Now up to 70% less Daily!

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

What is wrong with this man?


So President Personality Disorder was giving a speech trying to whip up support for Republican candidates in the midterm, and this came out of his mouth hole:


"But if Democrats gain power, they will try to reverse these incredible gains. These are historic gains. They will try and reverse many of them. So your vote in 2018 is every bit as important as your vote in 2016 -- although I'm not sure I really believe that, but you know. (Laughter.) I don't know who the hell wrote that line. I'm not sure. (Laughter and applause.) But it's still important."



https://i.gifer.com/JxL.gif

He just can't help himself.
He just can't bring himself to just read the words on the screen without ad-libbing if those written words don't sufficiently puff up his own fragile ego.
He can't say that the 2018 election is just as important as 2016 because he's not running in 2018 so how could it possibly be as important if it doesn't involve him?
This is something beyond narcissism.
They're going to have to invent a new term for this kind of pathology.
Years from now, psychology students will be learning about "Il Douche Syndrome" or whatever they're going to call it and they'll raise their hands and ask the professor "was this based on a real person?" And the professor will say "God, I hope not!"

Friday, May 11, 2018

Out of Town

Going out of town.
Should be back next week, unless it rains in Florida in which case I may be bored enough to venture on to the web.

See you soon!

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

News that is not from the Onion.



Apparently, none of this is a joke:


Televangelist Jim Bakker calls his Missouri cabins the safest spot for the Apocalypse



How?
How could they possibly be. . .? You know what, let's see.



Televangelist Jim Bakker suggests that if you want to survive the end of days, the best thing you could do is buy one of his cabins in Missouri's Ozark Mountains. And while you're at it, be sure to pick up six 28-ounce "Extreme Survival Warfare" water bottles for $150.



Okay, but. . .I mean. . .it's the end of the world. Fire and brimstone. Stars falling from the heavens, seas turning to blood, complete destruction. How would you surv -- actually, why would you want to survive? Wouldn't you want to go to Heaven? God is destroying the Earth, killing everyone in sight, the righteous are going to eternal Paradise and you think you're gonna want to wait things out in Missouri? See how things play out? I mean, sure, Heaven sounds boring. ( h/t )Sitting around playing harps all day. Every day. Day after day. But it's got to be better than riding out the APOCALYPSE in some dumb cabin in the Ozarks watching the world burn and everyone die. Right?


Now, surrounded by buckets of food and "warfare" water bottles in the Ozarks, Bakker is in front of the cameras once again, preparing his viewers for the Apocalypse.
"Where are you going to go when the world's on fire? Where are you going to go? This place is for God's people. ... We need some farmers to move here," Bakker said on Tuesday's show.


You know, I'm no fancy big city theologian, but I seem to recall a place that was supposed to be for "God's people," a place where God's people were supposed to go at the end of the world. A little place by the name of . . . HEAVEN! Why would the Jim Bakker audience want to avoid going to Heaven? Maybe because they would miss seeing Jim Bakker?

image



Also, why would you think that this would work? Why would someone who believes in the all-seeing all-knowing almighty God of the Bible think that they would be able to hide from Him? Like he's going around raining fire and brimstone on everybody  and the angels are like "Hey, Lord, there's some cabins down there in those hills," and God is going to say "Ah, there's probably no one in there. This place is so remote, I can't imagine anyone actually living there," and then you'll be all "Jokes on you, God! We were here the whole time!"
How is any of this supposed to work?


Later in the show, Bakker says the Ozarks is "the safest place to live" versus living in large cities elsewhere in the country, like Chicago and New York, The Christian Post reported.


Okay. I could see that. Probably a lot less crime in the Ozarks.

A lot more bears, though.

And a lot more guys who think you have a real purty mouth.

But on balance, sure. It's probably safer to live in a cabin in the woods with no hospital nearby or any doctor. really. And no ambulance service. But you probably won't need any of those things, you'll be so robustly healthy on your steady diet of Jim Bakker's dehydrated potato glop and $150 warfare water!

 


 "Do you know the people from the government, from NASA, the research from so many of them, they have said in their research that the safest place to live in troubled times is right here. That's why God brought us here," Bakker said.






via GIPHY


No.
No, that is NOT what NASA does. Not even CLOOOSE to what NASA does. I don't know what you're thinking of, but it is definitely not  NASA.

Also, the research you mention. Not only was that not NASA, but it was not any government agency because you made it up and it never happened and you're lying.



How is there not some kind of law against this? This is nothing but a swindle. And it's one thing to grift in the name of the Lord, but once you invoke NASA in your bullshit sales pitch, couldn't they at least sue you? Or something? He's robbing people blind. And yes, they should know better. They should know that he's already done time for fraud, and even if they don't their bullshit detector should be blaring every time this little prick speaks, but I'm just tired of living in a society in which it's considered okay to fleece someone because they're stupid and gullible.


Friday, May 4, 2018

How is this not a bigger story?

This is Patrick Little:

Image of Patrick Little


He looks like a typical alt-right douchebag and in most ways he is.
But there is one difference between Patrick Little and your average Pepe.

Patrick Little is running for the Senate. In California.
Is he going to win? No. BUT, he is currently in the lead for the Republican nomination!

How "alt-right" could he be and still be the front-runner for one of the two major political parties in California you ask? Well. . . this much:














Now I get that it's not exactly news that this country is lousy with neo-Nazis. And if you've ever lived in California, it comes as no surprise that California has its fair share of skinheads (I lived in Orange Count for a while. You'd see "death to race-mixers" decals on signposts fairly regularly.) And it's not surprising that in the era of Il Douche, more of these sick fucks are turning up to run for office. But how is it not major news that a god damn Nazi is leading in the polls in the most populous state in the Union?


According to "The Hill," the California Republican Party has issued a tepid condemnation of Little:

The California Republican Party has denounced a Republican Senate candidate who has denied the Holocaust happened and called for a country "free from Jews."

“Mr. Little has never been an active member of our party. I do not know Mr. Little and I am not familiar with his positions,” Matt Fleming, communications director for the California Republican Party, told Newsweek. “But in the strongest terms possible, we condemn anti-Semitism and any other form of religious bigotry, just as we do with racism, sexism or anything else that can be construed as a hateful point of view.”

Yes, a desire to exterminate Jews could be "construed as a hateful point of view."

But I can't find any statement from the National party or any member of the GOP leadership, or anyone with any name recognition. Apparently the Mitch McConnels and Paul Ryans either can't be bothered, or are too aware of their need for the skinhead vote, or just have no problem at all with a god damn Nazi representing their party on the California ballot.


So there is one small silver lining here. I was disappointed that Kevin de Leon wasn't making much headway in his primary challenge against Diane Feinstein, but at least I will get to watch this anti-Semitic piece of shit get crushed by a Jewish woman.

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

No, Seriously. Stop it.

In a sane world, no one would give a flyspeck what a professional moralistic scold like Ross Douche-Hat has to say on any subject. But this is not a sane world. In the lunatic reality we inhabit, Douche-Hat has his every flacid thought published in the New York Times - America's Paper of Record - as if they were pearls of wisdom from a sage elder with unique insight. Which means that we are forced to confront Ross's  self-important edict on the subject of "incels" and redistribution of sex which I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY TO STOP WRITING ABOUT, DOUCHEY!


The Redistribution of Sex





Image


CreditZackary Canepari for The New York Times  
(Remember, kids. they can't refute your argument if they're distracted by boobies!)


One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane.


Okay, sure. Sometimes the radicals and weirdos are Nazis, or Stalinists, or al Queda, or Scientologists, but sure. It never hurts to hear them out.


All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War. . .


Woah, woah, slow down there!You're going ALL THE WAY BACK to the Iraq War? We didn't all major in ancient history, you know!
(editor's note: Hmm, maybe little Douche-Hat was a little to young to be made an op-ed columnist. Maybe we should have gotten someone wirth a bit more perspective on things like Davis Broo - -oh, right. Never mind.)


All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion.


 Or, in simpler language, the hippy liberals have always been right but never been listened to. And the spewers of "establishment opinion" are never penalized for having been wrong. Every cheerleader for Bush's  ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-advised, illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq is still being invited on the Sunday talk shows and the 24-hour news networks as if they have some rare and valuable acumen that simply must be shared with the general public while when's the last time you've seen Micheal Moore or Janeane Garofalo on Meet the Press?



For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on .

Which brings me to the sex robots.
thumb image

Okay, now you've got my attention!


Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo.



 

Oh come on!



**Sigh** Fine. Let's talk about Hanson. I'm sure that will be just as interesting as "sex robots."






Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?
This argument was not well received by people closer to the mainstream than Professor Hanson, to put it mildly.







But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.




STOP IT! Stop trying to make it seem as if there is some basis for compelling any person to have sex with any other person. You're not gettin' any because you're overweight or you're a minority person trying to score with racists? I feel for you. That sucks. But you know what? It also sucks that I wasn't tall enough to play in the NBA. And it also sucks that I never had the manual dexterity to be a musician. Life is unfair. But no one is trying to suggest that the Warriors be forced to make room on their roster for me or that Bob Weir should be forced to jam with me. That's not how it works. Some unfairnesses can be fixed, others can't. And it is not a good idea to humor those who lash out with violence when they feel that life is too unfair.
Now can we PLEASE talk about sex robots?

Image result for homer sigh gif




. . . By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies.


NO IT WOULDN'T!
Because sex is not a commodity. You can't just go down to the sex orchard and pic a bushel of sex and hand it out to the sex-deprived. Redistributing sex would require forcing women to have sex against their will or, at best, a massive prostitute-hiring WPA-type program that just seems really impractical.


First, because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration.
 Image result for that's it exactly gif


Oh, spot on, Douche-Hat! As everyone knows, prior to the sexual revolution, there was really no advantage to being beautiful or rich. Or socially adept. Everyone was just assigned a mate on their 21st birthday and whether you were handsome or ugly, homely or gorgeous, a witty raconteur or a retiring wallflower, everyone lived happily ever after and everyone had exactly the same amount if sex. Oh, why did those damn hippies have to ruin everything?



Second, because in this new landscape, and amid other economic and technological transformations, the sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening between them


Right, and prior to this dismal modern era, men and women understood each other perfectly and always got along famously!

(I know you're maybe too young to remember the golden times of male-female harmony, may I suggest you Google "Lysistrata?")

When do we get to the sex robots?




In the case of sexual liberation and its discontents, that’s unlikely to mean the kind of thoroughgoingly utopian reimagining of sexual desire that writers like Srinivasan think we should aspire toward, or anything quite so formal as the pro-redistribution political lobby of Hanson’s thought experiment.
But I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing. The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind



NO!
No, no no! The "left's" zeal to legalize sex work is not aimed at appeasing potentially violent MRA's by helping to get them laid. The point of legalizing sex work is to make it less dangerous FOR THE SEX WORKER. Do you really not understand this? I don't know how to explain this, but not everything is about you. Not everything is done with an eye toward making pathetic men feel undeservedly better about themselves. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.



. . . the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robots will increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.



No we won't. We "right-thinking" people will not come to that conclusion. Our position will be then what it is now. You have the right to have sex with anyone who is willing and is an adult. You have the right to watch virtual-reality porn or regular two-dimensional porn as long as everyone involved in making it did so voluntarily. And you absolutely have the right to spend your money on a sex robot.That's it. You don't have any claim on another person's body. And you never will. And by promoting the fiction that someday such a right will be recognized, you are only feeding in to the pathology of these "incels" increasing their belief that they are "owed" sex and making it more likely that they will act out in violent ways when this proves again to not be the case.
Stop it.
Stop humoring these people.
I know you don't actually believe in any right to sex. You believe that everyone should have to live their lives by the dogma of the Catholic Church. If it were up to you, there would be no sex outside of reproduction. You're only humoring these man-boys because your misogyny is outweighing your aversion to human sexuality. You need to stop. This won't end well.