PARTIALLY AWESOME

NEW FILM GENRE FOR CRITICS TO "PARSE" FOR MEANING

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 04:14:00 +0000

I would like to create a new hybrid film genre, combining two genres I currently don't like. The theory is that two things I don't like would mix together into something I do like, a la banana poundcake (which I read about on a vegan blog).

The two genres going into the hopper would be, to wit:

Films that have shots with a giant fireball in the background, and someone flying through the air toward the screen in slow motion, screaming in a sort of Doppler effect.

Films that employ Candice Bergen as a brassy/sassy mother-in-law/boss, where she is constantly mean and snarky while wearing pearls and powersuits.

The new hybrid genre would be known as The Bergen Fireball Genre.

IT'S OFFICIAL-- PETA HAS NOW EDGED OUT THE AMISH AS MOST RIDICULOUS GROUP OF AMERICANS

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:49:00 +0000

Over the last few years, I've been among the crowded constituency that finds it troubling that intellectuals on the right seem to grudgingly accept the takeover of their party and its public dialogue by a lunatic fringe. You know you're in trouble when Newt Gingrich starts shimmering into focus and earning brownie points as the "adult" candidate. (Newt's recent evolution from shadowy ectoplasm to borderline front-runner is not unlike a Star Trek episode where some sociopathic super-strong villain materializes on the Enterprise.)
However, in the interest of fair play, or something like it, I feel that it behooves me to point out when lunatics of the left start doing their own Funky Chicken dance. I think that two new outbreaks of idiocy on the left are the kind of thing that causes both bumpkins and professors to trot out the old canard about the wackiness of the left. I always get irritated by that old canard, because it often

seems to be an article of faith requiring no evidence, but PETA's recent activities seem to be their way of vying with Ron Paul for tinfoil hat status.
I just found out that PETA recently asked Turkey, Texas to change its name to Tofurkey, Texas. My first assumption was that it was a rare moment of PETA revealing a sense of humor. Casual research confirmed that I was quite wrong.
I'm not sure that any city in the U.S., no matter how liberal, would be willing to change their name to Tofurkey, except perhaps as a way of getting corporate cash. But the birthplace of Bob Wills? In Texas? It's like asking Long John Silver to turn in his parrot.

Continuing a hot streak of idiocy and humorlessness that may one day enter the history books, PETA also recently contacted President Obama to badger him about more turkey-related controversy. PETA feels that the traditional Presidential "pardoning" of the Thanksgiving turkey is offensive, implying as it does that the turkey has committed a crime. They'd like to see the language changed to make it seem less like a harsh judgement of turkeys.

I'm not sure that some glib comment from me will help here. I think it is sufficient to say that these two stories are as much like Onion news satires as real-life events can be. (By the way, I refuse to apologize for the offensive and insensitive use of the word "badger.")

So next time Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, or some other nitwit starts cackling like Walter Brennan and spouting offkey nonsense that seems to ignore science, history, and other once-respected disciplines, just take a moment and reflect-- the Right may certainly claim its rogue's gallery of nincompoops and well-dressed yard apes, but we on the Left will always have PETA. Apparently.

A GENTLEMANLY EXCHANGE OF VIEWS IN OLD VIRGINNY

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:49:00 +0000

I recently came across a website called "Red Alexandria." My initial assumption that it was dedicated to the local communist party turned out to be wrong. I did find an interesting article accusing Adam Ebbin, 49th district delegate, of being a liar about global warming. Well, I'm always happy to hear evidence that a politician is a liar, but the article provided little, so I posted a comment. The exchange that followed is readable here--

//redalexandriava.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/science-proves-adam-ebbin-wrong-again/

Warning-- it is not hilarious.

AMISH SPLINTER GROUP RUNS AMOK

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:39:00 +0000

In Ohio recently, a breakaway group has apparently emerged in protest to behavior they can't abide. An Amish man named Mullet has been accused of ordering several Amish-on-Amish attacks. He denies responsibility, but many believe (in an eerie echo of the Manson cult) that he sent several followers to forcibly cut off the beards of various other Amish men. (I'm mixing up the details here, due to journalistic laziness, but in fairness to me, there are at least three separate incidents and the connections among them are unclear in the AP story I skimmed while watching a Simpsons dvd.) The unwanted beard trims were an attempt to shame the victims, because Amish evidently take great pride in their facial hair. It all seems to be about some disagreement between several factions of Amish, and the expulsion of a few members from the Amish Secret Clubhouse. The Amish, you may recall, decamped from the modern world in protest of modern mores and appliances. Among the futuristic items eschewed by the hirsute contrarians-- roofies, Mentos, and Chucks Berry, Barris, and Norris.

ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE IS PROBABLY THE LAMEST THING EVER ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHRASE "ROLLING STONE"

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:14:00 +0000

I was searching YouTube looking for a Muffs song whose title I couldn't recall, and stumbled onto this. (I guess this is the modern equivalent of, "I was flipping around and I saw this crappy show which, of course, I would never watch except by accident." As I've pointed out before, I actually heard the great writer Harlan Ellison use this excuse once, in a documentary.)

The clip was from a show on E! Network called "Rolling Stone Salute to Style," or some such nonsense. A voiceover had this to say about Rolling Stone. "Rolling Stone does fashion the way they do everything else-- cutting edge, a little crazy, but very cool."

If you want some insight into what happened to Sixties counterculture, this chilling example is as good as any.

REJECTED WACKY PACKAGE STICKER

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:47:00 +0000

It's hard to believe this design was rejected. I guess it's just another victim of "political correctness."

A SHOUT-OUT TO THE NATION'S BUSYBODIES!

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:39:00 +0000

The other day, I was playing soccer with my son. (At least, that's what he called it. It bore scant resemblance to "soccer" as a concept that I'm familiar with. But that's a story for another day.)

We were at his elementary school's playground, where they recently replaced a large mudpit with some species of artificial turf. While I was focusing on "defense," I became aware that some lady was yelling at me. Her tone and facial expression were peevish, even hostile. It took me a moment to switch over from "soccer" mode to "getting yelled at by mystery woman" mode. (That mode always takes me some time to warm up; I believe it's powered by vacuum tubes.)

At some point, it occurred to me that she wanted us to stop playing soccer immediately, and leave the turf area at once. She added that there were signs saying to keep off the turf. I hadn't seen these signs, and apologized to her for not having seen them. This response did not mollify her one bit. She continued her harangue, adding little of substance. I assumed from her level of righteousness that she had some position of authority at the school. Later, after she and an unidentified geezer or coot (whose affiliation with the woman was unclear) had quit the scene, I told my son we would have to leave.

He was confused by this. He explained to me that the kids at school had already been playing on this turf all week. I countered that "some lady" had said we had to leave. He said he'd never seen that lady before. Later, I talked to someone at the school office who assured me it was okay for us to play soccer on the turf. Thus endeth the tale of another annoying encounter with a character type I've never cared for-- the righteous busybody, lecturing people from a position of self-appointed authority.

This little playlet sets up my posting of yet another Amazon exchange. This one caught my eye because of its unusual nature-- one person posts a review, and another person posts a comment taking them to task for something unrelated to the review. I'll let it mostly speak for itself, but I will first say that the exchange illustrates pretty well why many people hate liberals. I'm a leftist myself, but I would much rather hang out with Republicans than with the kind of person who posted the comment below. I'll go further-- I'm willing to have Republicans at my home (as long as they remove their shoes), but busybodies are not welcome, regardless of political affiliation. Even if they bring baked goods as a kind of peace offering-- that will not sway me.

from Amazon review of New York Review of Books (kindle version)

Some publications work better on the kindle than others - for example, I'd rather have the Atlantic Monthly in printed form, because they have a lot of nifty maps and charts that graphicaly can't be reproduced on the Kindle (no color, for starters)! But I just got the NYROB on the Kindle and I'm enjoying it now - like the New Yorker, it's text-heavy, so it loses (almost) nothing on the Kindle. Plus it's nice not having to throw away all that paper into the trash 26 times a year after reading it! The only question is - what took so long?

Elizabeth Joseph says:
You're kidding about throwing away the magazine, right? You really don't recycle? It's 2011, get with it!

J. E. BORNSTEIN says:
Umm, Yes I recycle, but it's still put in a trash can. It's 2011, please lighten up.

Y U KEEP TALKIN BOUT DOLPHINS?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:10:00 +0000

This amazing exchange is from a trove of bad spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.
Here's the site where you can see a ton of this kind of stuff--
www.happyplace.com/3645/the-best-obnoxious-responses-to-misspellings-on-facebook
Thanks to grammarscold Martin Lynds for passing this along.

SPAM PRICK SONG (trad.)

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:33:00 +0000

Here's a very odd little item. It's something of an anthropological artifact, in its way as interesting as a piece of ancient Sumerian pottery, or a plate from the Titanic. It's an outgoing phone message from one of America's most hated (and most hidden) citizens-- the spammers. I don't have to tell you what these avatars of Capitalism do all day-- if you live under a rock, perhaps you haven't had the pleasure of their company, although I suspect modern technology will soon make it possible for spammers to annoy even people who literally live under rocks. You think when you move yourself and your family to sub-rock accomodations that your days of being annoyed by spammers are over, but in the near future that will all change.

At any rate, I got a phone message today from some telemarketer, advising me that I was a phone button away from learning crucial information about interest rates, or timeshares, or some such balderdash. I called the number on Caller ID to ask them to put me on their NO-CALL list. The way Congress set up the laws to deal with this kind of nuisance, they are required to hear you out if you ask them to stop calling you. Once they've heard your request, they are required to stop calling you, unless they prefer to keep calling you, in which case they continue to do so at their discretion.

(The only people exempt from this somewhat Draconian restriction are the people who pass laws related to the issue. The Supreme Court has declared that Thomas Jefferson
believed that politicians must be allowed to interrupt my work and family time by calling me at home, and that I must tolerate this as part of my commitment to Free Speech.)

Often, when I call these people back, I get a recorded message telling me that speaking to them is out of the question. This is the first time I heard anything like this, though-- the message featured a guy gleefully mocking me. He was actually singing a little song about the jolly life of the spammer, as a pirate might, or a group of girls jumping rope. I thought you'd all want to hear this message, so click here
www.karlstraubmusic.com/SPAM PRICK.mp3
to hear it.

WORST KIDS' MOVIE SONG EVER

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 03:43:00 +0000

The upcoming release of the newest film version of "Puss 'N' Boots" happily coincided with my recent search for vintage Mexican films. I've been a fan of Mexican films for years, and I periodically troll the internet to see if any more obscure classics have made it to DVD.

A little history is in order for the unitiated. In the 1960's, American exploitation film maven K. Gordon Murray bought American rights to a whole slew of Mexican films; most of them were horror or wrestling related, often both, but a handful were children's fantasy and fairy tale material. Murray then had the films dubbed by American actors. The result was difficult to describe to anyone who hasn't seen the films. In some cases the original films were pretty good, and even the cheesier horror items were often effectively atmospheric, but that's a story for another day. We're gathered here today to discuss a movie that was atrociously awful even before the dubbing process; after Murray's crack team of dubbing professionals got through with it, this movie surfaced as one of the worst movies in international cinema history. (It's only one of many such examples, but it illustrates my view that even dubbed Japanese monster movies can't really hold a candle to the lousiest K. Gordon Murray productions.)

If you've never seen any of Murray's work, buckle up and turn your ringers off, because you're in for something that may just change your life. The hook of this post is the jaw-droppingly bizarre song and dance from this clip, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. The parents among you have probably been subjected to some crappy Hollywood kids product, but after you see this you'll be feeling guilty for cracking on the new Smurfs movie trailers. This Mexican version of the fairy tale classic makes H.R. Pufnstuf look like a Bergman film.

CREEPIEST SHOW IN TV HISTORY?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 03:48:00 +0000

I've wanted to see this since I recently discovered Ray Bradbury's "The Jar." This episode of Alfred Hitchcock Hour is based on Bradbury's classic story, a good example of the beloved author's nasty and creepy side-- an aspect little-known even to many of his fans, I'd wager.

I'd heard this episode was pretty disturbing, but I wasn't really prepared for how seriously fucked up this show is. Sure, it has a couple moments that some might call "campy," when an actor drawls out a snatch of hillbilly dialect that seems a mite contrived, and it's arguably padded by comparison with the original story, but those minor flaws are more than made up for by several of the most troubling monologues I've ever seen on TV. You'll never look at George "Goober" Lindsay the same way again.

Opening with Billy Barty as a sinister carny, and full to burstin' with famous hick character actors like Pat Buttram, Slim Pickens, James Best (Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane from "Dukes of Hazzard") and the legendary Jane Darwell from "Grapes of Wrath," this episode goes well beyond the usual Hitchcock TV excellence to truly flesh-crawling mode. With another bonus-- music by Bernard Herrmann! (For hardcore Hitchcock buffs, this show was directed by Norman Lloyd, a great but obscure actor who played villain Frank Fry in the master's typically unappreciated early film "Saboteur." And another deep trivia tidbit-- you also get William H. Marshall, who played "Blacula," and the King of Cartoons on Pee Wee Herman's tv show.)

KEEP ASPIRING, YOUNG MAN

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:52:00 +0000

I just read a review on Amazon where
the reviewer used the words "as a
aspiring writer--" etc.

Brilliant.

THE "INFORMATION AGE" IS REMINDING ME MORE AND MORE OF THE "ICE AGE"

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:55:00 +0000

This was forwarded by my beautiful wife, and requires no editorial comment from me. As Judy Moody would say, Double Rare!

"OF ALL TIME" IS THE MOST ANNOYING PHRASE OF ALL TIME

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:04:00 +0000

I was reading some guy's online list of his favorite Stephen King novels. It was well-written, more or less, and interesting, until he referred to King's best books "of all time."

This phrase never fails to set me off.

Let's chat for a bit about the backstory. I suppose it's fair to say that the very nature of time is somewhat subjective, even arbitrary, based as it is on the turnin' of the earth. So, to begin with, it's a human-made, human-defined construct; not an absolute thing. It's only definable in terms set down by humans, under parameters relevant to humans. It could be possible for the more philosophical among us (like serious Star Trek fans) to argue that time has always been one of humanity's many self-indulgent creations-- a will-o-the-wisp, impossible to grasp, which we naively claim to have nailed down.

On a more prosaic level, where are we going to set the goal posts? Do we begin time at the Big Bang, where our universe is born, or the Garden of Eden, where Eve Arden eats the poisoned apple and falls asleep before being rescued by Glinda, or Jesus's birthday, or what? Tough call. I'm not going to take sides on that, as science is not my strong point. Neither are history or theology.

It does seem to me, though, that when we use the phrase "of all time," as in "best rock albums of all time," or "best rock singles of all time," "most awesome websites of all time," or even "best lesbian Grammy moments of all time," it would behoove us to recall that even the most devil-may-care, slapdash and haphazard definition of "all time" should certainly be a longer interval than Mickey Rooney's lifespan.

Have we really become so stupid that "most righteous rock guitar solos since rock began" isn't cool enough? Or is there the danger that someone would think a phrase like that might be too vague? Are there young people that don't know how long rock music has been around? If you are one of these people, here's the scoop-- rock and roll started sometime around 1954. There are plenty of people (tools) who argue about when it started, citing this single or that single as the beginning of it, but ultimately, it's right around 1954, give or take. Not that long ago. We could change these best-of lists to "coolest guitar breaks recorded since Mickey Rooney's third or fourth divorce," and that would be valid, but "all time?" Recording has only been around since the late 19th century. Most of that early recorded stuff is pretty crude by today's standards. I'm tolerant of primitive audio myself, and if you scout around you can find some gems from the era, but if it was recorded on cylinder and you hear it today, it often sounds a lot like the echo you hear when your soccer ball drops into a storm drain. You're not going to find any of that shit on any of Rolling Stone's "Best of" lists.

At any rate, I forgot where I was going with this, so I'll just sign off now.

TRAVEL BACK IN TIME, TO A MAGICAL LAND WHERE THIS CARTOON WOULDN'T HAVE SEEMED LIKE AN IRONIC PARODY FROM THE EARLY NINETIES

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Thu, 12 May 2011 13:39:00 +0000

Sometimes I see something that stops me in my tracks. (Of course, that's just an expression, because I'm sitting on my ass in my bathrobe, staring at my computer.) But if one of my ambulatory ancestors had seen the equivalent of this, he surely would have taken a break from his hunting and gathering, because it boggles the mind.

I've tried, and tried, to keep this blog from being a left-wing propaganda site. I really have. Recently I stopped "blogging" for a few months, mainly because it seemed that every time I was exposed to jaw-dropping idiocy, Republicans were behind it, and I don't want to be just another political blogger. I have extreme partisan views, certainly, but I don't think partisan blogging has made our political dialogue smarter-- I think it's just encouraged idiots to draw deeper lines in the sand. Not lines, really-- they've become gorges at this point, the kind that Evel Knievel used to jump over. And part of me wants to start preaching compromise-- certainly the budget battle has reached the danger zone where compromise from both sides is really needed, regardless of who started it, and whose decades of dangerous policies led us here.

But my job is to write about idiocy, and Mike Huckabee has just crossed a line. I'm not going to say anything about this clip, except that it's just the tip of the iceberg. Huckabee is evidently selling pounds of this stuff, under the name
http://learnourhistory.com/
Thanks to Lara Robillard for passing this along.
Robert Smigel fans will probably agree that this stuff looks eerily like one of his sharp parodies of moronic drivel aimed at kids by marketers. I'd like to believe that even Lynne Cheney would find this clip asinine, but who knows? Maybe I'm giving her too much credit.

GOP PASSES LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO SAY ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT OBAMA AT ANY TIME; EVEN HIS SHOES CANNOT BE COMPLIMENTED, UNDER WORDING OF UNUSUALLY STRICT NEW REGULATION

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Fri, 06 May 2011 19:09:00 +0000

I think the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden shows that, for some Republicans, there is no decision Obama can make, no act he can commit, no statement he can utter, that can be seen in a positive light. I received an email asserting that Obama was coerced into the Bin Laden affair (against his anti-American objections) by a bloodthirsty Leon Panetta. By way of proof of this mildly inflammatory accusation, a photo was included of a bunch of people, none of whom were Obama or Panetta. It was a chilling audiovisual aid to accompany the latest slice of headcheese from the windowless rooms where latte-swilling flacks issue endless propaganda to be emailed from one drone to another, back and forth, hither and yon, annoying co-workers, friends, and family, and helping to comfort every American who would prefer to think of those across the aisle as fire-breathing, goat-fucking hellspawn, rather than critical thinkers who sometimes gather facts and information from sources other than email forwards before making up their minds.

I believe we've reached the point where Jesus and Ronald Reagan could link arms, float down from Heaven, and hold a press conference where they say something to the effect of, "Yes, we both agree that Barack Obama is usually wrong about everything, but early today he actually made a decision that was good for America and it wouldn't kill you to take a break from criticizing him for one news cycle. It might even be a quintessentially Christian American act," and an hour later Peggy Noonan would be on TV saying, "Well, of course, I hate to disagree with the late President Reagan and our Blessed Saviour, but---"

BORIS KARLOFF ON "TODAY'S TEENS"

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:59:00 +0000

All right, I admit it-- I barely even watched this before I posted it here. I've become toxically busy, as regular visitors to this space must have gleaned. I don't even have time to watch this-- I have to get back to work. But this seemed like it would have to be good, so here it is.

Thanks to Rob Blau, one of my many dedicated operatives in the field, for passing this item along.

TWO MEXICAN WRESTLERS DISCUSS FLEXIBILITY OF ETHICAL PARADIGM

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 06:09:00 +0000

I originally wrote this material as a short essay, in a post a while back. I never got any feedback about it, so after mulling it over for about a year, I decided it would work better as a dialogue between two masked Mexican wrestlers. all contents copyright Karl Straub 2010.

OLD JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY RANT ABOUT THE EVILS OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:19:00 +0000

I stumbled onto this recording of Robert Welch, a John Birch Society stalwart, ranting about socialized medicine. It's in the guise of an after-dinner speech, and as such is something we don't hear much of these days-- extremely articulate claptrap. I would guess that this represents some of the roots of the Tea Party. The main difference is that misspelled soundbites and confusion about the actual words in the Bill of Rights are today's substitute for the eloquently expressed balderdash of that bygone era. Also, as far as I know, no John Birchers ever dressed up as Ben Franklin or Button Gwinnett, although I suspect many of them would have fit into a Ben Franklin suit.

www.karlstraubmusic.com/1 Medicine Leads The Way MP3 1.mp3

If you made it all the way through the first one, here's more--
www.karlstraubmusic.com/2 Medicine Leads The Way MP3 2.mp3

BOOM BOOM BOOM, BOOM BOOM BOOM, BOOM BOOM BOOM, BOOM-- MAN, IT'S SO FREAKING HIP

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:59:00 +0000

Thanks to John C. McCain for sending this along. Since this video was created by Joe Hundertmark, several copycat jazz robot videos have popped up. All the imitations I've seen are hilarious, but this is the one that started the trend. If you need more, search "jazz robots" on youtube. (The drug one is especially good.)

YOU CAN HAVE JESUS OR YOUR FRIENDS, AND WE RECOMMEND JESUS, SAYS PUPPET GAGGLE

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:42:00 +0000

Here's another dry ice cooler filled with weirdness. This time we pass along material collected by www.youtube.com/user/religiongonecrazy .

Kudos to religiongonecrazy for doing all this legwork, and kudos as well to Rob Blau, my man in the field who alerted me to this developing situation. I like to be choosy when I run Christian stuff-- I don't want become fixated on that. I prefer to post Christian weirdness only when puppets are involved.

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IS WHAT MAKES HORSE RACES POSSIBLE, according to MARK TWAIN

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:47:00 +0000

I just read an amazon review where someone said that the Stones album
"Emotional Rescue" was
better than "Exile on Main Street."

I would like to meet this guy; he
sounds pretty cool.

ANOTHER WHITE GUY VERBALLY DEFENDS MY FAMILY AGAINST WUSSIES AND GRIZZLIES ALIKE

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:17:00 +0000

Here's a link to a story from Talking Points Memo. I'll post the article below, but wanted to give you the link upfront.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/bryan_fischer_weve_feminized_the_medal_of_honor_by.php?ref=fpblg

Apparently this guy represents the Jesus who is in favor of sexism and bloodlust. I've never heard that Jesus discussed; I suppose the macho Jesus must be Jesus's secret identity.

Bryan Fischer: We've 'Feminized' Medal Of Honor By Not Giving It To Soldiers Who Kill More People
Jillian Rayfield | November 17, 2010, 1:36PM

Bryan Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the conservative Christian group the American Family Association, was unhappy yesterday that President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to a soldier for saving lives. This, Fischer wrote on his blog, shows that the Medal of Honor has been "feminized" because "we now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them."

Here's how the AP described Medal of Honor winner Army Sgt. Salvatore Giunta heroics:

Giunta, the first living Medal of Honor winner of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, braved heavy gunfire to pull a fellow soldier to cover and rescued another who was being dragged away by insurgents.

Fischer's take? "So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?"

"We have feminized the Medal of Honor," Fischer wrote. He also quoted General Patton: "Gen. George Patton once famously said, 'The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.'" (Actually, Patton doesn't say anything about the other guy: "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.")

Fischer recently argued that it's time to get rid of the "curse" that is the Grizzly Bear because of the number of humans who have been killed by bears: "One human being is worth more than an infinite number of grizzly bears. Another way to put it is that there is no number of live grizzlies worth one dead human being. If it's a choice between grizzlies and humans, the grizzlies have to go. And it's time."

Fischer is a favorite of social conservative Republicans, and spoke at the Values Voter summit this fall alongside Mitt Romney, Jim DeMint, and other big-shot Republicans.

CAN WE PLEASE STOP USING THE WORD "FREEDOM" EVERY FIVE SECONDS?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:58:00 +0000

I occasionally see email forwards using a somewhat heavy-handed approach to remind me that at any given moment, some American is either fighting for my freedom, or having his or hers taken away. This morning the Post had the results of a poll where one of the polled had used the expression "freedom-robbing" to sum up her feelings about the federal government. I'm starting to find the word "freedom" wearying.

For those who are tired of hearing me on this topic, you might want to go grab a Mr. Pibb, as I do when blowhards approach. They always appear out of the mist, with a ghostly light behind them, obscuring their features. Then they get closer and closer with mathematical certainty and deliberation, as if they are standing on a moving sidewalk.

I've been hearing a lot about freedoms taken away by Obama and his unholy coven of pinkos. (I guess Obama has become sort of a Negro Adlai Stevenson.) I keep trying to figure out, which freedoms are in jeopardy for these angry home-schoolers? It's caused me to meditate on how I feel about the whole concept of freedom, and what I suspect it means for a lot of other people.

It finally hit me-- I much admire the principles laid down by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and the other white male English-speaking upper-middle-class-to-wealthy property owners, whereby we can do and say certain things reflecting our philosophy of life, and not worry about some authority figure giving us grief about it. Excellent idea, I would say. But-- and here's where the trouble starts-- there is one big problem with it, if you're going to try it out in real world. A world, in short, where yellowing parchment ends and body odor begins.

You are not the only person in the world. Sometimes, like when you're in your luxurious walk-in closet, it might feel as if you are. But, you're not. This means that there are people who will be affected by much of what you do and say each day. They have rights, too.

This means that you will have to make choices when you think about the world.

One choice might be to do whatever you want, and then look for something in the Constitution that justifies your behavior. Judging from the soundbites that I occasionally halfway hear, you can find justification for your side of things pretty easily in the Constitution. (The Bible is another similar document, which helps explain why these two texts are so revered.)

Once you reach a comfort level about the concept of doing whatever you want to do, and implementing it in your daily life, you then become aware of two groups of people-- the people who don't like what you do and say, and the people who do and say things you don't like. It's pretty hard to ignore those two groups. Seems as though there are always some of them around. There are people who claim to ignore one or both of those groups, but I believe that even people we hear repeatedly verbalizing their commitment to letting everybody do what they want to do (such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jean-Pierre Rampal, et al) are a bit disingenuous. To hear Libertarians talk about it, the principle of letting people do what they want to do is both honorable and financially practical. I believe my six-year-old son is more or less a Libertarian. (I should point out here that a Libertarian with a red moustache once refused to lend me his Chapstick. Probably this experience biased me against Libertarians. He also gave me a flinty mini-lecture about the irresponsibility and selfishness of people who ask to borrow Chapstick.)

In my son's view of the world, I should let him do whatever he wants to do. He's convinced that none of his choices will hurt him, and all of them also carry a glowing patina of health benefits, fairness, and in some cases educational value for him. For me as well, in some cases.

He also wants me to continue earning money to finance his choices, many of which cost money. The money-earning process should be carried out after he's asleep, so I can be available to assist him at a moment's notice with whatever whim strikes his fancy. Beyond that, it also seems unfair to him that I get to stay up later than he does, even though we already allow him to go to bed at midnight so he can watch the various amusing cable shows.

But, let's get back to the freedom thing. Once you've started thinking about the two groups of people, it doesn't take long to find holes in their argument. Either they are philosophically wrong, because they follow flawed logic, or they are morally wrong. It works out really well if they are wrong in both ways, because then, as the person who figured out the two reasons for their wrongness, you can feel not only smart but somehow spiritually clean as well. In short, it's essential to demonstrate that the people in the two groups are stupid and venal. Since you are the person who solved this mystery, as a result you are something of a hero. But a humble one, of course.

Now, where are you going to find justification for branding these groups with a big red scarlet letter? Here's the beauty of it-- you don't have to go very far to find it. Those willing to exert physical effort can reach for a nearby Bible and find some passage that backs them up. If possible, use one of the sentences in there that doesn't mention dragons. Another option is to check your email for emails that have already done this work for you. Remember, there are people in windowless rooms putting these emails together. They are sitting there around the clock, with laptops and bearclaws, uploading and downloading jpegs and PDFs like they're going out of style. So your job is to click on those emails, and skim them like a man. If you are one of those big city metrosexuals with an iPhone, only your thumbs will be needed. Even easier!

The flawed logic part is, perhaps, a bit more labor-intensive. The trick here is to use clever soundbites and colorful analogies that are easy to remember. The gold standard would be any philosophical statement short and punchy enough for an action hero to say while bludgeoning a terrorist. You will probably have to do some sifting here-- because TV operates in real time, you'll need to listen to a lot of irrelevant soundbites before you get to the ones you can use. Even if you're avoiding the liberal media, there will still be plenty of short and inane phrases you'll have to disregard. Here's a tip-- if the soundbite has music to it, it's probably a commercial jingle, and not something you can bring to an argument with one of the many idiots/moral pygmies who disagree with you. Again, the two groups.

All of these methods boil down to one goal. You need to be able to dismiss anyone in the two groups. If you want to do something, that means you are heroically exercising a freedom, and anyone questioning that is morally and intellectually wrong. How dare they try to take away my freedoms that all those people died for! But if someone else does something you don't care for, they'd better not to try to hide behind any freedom argument, though! How dare they insult all the dead heroes by trying to use freedom to do or say what they want to do, given that the things they want to do (i.e. vajazzling their vajayjays) are morally repugnant and/or financially impractical.

MUST OUR PRESIDENT BE A "COLONIALIST?'

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Straub) — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:41:00 +0000

I keep hearing about Dinesh D'Souza's recent article. The play this story has had in the media is just another example of the way certain demagogues work. Your intellectual demagogue, like Newt Gingrich, likes to talk about bullshit, but not just some internet bullshit. He prefers that the bullshit be found in a magazine article. This lends it a patina of credibility, unlike a soundbite delivered by a man dressed in the garb of an 18th century blacksmith.

Today, I see that the Post has more discussion on this article. I'll admit, I didn't open the paper up to read it; that would have taken too much time. Instead, I just caught a glimpse of the title, "Why I Think Obama is an Anti-colonialist," by Dinesh D'Souza. I'm not sure I need to know why D'Souza thinks Obama might be an anti-colonialist. I'll just take a moment and tell you why I, Karl Straub, think Obama might be an anti-colonialist.

My logic is pretty simple, really. If Obama is, indeed, anti-colonial, it might be because he's not a total fucking asshole. That's pretty much the prerequisite for being pro-colonial. I know, it's shocking that we have a president whom we can't imagine strutting around in aviator sunglasses, or relaxing with a gin and tonic while a malaria-ridden native polishes his silverware. We can't picture Obama treating entire nations like children, or sitting in a mosquito tent and barking at his dark-skinned butler to hustle over with some quinine and a cummerbund. I'm not sure exactly why this is a negative. I'd just as soon not have a president who behaves like a character in a Graham Greene novel.