Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police.

1/22/2005

MERDRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every right-winger's masturbation fantasy, Libertarian Girl, offers her thoughts on dada:
Dadaism and modern art are leftist movements based on the left's hatred of achievement and Western culture.

So dada held a mirror up to the world, and the world was repulsed by what they saw, and we who held the mirror were called disgusting; we who held the mirror were scorned for creating such ugliness!

Libertarian girl says we hate the achievements of Western culture, examples of which include:

  • a war that ended all wars


  • a surge in patriotism




  • another war after the one that ended all wars





  • various social advancements




and many, many others in which Libertarian Girl and her comrades take such pride.


*************


What was the Enlightenment? The awakening of man's inner light of reason? A lie? A delusion? A fig leaf to cover the true base nature of humanity?

The twentieth century had its answer, as did dada.

Fuck Off Gay Patriot!

Blogger Gay Patriot rants about a protester at Bush's inauguration who brandished a sign reading "FUCK OFF BUSH", who he claims is a symbol of "the inexcusable ignorance and hatred of the angry left":
DATELINE -- (Washington, DC, January 20, 2005) The picture below was taken last night on the corner of 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue at about 5:30PM. The man was standing alone on the empty and barricaded 14th Street and was shouting at passers-by headed to Inaugural parties. A couple people, including a woman, walked out into the street and were talking with him as he paraded his sign. Two men walking down the sidewalk seen in the background of the photo made a comment (not in an angry or loud voice) at the man.

The man suddenly became enraged and started lunging at them and trying to hit them with his big sign made of wood. The woman who was close to him reached out and said something like "don't do this." The Angry Ignorant Sign Man took a swing at the woman and she fell to the ground.

....

So, the moral of the story? What exactly did this Angry Bush-hating Man set out to accomplish? Because I'm at a total loss as to the purpose. The words on his sign alone, much less his actions, were enough to spark violence. Had there been a larger crowd, I think things would have gotten out of hand. All this man had to offer was hate, anger, an vitriol. No ideas on what he is for or what he is against. And surely no "Red Stater" was going to think... "gee, he's right, now don't I feel stupid."

....

But I can tell you what he is. A symbol of the soul of Democratic Party of 2005. They do not know how to fight a War on Terror. They do not know how to handle the fact that they are on the wrong side of freedom. So they have turned that confusion into hatred and ignorance -- the only thing they have shown they are capable of being "for."

This is where we are, friends. Having been driven to the brink of insanity by the actions of the Bush administration and the legions of de facto fascists whose support they rely on, they --the ones who have done this to us-- are blaming us for acting out from desperation and confusion.

What did the Angry Bush-Hating Man set out to accomplish? Who knows? Perhaps he doesn't even know. Since when did a clear idea of what one is setting out to accomplish become a prerequisite for acting? Should Angry Bush-Hating Man have just stayed home and sat on the couch? Isn't some action better than none in these desperate times?

Is there something wrong with Angry Bush-Hating Man expressing his "hate, anger, and vitriol" at an administration that has been doing its best over the last four years to plunge the world into an abyss of fear and insanity?

We've tried being sane, calm, rational, and it hasn't worked; the forces of paranoia and hatred have won out. And now you criticize us for being on the verge of madness? You have pushed us there.

A commenter on GP's blog says:

This guy sounds like a fringe nutcase - not representing anyone except himself.

Always remember: in a world dominated by absurdity, the sane person will always be scorned as a madman. Angry Bush-Hating Man may represent only himself, but I for one commend him for this. All of us, ultimately, represent only ourselves. I, Angry Bush-Hating Man, and many others, find in ourselves a horror at the fact that so many feel no similar horror.

What, Gay Patriot, is the proper way of expressing this?

FUCK OFF GAY PATRIOT!

FUCK OFF BUSH!

Dadahead has spoken.

1/20/2005

Flag shenanigans

David takes issue with my use of an upside-down flag icon:

Sigh. Not that it matters to you one iota, but I am forced to delink you for this insulting flag post.

I served my country for too long to see ignorant people use our symbol of liberty to show displeasure with the legitimate election of a President. It only tells me you have no idea what REAL distress is.

It is your right to do so, of course, but just because one has the right to do something does not mean one should do it


Was the use of an upside-down flag image insulting? I assume that everyone knows by now that turning the flag upside down is supposed to be a symbol of distress or state of emergency (at first I wasn't sure whether this was actually the tradition or whether it was something of an urban myth; the best I can tell, it is in fact true. If anyone knows anything different, please let me know). I also assume that David's use of the word "distress" in his comment indicates that he also knows the meaning behind the image.

I understand that some might disagree over whether or not the inauguration of George W. Bush is a reason for extreme distress. But I'm a little unclear as to why the use of the upside-down flag symbol to express this distress is supposed to be insulting or offensive, since this is a legitimate use of the flag. You might disagree with me over the factual claim that another four years of GWB is a reason to be distressed, but why take offensive at this particular mode of expressing it?

I understand that many find it offensive when someone burns or otherwise desecrates an American flag. But the message of that act is completely different than that of mine. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I completely wrongheaded here?


Let's re-fight the civil war!

More illogic from favorite target of mine Libertarian Girl. Using Bush's reference in his speech today to Abe Lincoln as a jumping-off point to make some bizarre comparison between the days of the Civil War and the present, ahem, "situation" in Iraq, she makes the following comment:
In 1865, Lincoln addressed only half the nation, which was fighting a war against the other half. The purpose of the war was to free the slaves. (Despite what hate-America leftists say, the Civil War was about slavery.) Abraham Lincoln's message was to stay the course because we were doing the right thing.

God only knows what the fuck she is talking about here. I doubt she even does. What "hate-America leftists" (incidentally, anyone who uses that phrase should be shot) claim the civil war wasn't about slavery? Last time I checked, it was batshit-crazy un-Reconstructed Southerners who make that claim. You know the type -- they call the civil war "the war of Northern aggression" and still distrust anyone who hails from somewhere north of Virginia.

One of Libertarian Girl's readers who goes by the handle "Old Blind Dog" also takes issue with her statement about leftists who think the Civil War wasn't about slavery, albeit from a significantly different perspective than my own:

Slavery was nothing but a pretext for war and an effort by the North to villify the South. The actual cause for the war was states rights.

Well, okay ... it was about the states' right to engage in slavery, right? You'll have to pardon me for being wary of arguments about "states' rights"; in my experience, 9 times out of 10 when someone uses the phrase "states' rights" they are in the middle of saying something hideously racist. (The other 1 out of 10 they are advocating the criminalization of abortion.)

Many Southerners seem to be in denial about the history of racism in the South. Neo-Confederates (and I don't know whether Blind Dog is one of them) will swear up and down that the reason they want the Stars 'n' Bars flying over the state capitol or whatever isn't racism; it's their pride in Southern heritage.

Guess what?

The South's heritage is racism.

Old Blind Dog, on his blog, makes the point that the South by no means had a monopoly on slavery and racism, and he's right. But the reason people associate the South with racism and slavery isn't because of the Civil War: it's because both of these institutions remained in place well into the twentieth century. Jim Crow laws and the lack of any meaningful civil rights for blacks in the South meant a kind of de facto slavery was in effect there until possibly the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The fact that a group of white men could beat Emmitt Till to death without facing any legal consequences attests to that. This is the heritage you wish to celebrate??

It is beyond me how anyone takes any "pride" in the shameful history of the American South.

Damn perverted cartoon characters

Why does Spongebob hate America?

Inauguration Day



1/19/2005

More insanity from a libertarian

This time it's not "Libertarian Girl" --a.k.a. the Jessica Simpson of the blogosphere-- but the illustrious Instapundit, who is up to his usual tricks. Writing about the Condi Rice hearings, he says
of the Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee, only John Kerry and Barbara Boxer voted against Condi Rice. And Kerry's embarrassing performance during the hearings certainly puts him in a class with Boxer.
So, asking a few tough questions of somone whose incompetency has contributed to countless deaths and immeasurable misery, and then refusing to sanction that incompetency by casting a vote to confirm that person, is what Instawanker thinks of as "embarrassing"? I wish we had more politicians who were willing to "embarass" themselves in this manner.

He goes on:
I agree with Kos: He would have been an "unmitigated disaster" as President. I hope the Democrats do better in 2008, because it would be bad for the country -- and, ultimately, the Republicans -- if they became as marginalized as the Tories have in Britain. And performances like this make me wonder if that's not in the cards.
Here Instafuckface pulls one of his favorite tricks: quoting completely out of context. Here is the Kos post which he is referring to:
Of course, there's a silver lining to all of this. A Kerry presidency would've been an unmitigated disaster, with a hostile congress, budget woes, the mess in Iraq, etc. Not a good time to be in charge. Those Supreme Court seats would've been nice (whoever we would've been able to push through a hostile Senate), but we've got an opportunity for long-term gain.
Basically, Kos is saying that a Kerry presidency would be a disaster because Republicans have made such a mess of things. Kos does have some nasty (and unfair) things to say about Kerry, but to represent this post as primarily a denunciation of Kerry is way off the mark.

Is dadahead a misogynist?

Regarding my earlier post on Peggy Noonan, Stacy writes:
There are so many ways (and reasons) to bash on Peggy Noonan (and LG, for that matter, though she is far, far less important). Stooping to calling someone a cunt is not only intellectually evasive (it tells me nothing about why you revile her), but its abuses something that she can't change and has no control over - her gender - instead of focusing on what she can do.

The post was supposed to be about someone else thinking with his penis, but your post made it seem like that someone was you.
Point taken. I in no way intended my remarks to be a slam on Ms. Noonan's gender.

When I use the word "cunt", I generally do not do so with someone's gender in mind. I often refer to men as cunts as well. In fact, here is a list of male cunts:

Bill O'Reilly
Instapundit
Salvador Dali
Antonin Scalia
Jonathan Safran Foer
Christopher Hitchens

and possibly:

Ann Coulter (gender status undetermined)

(note: list is decidedly not comprehensive.)

However, Stacy makes a very good point. I do not in any way wish to be associated with those who would relegate women to the status of second-class citizen. Thus in the future I will make it a point to avoid the kind of language that might give that impression, and apologize to all who were offended.

Right-wing blogger lets his penis do the thinking

Okay, now this is just disturbing:
You've just got to love Peggy Noonan, she's bright, attractive, and charming. I particularly enjoy watching her with Alan Colmes, who wilts before her, like a fourteen year old trying to impress a college cheerleader.
Now, this wretched cunt known as "Peggy Noonan" is quite possible the most insufferable human being on the planet. She is about as "charming" as a hemorrhoid. And as for being "attractive" ... I'll let you be the judge. Here's a picture of Peggy:





All I'll say is if you find that attractive, you are one sick puppy.

1/18/2005

The state of the blogosphere

First of all, my apologies for using the word "blogosphere".

I have noticed that not all bloggers represent the non-deranged portion of humanity, a.k.a. the reality-based community. This goes for bloggers prominent and not so prominent.

Recently I stumbled upon a blog by someone who calls herself "Libertarian Girl" that is a prime example of the out-of-touch-with-reality contingent. For example, contemplating the new SAT essays, she makes the following idiotic statement:
The wonderful thing about the SAT is how accurately it measures a person's ability
I made this point in her comments section, but it is worth making again. The SAT measures nothing except for how well one does on the SAT. If you find that particular measurement useful, so be it. But let us not pretend that the SAT is actually a measure of "intelligence". There is no such thing as a measurable trait called "intelligence" that can be measured by any tests, including the SAT and the IQ.

Another commenter, responded:
There's actually tons of evidence that such a thing as general intelligence exists. Look up "g theory".
WRONG. So-called g theory is now all but completely discredited. No one has ever been able to specify what exactly the supposed "g factor" actually is, and have just asserted that it is whatever is measured by IQ tests.

No respectable cognitive psychologist makes the claim that he or she has discovered some trait called "intelligence" in the human mind-brain that can be measured via standardized test.

The search for the g factor is in fact hopeless, because the word/concept "intelligence" is not a scientific concept or term, but an everyday / ordinary-language one. There is no more reason to invoke the concept of intelligence in science than there is to invoke the concept of love, or communication, or desire.

Dada head


This is dada head, a.k.a. mechanical head, a.k.a. wooden head.

1/17/2005

Danger!


Watch out for dadahead!

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Sanity is not statistical.