Vox Day Proposes the “American Rapist” line of T-Shirts, with slogans like:

“We both know you want it!”

“ROHYPNOL - helping sociopaths score since 1992″

“I’m big enough, I’m strong enough, and doggone it, I have a knife.”

“I am inevitable, relax and enjoy me.”

“NO means MAYBE” (on the back) “MAYBE means YES”

“Actually, it is about sex.”

“If you didn’t want it, why are you dressed like that?”

“See you after the candlelight vigil”

“What time are you planning on walking alone to your car?”
“It’s my night and you can’t have it back.”

“Duke Lacrosse”

Remember all the sniffing about “They’re just shirts.  Lighten up” from the feminists when the whole “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” hullabaloo was going on?  Jeez, what an object lesson!

Just go see for yourself.

I will warn him - the experience does not live up to the hype.  Make sure you have a big bed.  Seriously.  Anything less than a king-size mattress just will not do.

Seems like a while back, Crystal Gail Magnum (The accuser in the Duke “rape” case whose name the media is covering up) made an almost identical accusation some time ago.

Hmmmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

I know, I know, feminut.  Doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped.

Also doesn’t mean she was, either.

It seems CRYSTAL GAIL MAGNUM, the accuser in the Duke “rape” case, has a habit of making accusations.

Hmmmmmmm.

Does it take to change a light bulb?

21.  One to do it, and twenty to talk about how much more light it is since they left the church. 

A lot of times when I read ex- (Lapsed, apostate, etc.) catholics I am reminded of black rappers tendancy to go “Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger!” but claim it is some means of “empowerment.”  No, it isn’t, dipshit.  It means the same thing if you say it that it does when Harry the Honky says it.  But, hey.  They’re “entitled.”  Here are my Catholic Bona Fides.  Now I’m going to bash the church and “tell you how it really is.”  You “newbies” just shut up.

You’re only actually practicing the faith, after all.

If I said the same things about black culture that they say about Catholicism, I’d be crucified as a racist; but of course, they aren’t “Anti-Catholic.”

When His Holiness Benedict XVI ascended to the papal office, he spoke of having a smaller and more vibrant faith, I would imagine as opposed to just striving for lukewarm asses in pews.  I concur totally.  With ex-Catholics like that, I can only say “Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish.”

Yeah, I know - I’ll get the “Welcoming, tolerant, and accepting” party line.  Well, you know what?  The ministering to the poor and hungry, even outside of the faith, is still done.  There are soup kitchens, hospices, and relief organizations aplenty in the church, far out of proportion to its numbers.  Many organized by lay organizations.  The Mass, worship, and such - this is the food line for the workers.  And we don’t need their ilk in there crapping in the soup tureen.

Again - good riddance to bad rubbish.  You bastards were always more interested in helping out at abortion mills, and criticizing the magisterium through your letters to NCR rather than staffing the soup lines anyway.  It doesn’t escape my notice at all that when cars show up with people to do the actual dirty work that you don’t find any “Kerry/Edwards” stickers on their bumpers - but a whole lot of “Bush/Cheney” ones.

UPDATE:  There we go - I got my nibbles and bites. Yeah, you’re right - does sound rather “misogynistic, and manipulative, and I guess anyone who would behave the way described below does deserve to be divorced, that no human being should treat a supposed partner like that, that I deserve scorn, contempt, and hate mail, and so on and so forth, etc. etc. etc.”

 

Glad to see we’re on the same page.  And I guess that means the men who reacted with such outrage over “The Well Managed Husband” had an equal right to their outrage, despite what Cathy Young says. 

 

I trust I have made my point.  Or rather, let you make it for me.  ‘preciate it. 

I’ve been reading the sniping going on about “The Well Managed Husband” between the Commenters at Dr. Helen and Cathy Young for a while, and it strikes me - I should write “The Well Managed Woman.”

It’s pretty simple really - “Let the Girl Win in the Small Stuff.” Put up some token resistance, appear to capitulate, and watch her strut and preen about how she “won.”

Take wife #2. This is the one who I just found out last year filed bankruptcy on $125k of debts, with $1500 in assets. For a long assed time she campaigned for new stuff - new car, new furniture, new curtains; which I resisted because we couldn’t afford it. Well, we never did get the new curtains. We got the new car - and I made it a new van because I needed it for work, and the old car had blown up; but she got her curtains eventually - by agreeing to make them out of fabirc. At a dollar a yard. But because I questioned the color, and brought home some fabirc (Leaving her the receipt, and knowing full well she would return it for color more to her liking) she rushed out after I left, bought “her” fabric, and made and hung the curatins as a kind of “fait accompli” before I got home, she felt she was a “winner.”

And, of course, she strutted and preened, and talked about how she “got over” on me, yadda yadda yadda.

Yep. I decided when and if to get new curtains, how much would be spent on it - and she went out and picked the color and did the legwork. And the sewing. Didn’t even have to help her hang the rods, nor do the cleaning that new curtains inspired in her - just come home, and eat the dinner and drink the beer she brought me to “soften the blow” while she waited anxiously for my “Approval.” And it even shut her up about the car (Which I eventually got for me and gave her my hand-me-down, or the furniture we never got.
Of course, she thought me well managed.

I would decide IF to go out, and even hold veto power over the destination. I would decide the menu for the week. I “hired the grass service” (Which cosisted of borrowing my buddy’s riding movwer for half an hour some evenings while she was at work and justified socking away $30; I kept the checkbook, debit card, and credit cards. IF she wanted new plants, I decided *if* to buy them, and talked her into - for a couple years - transplanting the wildflowers from the adjacent woods. But I let her “decide” which flowers, and where to plant them. Yep, well-managed me. She “got her way.” She was whistling such a happy tune on her knees digging in the dirt, while I packed my “Work” van to go fishing.

And when we split up - let’s see - Mr Gonzo: House, the van, the furniture, the animals - Mrs. Gonzo - a small car that ran badly, her purse, and four baskets of clothes. Plus later she signed off on the debts to get her sitabouts and knick-knacks back that she left for over 30 days and abandoned.

Yeppers- well managed me.

Fact is, for all the much-vaunted female “people reading,” like “Feminine Intuition” and “Multitasking” it is vastly over-hyped; I’ve sat and watched wives and grilfriends “multitask” while cleaniong house, flit from job to job while leaving the last one unfinished, go back and have to do the same job over after making a mess from a subsequent job, and take all day to finish it even when I am helping and allowing myself to be directed - while I have performed the same task set alone, and finished in half the time with better results. The same is true of “People Reading” in that women have a weak spot when in comes to “managing” their husbands or boyfriends, namely, they want to please them. The key, gents, is to capitalize on this while keeping them from going on a spending spree that puts you in the poorhouse.

The flower example is another tack - women want to be unique, and they are largely artsy-craftsy types. Rather than spend a day shopping for flowers, and the afternoon planting them, I made it “her project” and had to just drive out to pick up the plants she dug up, and had the afternoon free to go fishing - to “Get out from underfoot.” And that latter was HER idea - when she wanted me to help her dig the bed, I got out the rototiller and the post hole digger, and she quickly changed her tune.

Math is hard. So is logic. When the “Let’s spend money on..” conversation starts, break out the books, the calculator, and go over finances. (I had a leg up - I hid all my “mad money” - lunches, papers, smokes, etc. in the “Business Expenses” column, and itemized her magazines, chocolate, etc. - it made it a lot easier to suggest her cutting her expenses for “new furniture” ) - before long her eyes will glaze over, but she won’t be able to refute the logic - if she says “But we NEEEED new stuff - you can just shove the books at her and say, “Tell ya what, sweetie - if you find the money, we can have it - select which bills not to pay for me.” I wanted a new tool - I bought it for work, kept it there, “borrowed it” from there after a while, and then “forgot” to return it. Make sure you “age” the tool if you try this. Dripping paint on the housing, spraying drywall dust all over the case, and scuffing it - plus removing everything from the wrapping - prevents the arguments about a “new” drill. (”This? Oh, jeez, honey - I bought this months ago for the shop. I’m just using it - no sense in buying a second one, when you get down to it it’s mine anyway.) Added bonus - you look frugal, too; an equal opportunity tightwad.

They key in things, though, is to lose judiciously. Like raising kids. You don’t have to win every battle. Just the ones that mean anything; the trick is to pick the ones you can afford to lose, and throw her the bones there. It makes them feel powerful.

“Gender Equality” I have no problem with.  It’s your ridiculous idea of “GEnder Equivalence” that I stand in scorn of.

Now, go take a Midol.  Or some ibuprofen - same thing, read the bottle.

It doesn’t take long for the dregs of anarchy to raise their ugly heads every time there is a debate about, “Hey - think we ought to make it against the law to murder and rob?” and recent posts have confirmed this, with an anonymous coward weighing in.

Let’s get something straight, and I won’t mince words - the average anarchist or anarcho-capitalist is a petulant brat, resentful of being forced to play by any rules, and absolutely convinced (Despite rhetoric to the contrary) that if everyone else just “Saw sweet reason” and dispensed with laws, that they could get away with anything, up to and including what would be considered capital murder. Often their refrain is “let’s wait until harm actually happens” and in reality they are certain that once harm does happens, the victims thereof will be six feet under and beyond complaint, whereupon their tune changes to “Well, *YOU* haven’t been harmed…”

Such people are NOT Libertarians by any sense, though they often try to claim being the “purist” form. What they are, at best, are pie-in-the-sky dreamers, and at worst closet fascist warlords from the age old objection to their twaddle of “Wouldn’t the warlords take over?” (The answer being, unquestionably, yes, and the staunchest defenders of anarchy hoping to be among them.)

There is a vast difference between, say, banning cyclamates because there is a remote possibility that someone may drink 400 cans a day for years upon years and double their chances of contracting an obscure cancer; and banning discharging a firearm randomly in a populated area. The former is a remote possibility at best, and the consequences of which descend upon the TAB guzzler in any event; the latter falls into the realm of “Not if but when” and has predictable consequences.

One has freedom to enagage in completely and unquestionably self-destructive behavior. If you want to swill down hard liquor by the quart in the privacy of your own home, pickle your brain, and risk alcohol poisoning - by all means. You go right ahead. Once you decide to do that and then get behind the wheel of your hippy-van, putting the lives of others at risk as you fly down the road a half-a-dozen sheets to the wind, it is a different situation, and anyone who attempts a specious argument to the contrary is a fucking moron who is wasting oxygen by breathing. You may very well get away with it for a while. Sooner or later - and considering drunks behind the wheel kill people each and every day, my money is on sooner - one of you fuckweasels is going to kill someone on roads I help pay for.

You want to drive drunk? Fine. Buy all the land between West Nowhere and Bugtussle, build your own road, and put a bar at each end so you can drive on your own land - that you paid for - and endanger only yourself.

That is the rub, is the word “Endanger.” You have no right to force others to assume risks. IF people want to drive on your private road, and pay for the privilege of doing so, knowing at any time the fucktard house alcoholic may be racing hell-bent for leather - that is their business. The whole reason we collectively create such infrastructure as roads, though, includes having yon dumbass be restricted from driving on it, and removed from it upon discovery. I can guarantee you, that if your world came into being, you’d find many roads to be privately held, and driving drunk on them would more than likely earn you a bullet as an assault with potentially fatal consequences, and regarded as self-defense in the anarchist paradise. (Likewise, my defense of my grandchildren against smut peddlers would include a Glock and several .45 ACP rounds. For starters. Wannabe warlords take note that not all the sheep lack claws and fangs.)

As to truth in advertising, yes, I am all for such things as listing ingredients. It prevents nobody from engaging in business, and lets people with allergies or medical conditions keepfrom eating things which might tend to be poison to them. The “Nutrition information” is nanny-statish to the extreme, but the ingredient list for foodstuffs is a reasonable accomodation which accomplishes something. What people who object to such things really object to is their “right” to advertise one thing, and adulterate it with potentially dangerous substances, and you be damned in the face of their profit. In the High Level Domain example, the only possible restriction is “Gee, now I won’t be able to advertise one thing, deliver another, and make money in doing it. I’ll have to label what I sell as what’s in the package.”

Yeah. It’s called being an honest merchant, and not profitting via fraud. Supposedly “anarchists” are against this. They just don’t want any real mechanism to assure it or punish it in case they want to commit it.

I repeat advice I gave a couple years ago to my Party - hire a bouncer, and toss anarchists and their ilk out on their ears. They are a bad bunch, and give the Libertarian Party a bad name.

UPDATE:  Yes, sirrah, I am including you in there.  See, here’s the deal, Oh Brains of Walnut:  No, you don’t need government to deal with your own life - that’s a given.  Once you start interacting with other people, though, is where we have a sticky wicket.  I think I’m acting perfectly free and within my bounds - you think I’m being a fuckweasel.  Now, we can solve this with the biggest bully winning, or the most successful passive-aggressive asswipe winning, or we might come to shooting.  You bunch of cheesewhizzes don’t even think Iran threating to devolop a nuke and incinerate Isreal is worth notice, but you’re going to tell me you’re willing to recreate the shootout at the OK Corral becaiuse of how loud I play my stereo?

Cracker, Puh-lease.

And I’ve heard it before.  Okay, YOUR private Justice Company is going to come in and back - um, let’s see, who pays their bill, and who do they have to please to stay in business?  Oh, yeah - that would be you, their customer.  And lo - MY hired “Justice Inc.” is doing the same for me.  Hmmm.

Oh, yeah - THAT will fucking work.

Best thing to do is to have ONE “Justice Company” in a given region, dispensing said justice on the most common consensus, and having a monopoly to do so.  And if people didn’t like it, they could just sell off, and move elsewhere.  Hmmm.  Kind of like “Police” and “Courts.”  But we wouldn’t call them by those names.  So they’d be “different.”

Yeah, whatever you say.  Moron. It’s asshats like you who are actually going to keep your great big wonderful Fantasyland of Anarchist Sunshine, lollipops, rainbows, and Magic Unicorns from coming to pass.  Most of us who got a “Doesn’t play well with others” report in kindergarten outgrew that phase - except for you pieces of shit who continue to resent any correction to the effect that behaving like a civilized human being might require you to curb your impulses.

So, yeah - I did want to rethink my opinion, and change it.  Not only are you a closet fascist, but probably a sociopath to boot.

CNet discusses labelling sexually explicit sites.

I’ve long been a fan of the .XXX high level domain. No prior restraint, truth in advertising, and it makes it real easy for the man on the street to opt out; filtering out “@somewhere.xxx” in your browser and mail is a snap.  And yeah, fines for those who won’t abide.

Same thing for a lot of spyware - if I went and installed something on your car without asking you if you parked in the parking lot at my business, I’d be locked up and/or sued.  So why should some punk mofo install something on my system without so much as a “Mother May I” just because I land on his website?  We don’t even need a new law.  Just charge them as vandals.  It’s my property.  You altered it - trespassed - without asking me.  Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go….

This isn’t censorship.  This doesn’t stop people from having porn sites, it just tells them must clearly label them as such, so people who don’t want to see that crap can avoid it.

Tom Anger at Liberty Corner asks:

A question for hard-core libertarians: Should there be strictly enforced laws (with harsh penalties) against talking on a cell phone while driving? I say “yes.” If you disagree, tell me why. And don’t waste words on a diatribe against the existence of the state. Start with reality, and take it from there.

Now I usually agree with Tom - and Cell Phone users on the road piss me off to the point where I have been known to lay on my (REALY FUCKING LOUD) horn to insure they cannot hear if they are being dicks - but I am going to disagree, at least in part.

Such things should not be mandated, but the laws of consequence should apply. I’m against seat belt laws, but for insurance companies declining to pay for your injuries if you refuse to wear one, per their contract with you. Same thing with motorcycle helmets.

Cell Phones? The consequences are predictable. And cell phone LUDS are easy to check. So, if you have an accident while talking on one, it should be a rebuttable presumption the accident is your fault, and further, if injury or death results, you should be subject to criminal charges.

I used to regard it as similar to drunk driving, but there is a distinction that my thinking has led me to over the years. A drunk is always impaired; someone talking on a cell phone, or eating lunch, or changing the radio, or lighting a cigarette is merely distracted to a lesser or greater degree, depending on traffic and/or road conditions. There are ways to do these responsibly, and for those who practice such responsibility (And I’m not going to play “What if” on those ways, reasonable people know), the black-and-white “Verboten!” from on high is the nadir of the Nanny-State.

UPDATE and VOLLEY 8 a.m. 22APR06

Tom Replies at the above address; and I have to say that the external potential of injury is pursuasive if not compelling; I’m not sure that I’d want to lump in a blanket “All cell phone users” with the nail-polishing and Paper-reading bunch. Those things do take the eyes off the road totally, but not all cell phone users are created equal; and more importantly, I’m not sure I trust the government and their agents to always make a proper distinction, tho’ it may be unavoidable.  And mistrust of government motives is probably the biggest stumbling block for me.
Take drunk driving - there is a world of difference between the schmuck who ties one on and gets pulled over at .14 BAC, and the man who has a beer with his steak dinner and is at .014. The former is grossly irresponsible. Impairment in the latter case is negligible, if it exists at all. In my state one can still be arrested at the discretion of the officer, but it is a hard thing to prove.

Likewise there is the world of difference between the bubble-headed college girl who yaks away while whizzing down the highway, and the guy who’s conversation may last 15 seconds. Take myself for example; if my Girl Friday calls me up the conversation on my end is “Pete here … yo …I’m, driving, make it quick … three o’clock is cancelled? …okay … I’ll call you back in a bit ….bye.” If the traffic is bad, or road conditions are bad, I won’t even pick up at all. Placing a call while driving? Forget it. Won’t even do it at all.

Tom makes a distinction between hands on and hands free, and it’s probably a good one, but I’ve seen said airheads chattering away into headsets too. So drawing a line is not an easy task. The problem, as I see it, is those folks whose mind is on the conversation and are driving distracted, rather than those whose mind is on the road, and talking distracted, and I’m not sure headsets make a big difference; though the research tends to support a safer model of cell phone use, it still seems activist driven, which sets off some flags for me.

I have to admit, I tend to dig my heels in and resist in a kind of knee-jerk fashion when I hear something that smacks of zero-tolerance; in such cases correlation is insufficient for me, and I usually require someone to demonstrate causation instead before I am moved. And I’m almost there. It might just be that I need to get over that particular Libertarian mental block, but I don’t think so.

Where I’m still not - let me give an example. A couple years we had the “Click it or Ticket” seat belt push here, with the usual platitudes about saving lives, and all about beinfg safe, and it being all about how much they “care” about the citizens. Okay, good enough. Well, they wound up issuing very few tickets, even with checkpoints (ugh!). So what do we get? Whining and moaning that the blue-uniformed tax collectors didn’t write enough tickets and that there was dangers of budget shortfalls, because they were counting on that income!

Heh. So much for “We care about you!” Follow the money, and it’s cases like this that disgust me when it comes to law enforcement. One of the reasons many of us libertarian types are so suspicious of it is that the rhetoric and the reality tend to not square up.

That’s my last hurdle in this; and when push comes to shove, the potential of injury to an innocent may be the decider, however grudgingly I accept it. Like seat-belt laws, I’m all for “Buckle your minor child in” but scornful of forcing an adult to do so. If we do move in that direction, though, I’d like to see a little more distinction made before we start locking people up in the crowbar hotel.

It’s “Earth Day.”

Well, if that isn’t motivation for me to go cut down that tree I have been planning on doing for months, I don’t know what is.

UPDATE:  See, assbag, there are real conservationists - of which I am one, and know several others - and then there are environmentalist whacko posers, which fit most liberal asshats.  When you drive your SUV to the Earth Day rally, I’m not impressed

Another blow to your fantasyland of Make-believe; though I’m sure a couple of whiney titty-babies will pout and stomp their lil’ feet about it. It must just suck to have hard science make a hash of your ivory-tower, theoretical worldview.

Emotional Wiring Different in Men and Women

Men and women are actually from the same planet, but scientists now have the first strong evidence that the emotional wiring of the sexes is fundamentally different.An almond-shaped cluster of neurons that processes experiences such as fear and aggression hooks up to contrasting brain functions in men and women at rest, the new research shows.

For men, the cluster “talks with” brain regions that help them respond to sensors for what’s going on outside the body, such as the visual cortex and an area that coordinates motor actions.

For women, the cluster communicates with brain regions that help them respond to sensors inside the body, such as the insular cortexand hypothalamus. These areas tune in to and regulate women’s hormones, heart rate, blood pressure, digestion and respiration.

“Throughout evolution, women have had to deal with a number of internal stressors, such as childbirth, that men haven’t had to experience,” said study co-author Larry Cahill of the University of California, Irvine. “What is fascinating about this is the brain seems to have evolved to be in tune with those different stressors.”

The finding, published in the recent issue of the journal NeuroImage, could help researchers learn more about sex-related differences in anxiety, autism, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, phobias and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The new study focused on activity in the amygdala, a cluster of neurons found on both sides of the brain and involved for both sexes in hormone and other involuntary functions, as well as emotions and perception.

Cahill already knew that the sexes use different sides of their brains to process and store long-term memories, based on his earlier work. He also has shown that a particular drug, Propranolol, can block memory differently in men and women.

Cahill and his co-author, Lisa Kilpatrick, scanned the brains of 36 healthy men and 36 healthy women. The subjects were told to relax with their eyes closed during the scan, so that differences between the sexes could be studied at rest rather than during heavy lifting like accessing memories.

The scans also showed that men’s and women’s amygdalas are polar opposites in terms of connections with other parts of the brain. In men, the right amygdala is more active and shows more connections with other brain regions. In women, the same is true of the left amygdala.

Scientists still have to find out if one’s sex also affects the wiring of other regions of the brain. It could be that while men and women have basically the same hardware, it’s the software instructions and how they are put to use that makes the sexes seem different.

…Of the two men indicted, one, and maybe two have airtight alibis.

And if that is so, guess what that makes Crystal Gail Magnum, AKA Janette Rivers?

Yep.  A Liar.

Watch for this to get real ugly and real embarrassing soon.

This is hat tipped to Emperor Darth Misha I, of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

And just because it is so damn awesome, I am reposting it here, because it improves the property value of my cheap dive.

Todd Heisler The Rocky Mountain News
The night before the burial of her husband’s body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that reminded her of ‘Cat,’ and one of the Marines asked if she wanted them to continue standing watch as she slept. “I think it would be kind of nice if you kept doing it,” she said. “I think that’s what he would have wanted.”

This is what someone who is mourning a loved one does. Not go globetrotting and become a media attention whore, like certain unhinged moonbats who shall remain nameless but their initials are Cindy Sheehan. This is how you honor a memory. Pay tribute to a life, and grieve. And it makes me cry, dammit.

Look and be ashamed, Ms. Sheehan - you aren’t even a pimple on this woman’s ass.

They shall not grow old as

We that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them,

Nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun

And in the morning we

Will remember them.

– Lawrence Binyon.

But, I repeat myself.
This explanation strains credulity. Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified.

Nossir, what strains credulity is the sheer stupidity of the New York Times editorial board.  The president doesn’t even need a wand, unless you are using it as a metaphor for his pencil - or pen, as the case may be.

It’s idiots like you who are bound and determined to believe otherwise, in the face of any facts, that are going to cost the Democrats any chance to get a clear majority in both houses of Congress this fall.  How the fuck, again, did you rise to the position of editorialist for a newspaper with international circulation while being so deplorably STUPID?

…my local paper this AM, and they have an artricle in it how a school system in the Northern Part of the State are going to go to sex-segregated classes - even schools.  It discusses their proven track record of success, being good for both boys and girls, and other things.

Of course, part way through is the obligatory feminut snivelling about “more difference within genders then between them” and other bullshit, vowing to oppose this and fight it tooth and nail. (Read: Try to tie it up in litigation.)

Now, I’ve been round and round and round on feminist board after feminist board after feminist board, and when I’m presented with the argument by the Flat Earthe - er - “Gender as a Construct” loons, I have thrown out scientific study after study after bibliography out which demonstrates the physical and psychological dimorphism of the species.  As a result, I generally get labelled “hostile” if not told “Well, we will have to agree to disagree”..

…(And, for the record, when some chucklehead tells me “We are going to have to agree to disagree” the thing I hear is “Well, you’ve presented incontrovertible proof to the point where arguing my side further would make me look like the doctrinaire idiot I am, but since this is an article of faith with me, and changing my position would shatter the foundation I’ve built my private little world on; and since I will therefore NOT change my mind, I’m going to terminate the discussion.  So there.” )

..But this really seems to be a panic point for these pains in the ass.

Now let me see - Feminists are AGAINST seperating the sexes even when it is shown to be good for them, and are AGAINST integrated schools where boys outperform girls, and AGAINST programs to improve male participation and improve performance, but FOR a status quo where icky boys are drugged into zombitude and where the girls outperform them……Hmmmmmm.

Yeah.  Tells me ALL I need to know.

No, I don’t think he should be sentenced to death.

Not because I feel sorry for him.  And not even because I oppose capital punishment.

I want him in a Supermax, somewhere, spending the rest of his life in glorified solitary confinement, and fading into obscurity rather than becoming a martyr.  If any appeals are done for him, on his dime or with an underfunded PD, or on the dime of some bleeding heart assbag or a group doing it pro-bono, rather than on the taxpayer’s dime.

I want him to rot, and be buried in a prison grave marked only by a number.

Death is too easy for him.  And he is doing his best, it seems to try to get a needle.

I say, if for that reason alone, no.  Klingon justice.  Why, might ask Moussaoui?

“Because you wish it.”

Presented without comment.

Required reading for the class.  Go.  Now.

Chilling.

So a reasonable response:

Why am I so foaming at the mouth pissed off about illegal aliens?

I used to - up until the beginning of this year - volunteer with a literacy program at the jail.  More and more it is becoming full of illiterate, “Fuck you, Gringo, I won’t learn English, But YOU will learn Spanish after we take over” illegal aliens.

I will NOT attempt to teach those who will not attempt to learn.  Period.  Now our noodlespined county commisars - under the influence of the “Counsel for Fuckwidget Illegal Assholes,” doesn’t find that acceptable.  So, I told them to go pound sand in their ass, and I’m helping to tutor the paroled and those on probation - whom I can pick and choose over - and the dickwads are trying to scotch that.

It’s estimated that illegals are less than 1% of the county.  Well, they are easily 15% of the criminals.  And I had a few of them move into a neighborhood I was living at a few years ago, and start their “Latin Mafia” crap.  While it spurred me to move to Stately Gonzo Manor, complete with Gonz-Cave - well, we’ll just say that it didn’t end real well for them either, and leave it there.   I don’t do intimidation well.  Gonzo never really learned to play nice with the other children when it came to that game.

Something a lot of people missed - what happened this past weekend?  Anyone?  Yes, you - in the Concert T-Shirt with the cigarette:  Mmmmm.  Demonstrations.  Yeah, but what was their significance?  Yes, “Orchestrated” is a good word.  And this orchestration showed….?

Young lady in the bathrobe; yes you, speak up - don’t be shy.  They are organized.  Ahhhh.  Very good.

Orchestrated and organized “demonstrations” on a massive scale.  What does this tell you?  Yes, O bearded one in the back…YES!  That’s the first.  These “migrations” are directed is an excellent observation.  You - wire glasses….

Bingo.

They can do this again, and they can be less peaceful the next time.  Exactamundo.  This last go-round with the marches was nothing less than a threat.

Do as we want, or watch your cities burn.

Now, I don’t know about you - but I am cleaning and oiling the guns, and stocking up on ammo.  And *IF* I had full auto kits, I might be reviewing the instructions on them, and removing the modifications to clips which tend to limit the rounds that can go in there.  Just in case people might think that what works in Paris works in the US of A.

You think about it.

And so bad I can’t speak of it without spitting.

If you are here without proper papers and through the proper channels, you are illegal.  Illegitimate.  And a criminal.

Period.  Getting shoe leather plastered on your ass cheeks as you are sent back is the least of what you deserve.

It didn’t escape my notice that the Mexican flags were absent as a PR move.  Not out of any great conviction or love for America.  If you still consider yourself “Mexican,” then stay the fuck home.  Period.  If your country is a 3rd world shithole - your problem - vote out the bastards.

I’m not ready yet to advocate a bounty.  But don’t bring a civil complaint where I am a juror - I’ll find for the other guy because you are illegal.  Don’t come as a defendant either - I’ll find against you, and I’ll release any American charged with a crime against you.  And don’t expect me to be anything but a witness against you.  At best, I won’t see anything, or won’t want to get involved.  At worst - I’ll lie to see you get the shaft.  You need a message sent to you:
You are NOT welcome here.  I’ll neither hire or serve you.
Go home.

A legal immigrant is an immigrant.  You are a criminal.

Washington:  Are you listening?