Dear Schmeat,
As I sat alone on a Friday night, in my tiny hermit cave of an apartment, nestled snugly in the heart of Bed-Stuy, the stink of gentrification and whiskey wafting through the air all around me, Foreigner's Waiting for a Girl Like You playing on the Pandora, I couldn't help but wonder what you've been doing with yourself since we last spoke.
It's been awhile, I know, and I understand if you're not immediately receptive to my correspondence, but I think that in time you'll find that our break was for the best. I mean, lets face it, when we started this we had big plans. We were going to take the blogosphere by storm, and for awhile, it looked like we might just do it. Back then, when I was still a wide eyed and fresh faced, blogger, inspired by little more than spite and petty jealousy toward my friend Chad's girlfriend, simply because mentions of me in her own blog were not proportionate to my self-purported importance in both of their lives.
But somehow, somewhere we lost our way. My blogs were supposed to be about important things like how wrong other people are, or how right I am. Issues people could not only relate to, but learn from, like how I expect nothing more from my gay friends than to offer up their female friends to me for shallow, commitment free sex. (Though I now realize that's what my married female friends are for) By the end, though, I was blogging about spelling mistakes, Spelling Mistakes!! How did it all go so wrong?
But I'm not looking backward Schmeat. I'm looking forward. It's been a strange and confusing first half of the thirtieth year of my life, and while I haven't spent nearly as much time around people as I have in other years, due in no small part to my own caustic personality, the human interactions I did have really pissed me off. I've found myself more full of angst and unreasonable opinions than I have in a long time.
That, Schmeat, is why I've decided to rededicate myself to this crazy little expirement we launched together, if you'll have me back that is. I know I don't have much to offer, just my limited intellect, relatively meager vocabulary, and a writing style that defines the word verbose, but what I lack in actual talent or skill, I make up for in overcompensation, an unfounded sense of superiority, and a seeming inability to recognize when I am absolutely, without a doubt wrong.
So what do you say Schmeat? Do you want to give this another shot? I know the road ahead will be rocky, and I'm certain I'll disappoint you, over and over and over again, but I sure as hell will try (as much as I am capable of trying given my debilitating laziness) Together, we can once again brighten the lives of upwards of two people, and that is all one can really ask for....when they lack any desernable aptitude.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Monday, March 2, 2009
A Werd Or Too On Spalling Miztakes
Dear Schmeat -
Let me make this brief, for fear that if I become overly wordy I'll make some irreparable spelling errors that Blogspot's spellcheck won't catch, thus saddling me with a sense of shame that I try to reserve for those rare times when I misspeak in public, and leaving my otherwise pithy, brilliant blogs riddled with more errors than were otherwise intended.
It seems to me that the spellcheck on here is not completely accurate, and I am beginning to have a sneaking suspicion that there are only three plausible reasons why a word misspelled in my blog would go unencumbered with an undulating red line.
The reason matters not. What is important is that I am onto your scheme spellcheck, and let me forewarn you. Only one man has the power to completely humiliate me in an all-too-public arena like the World Wide Web, and that man is me. (The definition of man being used here is a loose interpretation, roughly akin to "adolescent over the age of 18")
Let me make this brief, for fear that if I become overly wordy I'll make some irreparable spelling errors that Blogspot's spellcheck won't catch, thus saddling me with a sense of shame that I try to reserve for those rare times when I misspeak in public, and leaving my otherwise pithy, brilliant blogs riddled with more errors than were otherwise intended.
It seems to me that the spellcheck on here is not completely accurate, and I am beginning to have a sneaking suspicion that there are only three plausible reasons why a word misspelled in my blog would go unencumbered with an undulating red line.
- The spellchecker is making a conscious effort make me look like a fool in front of the potential millions of readers (or the actual two) by leaving my errors unattended or..
- The spellchecker, itself, has such a poor grasp of prose that it cannot even manage even the most elementary guess at the spelling of some words I find at Thesaurus.com
The reason matters not. What is important is that I am onto your scheme spellcheck, and let me forewarn you. Only one man has the power to completely humiliate me in an all-too-public arena like the World Wide Web, and that man is me. (The definition of man being used here is a loose interpretation, roughly akin to "adolescent over the age of 18")
Human Relationships Are Just An Exercise in Lying
Dear Schmeat -
As you know, I consider most human relationships to be an unfortunate side effect of being alive, and, sadly, since I don't intend to stop living, I am unable to unsaddle myself of the accompanying relationships. This being the case, I think it is important that I get something off my chest about relationships, in hopes that, if reparations can be made, it might ease the burden that human interaction has on me, and other, self-styled misanthropes like me.
You see, Schmeat, it makes me feel bad that other people hate themselves so much that they choose to hide the person they are from everyone they meet. Why is it that people feel the need to disguise who they are from newly acquired pieces to their FriendChart collection?
I don't like to feel bad Schmeat, nor do I like to lie about my true nature, the attractive qualities of which are, admittedly difficult to pinpoint. It pains me deeply, for, like the Steinbeck character Doc, from the lighthearted novel Cannery Row, I prize Honesty above all else (when I am in the process of discussing honesty, mostly when it pertains to others, or my better qualities)
I think it is reproachful that, as human beings, unique, and beautiful (to one degree or another) we should feel it necessary to put on airs, to cloak our true selves in the tattered shroud of pretense, for fear that we might offend the delicate sensibilities of some unfamiliar onlooker with the sheer audacity of our person.
It should be as the noted American thinker,Ralph Waldo Emerson put it. You should "...speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense..." for who could find fault in one's bold proclamation of self. Only admiration could follow an admition to being a proud individual, unafraid to show the world their truth, in all its naked arrogance.
That is, unless, like me, you are considered by most to be a complete, and total asshole. Then people tend to be less admiring, than they are completely put off. But, what can I say Schmeat? That's who I am. I don't want to have to candy coat myself.
I have worked tirelessly to contrive such an obviously pretentious, euphuistic, overambitious concealment for the markedly crippling insecurities I've amassed from years of critical commentary, both external and in. Its like asking Michelangelo to put the Mona Lisa in the closet when he has company over.
All I'm saying, Schmeat, is that if someone wants to be openly caustic, and overly familiar with people he's only just met, he should be revered, not reviled. It takes a lot of courage in this pussified, overly affable society of ours to like yourself enough to impose your personality on a crowd of total strangers.
Its a personal choice that each one of us has to make; do we compromise ourselves, and all that we are by spinelessly abandoning our unique singularity in favor of a more urbane, and palatable banality, or do we embrace our uncouth, incompatibility with those around us?
Some things I know that might not have been apparent whilst reading this blog:
I really DO wish he had kept his unique singularity to himself when it came time to talk about ethnic cleansing
As you know, I consider most human relationships to be an unfortunate side effect of being alive, and, sadly, since I don't intend to stop living, I am unable to unsaddle myself of the accompanying relationships. This being the case, I think it is important that I get something off my chest about relationships, in hopes that, if reparations can be made, it might ease the burden that human interaction has on me, and other, self-styled misanthropes like me.
You see, Schmeat, it makes me feel bad that other people hate themselves so much that they choose to hide the person they are from everyone they meet. Why is it that people feel the need to disguise who they are from newly acquired pieces to their FriendChart collection?
I don't like to feel bad Schmeat, nor do I like to lie about my true nature, the attractive qualities of which are, admittedly difficult to pinpoint. It pains me deeply, for, like the Steinbeck character Doc, from the lighthearted novel Cannery Row, I prize Honesty above all else (when I am in the process of discussing honesty, mostly when it pertains to others, or my better qualities)
I think it is reproachful that, as human beings, unique, and beautiful (to one degree or another) we should feel it necessary to put on airs, to cloak our true selves in the tattered shroud of pretense, for fear that we might offend the delicate sensibilities of some unfamiliar onlooker with the sheer audacity of our person.
It should be as the noted American thinker,Ralph Waldo Emerson put it. You should "...speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense..." for who could find fault in one's bold proclamation of self. Only admiration could follow an admition to being a proud individual, unafraid to show the world their truth, in all its naked arrogance.
That is, unless, like me, you are considered by most to be a complete, and total asshole. Then people tend to be less admiring, than they are completely put off. But, what can I say Schmeat? That's who I am. I don't want to have to candy coat myself.
I have worked tirelessly to contrive such an obviously pretentious, euphuistic, overambitious concealment for the markedly crippling insecurities I've amassed from years of critical commentary, both external and in. Its like asking Michelangelo to put the Mona Lisa in the closet when he has company over.
All I'm saying, Schmeat, is that if someone wants to be openly caustic, and overly familiar with people he's only just met, he should be revered, not reviled. It takes a lot of courage in this pussified, overly affable society of ours to like yourself enough to impose your personality on a crowd of total strangers.
Its a personal choice that each one of us has to make; do we compromise ourselves, and all that we are by spinelessly abandoning our unique singularity in favor of a more urbane, and palatable banality, or do we embrace our uncouth, incompatibility with those around us?
Some things I know that might not have been apparent whilst reading this blog:
- Ralph Waldo Emerson did, admittedly, take an advisory role on Native American extermination, which is unfortunate, for his legacy, my reverence toward his (non-genocidal)philosophies...and, of course, Native Americans, so quoting him is pretty dubious
- Of Course, Michelangelo would probably gladly put the Mona Lisa in the closet, since he didn't actually paint it. Although, he'd have some trouble fitting it in there with himself and all his "artist" buddies...know what I mean?
- I mean he was a homosexual, but couldn't be open about it because of the amount of work he was getting from the Catholic church...catch my drift?
- My drift is that the Church wasn't always as tolerant toward homosexuals as it is today...and yes I mean tolerant in as literal a sense as possible.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
It's not all sarcasm
Dear Schmeat -
Have you ever made a clever observation about the state of the world, commonly known as an aphorism, only to be afterward described by a family member, friend, co-worker, or anonymous passerby as "sarcastic"?
It's frustrating; isn't it, to be told something you know to be patently inaccurate, and have to accept, in silence, this counter factual observation, for fear of making an actually sarcastic remark correcting the aforementioned family member, friend, co-worker, or anonymous passerby?
Knowing you, Schmeat, I'm probably preaching to the choir. You know as well as I do that just because a cleverly worded quip is rife with irony, maybe even peppered with some satire, it isn't necessarily sarcasm. It might just be facetious,dry, flip, or even salty, and irreverent.
In many cases, when the intent is simply to amuse, rather than wound, the remark might be better described as farcical, jocular, jocose, indecorous, gay, or, dare I say it, queer.
More often than not, Schmeat, it has been my personal experience that any attempt at irony is seen immediately as sarcasm. It upsets me on many levels. For one it reveals either an ignorance, or a lack of attention to detail on the part of the recipient of my finely crafted mirth.
Secondly, subordanate to the first issue, is the fact that if my gift of kittenish, fanciful bon mot isn't fully understood for what it is, the stipendiary of said monkeyshine cannot fully appreciate the blithe, and sportive allowance of baffoonery that's been bestowed upon them above all others. Nor can they delight in the riotous, rowdy laughter that accompanies such snappy, waggish tomfoolery.
I just wish that people understood the importance of accurately categorizing humor. It makes all the difference in the world. I mean, if you don't know the difference between humor subcategories, you'll run the risk of telling a sprightly shaggy-dog at a funeral, when anyone with any common sense can tell you that the only whimsy appropriate for such a somber occasion is a quaint, and jaunty mummery.
It all comes down to a problem with education. Most Americans have been brought up in traditional, monohumorous households that still adhere to the outdated, paternalistic belief system that says there is one true humor, under which all frivolous quips, punning one-liners, and gelastic yarns fall, and there is no room for the audaciousness of an orderisory chestnut.
That's why its so important to make investments in public education, as well as in our situational, sketch, and improvisational comedy programs. Also, the masterful navigation of online thesauri is helpful.
It is only through, education, and awareness that Americans can truly be free to appreciate the difference between a bubbly, gamesome, gagged up, campy raillery and a wry, witty, spirited shenanigan.
He's enjoying a fanciful larf
Have you ever made a clever observation about the state of the world, commonly known as an aphorism, only to be afterward described by a family member, friend, co-worker, or anonymous passerby as "sarcastic"?
It's frustrating; isn't it, to be told something you know to be patently inaccurate, and have to accept, in silence, this counter factual observation, for fear of making an actually sarcastic remark correcting the aforementioned family member, friend, co-worker, or anonymous passerby?
Knowing you, Schmeat, I'm probably preaching to the choir. You know as well as I do that just because a cleverly worded quip is rife with irony, maybe even peppered with some satire, it isn't necessarily sarcasm. It might just be facetious,dry, flip, or even salty, and irreverent.
In many cases, when the intent is simply to amuse, rather than wound, the remark might be better described as farcical, jocular, jocose, indecorous, gay, or, dare I say it, queer.
More often than not, Schmeat, it has been my personal experience that any attempt at irony is seen immediately as sarcasm. It upsets me on many levels. For one it reveals either an ignorance, or a lack of attention to detail on the part of the recipient of my finely crafted mirth.
Secondly, subordanate to the first issue, is the fact that if my gift of kittenish, fanciful bon mot isn't fully understood for what it is, the stipendiary of said monkeyshine cannot fully appreciate the blithe, and sportive allowance of baffoonery that's been bestowed upon them above all others. Nor can they delight in the riotous, rowdy laughter that accompanies such snappy, waggish tomfoolery.
I just wish that people understood the importance of accurately categorizing humor. It makes all the difference in the world. I mean, if you don't know the difference between humor subcategories, you'll run the risk of telling a sprightly shaggy-dog at a funeral, when anyone with any common sense can tell you that the only whimsy appropriate for such a somber occasion is a quaint, and jaunty mummery.
It all comes down to a problem with education. Most Americans have been brought up in traditional, monohumorous households that still adhere to the outdated, paternalistic belief system that says there is one true humor, under which all frivolous quips, punning one-liners, and gelastic yarns fall, and there is no room for the audaciousness of an orderisory chestnut.
That's why its so important to make investments in public education, as well as in our situational, sketch, and improvisational comedy programs. Also, the masterful navigation of online thesauri is helpful.
It is only through, education, and awareness that Americans can truly be free to appreciate the difference between a bubbly, gamesome, gagged up, campy raillery and a wry, witty, spirited shenanigan.
He's enjoying a fanciful larf
| |
Monday, February 9, 2009
Libertarians......are whack jobs....it's okay for me to say that....I googled it and it checked out Part II
Dear Schmeat -
Having previously established the Libertarian views I find most objectionable, I think it's best that I just move straight into analyzing the many flaws in their thinking, so that they can get straight to work correcting themselves.
You see, Schmeat, Libertarian "thinking" seems to fall into three large categories, which are as follows:
All of which fall under the larger umbrella of what I like to call "Ludicrous". Now that I have established a framework for classifying Libertarian views, let me walk you through where each of the major points of their platform falls. Let's begin with those odious views that fall under the category of "Unrealistic"
Unrealistic Views:
The Libertarian party believes that its platform is designed to guarantee the freedom and individual liberties of all Americans by having us swallow a concoction of emaciated government and uninhibited free markets.
They make the claim that free markets not only govern themselves best, but that, somehow, they are also the best steward of the common good, and that, if left alone, they will regulate themselves, and provide for the interests of the masses out of economic self-interest. Thus, all basic social services now provided by our bloated federal and state governments, including, but not limited to education and health care, would be provided by the private sector, and what's more, they will all function with superior efficiency.
Why, Schmeat, is this unrealistic?
As seen time and again, money speaks for money. Free markets exist for one purpose; Profit. Private industry has little, and in most cases no financial incentive to provide for the common good. As seen, time and time again, throughout history, and as recently as right now, private industry is all to willing to sacrifice the good of the many for the momentary gains of the few. While it is almost certain that some rudimentary services in the way of education and health care might be provided just to guarantee a functioning work force, it is unlikely that it would compare with the quality, or scope of our, admittedly flawed, public systems.
Misinformed Views:
Libertarians (ship jumper Ron Paul included) regularly attempt to tie their views to some historical precedent, hearkening back to a time when our government was less overbearing, obtrusive, and omnipresent. Libertarians, and Republicans, are oft heard to be the Constitutional party, whose sole ambition in life seems to be to return us to the noble principles laid out by our fore bearers in the Constitution.
Unfortunately they have little understanding of many of the basic facts of U.S. History, let alone a perspective on that history that would allow them to draw comparisons between seemingly nebulous events.
Let's review just a few topics on which the run of the mill Libertarian is in need of a history lesson:
Education: Libertarians believe that education should be provided by private industry and that government should not dictate what is taught in schools. Public education is not a privilege, it is an absolute necessity to have a functioning republic. Our founders provided for public education when creating the Northwest Territory under the Articles of Confederation. This should be proof enough that they felt that government should provide at least basic education. Additionally, the quality of education that would be provided in an all private system is dubious at best. The fact is that our current public system cannot turn anyone away. An all private system would provide quality education to those who fit the mold and could afford it. It would provide an "education" to everyone else.
Taxes: Libertarians propose an end to our federal income tax, claiming that it did not exist before the early 20th century. They are correct in that fact. Unfortunately, when they suggest that we amputate that revenue stream, they fail to suggest a reasonable replacement for it other than fiscal responsibility. They seem to want Americans to believe that prior to the income tax, spending was less and that the government wasn't taking in that money from another source. In fact, the income tax was actually created as a means of boosting the Libertarian's precious free markets. Our economy had been hamstrung by protectionist tariffs, which the U.S. government used to fund its federal programs. The removal of these tariffs provided a boost to our economy, but left a gap in out federal budget. This gap was filled by our income tax.
Free Market Altruism: Libertarians believe free markets to be the answer to most, if not all, of the world's problems, naively trusting private industry to have the best interest of the nation at heart, if only because it is "good for business". This, again, has been proven wrong numerous times throughout our short history. Even if we disregard the current financial shit storm, caused in a large part by greed, shortsightedness, and lack of oversight, our history is rife with examples of private industry's shortcomings. One need only open a high school history book to the chapter on the Progressive Era or the Industrial Revolution to see that private industry fought tooth and nail for the ability to keep wages low, conditions unsafe, and workers impoverished. It took intervention by government to force upon private industry what it would not do itself. It is a fact that much of what private sector workers consider standard practice such as a forty hour work week, health insurance, retirement, 8 hour work day, worker's compensation, unemployment, maternity leave, equality in the workplace for women and minorities, etc etc.....are ALL the result of victories won by workers Unions and enforced by legislation.
UnAmerican Views:
How, you might ask, are the Libertarian's views UnAmerican? Well, Schmeat, it goes without saying that an educated, healthy population benefits from government protection and intervention. To unilaterally eliminate public services only serves the wealthy and well connected. Libertarians are a party of relative affluence, blind to the fact that not all Americans are born into opportunity. In a nation where all men are created equal, they should be given the opportunity for equal footing, an even starting line, and in a nation where the government exists to "provide for the common defense", the government should and must defend against threats both foreign and domestic, and there have been few domestic threats in our history more destructive than an unrestrained free market.
Schmeat, I hope you've enjoyed this two day marathon of venom and misanthrope. I've certainly enjoyed penning it, but don't get to used to it. Schmeat on Schmeat is a forum for lighthearted sarcasm and tomfoolery. It isn't the proper venue for me to spew my totally awesome political commentary on a regular basis. Next blog you can look forward to the kind of ignorant, self-centered diatribe you've come to know and love.
Having previously established the Libertarian views I find most objectionable, I think it's best that I just move straight into analyzing the many flaws in their thinking, so that they can get straight to work correcting themselves.
You see, Schmeat, Libertarian "thinking" seems to fall into three large categories, which are as follows:
- Unrealistic
- Misinformed
- UnAmerican
All of which fall under the larger umbrella of what I like to call "Ludicrous". Now that I have established a framework for classifying Libertarian views, let me walk you through where each of the major points of their platform falls. Let's begin with those odious views that fall under the category of "Unrealistic"
Unrealistic Views:
The Libertarian party believes that its platform is designed to guarantee the freedom and individual liberties of all Americans by having us swallow a concoction of emaciated government and uninhibited free markets.
They make the claim that free markets not only govern themselves best, but that, somehow, they are also the best steward of the common good, and that, if left alone, they will regulate themselves, and provide for the interests of the masses out of economic self-interest. Thus, all basic social services now provided by our bloated federal and state governments, including, but not limited to education and health care, would be provided by the private sector, and what's more, they will all function with superior efficiency.
Why, Schmeat, is this unrealistic?
As seen time and again, money speaks for money. Free markets exist for one purpose; Profit. Private industry has little, and in most cases no financial incentive to provide for the common good. As seen, time and time again, throughout history, and as recently as right now, private industry is all to willing to sacrifice the good of the many for the momentary gains of the few. While it is almost certain that some rudimentary services in the way of education and health care might be provided just to guarantee a functioning work force, it is unlikely that it would compare with the quality, or scope of our, admittedly flawed, public systems.
Misinformed Views:
Libertarians (ship jumper Ron Paul included) regularly attempt to tie their views to some historical precedent, hearkening back to a time when our government was less overbearing, obtrusive, and omnipresent. Libertarians, and Republicans, are oft heard to be the Constitutional party, whose sole ambition in life seems to be to return us to the noble principles laid out by our fore bearers in the Constitution.
Unfortunately they have little understanding of many of the basic facts of U.S. History, let alone a perspective on that history that would allow them to draw comparisons between seemingly nebulous events.
Let's review just a few topics on which the run of the mill Libertarian is in need of a history lesson:
Education: Libertarians believe that education should be provided by private industry and that government should not dictate what is taught in schools. Public education is not a privilege, it is an absolute necessity to have a functioning republic. Our founders provided for public education when creating the Northwest Territory under the Articles of Confederation. This should be proof enough that they felt that government should provide at least basic education. Additionally, the quality of education that would be provided in an all private system is dubious at best. The fact is that our current public system cannot turn anyone away. An all private system would provide quality education to those who fit the mold and could afford it. It would provide an "education" to everyone else.
Taxes: Libertarians propose an end to our federal income tax, claiming that it did not exist before the early 20th century. They are correct in that fact. Unfortunately, when they suggest that we amputate that revenue stream, they fail to suggest a reasonable replacement for it other than fiscal responsibility. They seem to want Americans to believe that prior to the income tax, spending was less and that the government wasn't taking in that money from another source. In fact, the income tax was actually created as a means of boosting the Libertarian's precious free markets. Our economy had been hamstrung by protectionist tariffs, which the U.S. government used to fund its federal programs. The removal of these tariffs provided a boost to our economy, but left a gap in out federal budget. This gap was filled by our income tax.
Free Market Altruism: Libertarians believe free markets to be the answer to most, if not all, of the world's problems, naively trusting private industry to have the best interest of the nation at heart, if only because it is "good for business". This, again, has been proven wrong numerous times throughout our short history. Even if we disregard the current financial shit storm, caused in a large part by greed, shortsightedness, and lack of oversight, our history is rife with examples of private industry's shortcomings. One need only open a high school history book to the chapter on the Progressive Era or the Industrial Revolution to see that private industry fought tooth and nail for the ability to keep wages low, conditions unsafe, and workers impoverished. It took intervention by government to force upon private industry what it would not do itself. It is a fact that much of what private sector workers consider standard practice such as a forty hour work week, health insurance, retirement, 8 hour work day, worker's compensation, unemployment, maternity leave, equality in the workplace for women and minorities, etc etc.....are ALL the result of victories won by workers Unions and enforced by legislation.
UnAmerican Views:
How, you might ask, are the Libertarian's views UnAmerican? Well, Schmeat, it goes without saying that an educated, healthy population benefits from government protection and intervention. To unilaterally eliminate public services only serves the wealthy and well connected. Libertarians are a party of relative affluence, blind to the fact that not all Americans are born into opportunity. In a nation where all men are created equal, they should be given the opportunity for equal footing, an even starting line, and in a nation where the government exists to "provide for the common defense", the government should and must defend against threats both foreign and domestic, and there have been few domestic threats in our history more destructive than an unrestrained free market.
Schmeat, I hope you've enjoyed this two day marathon of venom and misanthrope. I've certainly enjoyed penning it, but don't get to used to it. Schmeat on Schmeat is a forum for lighthearted sarcasm and tomfoolery. It isn't the proper venue for me to spew my totally awesome political commentary on a regular basis. Next blog you can look forward to the kind of ignorant, self-centered diatribe you've come to know and love.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Libertarians......are whack jobs....it's okay for me to say that....I googled it and it checked out
Dear Schmeat -
You may recall one Ron Paul from the presidential primary season of 2007-2008. He was the guy who was exactly like Dennis Kucinich; Crazy. As you know, Mr. Paul was Libertarian, who believed so wholeheartedly in his party's platform that he chose to jump ship to the similarly dickish, but marginally more mainstream, Republican party in an attempt to gain broader support. I hope Mr. Paul has removed adjectives like "loyalty" and "resolve" from his resume's cover letter.
But I'm not here to discuss Mr. Paul's many failings as both a politician, and a human being, Schmeat. I'm here to discuss the many failings of the Libertarian Party as both politicians, and as human beings. (and for good measure, they make pretty piss poor Americans too)
I had an interesting discussion with an acquaintance of one of my friends (see TheFriendChart for more on those words) recently. Despite how repugnant I found most of the views I was hearing, I didn't immediately mock, or ridicule them. This was because I found myself at somewhat of a disadvantage.
As you know, Schmeat, I don't like to look like a fool.....by accident. So I didn't feel it prudent to voice any premature, half-formed opinions, lest I look like a fool in front of someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Feeling the need to remedy this situation I promptly Googled the Libertarian party, and, you know what Schmeat? I learned some very interesting, albeit, disturbing facts about this scrappy little cadre of future local office holders.
First, and foremost, I learned that I've been not only mispronouncing their name, but also misspelling it. I was under the impression that they were the LiberAtarian party, spelled and pronounced with that middle "A". Well I was wrong, and from now on when I say or spell their name wrong, it will be out of a lack of respect and a sense of disdain for their political ideas, not because I'm a poor speller, with a slight speech impediment.
Second, and actually foremost, I discovered that Ron Paul was only the tip of the batshitcrazy iceberg. He must have been either: A. The prettiest one or B. The one most resembling what most people would regard as sane. Because after reading their platform and views on current events, I see that Mr. Paul would be what you call a LeftwingLiberalNewYorkJewLibertarian.
The views posted on their website reveal that, for a group of people who think they should run the most powerful nation on Earth, the Libertarians lack even a rudimentary understanding about some topics that are helpful in running a functioning government such as:
Now, Schmeat, you might be wondering how I came to such inflammatory conclusions about one of our nation's most least respected political parties. Well, Schmeat, I can guarantee you it is all based on their own admissions, via the platform they have posted on their website. Let's briefly review some of their often contradictory, or even historically inaccurate views, shall we?
Libertarians seem to believe:
You may recall one Ron Paul from the presidential primary season of 2007-2008. He was the guy who was exactly like Dennis Kucinich; Crazy. As you know, Mr. Paul was Libertarian, who believed so wholeheartedly in his party's platform that he chose to jump ship to the similarly dickish, but marginally more mainstream, Republican party in an attempt to gain broader support. I hope Mr. Paul has removed adjectives like "loyalty" and "resolve" from his resume's cover letter.
But I'm not here to discuss Mr. Paul's many failings as both a politician, and a human being, Schmeat. I'm here to discuss the many failings of the Libertarian Party as both politicians, and as human beings. (and for good measure, they make pretty piss poor Americans too)
I had an interesting discussion with an acquaintance of one of my friends (see TheFriendChart for more on those words) recently. Despite how repugnant I found most of the views I was hearing, I didn't immediately mock, or ridicule them. This was because I found myself at somewhat of a disadvantage.
As you know, Schmeat, I don't like to look like a fool.....by accident. So I didn't feel it prudent to voice any premature, half-formed opinions, lest I look like a fool in front of someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Feeling the need to remedy this situation I promptly Googled the Libertarian party, and, you know what Schmeat? I learned some very interesting, albeit, disturbing facts about this scrappy little cadre of future local office holders.
First, and foremost, I learned that I've been not only mispronouncing their name, but also misspelling it. I was under the impression that they were the LiberAtarian party, spelled and pronounced with that middle "A". Well I was wrong, and from now on when I say or spell their name wrong, it will be out of a lack of respect and a sense of disdain for their political ideas, not because I'm a poor speller, with a slight speech impediment.
Second, and actually foremost, I discovered that Ron Paul was only the tip of the batshitcrazy iceberg. He must have been either: A. The prettiest one or B. The one most resembling what most people would regard as sane. Because after reading their platform and views on current events, I see that Mr. Paul would be what you call a LeftwingLiberalNewYorkJewLibertarian.
The views posted on their website reveal that, for a group of people who think they should run the most powerful nation on Earth, the Libertarians lack even a rudimentary understanding about some topics that are helpful in running a functioning government such as:
- A working knowledge of the basic principles of Constitution of the United States
- A grasp of United States and World Histories, including, but not limited to, the stuff that might happen to support their point of view.
- A sense of the common good
- Self-awareness, and the ability to objectively, and critically examine whether or not you are living on the same planet as most Americans.
Now, Schmeat, you might be wondering how I came to such inflammatory conclusions about one of our nation's most least respected political parties. Well, Schmeat, I can guarantee you it is all based on their own admissions, via the platform they have posted on their website. Let's briefly review some of their often contradictory, or even historically inaccurate views, shall we?
Libertarians seem to believe:
- Government should be as small as humanly possible
- No Income Tax (and as few other taxes as possible)
- Private Free Markets do EVERYTHING better from health care, to education, to banking , to managing the environment, to caring for the poor, to providing for the common good.(despite evidence to the contrary on most counts)
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Hair is a Privilidge....Not a Right!
Dear Schmeat -
As I stood for "15 minutes"* on the corner of North 7th and Bedford last night I became keenly aware of yet another thing that bothers me quite a bit. I know, Schmeat, that list is getting to be pretty lengthy, indeed.
As I stood for "15 minutes"* on the corner of North 7th and Bedford last night, I noticed that many, perhaps most, of the men who passed me had nice full heads of hair, and incredibly stupid hair cuts.
Now, as you know Schmeat, I am bald, or more appropriate, balding with a strong chance of bald. And dispite the fact that I have come to terms with the consequence of my superhuman testosterone production, I still long for the days when I too could cut and style my hair into ridiculous and regretable quafs and spitcurls.
As I watched these men, sauntering about with their scalps natually protected against the elements, I became quite upset. It wasn't that I was jealous. I was simply angry that these men were not putting such a gift to better use.
A bad haircut is inexcusable. Its not as if there aren't professionals out there to tell you how to style your hair, and even assist you in doing so. If you can't manage to choose a barber or "stylist" who can do the one thing they are paid to be good at, then you do not deserve hair at all.
These bad haircut men just don't realize how good they have it. I used to be like them. I used to take my hair for granted. I used to think that it was okay to cover my hair in so much vidal-sasoon moose that it becomes something akin to spiky helmet. I thought it was perfectly reasonable to comb my hair back into a quaf like the Bob's Big Boy mascot for 5 of the most formative years of my life. I didn't care when my bangs looked like a wave crashing on my forhead, or when my sideburns were so bushy and long that it looked as if I had my RobThomasShaggyCeasar strapped to my chin.
I always thought I'd have more time with my hair, more time to make up for the mistakes i was making. History has shown us that this is not the case. By the time I had settled on a hair style that suited me and wasn't all that stupid, it was too late. My scalp had given up on me, and Schmeat, I deserved it.
It is from this vantage point, one wisdom through loss, that I can stand in judgement of all these ungrateful apes, with their flowing luxorious locks combed and styled into the most ridiculous formations.
I think from now on I'll just yell at people with stupid haircuts. I'll walk right up to them on the street and tell them that they look ridiculous. Its the least I can do, because you never know when you'll turn 22 and realize that your hair is falling out.
*"15 Minutes" is actually closer to 30 or 45 minutes when dealing with some of my associates.
As I stood for "15 minutes"* on the corner of North 7th and Bedford last night I became keenly aware of yet another thing that bothers me quite a bit. I know, Schmeat, that list is getting to be pretty lengthy, indeed.
As I stood for "15 minutes"* on the corner of North 7th and Bedford last night, I noticed that many, perhaps most, of the men who passed me had nice full heads of hair, and incredibly stupid hair cuts.
Now, as you know Schmeat, I am bald, or more appropriate, balding with a strong chance of bald. And dispite the fact that I have come to terms with the consequence of my superhuman testosterone production, I still long for the days when I too could cut and style my hair into ridiculous and regretable quafs and spitcurls.
As I watched these men, sauntering about with their scalps natually protected against the elements, I became quite upset. It wasn't that I was jealous. I was simply angry that these men were not putting such a gift to better use.
A bad haircut is inexcusable. Its not as if there aren't professionals out there to tell you how to style your hair, and even assist you in doing so. If you can't manage to choose a barber or "stylist" who can do the one thing they are paid to be good at, then you do not deserve hair at all.
These bad haircut men just don't realize how good they have it. I used to be like them. I used to take my hair for granted. I used to think that it was okay to cover my hair in so much vidal-sasoon moose that it becomes something akin to spiky helmet. I thought it was perfectly reasonable to comb my hair back into a quaf like the Bob's Big Boy mascot for 5 of the most formative years of my life. I didn't care when my bangs looked like a wave crashing on my forhead, or when my sideburns were so bushy and long that it looked as if I had my RobThomasShaggyCeasar strapped to my chin.
I always thought I'd have more time with my hair, more time to make up for the mistakes i was making. History has shown us that this is not the case. By the time I had settled on a hair style that suited me and wasn't all that stupid, it was too late. My scalp had given up on me, and Schmeat, I deserved it.
It is from this vantage point, one wisdom through loss, that I can stand in judgement of all these ungrateful apes, with their flowing luxorious locks combed and styled into the most ridiculous formations.
I think from now on I'll just yell at people with stupid haircuts. I'll walk right up to them on the street and tell them that they look ridiculous. Its the least I can do, because you never know when you'll turn 22 and realize that your hair is falling out.
*"15 Minutes" is actually closer to 30 or 45 minutes when dealing with some of my associates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
