Whiskey Fire

Cold Ass Western Wheels

I keep forgetting that Chuck Norris has a column at Townhall. Let's head over there and see what this great big stick of fistic jerky has to say to us.

Hmmmm... it appears he's going on about Guns, God, and Gays. Hee hee. Alliteration. Three "Gs." This is going great from the get-go!

Here is his thesis:

Reading the news this past week, one easily could conclude we have lost our minds, as well as any remaining connection with our Founding Fathers. There were three stories that thrice prove we are heading down three wrong roads.

I agree about the "losing our minds" thing; for instance, I am right now reading Chuck Norris' thoughts on politics. That's proof of something right there.

As to Guns: Chuck Norris, believe it or not, likes 'em. Would you ever have thought? Chuck Norris! Of all people! Into guns!

First, there was the Supreme Court's wrangling with the Second Amendment. Should it allow private citizens or only public servants ("state militias") "to keep and bear Arms"?

Is someone joking? Could 27 words be any clearer?! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What?! Are you kidding me?! Well, he's no Althouse, but when it comes to constitutional law, he just may be onto something. The Supreme Court are total morons for even listening to this shit, it's so damn clear. Because that's Chuck's point -- we know we as a society are going bananas because the Supreme Court is going to rule on a controversial case. He has a penetrating intellect for someone who's been hit on the head a lot.

On the question of God. Chuck Norris approves of God. Do not "dis" God: for that makes Chuck Norris sad. He becomes like Morrisey if Morrisey were a kickboxin' action hero. So don't make fun of God or you will see a kickboxin' action hero Morrisey. This image will haunt your dreams.

I also was saddened this past week to read about the comic in the University of Virginia's pre-Holy Week, school-sanctioned student newspaper. The Cavalier Daily published a cartoon that pictured a naked man -- smoking a cigarette in bed -- with a woman in her underwear, who asks, "Come on God, be honest -- Did you really get a vasectomy? I can't let Joseph find out about this." The man, who now is revealed as God, replies, "Well, Mary, you're f---ed."

How abhorring it is when the freedom of the press is abused to demean the biblical God and the most sacred couple in Christendom, especially right before Easter. If the cartoon depicted Allah or Muhammad, there undoubtedly would have been a national decry of bigotry. Yet it seems in vogue to disgrace Christianity, and so it was brushed under the rug of contempt and barely highlighted by any news agency.

First of all, that's actually kind of funny. Juvenile -- but it is the University of Virginia, after all, a notorious den of iniquitous swine. This is classy for them. (You should have seen the cartoon they wanted to publish --  it wasn't Mary in there, I'll tell ya. Dove feathers everywhere!) Anyhow, at UVA half the student body has a felony conviction, and the other half just ain't been caught yet. You know how at some schools now they give laptops to all their incoming freshmen? At UVA, they give out Crayolas labeled "do not eat, you inbred cretin." The same policy holds for the faculty, except the faculty get to eat the crayons. It's how they're paid.

Sorry, sidetracked there. I apologize to UVA for all the above, and hey, at least you're no Virginia Tech. I was merely attempting to comfort Chuck Norris, as he seemed blue. I meant no harm. Anyway. I suggest a compromise between Chuck Norris and the University of Virginia Daily Cavalier: republish the cartoon, only this time, give the Virgin Mary a gun. I think a deal like this could easily un-decry any abhorring national rugs of contempt. Motherfucker. ("The man, who now is revealed as God" line is by the way, a keeper. Try it on your friends!)

And finally: Gays. To tell the truth, this part is actually quite humane and rational. Norris makes good legal and moral sense here. I was surprised, but I have to say, sorry, this is all great stuff.

Or wait no it isn't.

Lastly, I was appalled when I read the American Family Association report that Friday, April 25, "several thousand schools across the nation will be observing 'Day of Silence (DOS).' DOS is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. … DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network."

You get the sense that when you've asked yourself, "who the hell ever falls for this chain email spam garbage?" the answer is, "Chuck Norris"?

Is encouraging or teaching about homosexuality what our Founders expected for the public education system they started? Even the most liberal among them opposed it.

Shit, I'm surprised to learn that they were even bringing up possibly teaching buttsex back then. Read Townhall, and you learn these fun facts, and more:

For example, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia, in which he proposed that the penalty for sexual deviance should be unique corporal punishment. Jefferson's views were indeed representative of early America:

"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

Wow! That last quote sure does help make Chuck Norris the case that we need to automatically do what the Founders said we should do, because they were so very wise.

While I'm not, of course, espousing such treatment, I do believe that we equally and adamantly should oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or commemorated in our public schools through textbooks or a so-called "Day of Silence"....

To each of the social dilemmas in these three news stories (regarding guns, God and gays), a remedy can be found by turning back the clocks of time and consulting our Founding Fathers. They started this great experiment we call America.

I'm sure Chuck Norris can explain how, if we need to follow the Founders' advice about not liking the gays in the first place because they're "aberrant," we can justify not wanting to punish them genitally or nasally as we are instructed. What, it's automatically an inherent moral wrong according to you... but now it's just a misdemeanor?

I am coming to understand that Chuck Norris is so strong, he can fling 20 times the metric ass-tonnage of bullshit your ordinary decent mortal would even try lifting.

UPDATE: The fine folks at GLSEN, sponsor of the National Day of Silence, shot me an email to point out that the Jefferson quote was intended as a reform of the original penalty, death. So add that to the list of things Chuck Norris is confused about.

The National Day of Silence is intended to draw attention to the appalling physical and verbal abuse dished out to gay and lesbian kids (or even just kids who just don't seem to fit into rigid gender codes). Hence, in opposing it, Chuck Norris is clearly in favor of having it be OK for kids to be tortured and even killed because they're "different." Because that's standing up for what's "right."

Look It up in the Bookmobile

Over at Red State, Head Chimp Extraordinary Moe Lane attempts snark, sneering at stupid liberals who don't get William Bulter Yeats references.

No, really.

I recognize that the public school educational process......has resulted in many of our lurkers not being fully tutored in Western Literature.

Therefore, as a public service for those members of the Online Left scratching their heads about why Norm Scheiber entitled his discussion on the upcoming Democratic catastrophe "Slouching towards Denver," I hereby reproduce the poem ("What Rough Beast") in full.  Here's a dictionary for the difficult words, too.

Oh dear.

Member of the Online Left I may be, but at least I do know that the title of Yeats's poem is "The Second Coming." For the record, I also know better than to link to incompetent undergraduate "commentary" on it. Finally, I am able to correctly link to an online dictionary.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing a lot or even anything about Yeats, just as there's lots of good stuff to say about knowing plenty about Yeats. But, you know, Moe Lane wants to call you a doodyhead for being unfamiliar with Yeats, while he is plainly stone ignorant of Yeats's work. This is par for the Red State Course; they don't know enough to know what they don't know, but they're damn sure they know more than those freaks from the nutroots! Wank wank wank.

The comments are fun too, especially the guy speculating that maybe Robert Bork got his book title from Yeats also.

The Mightiest Tough Guy

Saw this picture, from Flickr user Allison Harger (used under a Creative Commons license!) at the Matthew Yglesias blog.

In the green shirt, to Obama's right... isn't that Adam Baldwin?

Fuck that Chuck Norris shit. If Jayne Cobb is pro-Obama, that should just about settle it.

 

Put on My Disease

So I am given to understand that the "Instapunk" blog is now getting a lot of attention for bravely using the word "nigger" to describe how horrible black people are.

What's fun is that the last time we heard from the "Instapunk" blog, we were treated to a pissy little tirade about how the Left Blogosphere likes to use the word "fuck."

Truly, the morality on display in the Wingnuttosphere is a wonder to behold.

"Instapunk" is of course notable also for the fact that they hate gays, and use the word "dyke" as cleverly as they use the word "nigger."

Shitheads.

I Am a New Man!

More wisdom from the Althouse commenters. Check out this fellow: he's a catch, ladies!

That's what they all say: She's stuck up! What a snob! Conceited! Prove you're not. With me!

Uh. Women do this, too. If you're not interested, they suggest you aren't a real man, or perhaps that you're a homosexual, or perhaps that you have a small dick, or perhaps that "she's too much woman for you to handle". And if you point out that presuming you know someone would be no good is arrogant and condescending (not to mention irrational, given how often women fall for false signals about cock size, sexual prowess, and fidelity), then you're just a typical man who can't take no for an answer. The fact is, many women are conceited and stuck-up and they do think "their pussies are made of gold". They are explicitly trading away the damn thing, and guys are complaining the price is too high. You want to make a goddamn sale, woman, lower your price. If a lot of potential customers are telling you that, it's time maybe to mark down your product.

A class act all the way. And then please to enjoy this instructional video about the Reagan administration:

Oh, dear me.

My respect and admiration know no bounds for you Ann, but to say you "don't like" a movie you've never seen, well, that's anti-intellectualism at it's best.

It reminds me of what liberals used to say about Ronald Reagan--they had never tried, never considered, never "saw the movie" when it came to limiting the reach of government, getting government out of the day to day affairs of people, cutting taxes and whatnot. Well, we showed them the movie, we gave them the experience, and it was magical.

This is how conservatism wins--we experience, we "view" things, we assemble our opinions based on experience.

It is frankly dumb and superstitious to go into a discussion about something without having seen it or experienced it. This is what wooly headed liberals who are afraid of their own stink would do.

How sad, how very sad.

Which is kinda pompous. But I do agree with him in one respect: conservatives sure aren't afraid of their own stink! Indeed, this guy in particular seems remarkably fond of the scents he's emitting. He's clearly sniffing something.

Or Something Like That

Sometime in the next week, official statistics will show that Whiskey Fire has had over 1 million visitors.

This is a good feeling. One million people will obey my every whim from this point forward.

SEA MINE!

What a Better Life!

For those who enjoy spectacular comment threads meltdowns, don't miss Ann Althouse swirling around in the Roy Edroso vortex.  For instance:

Oh, good lord, this notion that you have to see a movie to know it's not the sort of thing that you want to see! That's crazy. It's a crucial life skill to figure out what you don't want to do. A typical male thing too I think. Sort of: How do you know you won't like sleeping with me unless you try it?
Ann Althouse | Homepage | 03.22.08 - 1:43 pm | # [kill]​[hide comment]

In the immediate context, Althouse is explaining to Kia why she's mad at Susan. Good thing Althouse doesn't know she's likewise being oppressed by Julia  -- just as in the past she's been sexistly assaulted by watertiger, and, let's not forget, this bunch of macho bullies. It seems the whole online patriarchy is united against her.

Or maybe it's not really a feminist position at all that if you admit to never seeing a movie you're qualified to call it "not an interesting piece of film art"? Perhaps feminists don't really think not wanting to see a certain film is exactly the same thing as coming to a considered assessment of its its artistic merits?  Hmmmm?

Feminism is the last refuge of the Althouse when she's being especially silly. It's an essential part of her charm.

UPDATE: And she's never better than in her own comments:

It's not like I'm an MSM film critic! I'm blogging. You know, that is the answer to nearly every criticism of me: I'm blllllooooooogggggggggiiiiiiiingggggggggggg!
Don't you get it?

Indeed. But let's be clear. There's a pretty good monkey exhibit at our local zoo, and when I take the kids there, we don't criticize the inmates, even when the 3-Year-Old giggles because they're peeeeeeeeeeeiiiingggg on the flllooooooorrrrr. We just enjoy them for what they are. Have a banana, professor.

UPDATE 2: I'm going to be laughing about this from the Althouse comments for probably the rest of my natural puff. It is not her, but rather one of her commenters, who are all very fine exhibits in their own right, not least this fellow:

How do you know about something you haven't seen... Easy. By reading about it in greater depth than you're capable of analyzing by sitting there being spoon fed. I didn't see Fahrenheit 911 because I didn't care to contribute to Moore's wealth while exposing myself to wretch inducing propaganda, and yet I'm capable of discussing the film scene for scene and pointing out every single deceit therein beginning with the switcheroo in scene 1. To an extent you/they lack the patience to endure. That's how.

Which is good stuff, but not the best part. (It might not amuse you as much as me, but then I'm just blooooogggginnngggg):

Regis has ruined me, for they have exposed me to what's going on up there, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad authoritatum, dicto simpliciter among others, and how to contrive names for fallacies all on my own like argumentum conbibo meus baculum.

May yours be the noble heart, you spectacular dingleberry, you. Oh Christ, that's funny...

Majestical Will Power

I never discussed last week's David Mamet article where he said he was no longer a "brain-dead liberal." Mostly I didn't write about it for the reasons Scott cited: it wasn't all that interesting. Perhaps it's a generational thing, but I'm not especially provoked by dark intimations that JFK was not the True Liberal Hero he was cracked up to be. And sure, the idea that Thomas Sowell is "our greatest contemporary philosopher" is worth a snicker or two. And what Roy said.

There just isn't much else to the piece. Mamet isn't the first playwright to have offbeat political instincts; O'Casey, Brecht, Shaw... Anyhow, Mamet's article is typical of a certain sort of genre in that half of it is about how he very very deeply detests directors and critics, THOSE FUCKERS, and the rest of it is about how, oh yeah, he also wants to Stick It to the The Man. Mamet's article is full of cliches, sure; but the whole article is itself a cliche. And most of us are cool with that, though to assess by the description of his latest play as he gives it in the article, it sounds terrible. It sounds like it was ripped from the headlines and hastily reassembled, like you would put together a ransom note.

So overall I thought, meh, I could skip this one.

But then Jonah Goldberg decided to get involved, and he makes a very serious, thoughtful point, which I thought I had to share with you:

Mamet has committed the sin of free-thinking in a world that defines it as "ideological rigidity" while dubbing conformity "diversity." Already, critics are saying his work is slipping. Soon, they will say his work was never that great to begin with (that's what they’ve been doing to Dennis Miller for his heresy).

Ah, Jonah Goldberg. I don't know how to love him.

Ghost Pie

I have not had much desire over the past few days to gaze upon wingnuttia in any detail: I was nauseous enough as it was. I'm better now, thanks, though I feel like the whole time I was abed some lousy zombie movie was playing on the TV downstairs. The zombie blue dress was exhumed from the grave. And pretty much everything emanating from our friends on the right on the subject of race was a shuffling, moaning abomination, a reanimated moronic corpse from the fetid boneyards of American history. Shorter Greater Wingnuttia on Race in the US of A:

Black people in America need to shut up about their phony "grievances." And don't get me started on those Mexicans!

It really boils down to that -- maintaining the structural censorship over how race can be discussed in this country, keeping in force all of the "of courses" that people feel obligated to preface any of their public comments on the issue as the price of admission. "Of course I don't hate black people" couples with the demand" "Now say you don't hate white people." Racism creates grievances, grievances create resentments -- and we're never supposed to discuss racism without accepting this? Or we're supposed to all concede up front that just because "race" is a politically and culturally invented category, racism doesn't have palpable and disfiguring political and cultural effects?

Of course not all grievances are valid merely for being felt, and not all grievances, when valid, are equally valid. But if you're going to concede the reality of racism, you have to concede that it creates as one of its evils a cascade effect of overlapping and mutually reinforcing grievances. If "conservatives" -- or, much more importantly, the "working class whites" they always claim to Speak For (not always, you know, persuasively) -- have grievances themselves, it's hypocritical to go about demanding that they can set the terms of the "debate" upfront, demanding surrender and endless preconditions before the conversation begins. Why, you almost get the sense that the wingnut reaction to the Wright stuff involves simple joy at being permitted, once more, to air one's resentments in public.

But then such hypocrisy is what some of these guys get paid for. There's a good fat living in having your head up your ass and explaining how comfy it is. But I do confess that given my particular sense of humor it really is a terrible shame that Victor David Hanson feels any inhibitions whatsoever as regards writing about rap music. I think he should write about rap music pretty much on a daily basis. 

Double Standards, Honey

As Thers noted below, there's not enough scorn in the world to heap upon the head of ABC News for their infuriating revelation thsat yes, for them, a decade later, it's all about the blue dress.They want to see the memos. Ummm, okay.

To: Thers
From: Molly
20 March 2008

RE: Toilet Seat

In future, please remember to replace toilet seat in down position, as per Family Agreement 369.12, clause 6.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.
...........

To: Thers
From: Molly
20 March 2008

RE: Coital Encounter

Let me express my most sincere appreciation for the coital encounter of Monday last. It more than fulfilled your responsibilities as laid out in clause 54, Section a.17 of the marital contract. I trust it was enjoyable for you as well.

Please contact my appointments secretary for future scheduling.

..........

To: Thers
From: Molly
20 March 2008

RE: Dishwasher

The contract rider you signed on August 15, 2002 clearly indicates that emptying the dishwasher and reloading it is in your purview, while I handle the washing of larger pots and pans. Yet on March 19, 2008, I returned home to find that clean dishes had not been replaced in their respective areas of the cupboards, and dirty dishes still sat on the counters.

Please address this situation immediately.

Oh noes! Thers has retained counsel!

To:  Molly
From:  Hugh Louie Dewey, of counsel
       Dewey, Cheatham and Howe

Re:  Family Agreement 369.12, clause 6

We represent Mr. Thersites in the above matter, and have received your communication thereupon.

Reserving the right to contest your claims because of lack of proper service, incorrect venue and objections as to form, be it noted that our client stands on Family Agreement 368.4, clause 4:

It is acknowledged by all signatories that males are, by virtue of inherent flaws and specifically excluding any notion of actual fault or malice, deficient in certain methods of conducting themselves in daily living, and that, while explicitly excluding any actual responsibility thereby, they respectfully request that their specially challenged circumstances be accommodated under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We hope that this clarifies your correspondence cited above.

(h/t Prof Wombat)

UPDATE: This is getting ugly. My counsel, watertiger, recommended the imposition of fines, ratcheting up the memo war.

To:  watertiger
From:  Hugh Louie Dewey, of counsel
       Dewey, Cheatham and Howe

re:  your correspondence with Molly

We represent Thersites in the above matter, are in receipt of your correspondence as above referenced. Please be advised that fines levied would be unacceptable to our client, inasmuch as they would imply that Mr. Thersites is responsible for his deficiencies arising from the unfortunate chance of his possession of a Y chromosome. Our experience, and the legislative debate and case law surrounding the Americans With Disabilities Act, suggest that nothing is to be gained by needless fault finding. Rather, a solution which changes structures and organizations in such a way as to accommodate Mr. Thersites' handicaps in a way which preserves his dignity and independence, should be the goal.

Thank you.

...........

To: Hugh Louie Dewey, of counsel
From: watertiger
Date: 3/20/08

re: Imposition of fines

In re your correspondence regarding the categorization of men under the ADA, I would like to take this opportunity to note that the existence of a contract to which both parties were signatories.  If , as you are suggesting, Mr. Thersites was not compos mentis due to the existence of a "y" chromosome in his genetic structure, then such a condition would void the contract, and my client will no longer be subject to its terms, as well.

..........

To:  watertiger
From:  Hugh Louie Dewey, of counsel
       Dewey, Cheatham and Howe

Re:  your memorandum of 9 AM

While my client categorically rejects the notion that he is non compos mentis, he would note that the incapacity of the Y-chromosome afflicted to perform--let me rephrase that--to fulfil the terms of a contract such as you reference in your previous submissions is well-known, a commonplace in the legal, medical and Oprahish literature. Surely your client knew, or should have known, that this was the case. While the bargaining power of the parties to the contract is a matter of legitimate debate, we see no bar to litigating under the unconscionability doctrine, and seeking a reformulation of the contract in that forum, under such a premise, to reflect the just interests of our client.

As we, and you, would like to avoid the waste of time and resources, not to say the needless acrimony attendant upon such a course, we urge that you reconsider your suggestion.

Thank you.

Okay, this is getting silly. No sillier than thinking you can track communication between spouses by reading their papers, however.