Friday, June 26, 2009

Hiatus on Hiatus

I haven't been posting for a while. Between my recent move halfway around the world and my utter contempt for the US political scene as it now stands; I just haven't had the desire to. But all things must come to an end and my self imposed Internet exile is no different. Having taken some time out for myself I now once again feel the need to share my twisted perspective with anyone adventurous or foolish enough to subject themselves to such depraved musings.

As predicted Obama has moved full steam ahead with his economy destroying and freedom repressing agenda, dragging America closer to socialism than any president since FDR while an adoring and slavering press corp reports on his efforts with all the objectivity and professionalism of a schoolgirl experiencing her first crush. Between his schizophrenic approach to the US car industry, his Chicago style governance and his desire to ensure all Americans enjoy the "benefits" of euro style health care Mr Obama seems hellbent on destroying the USA as fast as he can. Of course, anyone with both eyes and a brain could have predicted that he would do so based on his history and track record but that would have required the entitled masses to actually think for once which is apparently a bridge to far for most of the fattened lambs Americans have become. In any event I no longer care, having moved my assets, family and myself as far out of reach of the grasping and greedy hands of the leeches in Washington as possible while actually staying within the atmosphere of planet earth.

However hope does remain, it would appear that even the complacent and ignorant masses that make up the US electorate are finally awakening to the wholesale changes being wrought in the US if the massive attendance at the various tea-parties are anything to go by. Of courses knowing the attention span of the average American wage slave I suspect that this trend will fizzle out within a few months once the new season of American Idol returns to bludgeon their liquefying brains back into their typical media induced stupor. I hope to hell I'm wrong but I seriously doubt it.

In other news I now find myself ensconced within a population of the most stupefyingly retarded and effeminate people I have ever met, in a a nation that is without a doubt one of the most geographically gifted on all of gods green earth. I am referring of course to the people and nation of Indonesia. I'm told that Barry O spent much of his youth here, which would explain his penchant for acting as if everyone else is an idiot. In this country everyone is in fact a moron of epic proportions. In all my travels I have never encountered a population so thoroughly and completely without any discernible mental capacity. But you know what they say, in the valley of the brainless even a slightly intelligent man can be king.

I don't know if its something in the water or a simply a racial thing but the males in Indonesia are nearly indistinguishable from the women. The lack of testosterone within the population is simply appalling and when coupled with these people complete lack of anything approaching even a dogs intelligence getting used to living here is quite a trick. On the upside the women here are so starved for the attentions of a real man that a throwback to our hunter-gatherer ancestors such as myself is like a living god in the eyes of the masculinity starved women here. Naturally the constant looks from the feminine population annoys my wife to no end but the benefit is that she feels the need to be even more attentive to my needs than normal, which I quite enjoy. In any case the culture shock of living here took a while to get over but now that I'm settled in I'm beginning to enjoy living here.

In any case I will be regularly posting my thoughts once again and I look forward to the predictable onslaught of venomous ire from the feminists, racialists, and other assorted left wing nut bags that my blog so regularly provokes.

Michael Jackson : Icon of opportunity

Say what you will about his predilections for little boys but Michael Jackson is in fact living proof that in America a person can be anything they want if they try hard enough. After all where else could someone be born a black make and die a white woman?

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Only in America (brought to you by the BBC)

Only in America

God I love this country. Playing a banjo while undergoing Brain surgey. The only way it could be more perfect would be if the surgery had been performed in Kentucky.

Is it me or is this just... sad.

Is this just sad? Or is it me?

Over 40 years ago, someone boards up a small Ice Cream Shoppe, and walks away. Between now and then it hasn't been opened? Is this evidence of economic malaise? Good manners? Is this town like one of those dying middle American towns where the population drops every year? What kind of town allows a corner shoppe to be boarded up for over 40 years, without someone somewhere in town finding some use for it? Was there a 40 year legal action? Did the owner go missing? Was there some arcane and Gordian title dispute which prevented it from being being used?

Thoughts on Acorn

How is it possible for a single national organisation to be investigated for voter registration fraud in multiple states, without those incidents being a part of a concerted strategy? Allthough Im not 100% certain, I think the list of states in which ACORN is being investigated now numbers around 12? Almost 25% of the total number of United States? Is it even concievable that this organisation could be engaging in voter registration fraud in that many states coincidentially? I heard a few snippets from the recnet trial on Schnitt this evening, and it seemed to me that the ACORN employees were all working from the same pitch. I find it hard to beleive this is a coincidence.

If you've ever noticed that virtually every stock, commodities, and other investment broker work from the same basic pitch,then you may understand what I mean. Most brokers work from the same basic outline becuase it works. However, none of them originated this format. Rather they were taught this format early on in thier careers. Even though brokerage firms aren't techincally allowed to give brokers pitches, every broker trainee gets one. Because the format works.

It seems to me that ACORN is operating under the "phone broker" school of voter registration. Create a ptich that works consistantly, teach it to everyone, and get them to pitch the living hell out of anyone they speak to.

Now dont get me wrong. I dont have a problem with going with what works, but shouldn't our democracy be held to a higer standard than a boiler room?

Monday, October 13, 2008

Why I dont know if I will vote for Mccain or not.

I was reading The Campaign Spot when I realised something. You see, Ive been back and forth on McCain. He wasn't my first choice, and like many republicans I have many disagreements with McCain. But when I saw the following phrase, it made me think.

Now, look. I realize Obama has the greatest turnout machine of all time, and the Republican base, at one point very jazzed about a McCain-Palin ticket, is disheartened by Obama's lead and frustrated with McCain's insistence that his opponent is decent and nothing to fear.

While I disagree with the authors summation of why McCain voters are disheartened, it did help me crystallise why I am so disheartened with McCain. It's not that I'm disappointed by McCain's insistence that his opponent is decent and nothing to fear. It's the fact that on so many issues, they are less opponents than rivals.

Those few hardy fools who actually read the mental ejaculations contained within this ethereal and digital outhouse may have noticed that I "live blogged" two of the three last debates, but not the most recent. There is a reason for that. I wanted too, but after the response to the first question, I turned it off in disgust.

It wasn't that McCain and Obama largely agreed on policy, or that both candidate's solutions were primarily socialistic in nature, and it wasn't the cordiality with with McCain spoke of Obama. It was the fact that they both accepted the same basic and IMO erroneous premise for why we are in the economic crisis we are in. It was all "wall street greed and Washington laxity"

Really? So the CRA, the ECOA, Lawsuits such as the one Obama himself worked on (largely as a gopher it would seem) against Citi, the extension of the concept of "disparate impact" towards lending in the early 90's and other such attempts by congress to rewrite the laws of economics for political gain had no effect at all? Washington's crime, was not in actively causing this, but in passively allowing it to happen? Really?

Because, and understand I'm just a poor Mad Man here, I cant imagine lenders taking the risks they did if not
A) They were required to
B) They were assured they and their companies would be shielded from the economic consequences of their practises
C) The financial cost of not doing so were so great that it offset or was less than the cost of their practises.
D) all of the above.
E) None of the above
Again I could be wrong, but Bankers, and by which I mean regular Bankers as opposed to investment bankers, are inherently risk adverse in my experience. You pretty much have to be considering the margins at retail or even commercial banks who borrow at 4 to lend at 6. While many blame the repeal of Glass-Stegal for the current crisis, I cant see the fact that Bankers and Investment Bankers could now work under the same roof changing the essential character of each profession.
We know, that at least to some extent, "B" was in fact taking place, as that was precisely what Freddie Mac and Frannie May were created for. We also know that many organisations, ACORN among them though certainly not alone, were trying to ensure "C" was a risk at the very least. And to a great extent "A" was true as well.
So to me at least, "D" would seem to be the correct answer, at least in part.

Unfortunately both Barack Obama and John McCain chose "E) none of the above".

While "E" may sound great, and may make crowds cheer. Is it true? Is "wall street greed and congressional apathy" really to blame? Because, I don't think so. In fact I find the idea rather, conspiracy theoristy.

Wall Street forced people to purchase homes way beyond their budget, at all ends of the economic spectrum? Wall Street told people that they "deserved" to own their own home no matter what? Wall Street told people that "flipping houses" was not only profitable, but fun and cool? Really? How did I miss that?

And its not just economics, take global warming for instance. Both McCain and Obama support a "cap and trade" system of carbon credit trading, despite the facts that
A) Its the least economically efficient way of limiting carbon emissions and has the highest bureaucracy cost.
B) C&T has already proven that it is not only economically damaging, but environmentally inefficient if the number of carbon credits is even slightly off.
C) Carbon reduction is the most costly (both in terms of monetary and human costs), and least efficient way of attempting to reverse or mitigate global warming, as the results of the Kyoto Protocols (especially when the rate of carbon emission's between America and Europe is compared) have shown.

And again, its not so much that they don't disagree on the possible, preferable, or most effective solutions; its that I cant seem to find a difference in their underlying view of the subject overall.

I remember when McCain first ran the "I agree with John" ad, and while I initially thought it would be effective, the more I thought about it, the more I realised that the reason Obama agreed with McCain so much, was that John had already ceded the argument, at its core, if not in the exact details.

Yes there are areas where there are genuine ideological differences, but they are few and far between. I just don't think those differences are enough to make me vote either for McCain or against Obama.

I mean when both Candidates are populist quasi-socialists, who don't believe in political free speech, only pay lip service to free trade and free markets, and who both seem to assume that wealth and success are the evidence of evil done, if not still doing, then why even bother to vote?

I just cant see a President McCain standing up to a possibly larger democratic congress any more than I can see Obama wanting too, at least not on the major issues. And if, as I have believed for some time now, the republicans actually manage to gain seats in both houses, I cant see McCain wanting to work with a republican congress much more than Obama would be willing too.

So if its six of one, and a half a dozen of the other, why bother?

Iraq is the only reason I am still considering voting for McCain. I honestly believe that McCain would handle Iraq and Afghanistan more successfully, and more victoriously than Obama. And its important that we get it done right. But its not enough to generate any excitement. I will most likely vote for McCain simply because I cant justify not doing so, in the face of the momentous sacrifices so many American soldiers have made to get us to this point in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wont be doing it with a smile or a spring in my step though. I'll mainly be voting because I'll feel guilty if I don't.

I don't know if I represent any particular block of voter, or if I'm all alone in what I'm feeling here, nor do I pretend this observation has any divinitory value whatsoever. Its just what I thought when read that campaign spot post.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

The Vice-Presidential Debate.

8:53 So Im watching the pre-show on CNN-HD. They're making a big deal about these little dialy-thingies. I could care less about them. Why are all Pre-Game shows so full of everlasting suck?

8:55 Some CNN airhead just said "it really is true, when you go negative everybody hates it" Really? Then why does EVERY politician do it?

9:02 Leeeeeeetttttttts get readddy to rummmmnbbbleeeeee!

9:03 Bidens on Bat.
Bailout question.
Good Question "worst of washington or best of washington?"

Biden did a good job of tieing the current economic crisis to Bush.
Palin is doing well at making it about average people and what Mccain has done to fight for them.

9:07 Biden is Trying to Hammer Mccain on his "fundamentals of the economy are strong"quote.
Palins response was great, she refuted bidens statement, touted her and Mccains credentials, and attacked Obama without seeming at all shrill or mean.

9:09 - Good Question, whos to blame, greedy Lenders or greedy lendees? But why so populaist and anti-lender? Nothing from Palin about the American peoples culpabillity?

Biden's staying on message in trying to make the Mcsame arguments. Hes especially hammering on Mccains penchant for deregulation.

Palin counter-response is to hammer Obama/Biden on tax increases. He voted to support higher taxes 94 times. Good line of attack. Obama supported raising taxes on people making 42,ooo a year just last year.

Biden is calling Palin a liar. Is he right?
"Mccain voted to raise taxes 544 times?"
Bidens trying to take control., But Palin is fightin back. "I may not answer questions the way joe or the moderator would like but Im going to talk straight to the american people. "

9:15 M Is high taxation class warfare? JB "its simple fairness" Biden is still repeating the 96% get tax cuts under Obama. John wants 300 billion of tax cuts for corporations and virtually none for the middle class"?

9:17 Palin attacks back oclaiming that most of the corps covered under Mccains plans are "small business" and Slams biden on his "paying taxes is patriotic" quote.

9:18 Palin responding to Bidens attack on Mccains healthcare plan. 5000 dollar tax credit for everyone to buy thier own healthcare. Also Mccain will "erase the fake lines" between states.

9:19 Biden"we dont call it redistribution", we call that "fairness"
Most small busienss would fall under the caps set in Obamas healthcare plan. Says Mccain is switching a 12K plan with a 5k check to the insurance company. "I call that the ultimate bridge to nowhere"

9:21 What plans will you have to scrap due to the bailout.
No Bush tax cuts extension, No Exxon mobil tax cuts, Cant slow down spending on education, or universal healthcare. Obama Biden is going to eliminate wasteful spending.

Obama gave the tax breaks to the oil companies. I took them on in Alaska.
Moderator redirects, Palin points out she hasnt made any promises to have to cut and Mccain hasnt made any promise he couldnt keep either.

9:25 Biden "why is Mccain adding on 4 billion in taxes cuts for oil companies.? "Palin put a windfall profits tax in Alaska just like we want to, why doesnt Mccain"?

Mccain supported Bankruptcy laws, would you have?
Palin "yes but..."
Why the hell does Palin keep bringing up "wall street greed"?

Mod "You disagreed wiht obama on the bankruptcy bill didnt you?"
Biden "Yeah we disagreed."

9:28 Biden wants bankruptcy judges to adjudicate your interest and principal on the loan. What???????

9:32 Climate change questions, "is it man-made"?
Biden "Yes"
"we have 3% of the worlds energy reserves, we consume 25% of the global supply" Did biden just change position on clean coal?

9:34 Clean Coal?
Palin "the quote is Drill baby Drill"
Obama and "Obiden" are opposed to any form of domestic energy. "You called safe drilling the "rape" of the OCS"
Palin supports carbon tax.

"25 years of supporting clean coal technology"
"I was talking about exporting clean coal technology"
"why did john vote 20 times against funding alternative energy"
Mod "do you support same sex benefits"

I'm tolerant but I support traditional marriage.
"I dont support defining marraige as anything but one man and one woman"

"Barak Obama nor I support redefining marriage"

9:39 Foerign Policy
Palin - Exit Strategy? "we have a good plan, its called the surge" "Mccain supported it, Obama opposed it"
"we can not afford to lose against AlQeuda and the shiite extreemists"

Biden - "Obamas plan is Maliki and Bush same exit plan. " "16 months to hand over Iraq to Iraqi's"
Barak and I agree you have to have a timeline, Mccain says we shouldnt have one"
"mccain plan has no end in sight"

"your plan is a white flag of surrender" "well know were done when the Iraqis can handle it, and the commanders on the ground will tell us when that is"
Wow Palin just smacked Biden with his own hypocracy twice

9:44 Biden
John Mccain voted against funding becuase of the timeline. "mccain said we would be greeted as liberators, I knew better" "He was dead wrong on the fundamental issues of the war"

9:45 Greater threat, Nuclear Iran or Unstable Pakistan.
Biden "Both, Pakistanm already has weapons, but Iran is close to getting one. "
"My fundamental problem with john is that he thinks the central front on the WOT is Iraq, but if someone attacks America it will come from pakistan and Afghanistan"

"Petraus and OBL say Iraq is the central front. "
Iran is genocidal and the President of Iran is neither sane nor stable.

Mod Kissinger and Baker say we need diplomacy, do you disagree?
Palin ' "no, but not at the presidential level it gives them too much credibility"

"Mamoud doesnt control Iran the theocracy does. "
"talk, Talk, Talk" Our firends and allies and 5 secrataries of state say "talk talk talk"

9:51 Isreal Palestine?
Palin - Two state solution. Top of the agenda. Isreal is our strongest ally in the ME. We will support isreal. "Isreal is a peace seeking nation."

9:52 Biden -
"No one in the US Senate has been a better friend to isreal than Joe Biden" |"administrations policy has been an abject failure" "we (barak and I) knew better than to let the palestinians vote" "Now hezbollah is legitimate part of the government" "freedom isn't on the march, only Iran is"

9:54 Palin
"there have been huge blunders but this election isnt about Bush" "too much fingerpointing backwards" "well put the government back on the side of the people"

"past is prologue" "I havent heard how Mccain's policies are going to be different from Bush's"

When do nukes go on the board'
Its the worst so we have to stop proliferation.
Thats why we have to keep N Korea and Iran from getting them.
"the surge principles need to be activated in afghanistan" "Obama said all we are doing in afghanistan is airrading villages" "thats not true we are building schools"

"Commanding general in Afghanistan saidd the surge principles will not work in afghanistan" instead we need more troops and more money

"Nukes require a nuclear arms regime, john opposed a comprehensive test ban treaty. "
"First thing obama did as a senator was reach across the aisle on nukes. "

10:00 Palins response
"The general didnt say that"

"yes he did" "we spent more in three weeks in iraq than in the entire time weve been in afghanistan"

I have no idea what Biden's responding to now or what hes trying to say. He's rambling

"its obvious i'm an outsider becuase I dont get how you can vote for it and then say your against it." "You supported Mccain a lot untill you became Obamas running mate"

"Whats the line before we go in"
"Genocide" "I never supported Mccain positions" "john Mccain was in lockstep wiht Dick Cheney"

"you can say what you want now, but we know what you said joe"
"mccain knows how to win a war"

"how would a biden adminsitation differ from a Obama admin"?
"I would carry on Obama's work."
So no differences then?
"I agree with every major iniative he suggested."

"what do you expect in a team of mavericks of course we disagree"
But no real details since thier disagreements are pretty well known

Vp? Joe said he wouldnt take the job, sarah said she didnt know what it entails.
My line was a lame attempt at a joke, just like yours Joe.
John asked and I was honored.

"No child left behind left no money behind"
"Barak asked me to be the point person in congress" "Ill be sititng in the room to give advice whenever he makes a major decision"

Is VP a congress critter too?
Palin I agree that the consitution gives us flexibillity.

Biden- "Cheney has been the most dangerous VP in history" "he should read article 1"

Mod - Is the CW right about your weakness? Palin=inexperience Biden=lack of disipline

Palin - "No I do have experience, as Governor of Alaska. Plus I have experience raising a family that helps me understand what americans are going through."

Biden - No allthough some people think my passion is. I understand whats its like to have a struggling family as well as the governor or anyone else.

Palin - "People want change, and Mccain has been the consumate maverick in the senate and has taken on his own party as have I." "Look at Mccain supporters and you see very diverse backgrounds and ideologies." "the netrenched partisanship form both parties is unnaceptable.

Biden -
"McCain's been no maverick on things that matter to peoples lives" "He hasnt been a maverick on healthcare, education, war or anything else that people talk about around the kitchen table"

Mod - Final question
Any issue you had to change your mind on due to circumstances.

Biden - "Judicial nominees. I had to change my mind about not rejecting people due to the nominees ideology"

Palin - "Sometimes I didnt veto budgets I didnt like but I didnt have enough support, but on major principles NO. In alaska we worked together regardless of party so we didnt have to compromise our values"

Mod - How do you change the tone in washington
Biden - Stop questioning people motive, just thier judgement. He hasnt questioned anyones motives since his first year in the senate ???

Palin - You respect others opinions even when you disagree.

Closing statements

Palin - "This was great, I loved meeting Joe, I loved being here, I like talking to the American people directly, and John McCain and I will fight for you! We have to fight for freedom in every generation. "

Biden - "This was great, I loved meeting sarah, this is the most important election EVAR, we need Funnnndamental change, Obama and I measure progress based on how the middel class is doing, not how the CEO's are doing."

Live Blogging the VP Debate!

The Rational mad Man will be live-blogging the VP debate, starting at 9"00 pm tpnight. Dont miss your chance to get inside the MadMan's head!

Friday, September 26, 2008

Delay-Blogging the Presidential debate.

Now that I have a DVR, I never watch live TV live. I always wait so I can fast forward through all the commercials. In a few minutes I will begin Live-delay-blogging the Presidential Debate.

Stay Tuned.

9:38 EST - Since its a 90 minute debate, I'm going to give the DVR an extra 10 minutes head start. I hate it when I'm watching a show and I have to sit through commercials at the very end.

My TV listings were off. I'm tuning in live, halfway through. I will update with my thoughts on earlier after the rebroadcast.

9:46 O
OK. Obama had a good line with "John thinks the war started in 2007"
Id would point out though we were greeted as liberators, for the first few days.
McCain's response was passionate, but uninspiring.

9:47 O
Obamas rebuttal is wishy-washy.

9:49 M
Both Petraus and OBL agree Iraq is the central front. Great line, though not forcefully enough delivered IMO.
Great response overall though.

9:51 O
Obama seem like hes trying to hard to sound smart. Too many three dollar words.

9:52 O
Hes trying to hit the "Iraq was a distraction from the real threat" and doing a decent job.

9:53 M
Wow. McCain goes back to the 80's and the origins of AlQ. Uses one of Jeff Coopers rules in the debate. Don't threaten what you wont pull the trigger on. Great response.

9:55 O
Obama scored with the "bombing Iran" line.

9:57 O
Did Obama just endorse the Bush Doctrine?

10:00 O
Did Obama actually just say "Ive got a bracelet too"?
And that "no soldiers life is ever wasted if hes following the presidents orders?"
Does he think this in reference to Iraq or Vietnam too?

"You don't muddle through" was good though, but I don't know if it can overcome "Ive got a bracelet too".

10:02 M
McCain hitting the "Ive been there son" and I have to say its effective.

10:03 M
A Nuclear Iran is only a threat to Israel and the Region?
League of Democracies. Not bad,Since its a specific example of the "tough Diplomacy" Obama has promised.But why no mention of Iran's threat to the US?

10:06 O
Iraq has strengthened Iran?Bush policies didn't work? Not a bad tact.
We cant just depend on democracies, we also need Russia and china. Good Point. Isolation hasn't worked. He says it will change but not how.

10:08 M
McCain was weak there.

10:10 O
Good rebuttal by Obama.Hes making a good case for diplomatic isolation not working. His case that engagement works better though is less convincing.

10:12 M
I don't even have a seal yet. Good line.
Not just naive, Dangerous. Good Line.
The North Koreans have broken every agreement they have signed. Trust but verify.
Nicely done.

10:14 O
Obama seems to be on the defensive about his positions a lot. I don't think that's a good sign for him is it?

10:15 M
"we're gonna say "no your not?"

10:16 O
Does Obama know what "parsing words" means?

10:17 O
Again with what he'll do, little about how.

10:18 O
Good comments on Nuclear proliferation. One of Obamas strengths.

10:19 M
Wow, nice job with hammering home the "naive" meme.
"Two letters, K, G, and a B?"
Nice job, Russia flexing their energy muscle will make people at home think of gas prices.
He also did a god job of arguing Russian premeditation in Georgia.
McCain is doing a great job showing his familiarity with the region.

10:22 O
"I agree with McCain."
"I Object that I didn't Object?"
"I warned about Georgia in April?" can he back that up?

Nice job segueing to Solar, and Alt energy, even though he had to capitulate on offshore first.

10:25 M
"Its hard to get there from here" Excellent job bringing up reprocessing and Storage.
And great job pointing out he voted for the daddy of Obama's bill. Also a good job of not allowing Obama to size control of the debate at the end. When Obama gave up it made him look churlish IMO.

10:26 M
"less than on the day after 9/11"
Pitch Perfect.

10:28 O
Again he begins by echoing McCain, is this a strategy?
He does a nice job bringing it back to Proliferation though.
Obama is Pro missile defense?
Again hes stressing that Iraq is a distraction from the wider WOT. I don't buy that but many do and hes staying on message there.

10:30 M
The "proven" line seems a bit wonky.
I like that McCain is hammering Obama on his lack of support for the surge. Its his strong point.

10:32 O
Obamas doing a good job making his case for Iraq the Distraction. But is he still advocating immediate withdrawal? I cant believe I missed 40 freaking minutes.
OK cost of Iraq = Hard economic times. That's flimsy but popular.

10:34 M
Ok. A nice simple statement that he feels Obama isn't qualified. And going back to Obamas failure to recognise the surges gains. Interesting, hes painting Obama as mentally inflexible. Wasn't that one of the lefts key charges against Bush?
"I dont think I need any on the job training"

Did Obama just imply his dad wouldn't want to come here today?

I never thought Id hear a presidential candidate say "when I came home from prison"

Ok afterthought?
I think McCain had a strong win here. I didn't hear the economic segment, since I came it late. But as far as Foreign policy Obama was basically reduced to saying "me too" and "nuhuh I didn't say that"

Friday, September 12, 2008

I posted this a few days ago on Arthur's Hall

The first time I heard Bush speak in favor of more exploration I began to imagine a concept. When oil prices began a massive slide afterwards, that concept became a word. Ever since I first heard of the republican congress's guerilla oil debates and thought, "this reminds me of 94", the same wild, inconcievable, and to be frank almost impossible word has been echoing in the shadows of my mind. When the republicans kept the ressistance going, for day after day, the word sounded louder. When the "celebrity ad" appeared, more voices contributed to the chorus behind my eyes. When Mccain picked palin, the chorus grew to a choir. Whn Obama and the democrats did virtualy everything wrong in response to Mccains pick the choir became a legion. And now I can no longer keep this word in. I cant help but raise its impossible name.

The word is "landslide"

As in republican.

As in the exact reverse of 2006.

Have the voices in my head driven me mad?

In other words, Is it possible that the combination of the popularity of the republicans "Drill here, Drill Now" position, coupled with Mccains strategic genius in this campaign; could deliver the Republicans not only the White House, but perhaps even one or both houses of Congress? Becuase I think we could potentially see an electoral result as shocking as either 94, or 06, perhaps even more so. I think many dems who feel comforted by the parties much stronger "generic popularity" will be blindsided by issues they dont think are true "wedges". I think energy policy is one, I think the "red state feminism" of Governor Palin is another.

Or am I simply nuts?

People will remeber this election, and Most will remeber the influence Governor Palin had, but me, Ill remeber the "guerilla congress"

Relaunch coming Soon!

Stay tuned for the All new, All political, Mad Man!

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

New "made beer shoot outta my nose award winner"

And the Award goes to......

French missile technology!

With a hat tip to Iron-Confederate of Arthurs Hall!

In one of the most intelligent, witty, and moving acceptances speeches I have ever seen Iron-Confederate managed to rivall Robert Heinlein with the scope of his imagination, to top Teddy Roosevelt in hid enthusiam of convictions, and to surpass Abraham Licoln in the sheer ballsyness of his proposals. Sadly, we were having an intervention for Art's drinking problem and I didn't hear it. So I got this soundbite instead.

I would like to thank the Hall for enjoying the video and Youtube for giving us another reason not to trust France. by Iron-Confederate

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Aaaand the "Dumbass of the year" award goes to....

The moron whose plan was to blow himself up, in order to get to heaven, so he could assasinate Jesus

I Shit you not.

Why Superheroes are inevitable.

Further arguments

Exhibit C?


Currently being leased in Japan, and, given the trend in electric scooters and other "mobillity assistance" aids, should be covered by insurance within a few decades at most.

Spider-Mech Sipder-Mech.....

Cue "The Imperial March"

American Gundam?

What happens when SkyNet channels Hannibal's spirit?

Borg version.o5?


And dont forget Gryphons similarly concieved, recent HAHO Offering.

Both of which were preceeded by the "Birdman Suit"

Look to the Skies!

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

35 years, 51 million dead americans, and a very happy Herr Hitler later.......

Bush Vs Choice, a radical leftist femi-nazi website, is putting on its annual "Blog in support of death" day, wherein they use the millions of femi-nazi bloggers worldwide to chime in and sound off in support of murder in the name of "choice". You see today is the 35th anniversary of Roe Vs Wade, that celebrated court case which gave women the "right" to slaughter their unborn children at a rate that would have made Herr Hitler gasp with admiration.

And given the celebratory nature of today's anniversary, you will undoubtedly be hearing the word "choice" being shouted to the rafters in rapturous joy.

Except that the pro-abortion movement didn't always believe in choice. In fact the pro-abortion movement began as a way of ensuring "undesirables" (you know, the poor, the colored, the Jew, etc) didn't pollute the gene pool. Now if that sounds like something the Nazi's would have supported, there is a reason for that. Namely that the US abortion and eugenics movement (pretty much the exact same movement really) was in fact a major inspiration for, and antecedent to, the Nazi party and its brutal practises. In fact no less a expert on Nazi "medicine" than Joeseph Mengele stated that the Nazis practises could never had been instituted had it not been for California's experiment with forced sterilisation. An initiative which was roundly supported in the burgeoning pro-abortion/pro-eugenic movement.

In fact, from the very beginning the Abortion movement was tied into, dependent upon, and vociferously championed by, the eugenics movement as a way of ensuring the "purity" of the human race. Naturally this "purity" was expressed in racial, and economic terms. I am sure sharp minded readers will recognise the similarity of focus between the various eugenically driven "unfit to breed arguments" and the modern day "compassion driven" arguments that children who are born to poor, underage, minority, or unready, mothers would be better off dead. Its interesting that the same people abortionist's used to think needed "forced sterilisation" are the peoples who Abortionists feel should be "encouraged" to have abortions today, isn't it?

To begin with let us never forget that Planned parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger, was a lifelong eugenicist who believed the best way to "improve our race" was to, in her own words, "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." In other words, forced sterilisation of undesirables, as well as the segregation of those undesirables into what can only be accurately described as concentration and reeducation camps. This, as those of you who paid attention in history class may remember, was a policy eventually instituted by that great progressive government and outspoken admirer of Mrs Sanger's policies, the National Socialist Party of Germany.

However, after the sheer scale of the crimes the Nazi party committed in the name of eugenics became clear, everyone associated with the eugenics movement scrambled to hide their affiliation to it. Thus in the 50's the argument changed from "protecting the human race from genetic inferiority" to "protecting a woman's reproductive freedom" and ensuring her "choice" This is the argument we have been bludgeoned with since.

What I find truly interesting though, is that for all the modern rhetoric about "protecting a woman's choices" the exact same "racial superiority" sentiments are alive and well in the Pro-abortion movement to this day. After all are we not told constantly that minorities, and the poor, need the government to fund their abortions in order to protect their "rights" And haven't the vast majority of the 51 million abortions performed in the last 35 years been performed on mothers who are either poor, minorities, or both? Strange isn't it, that although no proponent of abortion would admit to the racially biased tenets of eugenics, the result of the modern Pro-choice movement is exactly the same as what the early eugenicists claimed was necessary? Or that famed liberal economists have even come up with models which explicitly argue that we have already seen the benefits that the early eugenicists promised?

But even if we were to accept that those on the Pro-death side of things really do simply want to ensure women have the right to make a choice, a rational look at the actions of the pro-death camp would seem to suggest only one choice is valid. For example when there was a push made to require women get ultrasounds to inform them on the living nature of the "clump of cells" within them, it was "Pro-choice" people, who felt that women shouldn't be informed of what their choice entails. Likewise legislation designed to give women information on non-abortion alternatives such as adoption, have been regularly and consistently opposed by the "Pro-choice" crowd. In the same vein when the "silent no more" campaign of women who regretted their "choice" began, pro-choicer's either ignored it, or condemned it. Strange for those who claim to only want to "help women make informed choices" to do everything they can to ensure only one side of an argument is heard, is it not?

The wariness of any rational observer regarding the abortion movements commitment to "helping women retain the right to make choices" is even further degraded by the fact that the "protecting a woman's reproductive freedom" argument is invalid to begin with; not that any pro-abortion supporter will ever admit to that of course. In fact, should one even suggest such a thing, he is immediately labelled as "anti-woman". Somehow, the fact that a woman has the exact same reproductive freedom as a man does, IE the ability to choose whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse, is considered to be an "anti-woman" argument, despite the fact that every single proponent of abortion believes that the exact same argument justifies going to virtually any lengths to prosecute and "bring to justice" "deadbeat dads". Why it is OK to "force a man to be a father", yet "forcing a woman to be a mother" is not, has never yet been logically or rationally explained. Nor can it be.

But then, most, if not all, of the pro-death camp's arguments are invalid. There is the plainly counter factual argument that as its "her body" the woman should have the right to do what she wishes with it. The fact that "her body" somehow now has two separate genetic structures, two different sets of organs and systems, and two separate blood types, is ignored. In the few instances where it is even addressed, it is simply swept under the rug by the refrain that "its just a clump of cells". Which while technically correct, is also intentionally confusing as the human body itself can be accurately described as "a clump of cells" That a developing embryo becomes identifiably human to even the most cursory visual examination is either not discussed, or dismissed as "an appeal to emotion"

Because after all somehow, seeing video like this, and realising that what you are seeing isn't just a clump of cells, is an emotional response wiht no basis in logic reason, or fact.

Remember folks, although the great work of protecting America from our undesirables is never done, the pro-choice movement is doing its best to continue it; Heil Sanger!

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Will The MadMan endorse a candidate for president?

I'm not really sure. And since I know my Violent readers are eagerly hanging on, and awaiting the news that a candidate has been given the highly coveted, and strenuously sought after "MadMan Approved" seal of approval, I figured I'd at least give you all a clue as to my thinking. So, rather than actively endorsing a candidate at this time, I will instead list what I see as the pros and con's of each candidate.

Rudy Giuliani -
Pros - Rudy has a history of managerial competence, in fact the turn around he caused in New York was nothing short of astonishing. Cleaning up New York as it was when he was first elected was a task worthy of Heracles 12 labors and, I might add, a job which many said could not be done. Furthermore his handling of the 9/11 attacks was nothing short of legendary and his approach to dealing with terrorism is suitably aggressive. A good law and order and National defense candidate. He also has a very aggressive tax cutting plan, which always scores high marks with The MadMan

Cons - Sadly, as strong as Rudy is on national security concerns, he's equally weak on domestic concerns. His stance on Gun control as mayor was not only illogical and unsupportable, I happen to believe it was unconstitutional as well. His well known support for gay marriage and hate crimes laws is similarly troubling, especially his support for hate crimes legislation, which is simply anti-American. Furthermore although he claims he will nominate "strict constructionist" judges who "revere federalism" his well known Pro-Choice beliefs are very concerning.

Overall - While there is much to Admire about Rudy, and his positions, there is just as much cause for concern. While i would certainly vote for him over any of the Muppet's in the democratic field, I would not do so enthusiastically at this time. Over all Id give the probability of Rudy Earning my support at the 50% level.

Mitt Romney
Pros - Mitt Romney has, without a doubt, the greatest level of economic intelligence in the entire Presidential field. His experience speaks to a vast reservoir of managerial competence and his economic policies are among the most well thought out of any of the candidates. Furthermore his past as a business leader and his work on the Salt Lake City Olympics suggest he would have the right qualities to lead us through any economic recessions that might result from our current economic turbulence.

Cons - While I find Mitt Romney a very appealing candidate on the economic side, his core philosophy seems more problematic. In particular the "Health care Reform" he spearheaded in Massachusetts would seem to suggest a sympathy with liberal sensibilities I find disturbing. Now the case has been made that this particular program was the practical effect of Mitt being a republican governor in a very liberal state, but it could also suggest a core belief in Statism, at least to a degree. In addition Mitt has nor foreign policy expertise or experience as far as I can tell, which is a major problem given the challenges America will face going forward.

Overall - Overall I put Romney in the same boat as Rudy, although there is much about his platform to admire, there is much to be wary of as well. Chances The MadMan will endorse Romney? 50%

Mike Huckabee -
Pros - About the only pro I can list for governor Huckabee, is that he supports the Fair Tax, which is in and of itself, a fairly conflicted point of support. While I appreciate what Fair-taxers" are trying to accomplish, I tend to think they have chosen a very illogical way of going about it. Its true that the "Fair-tax" as envisioned by its supporters would be a huge step in the right direction, if the income tax were repealed. I tend to agree with Fred Thompson that its more likely we would get both a income and consumption tax out of the proposal.

Cons - Where do i begin? First of all the guy strikes me as a republican jimmy carter, which, as you know violent reader, is not a compliment. Most of his economic ideas are more democratic than republican, his populist stances are idiocy, and his desire for a nationwide smoking ban is anti-American. On top of which he doesn't believe in evolution which speaks volumes about his intelligence, or should I say, lack thereof.

Overall - Overall there is almost no way in hell I would vote for Mike Huckabee. I give him a 10% chance, and that's being generous.

Ron Paul
Pros - I cant find any. The crazy midget from Texas is an all around whackadoo. From his stance on Iraq to his endorsement of the Gold Standard, Ron Paul is, to be blunt, a fucking whack job.

Cons - Too many to list, the guy thinks we should pull out of Iraq immediately, recall all our soldiers from all overseas bases, and never ship them out again. He endorses the gold standard which is one of the worst economic ideas of all time, and he is surrounded by tin-foil types, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other conspiracy minded lunatics.

Overall - I would rather shove a glass rod up my penis and hit it with a hammer than vote for this maniacal midget.

John McCain
Pros - John is the "security candidate", a former Vietnam POW and one of the few people in Washington to not only criticise President's Bush's strategy in Iraq, but to actually offer a solution beyond "pull out now" there is no doubt that John McCain has the expertise and understanding necessary to lead America through the long war. Furthermore on pure "electability" concerns his well known ability to pull in independent voters may be necessary to winning the Presidency. When compared to the Democratic presidential field McCain is the only candidate who (at this early point) polls show could beat the democratic front runners.

Cons - His stance on Immigration, in which he and Ted Kennedy were allied, is troublesome, as was his opposition to the "Bush Tax Cuts" in 01 and 03. Furthermore his stances on Campaign Finance reform has caused more trouble that it ended, and as usual shows a sympathy for liberal approaches which I don't really appreciate.

Overall - despite the issues I have with John, overall he would make a pretty good president, so long as he didn't work too closely with the Dem's. Chances the MadMan will endorse John McCain? 65-75%

Fred Thompson -
Pros - Saving the best for last, we finally come to Right said Fred, the true and clear conservative in the race. From his stances on immigration, to federalism, to dealing with the terrorist threat, Mr Thompson is dead on in his stances. I've been reading his policy and position papers, as well as his articles in various papers since before he made the official announcement, and his laconic style speaks to his comfort in his own skin. Fred Thomson is an authoritative, reasoned, learned, intelligent, and centered candidate who would, IMO, be an excellent president.

Cons - Can he get elected? Will his confident, unhurried style resonate with voters outside of the south, or even within it? I don't know, there's been much ado made in media circles as to whether or not Fred has the "fire in his belly" necessary to wage a successful campaign, and while I usually pay no attention to the talking and frequently empty heads the networks allow to pollute the airwaves, on this point they may be right. Then again his performance in the last few debates has been stellar.

Overall - I'm waiting for the results from SC to come in. If Fred can win, or at least make as strong second place showing there, he might yet have a chance to build up some momentum, if not, I suspect he will pull out shortly. Go Fred!
Chances of the MadMan voting for Fred? If he can wage the type of campaign necessary to gain the nomination, 99% or better.

The Dems manage to crush my hopes. As Usual.

Well violent reader, I really, really should have known. I should have known better than to believe the Dem's could get past their usual identity politics, and campaign on issues rather than trying to compete to see who the biggest victim is. After my post talking about how amazing it is that we have a Black man running for president, and yet there's no hint of identity politics in sight, the Dem's go and screw things up, as usual.

Apparently, Mrs Clinton felt that Barak Obama was a bit too popular with the democrats perpetual vote-slaves, and decided to "play the race card" in order to level the field. Whether this worked is not is a matter of debate among pundits and commentators, but early indications seem to suggest that Barak Obama came off smelling like a rose.

Now, its not surprising that Mrs. Clinton played the race card, after all she has been wielding the gender card like a trump heavy spades player from the very beginning of her campaign. From her "join the sisterhood" campaign themes to her weak sister weepy act on ABC, Mrs Clinton has made damn sure everyone knows she has a chance of being the first female president, (so long as we don't count Jimmy Carter) And in truth, Barak's near dismissal of her attempts, as well as his magnanimous offer to let the subject drop only made him appear to be the bigger man.

But its still disappointing to see. Its like I always say, the only people who truly care what race or gender you are are feminists and racists, and liberals are both.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Free Speech in canada? Still not so much

Regular readers will remember my December 11th report on the Canadian "Human Rights Commission's" fascist and oppressive attack on Mark Steyn, due to an excerpt of his book published in MacClean's. While this case has not yet been resolved, it is not the only case the CHRC has taken on in the hopes of squelching free speech that is deemed "offensive" or "inflammatory"

Ezra Levant, former publisher of Western Standards magazine is also being "investigated" by the CHRC, and once again the commission is being used as a "useful idiot" by Islamic fascists who wish to punish those daring enough to speak out against radical Islam. The great crime Mr Levant committed? He dared to publish editorial cartoons which could, in some circumstances, be considered critical of Islam. For my violent readers who have an attention span that stretches beyond the last news cycle you may remember riots breaking out in the Islamic world in response to a series of cartoons that were seen by Muslims as "offensive" a few years back,and may be wondering if this incident is related. In fact, Mr Levant's "great crime" was no more than reprinting these same cartoons (reprinted below) in his own magazine. For this "offense against Islam" Mr Levant has been hauled in for "interrogation" by the CHRC.

Many, when faced with such a government endorsed, funded, and directed witch hunt, would surrender their freedoms rather than take on the forces of evil which have subverted and corrupted Canada's government Not Mr. Levant, rather than backing down, or apologizing, or throwing himself on the mercy of the court, Mr Levant, in true manly fashion, came out swinging. His opening statement to the CHRC was a thing of beauty. A shot across the bow that warned the CHRC, in no uncertain terms, that here stands a man who will not bow, will not break, and will stand firm in defense of his rights. A true hero to all of those who believe in the great traditions of Western Civilisation, Mr. Levant has stood fast before the onslaught of the thought police and deserves the support and admiration of all right thinking men and women.

It is rare that one gets to witness such a simple, beautiful, and manly stand for what is right in the face of crushing opposition, usually these moments are private affairs, unrecorded or memorialised. This time however, cameras were rolling, and the moment was recorded. Presented here for your viewing pleasure violent reader, I give you a man who is brave enough to withstand "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" in defense of what he believes is right. His opening statement, a work of both great courage and great eloquence, is a case study in speaking truth to power.

For more in depth information on this case, and its progress, please go to Ezra Levant's home page.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

God Damn but the sexism is palpable!

Ain't it?

I mean, Mrs. Clinton was on the ropes, defeated by Obamania; then, she squirts a few tears, and lo and behold Mrs. Clinton is the "Comeback Kid".

So Mrs. Clinton came in first, and Obama came in second, in two mostly white states; but this is a sexist, racist, brown people hating and opressing, patriarchal, rape culture.


How much is that bridge again?

Iowa, America and the need for a new dynamic, Part 2: Rorshach!

Did you hear about the misogynistic assholes who chanted "Iron my Shirts" at Mrs Bill Clinton's Rally yesterday evening? Just another indication of the old white male patriarchy right? Well that's what a lot of feminus rabidicus thought. The blogosphere had already begun to rumble with the lumbering rage of the gynocerai, its massive yet vicious bulk gaining steam like a freight train with a conducter at the wheel who's got a belly full of fire-water and and a throttle hand that's racing to beat the devil. By the time you read this it may well be at full steam. Only to hit a brick wall.

The culprits? a couple of Boston based Shock Jocks.

No patriarchy, No white male privilege, just a couple of people who are offensive for a living being offensive. For a living.

Bob Krumm, Who broke the story, had this to say,

I guess we all gut sucked in to believing the worst that we suspect about others. Feminists assumed that these were legitimate chauvinists, and I presumed a Clinton plant.

Now me? It sounded like bullshit, but I didn't think Mrs. Bill was behind it. The incident just sounded too convenient.

Its getting really hard for the feminists and minoritist to argue the whole "racist/sexist/classist America" bullshit; between Obama's support across the board, and the complete lack of any sexism, institutionalised or otherwise, in the campaign. Well, complete, unless you count what Mrs Bill herself supplies of course.

What I find really interesting about this election, is how little anyone seems to care about the sex or race of the candidates. Well except for feminists. And Hillary.
If one ever needed proof that the only racists in America are the feminists and minoritists, this election is the smoking gun.

Sometimes, I can manage to believe there really is a God.

Part 1

Friday, January 4, 2008


Judo, Aikido, and many of the other "soft" martial arts operate on a principle of redirecting your opponents attacks against them. There is a similar principle in the sphere of PR and propaganda, an idea that by stealing your opponents arguments one can in effect, use their own attack against them. When done well it is a frightfully effective tactic; when done poorly, its laughable. For years now feminist have had a Propagan-do saying, "Patriarchy hurts men too". Essentially the idea is that the traditional standards of manliness, by requiring men to cultivate, practise, and master the manly virtues, places an unfair and harmful burden on men. Its a beautifully crafted piece of Propagan-do, as it gives weak men a justification for their weakness and a channel by which to attack standards they can not meet. It's a very seductive idea, as all invitations to weakness are.

But Propagand-do attempts, when made by those without the guile, intelligence, or craft necessary to use it effectively is laughably transparent and inept. Such was the case recently when Ragnell the Fat (AKA Lisa Fortuner at the newsarama blog) the eponymous grand dame of "When fangirls attack", attempted to use the MadMan's owns post on the feminine superiority agenda, to in effect, argue that no such thing exists.

I have the give the giant fem-beast an A for effort, even it was an utterly transparent and laughable attempt to buy her cause political cover. The problem of course is, the very attitudes she claims "make her want to punch something" are a natural outgrowth of feminist propaganda over the last several decades. After all don't all good feminists know that all manly men are really just violent, nasty, brutish, raping, misogynistic, cavemen? Don't we after all beat, abuse, abandon, manipulate, and oppress women in an effort to protect our privilege? Isn't that why domestic violence laws, family court laws, child support laws, divorce laws, abortions laws, employment laws, anti-discrimination laws, the sentencing and guilt gap and many others all have to be written to protect women from us patriarchal men due to the rape-culture we have created? If men are not, by nature, sexist, misogynist pigs who objectify women while simultaneously using and manipulating them for our own pleasure before beating raping and killing them; then why do women need so many specialised laws to protect, coddle and support and excuse them? If Men are not the partiarchal guardians of the rape culture then why do liberal colleges need "sexual harassment workshops" and why do corporations need to send men into "sensitivity training" anytime we offend some thin-skinned harridan? If men are not violent buffoons unable to control their brutish instincts, then why must domestic violence laws be written to assume the man is the aggressor? Why must judges award TRO's to any woman who requests one, no matter how ridiculous her argument? If men are not, in fact, insensate testosterone poisoned neanderthals, why then must family courts ensure the children are not raised by these oafs, in all but the most extreme circumstances?

What I find even more incredulous, and quite frankly ballsy about her attempt at Propagan-do, is her final line though, "And they say feminists hate men.". In what was the only piece of her work that showed any type of intelligence, Raggy attempts, after "decrying" the treatment of Wonderman, to use this line to cement the central thrust of her article in ones mind. Essentially this is "I am a feminist and I am complaining about this, therefore feminism does not endorse such a position" even more ridiculously it implies that those who wrote "Countdown #11", were not themselves feminists. The problem with that of course, is that Justin Gray, and Jimmy Palmiotti, the books creators, are both confirmed feminists themselves.

Sad, but then what can you expect? Feminists will not admit thier real agenda, untill all men who are not castrated are in chains.

Iowa, America and the need for a new dynamic.

The old race-sex-class paradigm of looking at the world, and especially America, is no longer valid, if it ever was. Since the "age of Aquarius" we have been told that America is a racist nation, we have been lectured and harangued by academics about the "institutionalised racism of America" and our elite academies indoctrinate our children with the idea that "anyone white is a racist, whether they know it or not".

Those who disagree are labelled racists themselves, told to "check their privilege" and that they are blind to this oppressive and omnipresent sin. When we point out the major success of Blacks over the last thirty years, the stunning popularity of rap and hip-hop, the overwhelming number of white suburban kids who's biggest idol is Biggie, or any other competing argument we are told that "a few isolated success do not represent the whole", and that we are simply to "insensitive" to understand whats its like to be a minority.

And then Iowa. A rural, mostly white farming state. The kind which, in the liberal narrative at least, black men are lynched from apple trees and left to rot in the corn fields; goes and overwhelmingly nominates a Black man over a white woman and several white men. Not just overwhelmingly, but by a margin so large as to be damn near incredible.

Will this, in decades hence, be seen as the end of the politics of victimisation? Will it be seen as the end of the "institutionalised racism" narrative in America? Perhaps not, those who are already too invested into this false narrative to ever be able to understand another. The Sharpton's, and the Jackson's of the world have far too much to lose to recognise the truth. Their followers are too rabid, to unwilling to see to change. But the rest of America, those of us who live, work, and play with men and women of every shade and hue, may finally be able to admit what I have known for years now; Racism in America, is a fading shadow on the wall of history.

I do not know whether Obama will win the Presidency, nor even whether or not he will win the nomination. What I do know, is that this election, which only a few months ago was being called "inevitable" has surprised many already. More importantly, it has illuminated what is, in many ways, America's greatest strength, America's ability to move on from a dark past. "Slavery", "Segregation", "Jim crow", these are words which, rightly, call up dark images of darker days. Yet, in just two short generations, America has moved from a country being torn apart by race relations to become a country in which Obama wins by a landslide in "redneck country"

And People wonder why I am proud to be an American?

The time of the politics of identity is over. Obama understands that, Hillary doesn't. Obama has focused his message on trying to paint a vision of a brighter future. Hillary has tried to stir up the "sisterhood" by appealing to the old "race/sex/class" paradigm, and as a result she even came in behind a rich man trying to play poor mans populism. Obama, the only one not following the old tired paradigm of the flower geriatrics won by a landslide. That gives me hope. When a black man can win a democratic caucus without falling back on racial politics, then maybe, just maybe, the world isn't quite beyond saving.

When even the liberals no longer buy the old RSC paradigm, then maybe there is hope for America after all. Could there be a day in the future, when even the dems no longer trot out the tired RSC cards? Those dog eared, out of date, 45 year old tactics are getting pretty long in the tooth after all. Could this be the beginning of the re-acceptance by the American people that treating people equally means treating people equally? Does this presage a day when Black men and women no longer show their political ignorance and naivete by being dependably voting vassals for the dems? I wish I knew, I wish I had the courage, or foolishness, to hope so.

Is it possible that at least some of those black men and women who live, work and play among us blue eyed devils, will look at this victory, and their pigmentally challenged colleagues, and finally internalise the fact that the only people who care that they are black, is themselves? Is it possible that now, finally, after all these years, they will put aside the assumptions and myths of the civil rights era, and realise that they need to move on, because we already have? I don't know.

What I know is this. Obama won by a larger margin than anyone predicted.Men and Women of all colors are falling all over themselves to support the guy, and even though I would never vote for a tax hiking, entitlement spending, anti-war, soft foreign policy, relatively inexperienced liberal, at least hes a liberal whose candidacy has already done more for America that the last two democratic Presidents combined. Mr. Obama I won't vote for you, I won't donate to your campaign, and I hope you lose to a republican, but I can sure as hell get behind what you represent sir.

Part 2

Friday, December 21, 2007

Why dont people ever learn?

Officials at Virginia Tech have proven they failed to learn any lesson at all from Seung-Hui Cho murderous rampage last year during which he killed 30 unarmed people before turning his gun on himself. In a move so absurd I would have criticised any writer who came up with the idea of jumping the shark; Va Tech officials are turning Norris Hall into a Peace Center. According to Jeri Childers, outreach program director, officials will begin planning the program for the peace studies center early next year. A minor concentration in the study of peace will probably be offered, she said.

When will people learn? They made Va Tech a "gun free zone" in the hopes of preventing gun violence, the sole success of which was to allow Seung-Hui Cho to kill as many as he did before he stopped himself with a bullet through the brain. Now they turn the site of his rampage into a "Peace studies" center, thereby guaranteeing no one will learn the lessons which could prevent another attack like this from happening, or at least from being as bad.

What makes this move truly absurd though; is the events of the recent Church of new Life killings, in which a former policewoman, Jeanne Assam brought a similarly motivated madman's rampage to an early end through the judicious and skilled use of force. Peace does not come by protesting for it, studying it, or giving it a chance. Peace is achieved by being too strong to attack. Va has guaranteed themselves, that there will be no peace on that campus. If anything this blatantly emasculated plan may well inspire more attacks.

Once again I am become Wonko the sane, and am thankful I live outside the asylum.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Rational MadMan Approved. Viking Philosophers!

Every now and again I run across someone who's clear eyed vision of the world we live in earns my respect. It doesn't happen often, but when it does the feeling is indescribable in its beauty. When that beautiful sensation takes a hold of my spirit I can not help but loose it upon the world to be feed by those of clear minds and strong limbs. It is in this spirit then that I present to you, Violent Reader, Arthur the Viking.

Only rarely, Violent Reader, has anyone ever managed to earn my respect through words alone. It is an inherently difficult thing to do, as words are cheaply acquired and easily flung without aim or intention. But when I see the literary projectiles of a mans mind fly as straight and true as a snipers shot, I can not not help but whistle in admiration, and delight in such a triumph. Such are Arthur's Words.

Read then, and know admiration. Knowing admiration, aspire to equivalent achievement. Strive always for such triumph, even while knowing such a monumental task is the labor of a lifetime.

Arthur of the Iron Words, Marksman amongst Wordsmiths, The Rational Mad Man salutes you.

Privilege VS Responsibillity


If there is a single concept in feminist thinking which requires a more complete shut down of the rational and logical facilities of the human mind I do not know of it. Often when an unapologetic male encounters the toothy cunt schreecher he is told to "check his privilege" when he expresses forbidden sentiments. When we express disbelief in the more, shall we say, reality disabled tenets of feminism we are told our "privilege" is blinding us. We are told that, as privileged males, we can not empathize with the plight of the oppressed female. We are told we do not understand, as Lisa Fortuner recently remarked "the stifling and oppressive gender roles" in our society.

There is a reason those not fully indoctrinated into feminist propaganda do not understand how "stifling and oppressive" gender roles are or how"privileged" males are though. Simply put, neither is even close to approaching reality. The simple fact is the only sex which is privileged is Women. Men in western society do not have "privilege" we have responsibility.

Privilege, in the most basic sense of the word is an unearned benefit, and no one, other than children, have more privileges in our society than women. Don't believe me? then ask yourself this, which sex, of the two has the privilege to choose whether or not to work? Which sex of the two has the privilege of choosing whether or not to support oneself? Which sex, of the two, has the privilege to choose whether or not to become a parent? Which sex, of the two, has the privilege to choose whether or not to engage in rational thought? Only women have these choices. Men are required to work. Men are required to support themselves. Men are required to become parents at anther's whim. Men are required to engage in rational and logical reasoning. Women are not required to, expected to, penalised for failure to, do any of theses things.

Women may choose to work, if they wish. They are not however required to. A woman may, at her choice, attach herself to a man and require him to work instead. If a woman does choose to work, and feels offended by the behavior of those required to work, or feels in any way that she is not "respected" then the full force of the United States government, and all the coercive power of the United States government is brought to bear on the offending parties. If a woman does choose not to work and instead requires a Man to do so in her stead, and he refuses, then the entire coercive power of the United States Government is again brought to bear on the offending party. Men do not, in any circumstance have this privilege. We instead have only the responsibility to work. We do not get the privilege to choose whether or not to work, as we do not have the privilege of choosing not to. Failure to do so triggers penalties ranging from societal scorn to legal incarceration. No such responsibility is required of women.

Likewise only women have the privilege of choosing whether or not to support her own life, both in the minute and in the grand. Women have the privilege of choosing whether or not to pay for their own meals, men have the responsibility to do so. Women have the privilege of choosing whether or not to pay their own rent, their bills, and the other requirements of life and society. Men are required to do so. Men do not have the privilege of requiring others to pay for them. We do not get to choose whether or not we do, because we do not have the privilege of choosing not to.

By the same token only women have the privilege of choosing whether or not they and men, become parents. Only women may choose to become parents, and only women may choose not to become parents. This choice is not, in any way shape or form granted to men in even the most diminutive of ways. Women and Women alone, have the ability to force parenthood upon men. This privilege, like the others mentioned, is not reciprocal. A man may not force a woman to bear his child, yet a woman may easily force a man to father hers. Again, men are not given a choice, as we do not have the right to choose not to. We have only the responsibility.

Even within the space of our own minds Women have privileges Men do not. Men are required to be rational and logical. We are required to make clear and compelling cases in order to convince others. Women on the other hand have a choice. They may engage in rational thought if they so choose, however they also have the privilege of engaging in emotional reasoning and the privilege to "prove" their points through such reasoning, and men are required to accept such reasoning as "valid" even though we are restricted from engaging in such ourselves.

Despite this, despite the mountain of privileges which are given, unearned, to every woman upon birth, feminists somehow manage to convince themselves that it is Men who are "privileged". Even more irrationally they often use the side effects of men's responsibilities in an attempt to prove that privilege exists. As an example, in one of the innumerable "privilege" lists one can find strewn throughout the Internet like intellectual land mines, B Deutch states, among others that males are privileged because,

I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public

The only problem is that once we ask a pertinent question, this so called male privilege can actually be seen for the responsibility it is. The question is of course can a man choose, if he so wishes, to be afraid of walking alone after dark in public places?And the answer of course is, No. We may not. We are required to be unafraid, even in circumstances in which any reasonable human being would be afraid. This is despite the fact that men, and not women, are overwhelmingly the victim of violence in our society. Men, by a wide margin, are more likely to be robbed, beaten, stabbed, shot, mugged, or murdered. Yet women, and only women, have the privilege of being afraid. Furthermore in the event that a man and a women are together when violence is brought to bear, the woman has the "privilege" to either fight or flee, to choose whether or not to fight in her own defense or in the mans, or to choose to abdicate that role to the man. The man has the responsibility to defend both himself and the woman. He is not given the privilege of choosing. He is not extended the choice of allowing the woman to take that responsibility from him.

Like wise this point of "privilege".

If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being
raped are so low as to be negligible.

Again as is the pattern, a male responsibility is turned on its ear and proffered as a privilege. Men are required not to be the victims of rape. Whereas a woman who suffers such an attack has a huge support apparatus available to her to overcome the trauma of such an attack, the Man is required to never be a victim of such an attack in the first place. A woman who is raped does not become less than she was prior to said attack, nor can she in any way shape or form be blamed for becoming the victim of the attack. Men do become lessened, and are blamed for their victimisation. Furthermore while a man who rapes a woman is not in any way shape or form exalted, a man who rapes another man is, in many ways, made more of a man as a result. Even when it comes to victimisation women are given the privilege of non-culpability, whereas men never are.

Lets take a look at some more shall we?

If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity
will not be called into question.

Notice that the question of having children is conveniently side stepped here. The fact that men do not get to choose if they do or do not have children is effortlessly swept under the rug in order to serve the narrative of "male privilege" Women not only have the privilege of choosing whether they (and the man) become parents in the first place, as well as the exact level of participation in parenting the man may engage in, they also have the choice of providing either "primary care" or material care. Men do not have this choice and are required o provide material care. They may not substitute "primary care" for material care, nor can they choose whether or not they are allowed to provide any primary care at all. And yet somehow, this is a Male privilege.

This central obfuscation of the meanings of the words "choice" and "privilege" lie at the heart of the feminist Newspeak. Any privilege, by definition, must be voluntary in order to count as such. If one does not have the ability to forgo said "privilege" then it is not in fact a "privilege" but a responsibility. By way of example contrast the terms of military service in the United States with that of Israel. In the US we have the privilege of serving in the US military. It is a choice we can make to either do, or not do, based on our own desires. Israeli's on the other hand have the responsibility to serve in the Israeli Defense Force. An Israeli may not choose not to serve. Lacking the ability to choose the negative, they can not be described as having a privilege. Lacking the ability to decline, they can not be described as having a "choice" Yet somehow, feminists have managed to define "privilege" in such a way that only those who have no choice are described as privileged.

And so Violent Reader's I leave you with this bit of homework, go to the afore mentioned list of "male privileges" ( or any other for that matter)and look at each of the listed items with the new eyes I have given you and ask yourself, is this "privilege" something I can choose not to take advantage of? Or is it really a "responsibility" being described in Newspeak? I s this privilege really just a description of yet another responsibility described form another angle, or is it truly a privilege which I may, or may not take advantage of, based on my own desires. If its not, if you can not choose not to take advantage of it, then its not as privilege, its a responsibility.