Close Please enter your Username and Password

My Blog

DEAR ET ....
Posted:Apr 18, 2018 7:25 pm
Last Updated:Apr 20, 2018 9:35 am
403 Views

I have read through your metablog (blog about blogs) several times and I find it extremely self-serving. The point you made which I found most offensive was this:

"I will be bold in stating it was with the advent of the likes of Maisie and Liszt, the utter extreme of the far right ... and the other extreme of Leaf on the far left." The utter extreme of the far right? That is simply ridiculous. I deeply resent being put it a parallel situation with Leaf, who is a pathological, delusional, liar. I am nowhere near far right, and I defy you to present evidence otherwise. Why do you say things which you know are not true? I am a moderate conservative, whom you have chosen to demonize.

Your blog was further self-serving as follows:

1) You were doing the time-honored SFF trick of expressing fatigue with the site because of what you sense is too much politics. Why did you do this? To get your friends to beg you to keep blogging your wonderful blogs. I call BS. You need to have your butt kissed.

2) You yourself have been heavily political in your own blogs.

3) You have lost the capacity for reasoned debate -- you simply want to demonize Trump and any blogger who does not share your views. You rarely, if ever, address issues. You are ruled by your hatred of Trump. I am still stunned by your astonishing charge that "Trump is running around with his suit coat unbuttoned." Remember that? Is that not nuts?

4) You are basically trying to censor and shame Maisie and me. It doesn't fly. You should be ashamed of yourself.
28 Comments
QUICK RESPONSE TO CAROLINA PANTHER
Posted:Apr 10, 2018 9:44 am
Last Updated:Apr 16, 2018 6:45 pm
498 Views


In addition to being misspelled, CP's headline for her latest copy-and-paste is just wrong. The assault on justice exists, but it is coming from the Department of Justice itself -- from Rosenstein, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Bob Mueller, and others. The DOJ is acting like the Gestapo -- breaking into the office of Trump's private attorney is a stunning departure from precedent and it tramples justice under its feet. The article you cite was on my MSN news feed today -- every day it assembles and circulates the most damaging stories of the news cycle about Trump. This op-ed is lifted from the extremely liberal Huffington Post.

It is silly to make much of the fact that some of these guys were nominally Republicans -- they are now working for the Deep State and the anti-Trump resistance. This is not the first time the DOJ and the Deep State have tried to pull a president down, and they have succeeded at least twice. JFK tangled with the CIA and the FBI and ended up on Boot Hill. The second-in-command at the FBI (Mark Felt) was later revealed as "Deep Throat" in the Watergate investigation. The result was Nixon's exile to California. The first instinct of a bureaucrat, regardless of party, is to protect the bureaucracy.

Part of the problem is that the Attorney General is not really in command of the DOJ as he is supposed to be. Jeff Sessions' recusal on matters pertaining to Russia was entirely unnecessary and opened the floodgates for the career rogues in Justice.

The nation is in its most perilous situation since the 1960's.
36 Comments
NASIM AGHDAM SHATTERS THE GLASS CEILING!
Posted:Apr 7, 2018 7:58 pm
Last Updated:Apr 9, 2018 7:06 pm
692 Views
In fact, she shattered several glass ceilings and shattered sexual stereotypes right and left.

In case the name didn't ring a bell, Aghdam was the 30-something female Iranian immigrant who shot up the YouTube campus in Silicon Valley. She turned out to be a very inefficient shooter and managed only to kill herself, which doesn't even suffice as a reason for national mourning. But she has taught us many things:

1) You don't have to be a male to be a crazy Muslim immigrant who shoots up crowds with a semi-automatic weapon.
I don't say that Aghdam was doing what she did to advance the caliphate. Almost the reverse. But she did have her do-rag on her head when she shot.

2) Toxic femininity is the new toxic masculinity. Aghdam was a very angry, paranoid person who ranted against YouTube after using their platform extensively. So what did she did? She acquired a 9mm Smith & Wesson hand cannon, practiced with it at the range, traveled several hundred miles from San Diego to the SF area, slept in her car, then entered the YouTube complex, and laid down 30 rounds or so into strangers. Just like a guy. Feminists take a bow. As Kipling wrote, "the female of the species is deadlier than the male."

3) Liberals can also be gun-toting haters! LIberals, we knew you had it in you all along. Look at the liberal women on this site -- how would you like Lulu coming at you with a Glock? I rest my case.

4) Vegans, bodybuilders and animal rights activists can also be gun nuts. These were 3 causes that Aghdam championed vociferously in her videos. Think that pasty-faced vegan in the juice bar is a pansy? Think again! Think that PETA member is a knee-jerk bleeding heart? Think again!

So, if you're still bummed that Hillary couldn't shatter the glass ceiling, take comfort in the feat of Nasim Aghda.


BELOW: Nasim Aghda. Very pretty , but a "little fitty about the eyes.," as my mother used to say.
54 Comments
SNUFF PORN WEEKEND
Posted:Apr 2, 2018 7:27 pm
Last Updated:Apr 6, 2018 5:22 pm
821 Views

I have a suspicion that some readers here are innocent enough to be unaware of what snuff porn is. "Snuff" films are those which purport to show the actual murder or a suicide of an actual human being. "Snuff" of course derives from "extinguish," like a candle.

I bring this up because Lulu has characterized Easter weekend (on a blog by BBlock) as an orgy of snuff porn by Christians, who ritualize the contemplation of the torture and crucifixion of their Savior. They are getting sexual gratification from this, she suggests.

I suggest two things:

1) This is one of the most extraordinarily bigoted statements I have ever seen. It doesn't matter that the writer is an atheist. Atheists are not called upon to abuse and scold believers. Lulu is not an atheist but an anti-theist. She just not say merely "I do not believe," but rather you are perverted fools if you do.

2) Look just one step further and you see that Easter is the ultimate anti-snuff event in human history. It is the triumph of life over death. The crucifixion is not the center of the Christian Easter. It would not have been worth observing ( crucifixion was a common execution method for criminals) had it not been for the Resurrection, which is the central event of the Christian faith.

It therefore is the repudiation of "snuff." I say this not in anger at Lulu but astonishment. I would hope that her words would offend other atheists and agnostics, and those who struggle with their faith, in addition to orthodox Christians. Lulu has a tendency to characterize choices others make which do not accord with her beliefs in the cruelest possible terms.

To what end?

63 Comments
THE 'CHILDREN'S CRUSADE' IS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST
Posted:Mar 29, 2018 10:40 am
Last Updated:Apr 2, 2018 8:07 pm
710 Views
The organizers of the DC "March for Our Lives" -- along with their abettors in the media -- have basically promulgated a false narrative about the event. The 25% of our nation which is reflexively Leftist and which has simply go_ne gaga over the "courage" and "eloquence" of student-victims protesting for gun control have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

The truth is now being revealed. First of all, the attendance at the event was grossly overestimated by the event organizers. Their claim, dutifully reported, was that 850,000 had participated. A computer-imaging firm in Virginia specially in analysis of crowds reports the number at a little more than 200,000.

More significantly, a University of Maryland sociology professor has
investigated the demographics of the participants, and the results have been reported in WaPo. First of all, fewer than 10% of the marchers were under the age of 18! Who was the typical protestor? She was a 49-year-old, college-educated woman! Even their motivations were not as advertised: 56% cited a desire for "peace" as their chief cause and 42% admitted they were primarily expressing opposition to Trump.

So what do we have? Another piece of agitprop street theater sponsored by the "Resistance." The same folks who brought you the Women's march.

This fundamentally anti-democratic movement deserves to be condemned by conservatives and hon_est liberals alike.


BELOW: recent agitprop poster
54 Comments
QUEEN ELIZABETH WEIGHS IN ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT
Posted:Mar 28, 2018 3:27 pm
Last Updated:Mar 30, 2018 6:35 pm
417 Views
Don't mess with this lady!
13 Comments
THE PRESIDENT AND THE PORNSTAR: Publish and be Damned
Posted:Mar 26, 2018 8:29 pm
Last Updated:Mar 29, 2018 3:45 pm
990 Views
To the great distress of Trump-haters, the vaunted 60 Minutes interview of Stormy Daniels concerning her 1-night stand with Donald Trump was a bit of a bust. The tryst itself was over 12 years ago, long before Trump was a political figure. While no on_e seriously doubts that the tryst occurred, the witness compels little admiration (except from Leaf and ilk).

Her own words sketch her character. Essentially she is a member of the world's oldest profession (prostitution), against whom I hold no brief. prostitutes offer a consensual and -- shall we say, Pareto-optimal -- way of dealing with the other sex's excess testostero_ne. Stormy is probably no better nor worse than her colleagues. Here is how she describes her job, when asked if she hoped to make people like her:

"Technically, it is my job to get d*cks to grow...which I have a pretty good record of doing judging by my long career in front of/behind the camera in porn. I got some cool awards, too!" There is a certain rough ho_nesty there.

But her greed is less admirable. She accepted $130,000 in hush mo_ney Trump's lawyer in return for a non-disclosure agreement. She then chose to violate the agreement at the precise moment she determined that her story was worth more than $130,000. There goes any moral high ground.

But, splutter Leaf and friends, this consorting with a harlot is disgusting beyond belief. Well, then, shall we excommunicate JFK posthumously? How is this any different from his affair with Marilyn Monroe other that the latter liaison was conducted while JFK was president? Bill Clinton was arguably worse because he exploited vulnerable people like Paula Jon_es.

What should Trump do now? He should emulate the Duke of Wellington, who was a bit of a swordsman himself. The victor of Waterloo dallied a bit with a courtesan named Harriette Wilson, who subsequently peddled her memoirs to a publisher. The publisher tried to blackmail Wellington in these terms:

'My Lord Duke,' it began, 'in Harriette Wilson's Memoirs, which I am about to publish, are various anecdotes of Your Grace which it would be most desirable to withhold, at least such is my opinion. I have stopped the Press for the moment, but as the publication will take place next week, little delay can necessarily take place.'

Wellington's famous response?

Publish and be damned!

Trump take note!


BELOW: Wellington
60 Comments
I LIKE BIGBLOCK'S 'SALTY SAILOR' ANALOGY
Posted:Mar 15, 2018 9:01 pm
Last Updated:Mar 19, 2018 8:08 am
832 Views
"The harpies of the shore shall pluck
The eagle of the sea!"


---- Old Ironsides, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

BigBlock called our attention to a letter by the mother of a Navy Seal who likened President to a "salty sailor." Her opening sentence sounds the theme:

"I believe with all my heart that God placed that salty sailor in the White House and gave this nation more chance in November 2016."

She makes it clear that she is not like Trump, doesn't want to be like Trump, and does not endorse all of his rhetoric. I think that many of us who like Trump's agenda have a similar view. Trump has fierce opponents in his own ranks, and conservative pundits of the sort who write for National Review have often been severe in their condemnations. George Will has had a dill pickle up his backside since the election.

The mother who wrote the letter understands something that the sophists of National Review do not: Trump's mission as the salty sailor is to steer to ship safely to shore. He doesn't really care if liberal women find him unattractive. AND I DON'T EITHER. I was strongly opposed to Trump during the GOP primary season and wrote numerous blogs assailing him. That ended when it became clear that it was Trump or Clinton, the latter being the most unattractive, most crooked, most venal, and most manipulative candidate for Prez in my lifetime (with the possible exception of LBJ). I realized at the convention that Trump was to be our last, best hope to keep us from turning the USofA into an unrecognizable stew of a corrupt banana republic and a socialist welfare state, with a cackling crook at the head and no turning back.

I was trashed on another blog for alluding to Trump's leadership. Ladyboi Leaf is incensed at this thought (forgetting that he was a Trump fan during the GOP primary, calling him the only true leader in the field. He even exempted him from the "Clown Car." Remember that, Leaf? Do ya, punk? Do ya?) The fact is that Trump has had more impact on the presidency in just a year than any of his predecessors of recent memory.

Napoleon, commenting on leadership, allegedly said "L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!" (L'audace = audacity.) Trump has audacity in spades, decisiveness, willingness to make unpopular decisions, quickness in his movements, and a willingness to whack sacred cows with a 2 X 4. This is why we elected him. We didn't want a diplomat, we wanted a wrecking ball. We wanted some who would strike a blow against political correctness. We wanted some with the guts to defend our borders. For this, we accept his salty talk and gaucheries.

I can't leave this topic without a word about "the harpies of the shore" who make asses out of themselves daily on this site. I have never seen such a petty display of female nastiness with regard to any other public figure. Obscene memes and emotional denunciations -- never issues -- are the order of the day. I cannot un-see Lulu's meme of the dog defecating little heads of Trump. Panther and Maggie, who are incapable of writing a paragraph, contribute their hate-speech and memes on a regular basis. ET, who should know better, has joined in league with these harpies, and has as her theme how repulsive she finds Trump physically. And -- gasp!! -- sometimes he doesn't button his coat button! I wish I were joking:

"Trump is a slug, IMO ... look at the way he defies decorum in running around with his suit jacket unbuttd ... like if he DID button up, it would more sharply reveal how rotund he actually is."

That's just sad.

Oliver Wendell Holmes' harpies of the shore are doing their dead level best to pluck the Salty Sailor of the Sea.


BELOW: Trump has suitcoat buttoned, the slob Obama does not.
41 Comments
Life imitates art: HILLARY DESCENDING A STAIRCASE
Posted:Mar 13, 2018 10:10 am
Last Updated:Mar 14, 2018 12:00 pm
630 Views
Some of you may have seen a video clip of Hillary in India attempting to descending an ancient staircase supported by an escort. She didn't fare very well, slipping twice despite the best efforts of her retinue.

Immediately my mind flashed on the seminal work of modern art Nude Descending a Staircase by Marcel Duchamp. Duchamp's painting was the sensation of the 1913 Armory Show in NYC. It shows the refracted shapes of a human figure, expressed in lines and cylinders, descending a staircase, rather like a stop-action film. {See below}

It is now clear that Duchamp had a remarkable prevision of Hillary Clinton in India! Note the stiffness and ungainliness of her movements. Note that the figure seems to be wearing an ochre pants suit!

OK, I've had my little joke. But in this case, I would like to soften it by commiserating with Mrs Clinton for a change. I totally get why she would have trouble balancing on the staircase. The woman is 70 and may suffer from a neurological disease. I am no Baryshnikov on staircases either -- I have developed nerve damage in my feet as well as vertigo. I would not have attempted that descent without a handrail. So hang in there, Hills -- you are an inspiration to all us senior gimps!

I doubt if Golda Meir could have made it down the steps either.


BELOW: Marcel's radical painting.
18 Comments
WORTH SEEING at your cineplex: 'DARKEST HOUR'
Posted:Mar 2, 2018 8:16 pm
Last Updated:Mar 4, 2018 6:29 pm
780 Views
A couple of times a year, Maisie and I go to an actual movie theater to see a film which has caught our eye. Last night we went to see Joe Wright's "Darkest Hour," a grand biopic of Winston Churchill in the critical year 1940. The movie covers Churchill's accession to the prime ministership after Appeasin' Neville [Chamberlain] played footsie with Hitler one too many times. Not everybody had a good opinion of Churchill -- he was regarded as a loose cannon by some and his career had been somewhat erratic. The ensuing months were to be the crucible of his greatness.

The situation could hardly have been more dire -- Britain's entire professional army of 300,000 men was being driven into the English Channel at Dunkirk. Chamberlin and his ally Lord Halifax lobbied Churchill to negotiate a surrender with the Germans, brokered by Mussolini. Churchill had other ideas.

Gary Oldman's Churchill is of the best pieces of acting I have seen. He doesn't impersonate Churchill, he occupies him. And he looks amazingly like the historical Churchill (though he doesn't at all in real life.) The entire performance is a tour de force ... I will be hoping he is named best actor on Oscar night. He has a chameleon-like knack of recreating historical figures -- as different as Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK) and Beethoven (Immortal Beloved).

The climax of the story is the rescue of the British Army at Dunkirk by a fleet of 100s of civilian craft, pleasure boats, fishing boats, etc. Churchill had almost despaired himself. In a fascinating scene (evidently fictitious) Winston decides to take the Underground to Westminster Palace. His goal is to draw strength from the common men and women and to test their resolve. All are stunned to see the PM in the subway. He proceeds to put on a clinic in how to work a room with his engaging wit, and receives back the answer he wanted: never surrender!

Churchill proceeds on to the House of Commons and gives an electrifying speech "we shall fight them on the beaches..." Parliament roars approval, including even the bewildered Chamberlain. The latter asks Halifax "what just happened?" Halifax responds "he just mobilized the English language and sent it into battle."

It's good stuff.


BELOW: Oldman as Churchill
17 Comments

To link to this blog (Lisztomania) use [blog Lisztomania] in your messages.