Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Friday, March 25, 2022

Get it Off Your Chest 3/25/22 (Open Thread)

 Open Comments.

 

For jez. (I just couldn't help myself) :)

 


 





75 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Sir jez, of the Knights that say "Ni"? lol
      Monty Python, was perhaps my favorite source for sarcastic parody and satire. Yes they were silly but entertaining. Sure, a lot of their skits were bombs but they mocked the establishment for its own silliness and that's always funny. Even most of their movies were little more than a series of skits under a very loose envelope of a theme.

      Delete
    2. "they mocked the establishment for its own silliness and that's always funny."

      The Mexican equivalent has always been Cantinflas.

      Maybe stuff like this is so funny because it can be pretty accurate?

      Delete
    3. A lot of British satirists come from the same background as the establishment figures they parody. In a way, they're not faking it when they wear the bowler hat or judge's wig.
      It's fascinating to observe how much of John Cleese's comedy has deserted him over time as he overcame his repressive English upbringing.

      Delete
    4. @ Dave Miller,
      I don't understand enough Spanish nor am I familiar enough with the ins and outs of Mexican culture to "get" the humor of Cantinflas. I just regarded him as a Jerry Lewis type of comedian. My bad.

      Delete
    5. @ jez,
      Every time I think of John Cleese, I'll envision him in a bowler and tweed suit with a bumberchute tucked under his arm and displaying his silly walk for official recognition at the Ministry of Silly Walks.

      Delete
    6. Monty Python as Nostradamus:
      From "The Life of Brian"; Stan, wants to be a woman.

      Delete
  2. I don't understand why Judge Jackson's reply, that it requires a biologist to define "woman," did not cause howls of outrage from Liberals.

    They have been claiming for years that being a woman is defined by a person's CHOICE, and demanding that is is NOT A MATTER OF BIOLOGY, and here this woman (because she chooses to wear a dress) says she can't define a woman because she's not a biologist.

    Is that not a clear statement that she believes that being a woman is a matter of biology? And Liberals want that HERESY on the Supreme Court merely because she's black and wears a dress? Liberals are weird.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I don't think it disqualifies her, I also thought it was a horrible answer. I chalk it up to her not being prepared for that line of questioning....and quite simply, didn't want to take a stand on it in that forum.

      Delete
    2. She handled the hearings brilliantly.

      Delete
    3. I suppose she could've just said that you look between the baby's legs, wait maybe 14 to 20 years, and Bingo, you have a woman. But then, bypassing things like secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, internal reproductive structures, hormone ratios and such might not suit well with some either.

      Funny how the woman question came at the end of Sen Blackburn misquoting Ginsberg, confusing court cases, and suggesting her praise of Georgetown Day School (which Jackson sits on the board) was in regards to a claim the school teaches kids to make their own gender choices.

      And of course, the Kremlin approved Fox News lit up the sky with it.

      The rest of the hearings seemed to be more of a silent nod or hand shake to the QAnon nut jobs.

      The "King of Kings" must surely be proud.

      Delete
    4. She handled the hearings brilliantly.

      Did you catch her acceptance of the Constitutional [and fundamental Right the Keep and Bear Arms...until the very end of the sentence?

      “Current Supreme Court precedent says that under the Second Amendment there is an individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the home."

      Soooo close KBJ....so close....

      Delete
    5. CI: I don't support her. Too left, but she is well-credentialed, she has years of experience on the bench, and she performed flawlessly at the kabuki hearings.

      Biden and the Dems get their grand prize of putting her on the supreme court.

      The GOP got what they wanted, tarring the Democrats with child porn and not knowing what a woman is.

      Delete
    6. I am not going to talk about the absurd part of what is a woman. I am going to talk of the practical aspects. As women cant be defined and is so complicated exactly whom needs all of these separate sports and legal protection

      I do understand the judges point on child porn and it is easier to grasp when applied to drug cases. Manufacturers and distributors of drugs are punished more severely than drug addicts

      I do want to describe an application of the current laws. A 17 year old male gets inappropriate selfies from his 14 year old girlfriend. Most places differentiate between a 30 year old and a 17 year old boyfriend. These cases do happen and even the most gung ho officers get a second thought about the cases with 17 year olds.

      The what is a woman bit is just insular university culture run amok. If the focus was on respecting people who are different 95/ of us are on board. I asked why do I need a name for every little human difference. I dont walk around having to contrive something as bizarre as original programming omnivore. This would be a heterosexual male that isnt fixated on one aspect. Exactly where and why are proclivities a factor in anything. Okay I respect you might have different tastes. Why are we making a big fuss over something largely personal and private. Where does any of these lifestyles impact the next person. Okay if someone were a vegisexual I suppose farmer John better start planting produce, but it is all largely irrelevant.

      Delete
    7. The judge's inability to answer the question "what is a woman" was merely a trap to show the extent to which her views have been shaped by radical individualism, to demonstrate that she is closed to the concept of anyone having her "subjectivity" limited in any way. It was an indicator of just how narcissistic, she, as an individual, really was. IMO, she failed the test.

      And yes, the radical individuals of pedophiles needs "limitation".

      She will be a dangerous jurist on the US Supreme Court.

      Delete
    8. What is "wokism" if not radical individualism? An individualism no longer bound by the heritage, constraints, and traditions that gave birth to it.... like the US Constitution and its' "original" Bill of Rights.

      Delete
    9. @ Beak,
      It was about one child porn case, Beak, it was about a pattern of at least 5 cases where she imposed sentences, for child porn, far below Federal guidelines. In one of them actually apologized, from the bench, for such a stiff sentence.
      Oh well, it's pretty much a given that she was going to be confirmed from the beginning, even if she hopped up on table, at the conformation, and did a strip tease with a feather up her whatsits.

      Delete
    10. Warren I do understand it is a pattern. I also understand that laws can be frankly boneheaded. All of us agree child porn is awful. I would prefer it be treated more similarly to drugs. Users should be penalized, sellers more severely treated and manufacturers nuked.

      Childporn is a moral and mental health pathology. Yes there should be penalties but we should be talking about treatment. The part that is alarming isnt what people think. On universities there is a slow movement to legitimize pedophelia. It flows from two flawed assumptions. One it is an outgrowth of the logical progression from gay rights. Wrong children dont have the capacity to consent. There are cultures where this is acceptable. Not all cultures are equal and if someone wishes to go somewhere else don’t return. I am not in favor of firing professors for voicing loathsome ideas

      Delete
  3. Biden and the Dems score a win with another box-checking "first," but what will stick with the voters is Democrats are soft on child porn perverts and don't know what a woman is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are ample reasons to oppose the nomination. The child porn bit is really bs. It is the same concept as drugs. Those that use drugs get lower sentences than sellers and producers.

      Cant define what a woman is? Has she been near Rosie ODonnel.

      Delete
    2. She also said she was not familiar with CRT, BIG lie ...

      Delete
    3. Beak, I get your point. It was a cheap sensational propaganda gambit by Republicans. They didn't have a whole lot to work with. She's bulletproof teflon.

      After the Kavanaugh hearings, what did we expect? I'm not justifying it, and I hate tit-for-tat spirals, but this is the hyper-partisan environment we are now in.

      Bork is still relevant. He made candid comments grounded in scholarly works and answered questions completely and honestly. That taught everyone a lesson and he was the last person to do so.

      Delete
    4. Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" continues as the post-modern radical individualist grows ever bolder.

      Delete
  4. Putin sez he is being "cancelled."

    Anyone who doesn't realize by now that qanon is and always has been a Russian project needs to pull their head out.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-cites-harry-potter-author-in-anti-west-remarks/vi-AAVuGMA?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Qanon is some kid's 4chan cosplay that got out of hand. There's nothing to stop anybody from posting as qanon, it's crowd sourced. I'd be surprised if Russians weren't contributing, but they didn't start it. (The Coming Storm podcast is excellent).

      Delete
    2. @Jez - I've been listening off and on the The Coming Storm, it is interesting. I've long since decided that I'm glad for phenomena like QAnon....it's an entertaining mechanism that allows people to out themselves for our amusement.

      Political parties do much the same, but it's more muddled and mainstream. Less bang for our buck.

      Delete
    3. I am sympathetic to QAnon. They aren't the problem. The radical individualists who chop off their own genitals and demand our applause are.

      Delete
    4. ...and THAT is precisely what 4Chan mocks with Pepe and 'Q'.

      Delete
    5. 4Chan is the internet's Laibach, blowing the whistle on New Left radical individualism.

      Delete
    6. The problem with the Q-aid is that it isn't consumed by just a few crazy uncles in their basements. Polls consistently show that around 25% of registered republicans believe much of their main tenets such as the Democratic Party and non-right wing media being a satanic sex trafficking machine. Around 80% of them believe the election was stolen and that the insurrection was carried out by Antifa and/or Democrats.

      25% is a significant number and isn't something aspiring Republican politicians or profiting right wing media can snub. This was obvious in this week's Qanon ass kissing from Ted Cruz et al and the left-bashing rags. This is why, as I've previously mentioned, 130 out of 153 TX Republican candidates refused to say Biden won legitimately. This likely plays a large roll in why Republican leadership and right wing media will go to no ends to down play the insurrection as well as obstruct any effort to investigate it.

      So the Qanon phenomena has become an essential tool for an extremely wealthy political party to exploit the basket of gullibles in order to transfer more wealth to themselves and their masters. And it's aiding them in undermining our democracy by alienating voters who happen to not consume their toxic brew.

      I mean seriously, the Qanon selling plutocratic thugs have no other agenda. Nothing nor have they the last 50 years. Oops, I forgot the new one that came out this week-outlaw interracial marriage (although I'm not sure if they really give a flying crap or if it was just another Trumpy wink-wink to the basket).

      And by all appearances, the Q seems to hold a SCOTUS seat as well.



      Delete
    7. @RJW:
      No need to thank me, Ronald. I fixed your screed for you.
      LOL

      The problem with the Antifa is that it isn't consumed by just a few crazy uncles in their basements. Polls consistently show that around 25% of registered Democrats believe much of their main tenets such as the Republican Party and non-left wing media being a satanic sex trafficking machine. Around 80% of them believe the 2016 election was stolen and that the insurrection was carried out by Antifa and/or Democrats.

      25% is a significant number and isn't something aspiring Democrats politicians or profiting left wing media can snub. This was obvious in this week's Antifa ass kissing from Sidney Blu-mental et al and the right-bashing rags. This is why, as I've previously mentioned, 130 out of 153 NY Democrat candidates refused to say Trump won legitimately. This likely plays a large roll in why Democrat leadership and left wing media will go to no ends to down play the Antifa-BLM riots as well as obstruct any effort to investigate it.

      So the Antifa phenomena has become an essential tool for an extremely wealthy political party to exploit the basket of useful idiots in order to transfer more wealth to themselves and their masters. And it's aiding them in undermining our democracy by alienating voters who happen to not consume their toxic brew.

      I mean seriously, the BLM selling plutocratic thugs have no other agenda. Nothing nor have they the last 150 years. Oops, I forgot the new one that came out this week-outlaw free speech (although I'm not sure if they really give a flying crap or if it was just another Biden wink-wink to the basket).

      And by all appearances, the Antifa seems to hold a SCOTUS seat as well.

      Delete
    8. And by all appearances, the Q seems to hold a SCOTUS seat as well.

      Well, it certainly has a few seats in Congress.....

      Delete
    9. Well Warren, you have mentioned your fondness of slap-stick silliness.

      Delete
    10. It's a very old and very transparent game: People point out and hype the absolute worst of the fringes of their political enemies and tar all of their opposition with it.

      Even worse is the torrent of fallacies that spew from it:

      Putin has adopted the Repuglican GQP Reichwing Orangeman cult talking points about culture and cancelling!!! Pinheads in Left Blogistan fill up comment threads with unimaginative variants, and its no better when the right does it.

      This is the equivalent of smearing all contemporary painters and dog lovers because Hitler was a painter and loved dogs.

      This is reason #45,602,139 why I am done with partisan squabbling.

      Delete
    11. Well Ronald, not that I would expect you to know the difference, you being a blue-dog Democrat, it's not "slap-stick"it's parody and sarcasm, yes silliness is involved but it's your silliness I'm laughing at. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you would vote for and whole-heartily supported Joseph Stalin if he ran on the Democrat ticket. -only to be gob smacked when he outlawed unions-

      Delete
    12. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/qanons-takeover-of-the-gop-is-virtually-complete.html

      Delete
    13. Ooooooou, Now I'm really scared that Qanon and Bannon is taking over the RNC.
      But what do you make of a guy that calls his own web site "muck rack" -the author of your opinion piece- and is endorsed by globalist elite billionaires such as the Bill and Melisa Gates Foundation and Marl Cuban? I mean, they only have the interests of the "Working Man" at heart, don't they?

      Delete
    14. I would call the guy motivated, intelligent, and successful, just as I would attribute those qualities to Gates, Cuban et al.

      While I don't deny my concerns of the Grand Ole Plutocrat's obvious reverse Robinhood shenanigans, that has nothing to do with what I linked, nor does it disqualify the context of the article.

      Delete
    15. Our national dialog will not progress until normal people left and right recognize and reject their own fringes, and understand everything they criticize about "the other side" can also be found, in spades, on their own side.

      “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart…even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains…an uprooted small corner of evil."
      - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

      Delete
    16. Whatever percentages of the blue team believing Russian collusion has little to no bearing on the direction of the country.

      The percentage of indoctrinated cultist of the red team does.

      Delete
    17. SF,
      Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a very wise man. Is he still widely read? If not, he should be!

      Delete
    18. I read him. I have a book of his speeches and addresses to the west. I guess he wasn't as popular at the time as we would think. He was a truth teller and he turned that on western powers as well.

      BTW, did you enjoy that Mach 2 jet zooming over Ronald's indoctrinated head? His response was perfect.

      Delete
    19. @ RJW:

      "I would call the guy motivated, intelligent, and successful, just as I would attribute those qualities to Gates, Cuban et al.

      While I don't deny my concerns of the Grand Ole Plutocrat's obvious reverse Robinhood shenanigans, that has nothing to do with what I linked, nor does it disqualify the context of the article.


      Of course! /sarc
      my subtext is:
      God save us from those who replace their -supposed- principles with political expedientcy.

      Delete
  5. Ronald J. Ward, and anyone else reading this. I hope you appreciate the fact that we flush rightwing (and occasional leftwing) spambot down the toilet when we find them.

    Simultaneously--even as we argue with you, and other reasoned people on the left like Dave Miller, Ducky, and the comfortably mainstream Labourite Jez--we appreciate your comments.

    I hope you can credit us for that at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comfortably mainstream? What happened... got to get my edge back!!

      Delete
    2. When I first started this blog nearly 15 years ago, I wanted my blog to be pretty much an open forum. I wanted to learn. Still do.

      But, of course, nasty -- and I mean NASTY trolls came along (2006). One was so bad that I had to start up another blog and use Haloscan comments.

      Delete
    3. Jez, face it man, You're a buttoned-down family man now. Your days of being a long hair college radical are over. :-)

      Delete
    4. That may be the case but I can still rock out should the need arise. I just do it in comfortable trousers and at a reasonable volume now.

      Delete
  6. I doubt it, SF. Don't you know that if we believe in concepts such as Individual Liberty, we are E-vile and right-wing extremists?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most likely to your surprise SF, I do appreciate and commend the fairness of the moderators.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, and thank you for being one of the regulars. Hallelujah choirs are boring. ;-)

      Delete

  7. Senator Blackburn asking the judge to define "woman" was a masterstroke. Judge Jackson will be confirmed, but the exchange burns in ordinary Americans' minds the fact that the Democrat party influencers don't live in the real world, but are steeped in the "faculty lounge," in the parlance of brilliant political strategist James Carville.

    The Judge's answer didn't make her look dumb. She is an obviously intelligent and well-educated person.

    Her answer made he look sick and craven from huffing the progressive PC fumes.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love Jason Whitlock's puckish take:

      I can provide a definition of the word woman: adult female person.

      I can even provide a definition of the word female: a human being born with a vagina, ovaries, uterus, XX chromosomes, and breasts that produce milk for feeding babies and the enjoyment of men.

      Those differences, among other things, separate men from women. You don’t need a biology degree to know this. These differences have been chronicled in a wide variety of popular publications, from Playboy magazine to National Geographic to the granddaddy of them all, the Bible.

      Delete
    2. His aggressively simple definition excludes edge cases which are not especially rare. Not sure what the judge was getting at, but a legal definition would have to do a better job that Whitlock does with those difficult cases.

      Delete
    3. There are always edge cases, for everything. That has never prevented ordinary adults from recognizing something when they see it, being able to define it, while simultaneously dealing with the exceptions to every rule.

      Delete
    4. Legal definitions cover the edge cases. That's why lawyers have to pass those tricky exams.

      Delete
    5. Understand. Still, the Republicans got what they wanted out of it: One more instance of progressives engaging in faculty lounge sophistry.

      Delete
    6. I'm not offended when a judge is reluctant to abandon the technical nuances of her profession in order to appeal to the crowd. I like my judges to be above politics.

      These senators are not properly scrutinising her as much as they seem to be engaging in culture war kabaddi. Jayhawk, this is the kind of bad-faith argumentation that is worthy of our anger: disengagement is not an option, so I think you should join me in demanding better from our respective legislators.

      Delete
    7. No one was "offended." The left is tone deaf on these issues. Right now, a woman who was a man two years ago is winning every college swimming event and shattering women's swimming records.

      The GOP couldn't touch Judge Jackson because there is nothing damnable in her personal or professional past, so they go for political points.

      Delete
  8. Comment moved from "Musical Interlude" post.

    beakerkin March 27, 2022 at 7:00:00 AM CDT

    I hate to say this but war as we know it makes no sense. You can occupy someplace but you will not hold it unless you are genocidal or willing to take mass losses. 5 million dollar tanks destroyed by untrained senior citizens with a javelin or a switchblade drone. Put enough of this stuff in Taiwan and even the Chinese will get a beating. It may be a feat getting in stuff because itts an Island but it isn’t impossible. China is genocidal.
    Turkey started talking about Uighyr and China responded about Kurds.

    Of course the unstable one in Turkey was once one of Obamas best friends but he pretended to ignore that history subsequently.

    We need to prepare for the future of drones, missiles,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One more step in the democratization of everything. We are busy fighting and preparing for the last wars; Ukraine is fighting the next war.

      You can bet China has all this under a microscope and is taking good notes.

      The world order is broken. The sanctions regime on Russia will cause nations to readjust. The US government has most likely passed its point of maximum influence.

      Delete
    2. I have been saying over and over these past few years that the world is entering another historic stage of epochal change. Welcome to interesting times...

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

!--BLOCKING--