USEFUL.
But that's always the way with the Left. Ignore the issues, ignore the debate, just attack the person. Shame on you people. Well, at least you're consistently shameful.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Guest David Aaronovitch, author of "Voodoo Histories"
I had to look this up first because I wanted to know who the author was, since I missed his name in the intro.
He's rather interesting, and it would be very nice to silence all the people shrieking "conspiracy! conspiracy!" Yes, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Yes, he sure was a big fat nothing, and for this one big nothing to change history by killing John Kennedy is a bit appalling a thought, but it was the case. This half-wit, failure of a man wanted to impress the KGB so he could get a job with them and become important. That's all there was to it, period.
I do believe in a couple of conspiracies. I don't know whether Vince Foster committed suicide or not, but I do believe the evidence was tampered with and that that his office had evidence removed from it and probably destroyed. His briefcase was on tape being emptied, searched, and even turned upside down on two? occasions before the thirty-two separate pieces of the putative "suicide note" (with one piece missing, very conveniently the one containing his signature) fluttered out of it, which I believe is utterly impossible. The handwriting experts declared that note to be a rather sad forgery. What do I think really happened? I have no idea, but wherever he died, he left no blood or brain spatter in Ft. Marcy Park, and his hand had no powder residue on it.
A fuller version from the documents.
The other conspiracy theory is much more significant. It involves the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. The Soviet government and Armand Hammer and Hammer's little puppetboi doctor, Robert Gale, all conspired to vastly diminish the body count to one or two percent of the actual number. I have it on good authority from the real head of the oncology team, that the dead must have numbered in the four digits as was originally reported by ham radio operators on the scene the first night after the release happened. "Considering that I was doing transplants on truck drivers who had spent just an hour in the area and then driven straight back out again," he said, "the ham reports had to have been much closer to the actual number of dead than the offical number" which claims only 32 dead.
Our press has never questioned the official Soviet statemtent, never delved into the mystery, but our press was then (and still is) full of overgrown hippies who honestly LIKED the Soviet Union and never once suspected its officials of wishing to hide something like a huge body count.
My disclaimer: I am not generally a conspiracy adherent. Rather, I believe in little conspiracies, a couple of people destroying evidence shouldn't stretch your imagination too far. The Foster conspiracy wouldn't have involved more than three or four people, all of them political buddies with much to lose. Apparently someone wanted to protect the Clintons from too careful a scrutiny, of the few people involved, most of the involvement would have been over politics. The left wingers would have been highly motivated to keep silence.
As for the Chernobyl incident, I will say first that I am not a nuclear power opponent; far from it. In fact I pretty much agree with Prager when he says "I would volunteer to store nuclear waste in my back yard." I do believe the Soviet government was unbelievably shoddy in their health and safety practices (we have seen how they will dump toxic waste into rivers, for example) because they didn't care a bit about the safety of their citizens, nor or their workers, any more than they cared about the deaths of six to twelve million Ukrainians during the thirties. The safety measures on that power plant were inadequate and the plant was not kept in good repair. When people died, who cared? Certainly not America. Not enough to expose their shoddiness, anyway, but just enough to halt the construction of more nuclear plants in our own country and across the Third World as well. Very smart.
I'm hearing Aaronovitch list a couple of real conspiracies. Michael Medved believes there are NO conspiracies. Maybe he defines "conspiracy" differently than I do.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Prager: "You don't get lied to by the media, you get filtered news."
Well, yes, that's probably their favorite way to lie to you, by not telling you a big chunk of the news. Want an example? The Clinton Administration decided they could juggle the numbers of unemployed. They quit counting anyone who was still looking for a job after 18 months, later 2 years. The administration shifted its unemployment count from the inner cities, where unemployment was very high, to the suburbs, where it was relatively quite low. They phased in the new numbers over several months so that the unemployment rate would appear to decline. And lazy newspeople just went along with it. So sure, it's the media going along with democrats and presenting only the favorable side of most issues.
But Prager then added, "When the media quote a statistic like 'four million Americans are out of work,' I believe that statistic."
Well, maybe you should reconsider that, then, Prager. They told us, as you mentioned, that thirty thousand women a year DIE of anorexia, when the true number is "perhaps as many as five" given by the Department of Health. Not five thousand, just ... five. Or the other statistic they love to quote, that "women are still earning only seventy cents for every dollar that men earn." Which is only true when read with very narrow definitions. In all other senses, women are doing better than men. Deliberate misconception.
Further, the Old Stream Media will tell you all sorts of b.s., from "Bill Clinton has created 12 million jobs" (one of his campaign themes for 1996) to "Over a hundred murders in the football stadium in the aftermath of Katrina." Sometimes it's just neglect and laziness, but those are still false numbers and if you trust them, you're being fooled.
I'm sure any sentient American who has been reading the papers for more than six months can come up with dozens more examples.
But Prager then added, "When the media quote a statistic like 'four million Americans are out of work,' I believe that statistic."
Well, maybe you should reconsider that, then, Prager. They told us, as you mentioned, that thirty thousand women a year DIE of anorexia, when the true number is "perhaps as many as five" given by the Department of Health. Not five thousand, just ... five. Or the other statistic they love to quote, that "women are still earning only seventy cents for every dollar that men earn." Which is only true when read with very narrow definitions. In all other senses, women are doing better than men. Deliberate misconception.
Further, the Old Stream Media will tell you all sorts of b.s., from "Bill Clinton has created 12 million jobs" (one of his campaign themes for 1996) to "Over a hundred murders in the football stadium in the aftermath of Katrina." Sometimes it's just neglect and laziness, but those are still false numbers and if you trust them, you're being fooled.
I'm sure any sentient American who has been reading the papers for more than six months can come up with dozens more examples.
Why wasn't the war against Ho Chi Minh noble?
Because North Vietnam was communist. Anything anti-communist was bad here in Sixties America.
I haven't heard Prager use the term "anti anti-communist" in a couple of years. It's a very useful term, he should start using it again.
But as I started to say, anything anti-communist was bad here in Sixties America; the hippies redefined our language and took over the goods and bads and evils in our culture, so that eventually even a simple phrase was sufficient to eviscerate the argument, the position, the arguer, all in one two-word phrase. "You're so middle class" would shoot down everything the person had said, was then saying, and ever would say in the entire remainder of his existence. "Don't be so judgemental" would shut them up forever, at least in the presence of the judging anti-judger, who forever owned all arguments and all righteousness.
The judges of righteousness also dismissed capitalism forever as "evil" and "selfish". Discrimination, including discriminating against evil, was bad, though it was certainly okay to discriminate against conservatives and Republicans and against white men (and soon after, against white boys).
They used the same rhetoric to eliminate majority positions all across Western civilization. It became embarrassing to believe in God (Flying Spaghetti Monster or sky fairies) though it was okay to believe in Buddha, Vishnu, Khali, engrams, Allah, chakras, your horoscope, and all sorts of other stupidities. Patriotism was mocked, making money became filthy, opposing high taxes was "racism" (if you don't remember that, you shouldn't vote)--because they assumed in a most racist manner that the beneficiaries of the redistribution of wealth were all black.
I haven't heard Prager use the term "anti anti-communist" in a couple of years. It's a very useful term, he should start using it again.
But as I started to say, anything anti-communist was bad here in Sixties America; the hippies redefined our language and took over the goods and bads and evils in our culture, so that eventually even a simple phrase was sufficient to eviscerate the argument, the position, the arguer, all in one two-word phrase. "You're so middle class" would shoot down everything the person had said, was then saying, and ever would say in the entire remainder of his existence. "Don't be so judgemental" would shut them up forever, at least in the presence of the judging anti-judger, who forever owned all arguments and all righteousness.
The judges of righteousness also dismissed capitalism forever as "evil" and "selfish". Discrimination, including discriminating against evil, was bad, though it was certainly okay to discriminate against conservatives and Republicans and against white men (and soon after, against white boys).
They used the same rhetoric to eliminate majority positions all across Western civilization. It became embarrassing to believe in God (Flying Spaghetti Monster or sky fairies) though it was okay to believe in Buddha, Vishnu, Khali, engrams, Allah, chakras, your horoscope, and all sorts of other stupidities. Patriotism was mocked, making money became filthy, opposing high taxes was "racism" (if you don't remember that, you shouldn't vote)--because they assumed in a most racist manner that the beneficiaries of the redistribution of wealth were all black.
Prager to caller: "YOU called the HUGH HEWITT show?!?!"
Oh, shut up. I don't like you belittling other talk show hosts, even if you imagine that he's your friend. Yes, his audience is down; is this a lame attempt by you to drive it down further?
There ya go again, interrupting the caller and stealing the call.
Welp, I complain when Prager interrupts a caller, pounces in the call, and takes it away from them. It's especially bad when he only does it to gloat, "Oh! I know! I've been saying this for twenty years!"
Prager, we already know you're God's gift to intellectual life.
This particular caller was about to tell us when a certain situation (I can't even remember what the issue was because you pounced on it before she could finish her sentence) when a certain situation was especially acute. I wanted to hear her thought because it seemed to be some bad kind of thinking or behavior we have control over and which I could work on if I had that problem too.
You kept me from hearing it, thanks a lot.
Prager, we already know you're God's gift to intellectual life.
This particular caller was about to tell us when a certain situation (I can't even remember what the issue was because you pounced on it before she could finish her sentence) when a certain situation was especially acute. I wanted to hear her thought because it seemed to be some bad kind of thinking or behavior we have control over and which I could work on if I had that problem too.
You kept me from hearing it, thanks a lot.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Oh, the domestic bliss
I am watching "Footsteps in the Dark" on TCM.
This movie was made in 1941. The hero is a banker, therefore he's rich. He's Errol Flynn, in fact. He's sitting downstairs first thing in the morning, at the breakfast table, which is in the morning room and not in the dining room. The morning room is a nice, cheery, bright room, just perfect for sitting at the cloth-covered table and enjoying your morning paper before the wife and mother(-in-law?) arrive for their breakfast. He's wearing a suit.
Here come the ladies. The wife is beautifully dressed in a day dress with a sweater over it, and the mother is similarly dressed for her day. Flynn jumps up and holds the chair for his mother(-in-law?) and then seats his wife as well.
Life is beautiful.
Do I think this is view of living is unrealistic? No, not for their class (clearly upper middle). I think it's unrealistic for the rest of the country but they would have loved to have been thus blessed.
May it be so for me, some day.
This movie was made in 1941. The hero is a banker, therefore he's rich. He's Errol Flynn, in fact. He's sitting downstairs first thing in the morning, at the breakfast table, which is in the morning room and not in the dining room. The morning room is a nice, cheery, bright room, just perfect for sitting at the cloth-covered table and enjoying your morning paper before the wife and mother(-in-law?) arrive for their breakfast. He's wearing a suit.
Here come the ladies. The wife is beautifully dressed in a day dress with a sweater over it, and the mother is similarly dressed for her day. Flynn jumps up and holds the chair for his mother(-in-law?) and then seats his wife as well.
Life is beautiful.
Do I think this is view of living is unrealistic? No, not for their class (clearly upper middle). I think it's unrealistic for the rest of the country but they would have loved to have been thus blessed.
May it be so for me, some day.
Accidentally rich
Fairness, blessings, luck, birth, who knows what makes people rich? It couldn't be hard work. Or planning for your future. Or saving your money. Or investing in yourself. Or investing in an idea you had. Or doing extensive reading outside school. Or training any skill, especially if it takes study or practice. Those are all evil phrases.
I hate to tell you this, Dennis, but all of this is the watchword of the redneck community. There is very little "invest in yourself" or "get an education" or "save for the future" or ANYthing that would make a future for a family richer and better. The rednecks I know either dropped out of high school and made up for their lack of a degree with a GED, or they just shuffled their feet through high school, reading only Harry Potter or vampire stories to feed their minds. They know they're unemployable and are content to get minimum-wage menial jobs at Burger King of Walmart. They don't like the work and they don't care about the income so they quit (without notice) when they tire of the job, usually in just two to six months. They live in trailers provided by their parents on land owned by their parents, but at least they're not paying mortgages. They buy a six-year-old car from that lady they know from church, and then bitch for the rest of the vehicle's life that that rotten woman sold them a rotten car.
They used to vote in a solid block for Democrats, because of the promise of handouts. Most of them are still getting handouts anyway. But they switched to Republican based on conservative values. They hate the "teach a man to fish" message but underneath all their laziness and lack of worrying about their future, there is the knowledge that the republican life plan (get an education, start a business) has a better future possibility for them than the Democrat life plan (put out your hand and we'll put something very small in it). Even though the majority of them have no idea how to live that plan.
An aside quote: The Left love bumper stickers like "War is not the answer". Actually they like to say, "War is never the answer." This bumper sticker fully demonstrates the shallowness of Leftist thinking. Try asking one of them (as Prager frequently does), "So how should we have dealt with Adolf Hitler?"
They have no answer, but they will soon figure out something flippant and shallow, generally attacking the person who asked them that question. "You're on the oil companies' payroll" if nothing else comes to mind.
I hate to tell you this, Dennis, but all of this is the watchword of the redneck community. There is very little "invest in yourself" or "get an education" or "save for the future" or ANYthing that would make a future for a family richer and better. The rednecks I know either dropped out of high school and made up for their lack of a degree with a GED, or they just shuffled their feet through high school, reading only Harry Potter or vampire stories to feed their minds. They know they're unemployable and are content to get minimum-wage menial jobs at Burger King of Walmart. They don't like the work and they don't care about the income so they quit (without notice) when they tire of the job, usually in just two to six months. They live in trailers provided by their parents on land owned by their parents, but at least they're not paying mortgages. They buy a six-year-old car from that lady they know from church, and then bitch for the rest of the vehicle's life that that rotten woman sold them a rotten car.
They used to vote in a solid block for Democrats, because of the promise of handouts. Most of them are still getting handouts anyway. But they switched to Republican based on conservative values. They hate the "teach a man to fish" message but underneath all their laziness and lack of worrying about their future, there is the knowledge that the republican life plan (get an education, start a business) has a better future possibility for them than the Democrat life plan (put out your hand and we'll put something very small in it). Even though the majority of them have no idea how to live that plan.
An aside quote: The Left love bumper stickers like "War is not the answer". Actually they like to say, "War is never the answer." This bumper sticker fully demonstrates the shallowness of Leftist thinking. Try asking one of them (as Prager frequently does), "So how should we have dealt with Adolf Hitler?"
They have no answer, but they will soon figure out something flippant and shallow, generally attacking the person who asked them that question. "You're on the oil companies' payroll" if nothing else comes to mind.
"[Obama] wrote two autobiographies that earned him millions of dollars..."
I'm pretty sure Obama didn't write these. Wasn't there a statement from one of his friends, Chillsomething, Billsomething? that said Ayers had written the books. In fact, I was reading "Dreams" when I heard someone from somebody's radio audience assert that the style of "Dreams" was so radically different that Obama could not possibly have written both books.
Frankly, I don't see Obama as a writer. Or as an anything. His writing style is illiterate, and his handlers would never trust him with such a task.
Frankly, I don't see Obama as a writer. Or as an anything. His writing style is illiterate, and his handlers would never trust him with such a task.
"The Left honors graffiti-ers"
It was the Left who saw the graffitists as poor, oppressed, underprivileged KIDS just trying to express themselves in a way that "society" ("the Man", the oppressors) won't "allow" them to do. Then we romanticized their collective "free spirits" for breaking out of the bondage of "societal rules" * and demanded no punishment for their vandalism and soon we were demanding that our cities set aside legitimate places for the eyesores they liked to put on public places.
Never mind that most of what they spraypainted in plain sight on public walls was full of obscenities and was meant to set apart gang territories, thus giving a new rationale for even more crime. What mattered most was simply that the leftist had given the criminal what he wanted, and more societal chaos had resulted, which made the Leftist feel very good about himself as an "original thinker" and "free spirit".
*(I believe their apologists found high validation in thinking they had "recognized" nobility in their souls whereas society had only seen crime, vandalism, and evil before)
Never mind that most of what they spraypainted in plain sight on public walls was full of obscenities and was meant to set apart gang territories, thus giving a new rationale for even more crime. What mattered most was simply that the leftist had given the criminal what he wanted, and more societal chaos had resulted, which made the Leftist feel very good about himself as an "original thinker" and "free spirit".
*(I believe their apologists found high validation in thinking they had "recognized" nobility in their souls whereas society had only seen crime, vandalism, and evil before)
"Uh, how am I going to make money?"--It's a pretty damn noble thing, how am i going to make money.
"Manliness was, when I was growing up, supporting a family."
How can I argue with this? He's right. When we were growing up, manliness was supporting a family. By the time I got to college, at the great advanced age of 21, and found my way into the Computer Club at the great advanced age of 25, manliness had become focusing on yourself, not worrying about anyone but yourself, if it feels good do it, why should these two people who can't make each other happy any more stay in an unhappy marriage. A man who put other people before himself was a wuss, a giver, a weakling. The bible of righteous human rights included only one commandment: take care of Number One, because if you don't love yourself first, you can't love anyone else.
That's why capitalism is so horrible in post-modern America. Capitalism is all about human needs and wants (in that order) driving supply and demand. Horrible! And I don't understand how our hippies, who were ALL leftists, could make the demand to love yourself first, and on the other hand make the claim that loving one's own needs and wants was an evil thing. I suspect the only difference, that the former is an ideal and the latter is physical, material, based in the real world.
How can I argue with this? He's right. When we were growing up, manliness was supporting a family. By the time I got to college, at the great advanced age of 21, and found my way into the Computer Club at the great advanced age of 25, manliness had become focusing on yourself, not worrying about anyone but yourself, if it feels good do it, why should these two people who can't make each other happy any more stay in an unhappy marriage. A man who put other people before himself was a wuss, a giver, a weakling. The bible of righteous human rights included only one commandment: take care of Number One, because if you don't love yourself first, you can't love anyone else.
That's why capitalism is so horrible in post-modern America. Capitalism is all about human needs and wants (in that order) driving supply and demand. Horrible! And I don't understand how our hippies, who were ALL leftists, could make the demand to love yourself first, and on the other hand make the claim that loving one's own needs and wants was an evil thing. I suspect the only difference, that the former is an ideal and the latter is physical, material, based in the real world.
Guest: Allison Armstrong
I caught the last half of this show when it was live. I regretted missing it. Today I should have known she would be among his "best of" shows, and yet I still managed to miss the first half. She's a magnificent speaker. Both sexes should listen to what she says because she speaks truth to ignorance.
Among the ignorant I count every American woman who has ever listened to her feminist foremothers, and every American male who doesn't know that his wife has been heavily influenced by these harpies posing as women posing as men-without-penises. Man haters. Their battle cry: "We want to be like you but only after we destroy you and everything you are." That is why we have the war on masculinity.
Okay, I caught the repeat broadcast on KHNR.
Just the notes:
Issue one: The eighteen minutes. That's "a quickie" to the rest of us.
Men do this all the time, and women do not understand it at all.
(Well, I do.) I love having a quickie with the man I love, if there's a man to love. I was married 23 years to a piece of garbage who didn't want to get divorced but he still wanted to treat me like crap. He'd ignore me for months at a time, and then out of the blue want a quickie. That was horrible. Had he been affectionate and or attentive during those intervening weeks and months, I'd have been delighted to rush to the bedroom for some fun and some man-pleasing, but since his primary mode was humiliation and hatred and distancing himself from both me and the children, it felt far more abusive than anything else. Yes, I showed him often that I was "on his side". Unfortunately that merely served as a malicious opportunity to kick me and crap on me emotionally.
Problem: the man who is out for days at a time. Her tearful delivery: You don't call, you don't ask, you never want to know how I'm doing, you're not interested, you think I'm nothing, cry cry cry.
Prager's solution: Pick up the damn phone and call, once a day and ask how she is.
Armstrong's advice: Learn ahead of time what she wants to be asked about, even if that means asking her directly. Prager's cautionary: Isn't that like the "what do you want for your birthday" question, that is so often rebuffed with, "you should know without my telling you."
Armstrong: Women have diffuse awareness. We have this enormous data base of preferences. This is how we know what you put in your coffee. This is how we know whether it's a yogurt day or a banana day. Men don't do this. So when YOU don't know whether I like cream in my coffee, we begin with, "you don't love me." Meanwhile, you're focused on catching that deer for the dinner table.
Caller: How do you strengthen your marriage if you're resentful of your husband because he's too busy?
I missed the answer. Something about pride. I would also ask if it's about the power struggle. That's what everything was attributed to by my husband's counselor.
After I got to sit down and talk to that counselor, though, the counselor found herself again and again looking at my husband and asking him, "did you really do that???" After the usual pause, he would give a very unexpected, "she deserved it." Counselor's response, "But Steve, that's abusive!"
Nuff said.
Among the ignorant I count every American woman who has ever listened to her feminist foremothers, and every American male who doesn't know that his wife has been heavily influenced by these harpies posing as women posing as men-without-penises. Man haters. Their battle cry: "We want to be like you but only after we destroy you and everything you are." That is why we have the war on masculinity.
Okay, I caught the repeat broadcast on KHNR.
Just the notes:
Issue one: The eighteen minutes. That's "a quickie" to the rest of us.
Men do this all the time, and women do not understand it at all.
(Well, I do.) I love having a quickie with the man I love, if there's a man to love. I was married 23 years to a piece of garbage who didn't want to get divorced but he still wanted to treat me like crap. He'd ignore me for months at a time, and then out of the blue want a quickie. That was horrible. Had he been affectionate and or attentive during those intervening weeks and months, I'd have been delighted to rush to the bedroom for some fun and some man-pleasing, but since his primary mode was humiliation and hatred and distancing himself from both me and the children, it felt far more abusive than anything else. Yes, I showed him often that I was "on his side". Unfortunately that merely served as a malicious opportunity to kick me and crap on me emotionally.
Problem: the man who is out for days at a time. Her tearful delivery: You don't call, you don't ask, you never want to know how I'm doing, you're not interested, you think I'm nothing, cry cry cry.
Prager's solution: Pick up the damn phone and call, once a day and ask how she is.
Armstrong's advice: Learn ahead of time what she wants to be asked about, even if that means asking her directly. Prager's cautionary: Isn't that like the "what do you want for your birthday" question, that is so often rebuffed with, "you should know without my telling you."
Armstrong: Women have diffuse awareness. We have this enormous data base of preferences. This is how we know what you put in your coffee. This is how we know whether it's a yogurt day or a banana day. Men don't do this. So when YOU don't know whether I like cream in my coffee, we begin with, "you don't love me." Meanwhile, you're focused on catching that deer for the dinner table.
Caller: How do you strengthen your marriage if you're resentful of your husband because he's too busy?
I missed the answer. Something about pride. I would also ask if it's about the power struggle. That's what everything was attributed to by my husband's counselor.
After I got to sit down and talk to that counselor, though, the counselor found herself again and again looking at my husband and asking him, "did you really do that???" After the usual pause, he would give a very unexpected, "she deserved it." Counselor's response, "But Steve, that's abusive!"
Nuff said.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Ultimate Issues Hour. Book: In Defense of Faith, by David Brog
Prager: "This is a desert-island book."
"If you read this, I benefit. Yes, if you read this, the world becomes a better place, so I benefit."
This is on my wish list now.
"If you read this, I benefit. Yes, if you read this, the world becomes a better place, so I benefit."
This is on my wish list now.
Global Warming hysteria
Roy W. Spencer is the principal climate researcher at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Spencer: "Of the billions that the U.S. Government has poured into climate research, absolutely none has gone into studying the possibility that the warming we have observed over the last hundred years might be natural."
Here is Spencer's most recent book. If you've been stucked in by Al "The Debate is over!!!!" Gore and his ilk, I strongly suggest you read it:
And this one is just awesome:
AND you should go to your Netflix account and search for The Great Global Warming Swindle (or failing that, it's on YouTube) which was made in response to the shoddy science and outright lies contained in "An Inconvenient Truth". I cannot give you a link because whoever posts it, it gets taken down again on copyright violations.
Of course the planet is warming. We're coming out of a great Ice Age that ended less than ten thousand years ago. Earth's average temperature is higher than our average temperature today, and the standard temp is trying to make its way back up to where it belongs. And you want to spend trillions of dollars and sacrifice the standard of living worldwide so that we can keep the globe's temperature artificially low? Even if we could do it, you would be on the wrong side of the issue.
I hope you'll watch that movie all the way to the end. You'll see a mother, her baby on her back, stoking a crappy wood-burning fire to cook the family's dinner. And you'll look into the eyes of a small child who may or may not die from breathing problems from living in that crappy hut while breathing that crappy air. You'll see the country doctor whose village has been forced to go without electricity because their stupid solar panels aren't sufficient to run both the clinic refrigerator and anything else.
That's YOUR doing, you're a fat juicy comfortable overfed American and in spite of your teachers constantly bellyaching about "understanding other societies" you've never been exposed to anything outside your fat, happy society besides teenage sitcoms and funny cartoons. You're content with your life and if you bothered, you could heat ten fat, happy American houses with the solar panels you could afford, but because you know absolutely nothing about science, economics, social science, history, other societies, other ways of life, or anything else, you think it's just fine to make these unwashed, dirty little jungle dwellers live the live you would lead by choice. Only you don't realize you'd be putting all your little greenie energy savings on your nice, insulated airy little American home, instead of on the extremely un-nice, un-airy, uninsulated little third world hovel, and making life fiercely miserable for them. And all in the name of some phony feel-good mission to "save the world", which you actually are arrogant enough to believe you can do.
SHAME ON YOU
Me, I want to stop throwing millions and billions of dollars to crappy dictators who slaughter Hutus, Ethiopians, and anyone else they want to slaughter, and start sending soldiers with construction crews over there to build power plants, nuclear plants, hydroelectric plants, and anything else they need.
Spencer: "Of the billions that the U.S. Government has poured into climate research, absolutely none has gone into studying the possibility that the warming we have observed over the last hundred years might be natural."
Here is Spencer's most recent book. If you've been stucked in by Al "The Debate is over!!!!" Gore and his ilk, I strongly suggest you read it:
And this one is just awesome:
AND you should go to your Netflix account and search for The Great Global Warming Swindle (or failing that, it's on YouTube) which was made in response to the shoddy science and outright lies contained in "An Inconvenient Truth". I cannot give you a link because whoever posts it, it gets taken down again on copyright violations.
Of course the planet is warming. We're coming out of a great Ice Age that ended less than ten thousand years ago. Earth's average temperature is higher than our average temperature today, and the standard temp is trying to make its way back up to where it belongs. And you want to spend trillions of dollars and sacrifice the standard of living worldwide so that we can keep the globe's temperature artificially low? Even if we could do it, you would be on the wrong side of the issue.
I hope you'll watch that movie all the way to the end. You'll see a mother, her baby on her back, stoking a crappy wood-burning fire to cook the family's dinner. And you'll look into the eyes of a small child who may or may not die from breathing problems from living in that crappy hut while breathing that crappy air. You'll see the country doctor whose village has been forced to go without electricity because their stupid solar panels aren't sufficient to run both the clinic refrigerator and anything else.
That's YOUR doing, you're a fat juicy comfortable overfed American and in spite of your teachers constantly bellyaching about "understanding other societies" you've never been exposed to anything outside your fat, happy society besides teenage sitcoms and funny cartoons. You're content with your life and if you bothered, you could heat ten fat, happy American houses with the solar panels you could afford, but because you know absolutely nothing about science, economics, social science, history, other societies, other ways of life, or anything else, you think it's just fine to make these unwashed, dirty little jungle dwellers live the live you would lead by choice. Only you don't realize you'd be putting all your little greenie energy savings on your nice, insulated airy little American home, instead of on the extremely un-nice, un-airy, uninsulated little third world hovel, and making life fiercely miserable for them. And all in the name of some phony feel-good mission to "save the world", which you actually are arrogant enough to believe you can do.
SHAME ON YOU
Me, I want to stop throwing millions and billions of dollars to crappy dictators who slaughter Hutus, Ethiopians, and anyone else they want to slaughter, and start sending soldiers with construction crews over there to build power plants, nuclear plants, hydroelectric plants, and anything else they need.
Friday, April 15, 2011
"And they still say the death penalty isn't a deterrent"
Yes, well, it is just stunning what the Left will say. And that means they will say anything they damn well please, all they have to do is like what they're saying.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Well, my headphones have crashed
I knew it was going to happen sooner or later. My headphones have given out. I hope to get a replacement pair soon. Till then I can't hear Prager's show. Sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)