Saturday, November 27, 2004


Facing the futility of further misfeasance, Graham_72 has finally blogrolled me, declaring from Oz that I am his "favorite femme fatale blogger". I have practiced "positive reinforcement" of this good judgment by moving him from my sidebar "non-links" to the "wise folks" list.

His description makes me feel noir all over. I wish I could celebrate by posting my long-attempted political version of Robert Towne, but something about it kept giving me writer's block for months. Perhaps it was not knowing how the murder-provoking contest therein would turn out. Now that Diebold the public has spoken and we know that Our Noble Lame Duck will continue (at least until the clueless losers here take lessons from the Ukraine), maybe I can finally finish the thing.

On the other hand, lately I've been pondering instead something more like Tom Stoppard. It may be that The Mighty Mandate will move us on from thrillers to theatre of the absurd. Which would my legions of fans prefer?

Friday, November 19, 2004


That 1848 quote from Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, famously misattributed by the first JFK to an anonymous leader in the first French Revolution, describes the tailpipe-chasing behavior of the Donkey Party since their Mardi Noir. Their usual circular firing squad surrounding The Squandered Condiment is not their only determined demonstration that they've lost their ticket from Loserville. Following the example of Chamberlain at Munich, the Senate Democrats chose a leader who wavers toward the Compulsory Pregnancy Caucus, and voted for the "I'm a Patriot, You're a Traitor" Act. The self-loathing left side of the blogging world, lacking the courage of its own conniptions, is tripping over itself wondering how to appeal to voters that think women and gays are fine only in their places (the nursery and the closet).

Meanwhile the theocratic crusade continues unchallenged, laughing at the liberals busily knotting the noose around their own necks just to make it easy for their enemies. Yes, the places that voted for Our Noble Lame Duck this time once marched under a Democratic banner, but that was in the days when crusading anti-evolutionist William Jennings Bryan couched his anti-corporate rabble-rousing in religious rhetoric about crucifying mankind on a cross of gold. When The Free Press writes about the lack of national support for the Green- and Libertarian- funded Buckeye State Recounts
Democracy itself was lynched in Ohio on November 2, by both high and low tech means. Our freedoms may be the ultimate victim. But where is the Democratic Party?
the answer is, just where it was during all those other lynchings before the civil disobedience movement, when it nuzzled up to the local aristocrats supporting solid segregation: sycophantically sacrificing the speechless so as to stay sitting on its small slice of spoils.

Blog Reload has reminded starry-eyed believers in The Tooth Kerry what's really going on out there in those Red States they think they can stomach appeals to. For instance Jack Holgroth is urging a new design for the U.S. flag:
While beautiful, an ignorant foreigner might mistakenly suspect we were Astrologists or some sort of Stripe Fetishists instead of proper Christians.
He proposes adding the word "God" in very large letters in a new white stripe across the top. He admits this is a technical violation of the current flag law, but believes:
Given the strong Faith professed by our current President, it should not be a problem to convince him to allow this change should those who wish to stop the natural adoption of the Godly Flag decide to misuse Section 8g against it.
His suggestion is part of the site of OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries. Its other activities include a banner ad pushing de-robed Alabama Chief Justice Roy "10 Commandments" Moore for the Supreme Court, a link to someone trying to rebuild Noah's Ark ("We are not building this ark because of another flood, but as a sign to the world of God's love and Jesus' soon return!" -- hopefully, with a handbook of English usage), a campaign to shut down the website of the Landover Baptist Church ("Their modus operandi is simple: post articles that take good Christian values and twist them - beyond recognition - such that they look arrogant, hateful, or just idiotic."), and an absolutely vital battle over a theological technicality you've never heard of:
Triclavianists hold that three, and only three, nails were used to affix our Lord Jesus Christ to the cross. While it might be true that three nails were used -- and, in fact, archeological evidences uncovered by Biblical researchers positively point to this conclusion -- it is erroneous, and theologically dangerous, to make this a doctrinal position. ...

The heresy in triclavianism is not the belief in the use of only three nails, per se. Rather, it is the insistence that fallible, non-Biblical sources of information should be used as a guide to important matters of Faith. Triclavianism is merely a pernicious symptom of a greater illness inflicting today's Christians: the allowing of Secularists to subvert the authority of Christ's teachings, thereby replacing Faith with skepticism and knowledge with ignorance.
The Filibuster Party at the local level once understood how to appeal to the kind of Real Americans who worry about such issues. It requires more than just taking them seriously enough to keep a straight face. When Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas, who proved his flyover country acumen by beating Bush XLI in 1964, was privately asked what he said to the racists back home, he was open about it: "You lie." The lesson was grasped by one of the radical leftist gurus in his play The Best Man:
...power is not a toy we give to good children; it is a weapon and the strong man takes it and he uses it and I can assure you he don't turn it on himself nor let another man come at him with a knife that he don't fight back. Well, that knife is at your throat and if you don't go down there and beat Cantwell to the floor with this very dirty stick, then you got no business in this big league....
Now if the liberals were genuine Christians, instead of greedy children pondering playing dress-up for church, they would be worried about whether such camouflage is worth it. But the secular humanists and semi-Marxist materialists are probably not familiar with the warning label about that, which, for their benefit, I quote in their preferred language:
Car que profitera-t-il à un homme s'il gagne le monde entier, et qu'il fasse la perte de son âme; ou que donnera un homme en échange de son âme? --Mark 8:36-37

Tuesday, November 16, 2004


Someday, when the Axis of Appeasement (alias "Old Europe") finally tries to invade America and enact Ward Moore's nightmare of occupation from "It Becomes Necessary", this may be the symbol they'll be celebrating.
What would the superhero of the European Union be like? Call him Captain Euro, of course. I see something bland, generic, and drafted by a committee to avoid the flavor and character of any one European nation. His costume, designed to instill fear, or at least wonderment, in trade-pact violators and press-regulation evaders everywhere, would be something like an Olympic curling team warmup suit with a hovercraft driver's hat. His powers would be a supernatural knowledge of languages and dining customs, overweening self-esteem (he'd call it "savoir faire"), and the ability to nimbly sidestep violence and make his escape under a thick cloak of diplomacy.
As that writer points out, this laughable character designed by a committee actually existed. The art and stories were so calculated to be inoffensive that they would put a real comics fan (oui, c'est moi) into a deep slumber. However, it may all have been a clever marketing ploy for tie-ins, like TV cartoons invented just to sell certain toys. The continental crusader's site has a "licensing and marketing" page which says
Everyone will want to identify with the Captain EURO brand. It brings emotion to the concept of a united Europe, adding value to products and services. ... Our brands can adapt to any media, product, service, promotion or event.
Come on, you know the words, recite them with me now:
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
[Gary Cruse of The Owner's Manual linked to this hilarious example of art abuse in the Best of Me Symphony #50. The original post he cited was by Idler Yet.]


I've found the solution to the Democratic despair over The Governator's efforts to amend the Constitution so that he can become President. Following up on my previous post, "What Do Voters Really Want?", they need to nominate someone who clearly stands FOR adultery, as publicly as possible. Another upwardly mobile immigrant could be available if that amendment passes, since she just lost her job:
A judge accused of taking off more than her robes is now off the bench. Romanian Judge Simona Lungu resigned Wednesday in the face of charges she starred in an X-rated video sold in Denmark.

Lungu denied being in the movie and asked the state crime lab to investigate.

But the forensic experts concluded that is the judge in the sex video.

The porn judge has been big news in the Romanian press. Local papers have been running stills of the judge's alleged X-rated movie, "Secrets of Seduction."
There are some rather Nosferatu-like photos of the now ex-Judge HERE. Could this be the next Democratic star? Picture the debate when she runs for Veep against Secretary Rice.


Alex Carnevale at Neoliberal for Life spotted this in a column about the liberals' Mardi Noir by Alexander Cockburn:
A distraught young person called me in tears on the morning after. I tried to console her by saying that things looked pretty dark in 1980, when Ronald Reagan and the Republicans swept into power, yet only twelve years later we had a draft-dodging adulterer ensconced in the White House and the Democrats back in control of Congress for a couple of years.

This didn't help, so I rushed her back to 1956, when Eisenhower was re-elected and the skies looked dark. But only four years later we had a Democratic war-hero adulterer on the parapet of Camelot and the Summer of Love only seven years down the road.
He failed to draw the obvious conclusion from that history. Following the social stasis of Republican years, a chunk of "swing" voters, if you catch my drift, are hungry for a more promiscuity-friendly administration. Thus the Tumescence of Camelot, The Clenis himself, and that four-term adulterer in the wheelchair. Truman and Johnson only reached office as Veeps of departed misleaders. The seeming exception to lusty electability, Mr. Peanut, had the political foresight to confess in Hefner's mag about "lust in his heart". (Actually he was faking it, just one more of his lies to win.)

If the Democrats are going to win again in 2008, they should stop their pious pretense at pandering to red state "repression", and give pent-up people a prodigiously profligate pol. I suggest they run Barney Frank for President.


Joe Gandelsman at The Moderate Voice found this one.
Fundamentalist Hindu organizations ... which have been accused in Indian courts of inciting riots, murder and destruction of mosques and churches, are probing deep into their beloved cow to claim that it is a very special animal. Bhanwarlal Kothari, a senior member of the RSS, said, "Our tests have shown that distemper made out of cow dung and spread over walls and roofs can block nuclear radiation." ...

"It's ridiculous and laughable," said M.V. Ramana, a Bangalore-based nuclear scientist, about the RSS claim. "There are different kinds of nuclear radiation. Alpha and beta radiation can be blocked by very thick walls. It would take considerable thickness for a concrete wall to block gamma radiation. I cannot imagine how a coating of cow dung in whatever form can block nuclear radiation."
Ramana must be part of that pessimistic "reality-based community". By his own admission, manure WILL block radiation if you pile up ENOUGH of it. He forgets that there are 200 million cows in India. That's enough to protect a LOT of houses. This is a good thing, because the fundi Pakis may soon take over and put India's early warning system to the test. Not only the Islamabombs themselves will help solve New Delhi's population problem, but the clouds carried east by the retaliatory Hindibombs will dump still more glowing waste on their heads. Never mind diamonds; strontium isotopes really ARE forever.

Sunday, November 14, 2004


The effectiveness of Fear as a political tool has now been demonstrated again by the many TV stations which have refused to rebroadcast "Saving Private Ryan". The fines Colin's offspring imposed for Super Bowl costume failure related activities have worked, chilling the titillators into tremulous self-castration, without any need for formal censorship. 'Tis a premature emasculation devoutly to be wished.

The most powerful weapon in our arsenal, however, is not fear, but Guilt. Those of us indoctrinated in childhood by straightedge-wielders appareled as penguins learned this the hard way. Sadly, some never got over bleeding-heart concern for those Matthew 26:11 says we will have with us always. One of those who took that left fork in the road was Jeanne D'Orleans, blogging at Body and Soul. For some time she has been flogging her liberal readers with that whip of guilt over the very existence of the poor and oppressed.

What motivated her to see herself as the spiritual reincarnation of the Maid of Orleans may have been the same dark voices in her head which misled her namesake to save the French. As that quasi-commie Lillian Hellman translated Jean Anouilh's L'Alouette:
PROMOTER: Why didn't you say to the archangel, "Vado retro Satanas"?
JOAN: I don't know any Latin, Messire. And that question is not written in your charge against me.
PROMOTER: Don't act the fool. The devil understands French. You could have said, "Go away, you filthy, stinking devil."
The playwright clearly understood what The Adversary's favored forked tongue was. Unfortunately, our west coast blogsister was similarly lured by the First Deadly Sin to serve as a self-appointed conscience for the sinister side of the web. Her wide popularity showed that her carefully considered words did fill an emotional need for such benighted bloggers.

The trauma of Our Noble Lame Duck's election victory seems to have demoralized her. She now appears poised to agree with the views of a cleric later in that same play:
LA TREMOUILLE: Is the Lord in such bad shape that he needs you to do his errands?
JOAN: He has said that he needs me.
ARCHBISHOP: Young woman -- If God wishes to save the Kingdom of France he has no need of armies.
JOAN: Monseigneur, God doesn't want a lazy Kingdom of France. We must put up a good fight and then He will give us victory.
The secular St. Joan of the Redwoods is now pondering retreat from the trenches, and all opponents of spiritually-based liberalism should rejoice at her possible departure from the front lines:
The day after the election, I mentioned that I didn't think I could continue doing the blog because I'm tapped out on ways to write about politics in George Bush's America. ...

At this point, I think my best bet is begging some generous blogger to let me guest post occasionally when the need arises.

In any case, I haven't decided what to do yet, but I just wanted to let everyone know why there will be few if any posts for awhile. I'm afraid the well is empty.
No doubt many lefty sites, such as The American Street, would be happy to let her guest post. Frankly, even I would be delighted to let her on board, because she provides such a useful bad example of confused liberal thinking, to serve as an inspiration to denunciations. If her voice does disappear, I assure you that many of us back on the dexter side will jump at the chance to co-opt her, by claiming her as a new stealth supporter. We have learned well the lesson set forth in another play, Robert Bolt's classic about another martyr, A Man For All Seasons:
MORE: The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent." If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
CROMWELL: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
MORE: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
Every hope-dashed Democrat who has been denouncing all those Scarlet state true believers, for trying to impose their Manichean mindset upon the more secular Cerulean ones, should go comment at her site, encouraging her to close up shop. Since she has been a leading light of the shrinking spiritually centered left, her blog is an impediment to the united liberal front against churchly voters. If she departs, liberals will be even freer to ignore such mealy-mouthed other-worldly concerns, and concentrate on their true Marxist underpinnings. That should ensure an endless parade of elephants in the White House, but they need fear not. Before long, their shrinking, but ever more comfortably pure numbers should cause the Endangered Species Act to kick in, and begin protecting them from total extermination. Our grandchildren can go see them in museums, after sermons on Sundays.


Shari at An old soul turns, in her liberal despair, to the real opiate of the masses:
I haven't got over Black Tuesday and I don't know if I ever will in the near future. I'd say it's definitely time for chocolate pudding.
Thus she falls further into the clutches of a very dark and rich Old European conspiracy. AWolf at alone skirts the edge of the truth, observing the chaos in the Côte d'Ivoire:
This is pure unadulterated colonialism. The French have interfered with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation for the sole purpose of making sure the flow of chocolate is unimpeded. Oil makes sense but fucking chocolate?
And in the comments on that post, Harry of scratchings reveals the hidden nougat:
...the driving force behind French foreign policy ... [is] a group called the neochocoaltiers who resent not having a little empire anymore. They want to restore it and figure it's best done through the one thing we'd all die for, chocolate.
They have only barely begun unwrapping this chewy enigma. How does this tie in with that old boycott of those foreigners at Nestlé? Did The Ketchup Consort really want to lose, so that his European friends could sell more of their addictive concoctions to depressed leftists? Does this explain why Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, voted Republican for President? Did Our Noble Lame Duck propose that lead balloon about going to another world just to appeal to the wealthy and secretive Mars family?

Thursday, November 11, 2004


Much like Tony Scalia's brethren in Opus Dei, liberals are busy flagellating themselves with guilt about not reaching out to faith-based voters. The Yellow Doggerel Democrat points to a New Sodom Times op-ed by Gary Hart. In a triumph of chutzpah, the man who sailed the Monkey Business off the political map points to his Nazarene upbringing and education as cover for his call to advocate liberal policies in the name of religion, trying to co-opt the Founders to criticize Our Noble Lame Duck.
Neither Washington, Adams, Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world's avenging angel. Any notion of going abroad seeking demons to destroy concerned them above all else.
No doubt, for two reasons. They were at most nominal Church of England refugees, seriously infected with the virus of Eighteenth Century Enlightenment Deism. They also had no power to go on crusades. As you can read at Dean Esmay's site, they felt they had to go on paying protection money to Muslim pirates in north Africa, until the War of 1812 built up our Navy and Marines enough to defeat those Extortionists of Peace.
The religions of Abraham all teach a sense of personal and collective humility. ... Whether Bush supporters care or not, people around the world now see America as arrogant, self-righteous and superior. These are not qualities of any traditional faith I am aware of.
That "religions of Abraham" is a sneaky way of smuggling Islam into the discussion, just as Mohammed's minions sometimes refer greedily to all the "people of the Book". Hart's unawareness is a result of his origins in a post-Lutheran schismatic sect. Had his ancestors remained united in one church he would have realized that head nuns are called "Mother Superiors" because they have a lot to be self-righteous about. (Would he prefer being "self-erroneous"?)

Consider the history of the Albigensian Crusade, beginning in 1204. Fortunately, the "Angelic Doctor", who imposed rigid Aristotelian "logic" and its obstructive requirements of "proof" before finding heretics guilty, was not even born for another two decades. This window of opportunity was put to good use by Pope Innocent III. He made Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Cîteaux, his legate to begin purging southern France of Catharism. Excommunications proving inadequate, in 1209 that Cistercian directed crusaders to begin war against the traitors. In July they besieged the the rebel city of Béziers, and demanded that the enemies of the church be turned over to them. When this was refused, they conquered the city.
When asked by one of the crusader warriors about the possible killing of Catholics along with the heretic Cathars, Arnaud-Amaury is supposed to have delivered his nefarious [sic] statement "Kill them all! God will recognize His own!" Accounts vary as to the numbered slaughtered (10,000 to 20,000, with just over 200 estimated to have been Cathars) in this, the bloodiest and first, battle of the crusade. The massacre frightened many other towns to surrender without resistance.
The clueless former playboy Senator should pay attention to this genuine example of Christian humility. The Abbot did not arrogantly claim to have the wisdom to judge who was truly devout, but left that decision in the hands of a greater power. Had I been in charge after 9-11, I would have displayed a similar humility in dealing with the terrorists. If the Taliban refused to turn over Osama, I would not have tried to figure out who in Kabul was guilty. I would have nuked the whole city, and offered the remnants of the country another chance.

Any hypothetical good people among the incinerated would be "taken to Abraham's bosom", perhaps (depending on which church's teachings you adhere to) after a pause in Purgatory. The slaughter would have been the same kind of excellent example as the massacre at Béziers. One need only have the faith of a grain of plutonium, and trust in the Deity to split the sheep and the goats posthumously.

Governor Mitt Romney took his name out of consideration for a Cabinet position in Washington yesterday, telling White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. that he had pledged to Massachusetts voters to serve a full four-year term as governor. ... Romney staff members notified reporters that the governor would be delivering the news to Card on a trip to Washington yesterday.
Don't you know that Andy has just been on tenterhooks, waiting for this shoe to drop and dash their hopes?
Romney, whose trips around the country have fueled speculation he wants to run for president in 2008, acknowledged that the White House had not approached him about an appointment. ...

Romney's move to take himself out of consideration for a Cabinet post prompted Democrats in Massachusetts to tweak him. ''Thank God, the country is safe for another few years," said Philip W. Johnston, chairman of the state Democratic Party. ''Mitt Romney as head of homeland security is a rather frightening thought. He generally doesn't show up to work." ...

Bush's victory last week clears the way for Romney to give serious consideration to launching a bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.
While his vacationing urge would seem to qualify him for the top job, there is frankly zero chance that this mushy Massachusetts moderate could ever move beyond a possible victory in New England primaries -- and only then if he is the sole waffler in a field of conservatives splitting each other's votes. However, his self-sacrificing devotion to his local voters is inspiring.

Following his example, I hereby declare that I, too, am taking my name out of consideration for Our Noble Lame Duck's second-term cabinet. Frankly, he's already given away the two most fun jobs, heading Justice and The Company. Now that I've ended the burdensome speculation about my taking a spot in this administration, I'm free to explore the possibilities of a run myself against She Who Must Not Be Named.

Of course, there are two ways to do that: run for the White House in 2008, expecting her to be the Democratic candidate and an easy target, or try to bump her off, or at least wound her, by a very bloody slash and burn campaign against her reelection to the Senate from New York in 2006. That role didn't seem to very be helpful to Alan Keyes' resume. Which way should I go? Would it be more fun actually running the country, or just destroying her as a political suicide bomber? Gee, which role seems to fit me best....

Wednesday, November 10, 2004


I am suspicious about this example of theologically correct food being mentioned on the site of Lucifer's Condiments:
The Bible Bar is a highly effective appetite regulator based on the seven foods from the Book of Deuteronomy 8:8 - "A land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey".

The Bible Bar is a great way to control hunger pangs while still providing your body with the highest level of biblical nutrition.

SETTING PRIORITIES according to "Original Intent".


Am I losing my edge? Do I need to retire from blogging after all? I'm embarrassed that I was not the first one to think of a perfect idea, which Barbara O'Brien spotted and breathlessly pointed to:
The political remedy is the selection of a suitable War Cabinet. The president must have the advice of people who will not shirk from the unpleasant tasks before us.... Colin Powell ... needs to go. ... Who should replace him? Zell Miller.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004



Thank you for revealing the truth about "Sal Vation" on the web site, and apologizing to the readers and to the team members for that posting. You read how upset I was when it went up, and I have been very uncomfortable since you admitted that you did it, and why. It made me think hard about the reason I blog at all, and post my ponderings on that on my site as "Apologia Pro Blogga Sua".

Since your public confession and sorrow, I am also concerned you might let this admitted mistake demoralize you into giving up blogging. Please don't.

I had similar regrets over a misunderstood posting of mine one year ago. What worried me most was that not one person indicated they recognized the source I was using. One fellow even permalinked not to my site, but only to that specific page, listing it along with his other enthusiasms, such as Ann Coulter. No doubt you were astonished to see comments on Sal's post by people who seemed, through their illiteracy, to agree with him.

Even the one liberal who protested the viciousness in my own piece seemed to have no idea where I had gotten that stuff from, much less what point I was making. That person has since then also permalinked me, but listed me as one of the Rightists. Many others list me as he does with the Malkins and Mishas. At least he left off Tiny Verdigris Pigskins, perhaps to avoid Capozzola's boycott.

Perhaps I was too subtle. Instead of linking to a site, as you did to those who hold fire sales with General Forrest's linens, I merely said the source could be found in various places on the web. I guess no one looked. I was astonished that no one seemed to recognize the style without having to search, but I guess that stuff isn't taught in school, even as a warning. Perhaps only professional whale watchers like David can spot such things any more.

I gave clues, pointing out how I had changed the name of the city the original author wrote about to "New York", but I suppose I also needed to say what city he had been condemning, and what word I had to change to "liberal". Looking at it now, I still have misgivings about ever using that, but the match with the world today was so perfect that I just couldn't resist. Nothing in the past year has changed that, as David would no doubt confirm.

You may find those parallels scary, or the source so offensive you say "You were right, Ayn, you never should have posted that", or you may just smile grimly as you go on putting up the post-Mardi Noir political storm windows. Please recall the words of "Mr. Altamont of Chicago" in August, 1914:
"There's an east wind coming all the same, such a wind as never blew ... a good many of us may wither before its blast. But it's God's own wind none the less, and a cleaner, better, stronger land will lie in the sunshine when the storm has cleared. Start her up, Watson, for it's time we were on our way."
If you want to try your hand at solving what was never intended to be a mystery, or just to smirk at my own poor judgment, the piece is still squatting on the web at "How I Came To Hate Liberals".

Monday, November 08, 2004


Mel Brooks once said that if sex isn't dirty, you aren't doing it right. I think that if blogging isn't fun, you aren't doing that right. I post for my own amusement, not to lure in ad revenue like the big-traffic bloggers. I do confess to delight in the internet equivalent of applause, namely citations, links, comments and emails. I'm pleased to have reached a larger potential audience through guesting at The American Street, because a bigger pool means I can find a few more of the microscopic percentage who enjoy my contrarian posts.

If I also do open a few eyes to new ideas, or just point out some other delightful material on the web, that's only frosting on the cake. I'm not trying to convert anyone or change governments. I believe I'm making a better world just by adding a bit more wit or gleefully prodding puffballs, regardless of whether anyone alters their own politics because of reading my stuff. My approach is more aesthetic than missionary. Painting my house may not get my neighbors to vote correctly, but the planet will be a prettier place to live.

When it comes to influences upon me, my primary exemplar must be Jonathan Swift, especially for A Modest Proposal (the full title of which "I omit, being studious of brevity.") Another model was David Ross Locke's vicious "Democratic" character Petroleum V. Nasby, whose Civil War and Reconstruction rants are unaccountably not on the web.

I found more inspiration, though less direct, in movies from The Marx Brothers ("Now don't forget when you're out there on the battlefield risking life and limb, we'll be here thinking what a sucker you are!"), the comic strip Pogo ("Just what kind of vote is you trying to attract?"), the early Mad magazine ("Arty-Morty has foiled me again!"), the early National Lampoon ("The FBI - Muscles of Liberty"), the early Cerebus The Aarkvark comic book ("We like our coincidences to only coincide once."), and some cartoons like Daffy Duck ("What do you know, it disintegrated.") and The Simpsons ("Forgive me, Don Bartholomew.")

Note how some of those are qualified by "the early". Many times I have watched an ongoing series begin in humor, then degenerate into boring pretentiousness, as the writers (or artists, or actors) began taking themselves too seriously. Compare early and late episodes of MASH, or All In The Family, or plenty of others. [I never liked those two at the start, either, but they clearly got much worse.] Mad began as uncontrolled satire; it turned into inoffensive and dull teasing of Madison Avenue and suburbia. I hope that I will know to send this blog over the Reichenbach falls should it decline to such sparkless trivia.

Although she is hopelessly liberal, Mad Kane perhaps comes closest to my outlook. She doesn't post every day, only when some muse moves her to laughter. Sometimes she points out other amusing stuff she's found, but mostly does her own parodies and poems (and even cartoons) whenever a seed sprouts. There is a cheerful lightness about her, even when she is slamming Our Noble Lame Duck.

There are others who deal in wit using words as weapons of war. The sharpest scalpel of all belongs to another lefty, Julia of the wonderfully named Sisyphus Shrugged. Like Picasso, who could capture in a few lines what lesser artists used entire pencils to portray, she can eviscerate with the greatest efficiency. After one of her fiskings, Jeanne D'Orleans of Body And Soul (not a comedienne, but a conscience) wrote "I want to watch the next State of the Union at Julia's house." I'd bring the tequila if Jeanne brought the nachos.

The incomparable H. L. Mencken commented on the later-written part of Gulliver's Travels:
In the second half there is a radical change of tone. The humor, gradually hardening, finally takes on a savagery almost unparallelled. ... It is cruel, relentless, devastating. Swift wrote to Pope in 1725 that its aim was "to vex the world, not to divert it."
So it is with some others, whose primary goal seems to be propaganda, with humor manifesting itself in an ironic frame rather than direct levity. One might call them "situation blogs". (Strangely enough, some people seem to place me in this same category.) Their comic masks peek through their serious intent sufficiently to keep them readable, even though less risible now than when they began. Two of the best are Jesus's General, supposedly a repressed rightist praising fellow patriots for their furtherance of that agenda, and The Politburo Diktat, supposedly a communist Commissar praising leftists for undermining the free world.

Two regular guilty pleasures are the lefty masters of snarkiness, TBogg and World O'Crap. Amused benevolence is not their method. Their weekly ad feminems against "America's Worst Mother" are such a disgrace that I had to mock them myself, with my impression of Shirley Jackson. Further demonstrating their selfish unconcern, they have never linked back to me.

Those two are examples of blogs I read regularly which are not permalinked on my sidebar. That highly-sought honor is reserved for those who have linked to, or at least cited, me first. I don't put people there until that happens, for I have found that many people seem peculiarly lacking in enthusiasm for the type of material herein. Some emails I've gotten have been shockingly obscene. Hence I wait to be asked to dance.

Why has this list been so heavy with liberals? Frankly because I don't need to read conservatives or libertarians to know what to think. Insty does not have to tell me war is "a good thing", Chucky can't add to my antipathy to Islamofarcialists, Mishy need not inform me that leftists are unspeakably evil, Janey couldn't make me oppose the income tax any more, and Andy would never have to persuade me to vote against Kerry -- oh, wait, that one didn't quite work out for him. Never mind.

Sunday, November 07, 2004


This week's losers are engaging in one of their favorite sports, verbal self-abuse. Not all are so meek as to inherit this world when Our Noble Lame Duck leads us off to Mars. One of their budding harridans, Ellen Goodman, objects to surveys showing a plurality of voters were chiefly concerned with "moral values". She writes
"There are a whole lot who believe that giving tax cuts to the rich and a deficit to the grandkids is a matter of values."
Certainly there are. It's just that we think taking anyone's money at gunpoint to give to the underserving poor is not a moral imperative, but a moral wrong. (That is only okay for funding those who have proven they are truly deserving by making enough money that they don't need a handout, like Halliburton). But I'm wasting my breath trying to convert liberals. If they really want to win elections by reaching out to the voters most concerned with values, especially spiritual ones, they should consider the example I point to today in "Faith-based Campaigning".

Wednesday, November 03, 2004


Through a groggy haze, sympathizing with the words of Pat Paulsen after the 1968 election ("It's tough to go to sleep one night, thinking you've been elected President, and then wake up ... three days later, to find out...."), I felt compelled to gloat to the liberals over at The American Street about what it all means. Go read about the bitter pill for them to swallow at "À chaque jour suffit sa peine.".

Monday, November 01, 2004


In my ongoing effort to refute silly liberal superstitions, I had to show the real stats opposing their latest myth:
No, the Redskins loss yesterday does not mean Our Noble Leader will lose tomorrow. Sure, for the team’s entire history of seventeen Presidential elections, the incumbent party has lost the White House if the ‘Skins lose their last game before the vote. That doesn’t matter, because that’s all pre-911 history, and we are in a new world.
Read what the REAL signs to watch mean at "Dieu a compté ton royaume.... (Daniel 5:26)".

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com