atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#5569: I have everything and no time for it.

Had trouble sleeping due to the shoulder aching like an SOB last night. Now I have things to do and a crapton of links as well. Argh etc.

Well, let's get on with it.

* * *

All the commies celebrated May Day yesterday, the 100th anniversary of communist death and destruction. NY Times called it the "Red Century", which it certainly was--like the "Red Wedding" in Game of Thrones, it was marked with politically-motivated violence. One hundred million people were murdered by communist and socialist regimes in the 20th century, which is 2,740 killed each day of that 100 years. That's nearly two people per minute for a hundred years.

Okay? In the twentieth century, every thirty seconds someone was murdered by their government for having the wrong opinion, or saying the wrong thing, or just being inconvenient to the state.

Ace: "I wonder why they never run articles about old Nazis getting together to reminisce about the good old days and sing the Horst Wessel song and such?"

How appropriate they celebrate it by rioting. Celebrating a violent and evil ideology by rioting seems appropriate.

* * *

Speaking of violent leftists, we have a few links about them, too.

At least one of them pled guilty to felony rioting. This soon after the arrest, expect it's because he made a plea deal. Even so, it makes him a convicted felon, which itself has consequences in our society. (Fair or not.)

Routed in Austin. Antifa showed up wanting a fight; they got it, and lost.
Let's start with the guns because it was blinding obvious that they had no training whatsoever. They had them on slings with their left hand forward on the barrel as expected. Rather than having their right hands in the ready position near the trigger, they were holding them toward the back of the stock. I doubt they even carried live rounds. A woman and two small men had the guns. Looks like they had about 34.3 seconds of instruction on how to look like a badass; it clearly didn't work. Someone standing next to me was taunting them and asking if they had ever fired a gun, if they were felons, etc. They looked like they would have shot him if they knew how.
Just having a gun isn't going to help you. If your opponent can tell that you're not willing to use the gun, it's just dead weight.

Related, about a college president telling BLM to STFU. Or at least saying "no" to their demands, which is about the same thing.

* * *

I remarked on this yesterday: once again the GOP in Congress proves that it has no spine whatsoever--or that it likes being "Democrat Lite".

Exhibit A.
I'm not arguing for a third party; what we really need, desperately need, is a second party. Because right now, we simply don't have one. And until we get one, no meaningful change in the direction we're headed has the slightest chance of being implemented--Trump or no Trump.
This isn't a failure of Trump's; it's a failure of the GOP to govern as if it won the elections.

Vox Day blockquotes Limbaugh extensively. Limbaugh says what lots of Republican voters are thinking, and not to put too fine a point on it this is why we elected Trump instead of Jeb Bush: we're tired of the GOP constantly giving Democrats everything they want. We want the GOP to stand up and fight Democrats rather than find ways to give in to them.

* * *

This would empty out blue states in a hurry. Removing the state tax deduction from federal income taxes. I don't like this plan because I live in one of those high-tax states, but at the same time I recognize that our political opponents are all hypocrites and must be forced to walk the walk, because they won't walk it by themselves.

Progressives, liberals, communists--whatever you call them--they want high taxes on everyone else but when asked to pay their "fair share" they poor-mouth it. The same people who insist that "the rich" must pay "their fair share" take every opporunity to minimize their tax burden. Best example: John F-in' Kerry, who docked his ultra-expensive luxury barnacle barge in another state to avoid paying Massachusetts' confiscatory taxes on it.

He loves those taxes, supports them unequivocally...but when it comes to his own money he does everything he can to avoid paying. Hypocrite.

Like that's a surprise. They're all hypocrites on the left. To a unit, no exceptions.

Here is a perfect example. Colbert, failed comedian, is one of those people who sees absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality and strives mightily to normalize and equalize homosexuals. Fine: he has a right to his opinion. First Amendment, etc.

...but then he turns around and accuses Trump of giving oral sex to men. He means this as an insult.

Now, if you truly believe that homosexuality is just another normal expression of human sexuality, how can that possibly be an insult? Okay: if someone says to me, "You kiss a girl!" I wouldn't be insulted; it's true. My wife is biologically female, I kiss her, QED. Men kiss women. It's a fact of life. Even if I accuse another heterosexual man of kissing women, there's no way it can possibly be an insult--or even an accusation--because I believe it to be completely normal for men to kiss women.

Colbert--himself professing to believe homosexuality is normal--saying that Trump gives BJs is like me trying to insult someone by saying he kisses girls...unless Colbert actually doesn't believe what he purports to. In other words, if Colbert means his statement to be an insult, he must necessarily believe homosexuality to be aberrant behavior.

Because it simply does not work as an insult any other way.

It never occurs to me to try to insult another man by saying he kisses women, the same way it never occurs to me to insult him by saying he works 9-5 or enjoys football. These are not aberrant behaviors.

The only way it can possibly be insulting is if we're all about eight years old; then "You kissed a girl!" is (however farcically) an accusation of aberrant behavior. Given the peurile nature of Colbert's string of insults, that's not far off the mark, but it still makes something plain.

For Colbert to use an accusation of homosexual behavior as an insult--well, it indicates that Colbert himself is a homophobe.

And a hypocrite. Of course.

* * *

And Trump's not afraid of the media, so Colbert is firing blanks. WTF, the people on TV have been insulting Republicans since the NTSC standard went live in 1941. Prior to that, it was the people on radio, and from the time Marconi/Tesla invented the fuckin' thing.

* * *

This comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever. 51% of the murders in the US come from 2% of the counties.

BIG F-IN' SURPRISE, that.

And those counties are where criminal gangs hold sway. They're highly urban, Democrat strongholds, and largely nonwhite.

* * *

The photograph of this disgusting creature and her podling showed up in another place on the blogroll first. That's not cameltoe but brontosaurustoe you see there. I don't usually need it, but some eye bleach would be welcome.

* * *

Arse Technica displays its commutard bias again. In an article about the US government using commercial launches for secret payloads (like spy satellites) we get this horseshit again:
Do billionaires need more money?
Well, as soon as you guys figure out how to make a cottage industry out of building and flying reusable orbital boosters, I'm sure those billionaires won't be necessary for commercial space exploitation.

Until you do, however, STFU.

These are the same kinds of dickheads who would have asked, of Howard Hughes, "Do millionaires really need more money?" as he was helping to develop the aviation industry into what it is today. You can't build and fly the rockets without massive investment; it takes a lot of highly-educated and trained people to figure out how to make a rocket boost something into orbit and then land the booster safely on Earth. And "highly trained and educated" means highly-paid, because those people won't work for minimum wage even if you get your way and it's raised to $15 an hour.

Billionaires are the only ones who have the money to risk on such a venture, to pay the people the money they expect in order to get the desired result. And yes, since the billionaires risk their own money on it, they reap the rewards if it's successful.

If the government wants them to fly their payloads, and wants to have a say in how those payloads are lofted, it is only natural for the government to pay for the privilege.

And--not to put too fine a point on it--back when airlines were a new thing, government shipped mail on airliners, which helped the airlines make enough money to stay in business. If "Do millionaires really need more money?" had won the day, how likely would it be that we'd even have an airline industry that even remotely resembles the one we do have?

And of course there's the last point, which is that while a specific person may be rich, he's not going to dump all his personal fortunes into a corporation. One of the biggest and most important rules of running any business is that you must keep your accounts separate from the business' accounts. Even if you're the owner and sole proprietor and employee, you draw a salary from the business, silly as it seems to write yourself a check every two weeks. And wherever possible, "Never use your own money."

If you want the real space age to begin, STFU and get the hell out of the way.

* * *

Today is cold and dreary again, but at least it hasn't rained. If it doesn't rain again tomorrow, I can get most of the grass cut. Not sure about the immediate back yard; that may still be a swamp.

We've had enough rain over the past two weeks that I've been checking to see if anyone's been building a giant wooden boat....
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments