A serious lack of Perspective

Congressmen John Culberson (R-TX) and Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) have no sense of perspective.

Recess

What the Hell?
Do you understand that Iranians are risking their lives to send out bits of news via social networking sites. How is that in any way similar to what you are doing? You are using Twitter to whine about Democrats in Congress not being sufficiently sensitive to your issues. In Iran, there are guys on motorcycles beating and shooting participants in anti-government rallies. You didn't get enough time to debate.

You call yourself an oppressed minority. Really. With a straight face? The Uighurs are an oppressed minority. The Lost Boys of Sudan are an oppressed minority. I don't think you know what repression is. The Democratic majority cutting off amendments is NOT repression. Repression involves cutting off body parts.

Pete Hoekstra and John Culberson, ladies and gentlemen. Putting the "Twit" in "Twitter."

How Crazy is Rachel Marsden?

Actually, it turns out, pretty damn crazy.

Here's a quick list: (source)

• 1997: Rachel accuses Liam Donnelly of rape, harassment, and whatever else she can think of. Heads roll. Student body embarrassed. But apparently this started in 1993, when she was a teenager and he demoted her from the neighbourhood swim team.
• 1999: SFU threatens to evict Rachel Marsden from the campus residences for continuing to stalk Donnelly, for harassing and stalking SFU’s Harassment policy co-ordinator Patricia O’Hagan (leading O’Hagan to quit, change her number, and move) and also SFU Criminology Professor Neil Boyd, who takes his case to the RCMP. Clearly a woman with no sense of her own irony.
• 2000: Rachel Marsden’s father, Claude Arthur Marsden, is found guilty of professional misconduct. “Mr. Marsden engaged in a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old female student.”
• 2003: Marsden becomes a “Babe for Bush”.
• 2004: Marsden is fired by BC conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, where she was working under the alias “Elle Henderson”, after it is revealed she’s facing harassment charges in a BC court.
• 2004: Marsden is convicted of stalking and harassing Michael Morgan, a Vancouver radio host with whom she worked (or tried to) at radio station CFUN, according to some reports from 2002-2004.
• 2007: Marsden is escorted from the building by her new employer, Fox News, after the infamous Salon piece and after some rumours (propagated by her, it seems) that she had begun harassing the host of “Red-Eye”, Greg Gutfeld.
• 2007: Marsden accuses Tony Backhurst, an Ontario police officer and unsuccessful Tory MP candidate of “leaking security secrets to her” after he files a complaint of harassment against her and the RCMP launches an investigation.

So, yeah, she may actually be insane. Now I feel kinda bad about making fun of her. On the other hand, she does seem kinda evil. So there's that.

The Susan Boyle Backlash

It was only a couple months ago when everyone was telling everyone "oh, you've gotta see this singer on youtube, she's amazing"

And she was.

She was really good and everyone loved her.

But now, it seems like everyone on the internet hates her all of a sudden. I keep seeing things like this:

I really hate Susan Boyle !!!

I really don't like Susan Boyle. Why do people like her so much ?

Anyone else sick of hearing about susan boyle?

Im am soooooo sick of hearing about her its unbelevable!

Re:Anyone else sick of hearing about susan boyle?

I agree. Fed up to the back teeth seeing that ugly face everywhere.

This Website is Officially Sick of Susan Boyle

by John Cole

It's official. I'm sick of Susan Boyle. . . .because she had a better-than-average karaoke voice, and whose looks resembled the ghost of Ruhla Lynska.

But someone named Rachel Mardsen is the only one I know of to see the parallel between Susan Boyle and Adolph Hitler.

Yes, that Hitler.

From Susan Boyle To Hitler: Why Some Simply Can’t Hack Fame

by Rachel Marsden

06/04/2009

This is my "super-serious writer" look.





No, wait.

Okay, THIS is my "super-serious writer"look!





















But they made me use this picture for my byline!




So, what could the connection possibly be between the songstress and the genocidal monster?

Apparently, neither handled fame well. Which is, usually, the main criticism leveled at Hitler.

If we should be learning anything from the Susan Boyle meltdown phenomenon, it’s that the average person isn’t cut out for fame. The same holds true for political leaders.
Susan Boyle lived a quiet, simple country life alongside companions of the mainly feline persuasion, until she was thrust into the spotlight on Britain’s Got Talent.

Not to quibble, but she wasn't exactly "thrust" into the spotlight. She sought it out.

. . .she was thrust into the spotlight on Britain’s Got Talent and instantly became the focus of fantasy projections by every single fat slob splayed out on the couch with a Budweiser in-hand. Wiping a tear into their brew, it donned on them that they, too, could become rich and famous if Simon Cowell came knocking at their door, dragged them and their housecoat into the makeup chair, wiped the Cheetos off the corner of their mouth and gave them a shot at superstardom. Boyle doesn’t have the greatest voice, but she’s Sarah Brightman to every chump who likes to think he’s Sinatra on Friday nights at the karaoke bar. If she can get “discovered”, then fame and fortune could just as easily be theirs, as well. Or so the thinking goes.

Okay, have you even heard her sing? No one listened to her sing and thought "that could just as easily be me" You might as well watch the NHL playoffs and think "if only I had kept my skates. . ."

And, as previously mentioned, she was not "dragged into the makeup chair," she auditioned for the show quite willingly.

Oh, and by the way, it's generally considered good manners to at least attempt to disguise one's contempt for the common folk.

The truth is that the “average” person doesn’t have the personality to contend with fame. What exactly is that “x-factor” that predisposes a person to both fame and the ability to properly manage it? It’s precisely two things: Hard knocks over a long period of adjustment, combined with a histrionic personality type (and ideally, but not always, some substance or talent).

Histrionic personality? Doesn't histrionic mean overly emotional?

According to the Cleveland Clinic, histrionic people are “dramatic or theatrical”, have “intense emotions”, need to be “the center of attention”

So, yeah, that type of personality would probably lead one to seek fame, but would it help one to deal with it?













But anyway, what does any of this have to do with Hitler?

The histrionic personality, this “je ne sais quoi” I have just defined,
is what draws us to a person

Um, I believe that the term "je ne sais quoi" refers to that which is undefinable. it translates from french as "I don't know what."

The prevalence of thick-skinned, talented histrionics isn’t limited to pop culture fame. The same rules apply to successful political leaders.

Okay, are we going to get to Hitler now?

Winston Churchill: Rebellious child, speech impediment, largely ignored by his mother. Everyone laughed at him when he warned of Hitler as a possible threat. By the time he became Prime Minister for the first time in 1940, he had been taking abuse in the
federal political arena for 30 years and had obviously developed some good
coping mechanisms. Still has some of the best one-liners in history.

Also a drunk, but I guess some might consider that a "coping mechanism."

George W. Bush: Born wealthy and connected, but made to work. Barbara Bush wasn’t going to be raising any spoiled brats.

Except that she did.

Ran some businesses,

Into the ground

Made difficult moral decisions related to Texas Death Row executions.

"Fry 'em all!" doesn't seem like a difficult moral decision.

Developed a tried and tested character and moral conscience by the time he took office as President.

Also a drunk.

The media hung on his every word. Doubled as Comedian in Chief due to the editing of his reality show by the mainstream media.

The same media which "hung on his every word" also edited him to look foolish. Because unedited, his speeches are like a cross between "I have a dream" and "Ich bin ein Berliner." But the media (who so admired him that they hung on his every word) edited his sound bites so that it appeared he couldn't string together a coherent sentence. That's exactly what happened.

But what about Hitler?

And now, for the most renowned political equivalent of a reality show crack-up:

Adolph Hitler: Spoiled by his mother, failed art school entry exams twice, claims to have had an “easy life”. Joined the German Worker’s Party as official blowhard. Resumed his art career by presiding over the design of the swastika. Pretty much a weak, useless spoiled brat beyond a few odd jobs as a draftsman and painter. What Hitty wants, Hitty gets. And the world paid for it. Relied heavily on his “entourage” to boost his weak ego.

So the slaughter of 6 million Jews, plus Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. and millions more dead in WWII, that is the equivalent of a "reality show crackup"? And the holocaust was a result of Hitler's cracking under pressure? Like Hitler had no anti-semitic tendancies when he took office, it was only the pressure of the spotlight that caused him to snap? Have you ever heard of Mein Kampf? Hitler was a complete unknown when he wrote that.

And Hitler was coddled by his mother, so he invaded Poland. George W. Bush was raised by a strict mother and he invaded Iraq. I'm not even sure what the logic is supposed to be here. And I sure don't see what the fuck any of this bullshit has to do with poor Susan Boyle. Who is this Rachel Masden, and just how baboon-ass crazy is she? Tomorrow, I attempt to find out.

Sunday Funnies

I try out a new feature today -- Sunday Funnies!





Would You like white or dark meat, Mr. record player?



Dammit, these 1950's lap dances suck!

Mom, are you sure they won't suspect that we smeared shit on their bread?

Goddamit, ironing is hard!

You should try washing dishes! It's a refreshing change of pace!

Why no, Chet. I don't think this is gay at all, do you?



My cake brings all the boys to the yard. And they're like, it's better than yours."



Ha ha! When you offered me a tiny weiner, I thought, oh never mind!


Junior! Get your dick out of the oven!



Boy, did I pick the wrong day to go commando!


Now good luck finding a Give-A-Shit audience!

Charles Krauthammer's Universe

Why do I do it? When I see Charles Krauthammer's acerbic, caustic mug looking out from the op-ed page, why don't I just turn the page? Why do I read his belligerent drivel? Especially when it is headlined

Obama Shows Ambivalence About U.S.

and it begins with this:

WASHINGTON -- When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been "acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating" between America and the world.

You have to wonder about a guy who begins by quoting himself.

Now that Obama has returned from his "Muslim world" pilgrimage, even the left agrees. "Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world. He's sort of God," Newsweek's Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews.

By this point, I should know that we are about to take a journey through Charles krauthammer's world, which I imagine looks something like this:

That's right, in the Krauthammerverse, dogs wear suits, rabbits run butcher shops and this:is Mrs. Krauthammer.


Also, in his world, Charles can read minds. Especially the President's.

Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.)

How does he know what Barack Obama considers himself to be? He can read minds!

But he's apparently not the only one.

Recently Rush Limbaugh stated:

"I am better than most people but I don't think I'm God. Obama does. He's got a messianic complex."

How does he know? He can read minds! A year earlier, he had this to say:

Obama and a lot of Democrats think Americans and America are backwards. You know that they're embarrassed of this country. They think we deserve to be in a constant state of decline because of our excesses and our bullying and our imperialism. They enjoy the suffering of Americans at the gas pump because they think it's Americans' fault.

In a 2008 editorial, the CarolinaCoastOnline stated:

Well, should Mr. Obama be elected, he plans to change the part about our being able to cling to guns — because he intends to severely curtail our right to cling to them by taking them away

Did Obama ever say anything about taking away guns? he didn't have to, because even the Carolina Coast Online News can read his mind.

But in the Krauthammerverse, not only is the president's mind easy to read, it is filled with "cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect."

How does the president distort history? Apparently by mentioning it.

He told Iran that, on the one hand, America once helped overthrow an Iranian government, while on the other hand "Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians."

So, does Krauthammer deny that the US once sponsored a coup against the Iranian government? Not exactly.

A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Teheran.

Of course, there might never have been a "thug regime in Tehran" had the CIA not overthrown the democratically elected government of Iran and re-installed the hated Shah as dictator. And it seems unlikely that the Iranians would have considered the US to be their enemy had we not been responsible for the tyrannical oppressive rule of the Shah. So without the CIA "rent-a-mob" coup, there probably would have been no hostage-taking and no terrorist-sponsoring theocrats running Iran. But that's beside the point. The real problem (on planet K-hammer) is Barack Obama's compulsion to find fault with his own country For instance:

Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women's rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country -- balanced, of course, with "meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

Now to a normal person, living in the real world, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Who would deny that women have yet to realize full equality in the US? (women still earn about 75 cents for every dollar their male counterparts make) But what is Krauthammer's perspective on this?

Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women's softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds -- while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces, and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery.

Ok, Chuck, no one said that women don't have it a lot worse in the middle east, but are you really saying that the biggest problem faced by American women is Title IX funding?
Did you know that, according to FBI statistics, in 2008, there were 229 forcible rapes reported in Birmingham, Alabama alone. There were 257 just in Anchorage, Alaska. Your home townof New York, NY reported 890 rapes in 2008. And that around 1 million women per year seek medical attention due to domestic violence. I'm sure you must have had some idea, since you were a psychiatrist at massachussets general in the 1970's. But you're going to ignore that, just so you can pretend that Barack Obama was "creating false equivalencies."

Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics.

There he goes, reading Obama's mind again. But he's not very good at it, since Barack Obama did not make moral equivalencies or self-flagellate.

Distorting history is not truth-telling, but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country.

No, you know what's disturbing? Someone who refuses to see any fault in one's own country. Someone who brushes aside a history that includes slavery, the genocide against Native Americans, Jim Crow, overthrows of foreign governments (Iran, Guatemala, Chile, etc.) and just insists that anyone who acknowledges our past transgressions is "distorting history." If I thought it were possible for Charles Krauthammer to feel shame, I would suggest that he should be feeling it now. But that would be kind of pointless. Asking Krauthammer to feel shame is like asking a Swede to be Chinese. It just can't happen, and it won't even make sense to the Swede.