I LIKE it!
You are currently browsing the Gonzo’s Bar & Go-Go Grill weblog archives for January, 2005.
Well, I was back last night, but about beat to death. A good ten hours sleep, and once more unto the breach for the Gonzster.
When I go out on one of my woodland jaunts, I like to go as light as possible. The whole object of the exercise is to pit yourself against the elements. (Well, I take coffee.) It’s a spirit quest of sorts, and something I recommend for any man.
We’ve not, as a society, taught men any more to be comfortable by themselves, and doing this, the silence and solitude allows a reconnection with self. The time flies when you are spending the entirity of the day scrounging up your next meal, and wood for your fire.
Posted in at 8:58 am by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
Folks, it has been a long week, and the Gonzman, in the middle of winter, is going to take one of his trips into the woods to get it out of his system. Betwixt and Between working on the latest column, I’ve been as busy as a one-armed paperhanger and need a Luddite moment.
Time to be nature boy. Thank God for canvas tents.
I’ll check back on Sunday, and see what the enemies of God and Man have been up to. Peace out this weekend.
Posted in at 5:32 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
Yeah - damn that whole parka for winter in Poland.
I will tell you what, thugh - any of the aging hippies who spent the sixties bitching about people looking past the superficial exterior of a person start bitching, I will offer a knuckle sandwich to them.
Posted in at 4:40 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
I may strangle the next person who talks to me about “Torture at Abu Ghirab.”
Pulling out fingernails is torture.
Bamboo slivers are torture.
Flaying is torture.
Finger breaking is torture.
But there are freaks in every major city who will pay hundreds of dollars for some chick in army fatigues to lead them around on a leash.
Posted in at 2:54 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
UPDATE: Per Tony, he is not the Author of this, and copied it a couple years ago, and does not recollect the author. Nonetheless, a hell of a catch and a tip of the hat to him.
One from Tony Ananda at Stand Your Ground.
This merits introduction. No comment is needed.
Female/feminist privilege checklist:
1. Do you experience other people paying for your dates, or occasionally even picking up the tab in non-romantic settings? Or paying for vacations when the relationship moves along?
2. Do you occasionally experience subservient gestures by the opposite sex (opening doors, giving up a seat in the bus, standing up when you come in the room)?
3. Are you able to simply pursue what you are interested in at university without much societal pressure on “breadwinning” - although you could also take that route if it interests you?
4. Have you had to register for selective service? Would you be ripped out of your life and forced to defend your country in time of attack or national emergency? Can you demand strength and full participation in society, but then get out of this obligation by pretending to be weak with no influence over society (only when it suits you)?
4.b. Can you come up with any and every excuse to get out of this without being laughed at (”No one should be drafted” - when you would be the first to cower in the corner and demand that someone do something if China & Russia combined and attacked full force - and “If men start wars …” when women are the majority of voters and the expression is more likely “Men are SENT in wars …” - exactly what you’re trying to get out of - and sometimes sent by M. Thatcher, G. Meir, I. Gandhi, B. Bhutto and others).
5. Will you statistically get a much lighter sentence for exactly the same offense if you commit a crime?
6. Are you able to take on a job or choose a career route that is only capable of supporting yourself, with no thought to preparing yourself to also support a spouse/children, although you are also free to choose a more difficult career that will bring you more money? Do you not have much pressure on you with regard to this?
7. If you are in a committed relationship, do you have much greater flexibility to choose whether you want to work or simply stay at home (even without kids)?
8. Will you be called an unemployed loser if you decide to be a homemaker?
9. If you have a flat tire on the road, if someone is harassing you in a public place, if an animal attacks you, or if you are lost, will someone be much, much more likely to help you?
10. Are people generally much nicer to you in public? Are you sometimes given privileged treatment?
11. Are you much more capable of “marrying up” - enjoying the money and status that comes with this?
12. Are you statistically much more likely to be given money in a divorce - sometimes huge amounts - even if your behavior caused the divorce (e.g. affair) and even if you didn’t work for the money?
13. If you slap a person - or even knock someone’s tooth out throwing your Aunt Selma’s Christmas mug at that person - is it much more likely to just be viewed as cute, understandable or not a problem?
14. Do you statistically live much longer - possibly due to less stress on you with regard to breadwinning, providing protection, being responsible, not having society viewing you as “expendable” or viewing your problems as not being important?
15. Do you have much more money spent on your health concerns in reality (e.g. 5 times as much on breast cancer as on prostate cancer - although they have roughly the same death rates) while you simultaneously claim that more has to be done for you?
16. Are you much less likely to be homeless? Is more offered to you by society when you are in this position?
17. Is there far less scorn and pressure on you by society when you are an irresponsible doofball? Are your default rates for payment of child support roughly twice those of the other gender, while you simultaneously complain about the other gender not paying?
18. Has whining about and hating the other gender actually been made into a course of studies in college (women’s studies) - as opposed to the true, neutral, unbiased study of this topic - which is simply anthropology?
19. Do you have full opportunity to do anything you want in life - become a doctor, a lawyer, start a business - while simultaneously using the fact that many of your gender don’t CHOOSE themselves to do these things as an argument to try to gain even more advantages? Do you get affirmative action because many of your gender don’t choose to do these things, and thus the numbers don’t “come out right”?
20. Can you manipulate the other gender with sex in some cases to get what you want? Can you pretend like you don’t even know what anyone is talking about on this topic?
21. Can you manipulate using old notions of men protecting and deferring to women when it comes in handy?
22. Can you effectively manipulate by playing the victim? Do tears work sometimes?
23. Can you get sympathy if you don’t work and don’t have children by listing all the household work (hmm … Oprah really does get high ratings, though) while simultaneously being able to bear the cognitive dissonance of calling your sister’s husband who stays home a worthless bum that she ought to leave?
24. Can you “mix and match” traditional and progressive roles - finding just the right mix to get what you want? Can you be a “traditional wife” - enjoying the positive features of that (like not having to work) - while simultaneously being a progressive feminist when THAT gets you advantages? Or having a career while simultaneously using traditional chivalry and male deference to your advantage?
25. Can you constantly say “that’s just typical” and “it doesn’t surprise me a bit” and make a lemon face if you are a parent-in-law? Is near-universal contempt by both genders for your behavior hidden to a much greater extent?
26. Can almost any remark by your partner be construed as verbal abuse if you want sympathy, but the meanest, nastiest, most humiliating things that you can say simply involve “speaking your mind” and “some people just don’t want to hear the truth”?
27. Can you use the fact that gender roles were differentiated long ago - with different advantages/disadvantages for both genders - to try to induce guilt today in people who had absolutely no connection with any of that? Can you say that you have been discriminated against for thousands of years - when you’re only 20 years old - with a straight face? Can you even make things up about history and no one will really check or dare call you on it?
28. Can you propagate myths and outright lies (”Superbowl/domestic violence hoax”, “rule of thumb”, 1/4 rape statistic, intentional misconstrual of pay figures, and many more) and be given a “pass” - without more rigor being demanded?
29. Can you rationalize your own failures using the concept of the “patriarchy”, and blame the other gender for nearly everything that goes wrong in your life - even with quite contorted explanations that no one would otherwise buy - while failures of the other gender are just … failures?
30. Do you want to be treated like a child when it suits you but as an adult when you get an advantage from that? Do you “look the other way” when someone doesn’t require responsibility from you that they certainly would from the other gender?
31. Can you focus heavily on perceived earnings in the workforce - the statistics of which are influenced by people’s choices in reality - while utterly ignoring the inter-family transfer of wealth? Can you completely ignore the fact that one gender picks tougher jobs (garbage collector), works more hours and takes on more responsibility because of more pressure to earn - but the other gender has the same lifestyle and statistically more assets (and not just because of inheritance/earlier age of male at death….). Can you deliberately claim that earnings figures are based on equal pay for equal work? (when you probably full well know that they simply involve all people working more than 35 hours - and don’t take type of job, hours worked over 35/week, danger, responsibility, years in the work force etc. into consideration at all).
32. Is what used to simply be an irritation for grown-ups many years ago - the self-centered rantings and foot stompings of spoiled high-school and college brats - now not only embraced by your movement but almost the modern cornerstone of it?
33. And if you irritated about generalizations and stereotypes —- and utterly fail to see the hypocrisy in stereotyping and generalizing about one gender while simultaneously making a career (literally in some cases) whining about your own gender being stereotyped …
… you may have female/feminist privilege! But don’t let on - because you can gain much more with a continual victim status.
Posted in at 8:39 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
Hugo Schwyzer: Male privilege, and my inbox is getting full
Trouble is, Hugoboy uses a long discredited list to do so. *sigh* I’d really hoped for better.
Okay, one more time:
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true.
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
Uhhhhhh….
No.
I wasn’t aware that there were any “Diversity Initiatives” or “Affirmative Action Quotas” for men - but there are indeed those for women. Doesn’t even wash.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
Wanna bet? When Bobby Riggs lost his tennis match years ago, it was hailed as a great victory for women; when Anniki Sorenson lost miserably a couple years ago in a Men’s round of golf, it was still “You go Girl!”
5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
As a man, if I do encounter sexual harassment and complain about, I’ll have my sexuality questioned. As a woman I can make a claim and be guaranteed to be taken seriously, and even if PROVEN to be false and not only will I not be punished, odds are not insignificant that he will still have his career ruined anyway.
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
And the proof would be, like in where? If a woman does even a half assed job, any questions about her performance may be met with tears and suggestions of “sexism!” and the subject will be dropped.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
But I can be falsely accused of rape, and will have to prove my innocence.
8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.
Taught is the operative word, and that teaching of fear to women would be by…
…other women. Kind of disingenuous to blame men, eh?
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
No, my virility will be. And If I don’t wish children, I can still be trapped into it by a “Whoops!” episode. My only recourse (at this time) is a fight and tears when I put on a condom, an intrusive operation I must get my spouse’s consent for, or a celibate life - for which, if married, I will be a sonofabitch.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
But If I do provide primary care for them it will be, and i will be a “loser” in the eyes of women, probably including my partner. And if she divorces me over it, chances are she will be labeled the “primary caregiver” by virtue of her gender and granted custody.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.
But it will be praise in the most condescending of terms, and I will have verything I do criticized and second guessed no matter how accomplished I am at it.
12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
But if I have children and don’t pursue a career, I’ll be a shiftless skunk and loser who won’t support his family. Well, that will happen whether I have children or not.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
Uh, huh. And no man ever gets quizzed about his “illegal nannies?”
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure…..
14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.
And even though the electorate is 52% women, it will somehow be my fault they vote for men.
15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see “the person in charge,†I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
And even though he probably risked it all, or sacrificed his personal life to achieve that position, it will be regarded as sinister that he is there.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
And when times were tough often told to suck it up, while they were coddled and comforted.
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male heroes were the default.
And I was also left alone to devise my own entertainment, whereas my sisters got structured play and many more, and more expensive toys.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
Most of it negative…
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
Because I’m not trained - by other women - to search for ways to play the victim.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.
Usually as objects of criticism or butts of the joke, but what the heck.
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
But I won’t be bailed out or have a government program to “aid” me.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
Which is ridicuous as I will pay a higher premium regardless of how well I drive.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
Because I do so without making my sex an issue…
24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won’t make me an object of contempt or derision.
I’ll just be called a “dog” or a “playa” or something. Yeahsureyabetcha.
25. There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is possible for me to choose clothing that doesn’t send any particular message to the world.
But very few varieties. I hold in my hands the policy of a company I do work for on acceptabe dress for meetings. For men it is dress slacks, dress shoes, a collared shirt or turtleneck, and with a tie (no Bolo or Bow ties) mandatory if the former, and a jacket. For women it is anything but jeans and sneakers - or anything “revealing.” Since women don’t want to be “objectified” or “ogled” I’d assume the latter is no problem.
How is this again?
26. My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little time.
So because women choose to take forever to put on makeup it’s men’s fault?
27. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.
And If I buy a new car, chances are I will do my homework, comparison shop, and negotiate with the full intent to walk out and go to the next dealer down the road.
28. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
Wheras if women merely don’t get grossly overweight or let themselves go to hell, the advantages are enormous.
29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
But I will be in fear of being arrested because someone feels “threatened.”
30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime†and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence†or “acquaintance rape,†and is seen as a special interest issue.)
This makes no sense - according to the feminists “Domestic Violence” and “Date Rape” so rarely and never (respectively) happen to men, and yet when it does happen to women, special heinousness is attached to this crime. So - how’s this again?
31. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,†mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
And I can always count on the fact that if I actually use such language I will be imperiously corrected and berated, and will have to take it and apologize no matter how rudely I am treated.
32. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
But as a woman, I will be able to behave in an atrocious fashion, and excuse myself with that same excuse, and expect everything I did or said to be overlooked; and I will be able to use that to mitigate criminal behavior. And of course, I will want it both ways - to be an excuse when I want, and an insult as I want.
33. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if i don’t change my name.
But If I do change my name I will have to jump through extra hoops and get funny looks, even if I have always wanted to get rid of the surname “Zuckenfreuderheingren.”
34. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
Because I will be expected to work regardless, and suggestions that I need to bond or take care of my children will be met with “Doesn’t that baby have a mother?”
This will usually be said to me by women.
35. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is usually pictured as being male.
…because matriarchal religions are usually so bizarre thet even women won’t join them.
36. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
And those selfsame religions will also contend that I am answerable for their misbehavior before the deity of that religion
37. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
Meanwhile, I will be stuck with the strenuous, filthy, and dangerous ones. And it will be her dividing up the labor, but her choices will be my fault.
38. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
And chances are I will not be permitted, or will be watched like a hawk when I try to help, and no matter how good a job I do have it nitpicked to death because my competence in parenting threatens her.
39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
Again, she will make this decision, but it will be my fault.
40. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.
Instead, appeals to women’s sexuality appeal to things that studies show they find arousing.
41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.
But I will be expected to not complain about health issues until they knock me flat, and then I will still be accused of “whining.” This will contribute to me dying a decade earlier than women.
42. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.
But chances are I will be hit, and either way if I object to being assaulted, I’ll be a wimp - even police will laugh at me unless my injuries are so evident to a layman. It’s still even money I’ll be arrested, or removed from my home, no matter what.
Of course, as a woman, I can claim “I’m afraid” and no question or investigation will be made as to whether any real threats were made or implied.
43. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
Ah, the squelcher! “Any Questioning of this list is hereby pooh-poohed in advance!”
Lawzamercy. How often is this weary old thing going to be trotted out?
Posted in at 4:41 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
After listening to Hugo on Glenn Sacks’ show the other night, and trying to get in, I’m still trying to digest the whole thing.
I’ve downloaded the stream for play.
I have to say, it’s almost a horror of Lovecraftian proportions to listen to Hugo speak. A good response to that sorry esxcuse is going to take a couple of drafts.
Posted in at 1:25 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
Someone send this to Scott Adams.
Todays assignment is to load software patches for security holes in - check this - service that don’t even run on 14 servers. They aren’t even LOADED. When this was pointed out in the AM meeting, I was asked to just please do it, and submit the logs for it. And the “asked” was in the tone where it is painfully obvious that to argue will change nothing, annoy management, and take more time than doing it.
Which means I get to load the services, start them, patch them, and then stop them.
Okay. I will take a $200 for a day of useless busywork. It’s not like it’s my money being wasted. KA-Chiiiiiiiiiiing!!!!!!!
Two lessons here: One - sometimes there is no use arguing, especially when the end result will produce no harm. Two - Corporations who hire people and pay them good money to do something - who are hiring their EXPERTISE - should listen to it.
God Bless Corporate America.
Posted in at 9:30 am by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
Johnny Carson, King of Late Night, Dies
There’s no way to give a proper eulogy to a man like this, but if I flew a flag here, it’d be at half mast now.
Posted in at 2:19 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
After having been accused for the umpteenth time of being a capitalist pig, let me set the record straight.
I am not a capitalist pig, The subspecies of swine which I belong to is “Free Marketer.” There is a difference, which you can look up, but I will give you the nutshell and over simplified version:
A Capitalist is a follower of a political philosophy which believes in rule by the moneyed (Not the wealthy - capital refers to specie and currency.). Capitalists often espouse laws which protect moneyed interests from the influences of the free market. Capitalists don’t believe in free markets, because like most elitist philosophies they believe in the rights of the moneyed and idle rich to rest on their laurels and do nothing to maintain it, and resent the notion that some unwashed upstart from the teeming masses might rise up and play their game as well as them, and bring Beer and Cheetos to the Champagne and Cheese gatherings..
Free markers believe in a free and open market, and is an economic philosophy. A free market could theoretically exist under almost any political system, with some more difficult than others. A free marketer believes in a free and open market, with the government playing the role of insuring that no articifial barriers to the market exist, and being referee as regards to fraud, or artificial monopolies.
I don’t mind being called a pig. But for the love of God, call me the right kind of pig, okay?
Posted in at 1:30 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
The Wall Street Journal weighs in on the remarks of Former Clinton Cabinet member and Harvard President Larry Summers:
While you can go read the article for yourself, a couple of points in it deserve mention and comment.
Yet women offered harsher explanations for why they can’t get jobs or pursue high-powered academic careers. These include “subtle biases” in hiring and evaluation procedures. Job dissatisfaction is also higher among women, the article reports, due to what can be summed up as a “toxic atmosphere.” No doubt. While everybody in academe notices that at times, it probably is most brutal in male-dominated sciences like physics, where the clash of intellectual egos is like a blood sport.
The Chronicle addresses another impediment to careers in math and the physical sciences. According to Geraldine Richmond, a chemist at the University of Oregon, some women balk at the prospect of sacrificing personal goals, including family time: “They see that the best jobs are obtained by people who want to only do science and give it 100 percent.”
Do tell.
Let’s move around and examine this from another angle.
“I don’t want to sacrifice anything, I don’t want to be devoted to my career, and I don’t want to give my best efforts to my job. But I’m a woman, so the promotion should go to me.”
Now - let’s rephrase.
“I don’t want to sacrifice anything, I don’t want to be devoted to my career, and I don’t want to give my best efforts to my job. But I’m white, so the promotion should go to me.”
Uh, yeah. That breaks my stupid-meter.
Why bother to work or excel? And what a hell of a way to motivate your underlings; make it clear that hard work and effort will do nothing to insure their success. Maybe they will all flock to quit and go somewhere else to succeed, while you can hire some more princesses who don’t believe they have to try or do their jobs, but be awarded success on the basis of their genitalia.
That’s why it is so desperately improtant for these clowns to establish national quotas (Yes, I know. They’re not quotas. Even though they look, walk, and quack like a quota, we don’t call them quotas, so they’re not quotas. Whatever.) is so they don’t have to compete with institutions that don’t want to play their political games.
The University of Michigan recently got tired of such debates, and sent science and engineering faculty into workshops on gender bias. After the attitudinal re-education (or did the fear of more sensitivity seminars play a role?), the rate of hiring women skyrocketed.
Remind me, if I see a diploma from the University of Michigan, to see if the recipient is a white male, and to inquire if he was in turn taught only by white males. Since they are the only group there which doesn’t get a free pass, and don’t have their scores race or gender normed, they are the only ones from there I can be sure have actually earned their degree rather than having it gifted to them.
That’s the price of affirmative action quotas - when you are the token (blank), and have achieved your position by skin color or reproductive plumbing, you can’t really pretend to be there on your merits, and can’t expect the respect thereof
Posted in at 1:26 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - ‘Cool Mom’ Threw Sex Parties for Boys
I suppose we need to brace ourselves for the weary litany of excuses for this woman, and harrumphs of how “they must have enjoyed it so no harm no foul.”
Hm. And of course, it’s so rare. Of course.
I’ve talked, organized, counselled and otherwise interacted with men in the course of the men’s movement for years, and I’m amazed when I consider about how many of these men have had their own Mrs. Robinson. I’d say he story is oer half. Sometimes it’s an older girl, or a next door neighbor, or their friend’s mother. One thing, though, is that for all the talk about how “good” it was by outsiders, there’s a great deal of discomfort for these men to discuss it.
I’ve done work with prisoners, a lot of them sexual offenders, in the form of teaching them to read or tutoring for GED’s. The incidence from them is higher, and a great many report it coming from family members.
You have to wonder how a lot of these guys would have turned out in their relationships with society and with the women in their life if they hadn’t had this happen to them, if they hadn’t been subjected to a twisted sexual relationship they were mentally and emotionally unprepared for.
Did they like it at the time? Sure. So do a lot of young girls who are sexually abused by older men. And I can hear the sound of steam coming out of the fembots ears right now.
Yeah, I said it. They liked it. They even (*gasp!*) wanted it. They co-operated with it. They had fantasies about the “next time.” They professed love for their abuser.
“But - how dare … I’m OUTRAGED - splutter - Outraged! … These girls weren’t ready! They didn’t know what they were doing! Someone older used their experience to exploit….”
Yes. How true. I said they liked it. Hell, crack addicts like their high. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. Doesn’t mean it’s good for them. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t damage them. Doesn’t mean their supplier isn’t six flights of stairs lower than whale shit. Doesn’t mean they weren’t victims.
The difference between me and feminist sexists (The term of which is a redundancy, I know) is that I extend the same consideration to our sons.
Long as FOX News is giving out Twofers:
One thing missing from this story is even mention of a father; given FOX’s propensity for one-sided chivalry the fact that they didn’t take the time to make a dig about a father absent because he’s scum, or in jail, or something leads me to intuit that here is another brave and courageous single mother who decided for her child that he didn’t need a father. Unlike, of course, these low-down dirty men who decide for their children that they don’t need a father.
But that’s another rant.
Posted in at 11:25 am by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
Now that the Inauguration is over, after all the hand-wringing and angst about the “Lavish and Unnecessary” cost; will those same people now be moaning about the cost of all the glitz for the Oscars?
Maybe Babs Streisand can answer it, - how bout it, Sugar Doodle? You are going to be dressing from Goodwill rather than your normal designer original, hm?
Yeah.
I’m not really holding my breath.
Posted in at 5:58 am by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
In my own State.
I watched with dismay as Mitch Daniels, the new governor and former budget director proposed a tax hike to correct Indiana’s deficit.
And today, he proposes one billion dollars more - in spending.
*sigh*
One word.
Republicrats.
I used to be a Republican until I could no longer resolve my small-government conservatism with the Big Government conservatism that has taken the party over.
Mitch, Mitch, Mitch.
Small lesson for you.
I have a checking account. When I write checks equal to the amount I have in the bank, I’m out of money. If I write more, and do the “deficit spending” thing, my checks bounce. How do I solve this? I stop spending money, and rebudget so I am not spending more than I take in.
It’s not that hard, man. Yes people will whine when it is their sacred cow on the altar. Oh well. Sux to be them. And you wonder why the hell I voted for Kenn Gividen.
Posted in at 9:35 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
I’d also like to nominate, for backing down like a bitch, and being the butt-monkey of the political correctoids, Lawrence Sanders, as Pussy of the Month!
The Big Pussy Himself
Well, I guess it was too much to expect to hope a Clinton appointee would show some cojones.
Posted in at 2:34 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
Thought I’d post this and spike the blood pressure of any lefties who happen to be trolling today, and if I’m responsible for a coronary or two, what the heck. That’ll teach ya.
Let’s see, should I be a “trendy” blogger?
Mood: Mean as a snake
Music Playing: Pantera, “Respect”
Okay. Just wanted to get that out of my system.
Posted in at 1:12 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
Apologies for being slow. I’ve been busy as hell lately, and what with it all everytime I’ve finished something it’s been old news and a “Me Too!” piece.
Posted in at 11:47 am by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
It strikes me that if Condalezza Rice is confirmed a Secretary of State - as she probably will be - we will have, behind the Vice-President and the Speaker of the House, a black woman (and one who might be a lesbian at that) in line to be president.
Under a conservative, Republican Administration.
When I think about how that must stick in the craw of the liberals, I just fuckin’ giggle.
Posted in at 6:52 am by The Gonzman | Permalink | |
Breaking news, from the Boston Herald, Boston terror threat probed.
It may be bunk.
But it could happen. Someone tell me again how we are too tough on illegal immigrants. I dare you.
This is the biggest argument I can think of for sealing the border with Mexico, and taking a stance on illegals as potential invaders.
Posted in at 7:09 pm by The Gonzman | Permalink | |