Wouldn’t It Be Nice?

It’d be nice if someone, somewhere, would allow capitalism to actually be tried out for once. . . From another forum, a comment by the “resident genius” seems apropos:

If you understand that Communism wasn’t actually a reaction against capitalism, it was an attempt to replace what was the then quite modern notion of state mercantilism (which actually was as exploitative as they claim… they just improperly called it capitalism), by going back to an older form of governance… state feudalism… with the “intellectual revolutionary elite” as the nobility… it makes a lot more sense.

It does seem that one sort of “feudalism” or another (Master?slave; Chieftain?underlings; King?subjects, in all sorts of less bad to completely evil variations of the fides covenant) has been the norm for much of history. Heck, mercantilism was just a different form of pseudo-feudalist wolf in carnivorous sheep’s clothing, with much less of the “noblesse oblige” and more of the abusive (nearly or actual–much as with H1B visas nowadays) “slave wages/conditions,” indentured servitude, etc., “serfdom” (without even the “privileges” of serfs).

Fallen man just has to embrace the most exploitative, abusive government available, it seems, and if an exploitative/abusive government doesn’t exist (if that were possible), a society will create it, ex nihilo, if necessary.

Wouldn’t it be nice of if people in large groups didn’t have to be gargantually stupid?

Thanks, Emmys!

Award shows (all of them, not just the Emmys) do a very good job of helping me narrow my selection of TV shows to watch. The best thing on last night was actually the listing blurb describing an episode of The Orville: “Ed and Kelly are deceived by a hologram of a ship and [No, IN] distress and become held prisoner. . . ” The epi wasn’t bad, but the listing blurb was more amusing.

And then. . . another book and lights out.

As for the annual tempest in a teacup about how Emmy pseudo-entertainers dress? I just DGARA.

Names, Places Obscured to Protect the Innocent. . .

. . . (But I Sure Wish I Knew the Name of the Guilty Party)

Store worker on break, sitting on toilet. Customer comes in and stands juuust outside the stall door: “Is there a cell phone in there?”

Store worker looks around. “No.”

Guy doesn’t leave. “Are you sure there isn’t a cell phone in there?”

“I’m sure. There’s no cell phone in here.”

Guy leaves.

Guy comes back in and stands right outside the stall.

“Is there a cell phone in there?”

“No. I sold it on eBay and a portal opened up under my butt. I delivered it to the buyer via the swirlies. Now let me take a crap in peace, OK?”

OK, I made up the last part. What the store worker actaully said was, “No.” Again.

Brainless wonder replied, “Oh, sorry.”

#gagamaggot

The Problem Is Not “Islamists” or “Radical Muslims.” It’s Islam.

Muslims attack a normal American in Michigan and the writer of the linked article utters this stupid remark:

“The thing is simple, these people are not even real Muslims.”

In addition to the comma splice (yeh, I have little respect for people who failed fifth grade English because of lack of attention), the statement simply ignores the fact that Mohammed, Islam’s “perfect man,” was a mass murderer, torturer, slaver, brigand, rapist, and more, and he specifically commanded–over and over and over again–his followers to do as he did. Moreover, it is unalterable Islamic writ that is the same yesterday, today, and as long as there is one follower of The Butcher of Medina.

Real Muslims are liars, thieves, murderers, rapists and more. They HAVE to be in order to emulate their prophet and obey his commandments. Only liars and fools will say otherwise.

Don’t quit your day job

Note to aspiring writers: at least learn to write halfway sensible sentences before considering a career change, mmmK? For example, the writer of this lil gem among others in just the first few paragraphs of his “magnum opus,” needs to go back to Remedial English for a refresher:

“His secrets come under threat when he starts receiving anonymous messages.” Please complete that thought. Or. . . perhaps it’s better left incomplete and the rest of the book unread. Yeh, that’s the ticket.

Racing Pell–Mell Toward Harrison Bergeron’s World. . .

Bedtime Stories Help Kids—So Ban Them?

Yeh, this sort of thing pops up in the Every Child Left Behind bunch every now and then. Key bots from the article:

“Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t. . .

“This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps—in the interests of leveling the playing field—bedtime stories should also be restricted. . . ”

And,

“I don’t think that parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children. . . ” but he does think that, from what is presented.

[N.B. The quoted material isn’t from the writer of the article at Intellectual Takeout but quoted from the article she references, Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?, a 2015 ABC, Australia, article..]

Yes, there really are people who seem to think that parents should be less loving and offer fewer opportunities for bonding and for intellectual stimulation to their children, because. . . reasons (that are inhuman and unimaginable by anyone who does very rightly care for their children).

Screw ’em with a rusty chainsaw. Do the right thing instead of listening to such monsters.

Terry McAuliffe is an Idiot. But I Repeat Myself.

The “but I repeat myself” is because “Terry McAuliffe” is a synonym for “idiot.”

[Apologies for the watermark. I cut this lil snippet using a device I don’t usually use for video editing and used a freebie app to do it.]

McAuliffe demonstrates better than usual grasp of (alternative) facts (from the Bizarro Univese), for a Dhimmicrap pol.

Terry McAuliffe_ ‘We Lose 93 Million Americans A Day to Gun Violence’_cut

Seems Like Karma to Me

I already knew, generally, what an M44 was in the context of wildlife management–a baited cyanide device ostensibly used to control [that is, kill] coyotes and other canidae (apparently against foxes in Australia, though using a different poison), but for some reason it popped into my head and I decided to check a few resources for a more detailed description of it and its uses.

The Wikipedia article included an incident in “criticisms” of its use that made me snicker:

“In 2003, Mr. Dennis Slaugh of Vernal, Utah, was on public lands and mistook an M-44 for a survey marker. When he pulled on it, the device shot sodium cyanide powder on his face and chest causing him to become violently ill.” [Wikipedia article on M44 cyanide device]

He THOUGHT it was a SURVEY MARKER on public land, so he tried to pull it up? Asshat. He got what he deserved. The Deuteronomical injunction against moving “boundary stones” came to mind (along with all the laws currently on the books) when I read about this asshat. Since the incident was cited as a criticism of the use of M44 cyanide devices, I doubt the asshat learned the proper lesson from his disgusting behavior. The proper lessons to have learned from that would include:

DON’T MESS WITH SURVEY MARKERS
DON’T MESS WITH STUFF THAT IS NOT YOURS, PERIOD
DON’T BITCH AND MOAN AND DEMAND SOMEONE “DO SOMETHING” WHEN YOUR OWN MISBEHAVIOR REBOUNDS ON YOU

But, as I said, since the incident is cited as a criticism of the device and its use, I doubt the asshat learned the proper lesson from it. I could be wrong. . . but that’s not the way to bet.

Cressida Dick Says Latest Muslim Terrorist Attack Shows the Strength of London’s Diversity

I’ll look for other sources for this, since ABC “News” has so often purveyed fake news, but if this is indeed genuine, then the police commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police should go practice her “diversity” with ISIS. (She does have an appropriate last name, though):

London police chief: Attack victims show city’s diversity

Yeh, she’s a real dick, all right.

Sometimes, Even Subliterate Writers Can Be Entertaining. . . Though By Accident

Sometimes, text written by a subliterate writer can lead to fun stuff. A silly, 20-something self-pub subliterate writer (whose “editorial” helpers are no more literate than he is) provided such a brief moment, before I ashcanned his stupid book.

“. . .tells me that a newly discovered landmark was uncovered by the storm and that the ruin is not in any kind of withered [sic] state.”

Oh, my. The subliterate writer was probably groping for “weathered,” but since

a. his ears are apparently dull and
b. he just flat-out doesn’t know the differences between “wither” and “weather,”

. . .he went with a near homophone that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

But. . . then I paused and thought of the different meanings of wither, and their etymologies. (Yes, because I spent much of my youth reading dictionaries–and still do to this day, for that matter–and have a wide range of interests in disparate fields, I knew that the noun “wither” and the verb “wither” came from two very different roots. *shrugs* So? 🙂 ) So I had a bit of personal entertainment contemplating a horse’s withers and the withering of a plant.

And then, back to the Badly Written Text to a further description of the “ruin”:

“In fact, it doesn’t look “ruined” at all! It appears to be in perfect condition!”

*head-desk* Then why, oh why, did the “eminent archaeologist” initially refer to it as a “ruin”?

Because the writer had no appropriate vocabulary to describe it else, of course.

Well, this lil incident combined with four others in the two pages since I picked the book back up to convince me I needed to delete it from my library entirely, so as not to even accidentally pick it back up.

Oh, well. At least I managed to get all the way to 4% of the thing this time. . .