Failed Policies of the Past
Definition: Limited government, free markets, personal responsibility, liberty.
We Are All In This Together
Definition: For the love of God who do we tax back to the stone-age to get out of this!?
Definition: Any attempt by conservatives and libertarians to rein in the unsustainable spending of out of control government.
Definition: A word used to motivate making sure outcomes do not match abilities or effort. Note: pre-1970 usage meant roughly the opposite.
Definition: Redistribution based on group affiliation, regardless of anything the actual individuals in question did, or even their specific ancestors did, but instead based on the actions of other individuals in the past who just kind of looked vaguely like those in the relevant groups being discussed now, both victim and oppressor. Also applies to redistribution of any kind, whether based on actual unfairness, or on simply outcomes liberals do not like.
Alternative definition: Unspecific. Just a meaningless phrase that screams “I am liberal and this phrase sounds liberal and nice with just a hint of revolutionary sexiness.”
“Deny Access to…”
Used in a sentence: “It is unfair to deny access to healthcare to 26 year olds living off their parents.”
Definition: When a person isn’t given something they want for free, and they have not found a way to steal it yet, they have been “denied access” to it. In general it is the “1%” that “denies access.” See “1%” below.
Definition: Something provided by other men and women’s labor that some claim as their right, sometimes claiming to have paid for it during their lifetime, when all forms of modern mathematics and accounting reject that notion.
Used in a sentence: “I have a right to healthcare.”
Definition: A more extreme form of “entitlement” defined above. Note that modern usage throws out the long tradition of natural rights only of a negative nature, that is, the right not to have something done to you, for rights of a positive nature, that is, the right to certain goods and services, like health care, Apple products, and soy milk. Since, no matter how important these items are, these modern positive rights must still be produced and taken from others, essentially the word “rights” now often stands for a system of slavery and theft.
Definition: A place liberals used to ridicule as Mayberry but now pretend to love.
Definition: People who support me.
Definition: People who support you.
Definition: Something a politicians calls someone with 3x more money than the median voter who supported the politician in question.
Alternative Definition: Someone the same exact politician hits up for cash.
Definition: Those who pay more than 1/3 the total federal income tax and are never thanked for it. More generally, they are responsible for all evil in the world today (unless they work in Hollywood or hi-tech in which case they are “honorary 99%-ers” regardless of income, tax rate, and lifestyle).
Definition: A focus-group tested better word than “the poor” for progressives to use to advance their statist schemes. Some speeches by progressives now consist of just saying it over and over again in different hypnotic musical tones.
Definition: What occurs when a free and productive economy includes people with different abilities, work habits, and, of course, luck. Also, one of the main reasons anyone actually works at anything.
A Fair Tax System
Definition: One in which the “rich” (i.e., those making more than the speaker of these words, or those voting for the speaker) pay 50% more than they currently pay, and the speaker and his constituents get to pay 50% less than they currently pay. These figures remain unchanged despite any starting tax rates. If this change pushes the “rich” to over 100% or the non-rich to below 0% more the fairer.
Definition: The person living the ideal progressive life where no responsibility is taken, no risk is taken, the government perks are endless, you never see who pays for it, and the tyrannical hand of big-brother never makes it into the cartoon narrative.
Definition: The ultimate evil Supreme Court decision (narrowly defeating Dred Scott) which expanded free speech, thus allowing those with money to, uh, speak freely.
Definition: A delicious breakfast treat that goes well with English Breakfast tea and clotted crème. Conservatives prefer theirs in the traditional 9 pack—liberals enjoy up to 15.
Definition: Any brilliant scholar who both thinks we can fix the U.S. financial system simply by adding another giant bureaucracy with near unlimited power, and who can, by dancing vigorously in a circle, make it rain. Both equally likely.
The IMF and/or the World Bank
Definition: Nobody knows. See SMERSH and CHAOS for similar definitions.
The European Financial Crisis
Definition: A complex multi-year dance whose sole purpose is to see how much money can be shaken out of the German middle-class.
Universal Health Care
Definition: The system formerly known as single payer.
Single payer Health Care
Definition: The system formerly known as socialized medicine.
Definition: Something Democrats claim they don’t want, as they simply want Universal Health Care.
Nobel Peace Prize
Definition: A prize awarded to the left’s favorite person that year.
Antonym: Any prize having anything to do with actual Peace, or frankly accomplishment of any kind.
Definition: Taking money from current and future Americans to undertake projects that didn’t make sense before, don’t make sense now, will net cost jobs as the stimulus must be paid for privately, but since the job losses will be hidden, and the direct hires put on the evening news, might let those in charge keep their cushy jobs a bit longer.
World War II
Definition: Mainly important as proof that Keynesian stimulus works (side note: also led to defeat of Nazis and Imperial Japan). Since it is the only such “proof” ever, and we all have nuclear weapons now, different options are being considered for future stimuli. Actually, since World War II ending did not crash the economy as Keynesians predicted at the time, frankly we’re rethinking the whole thing.
Cash for Clunkers
Definition: What we came up to replace World War II as stimulus. Many perfectly good cars destroyed, no Nazis defeated.
Definition: The act of printing pieces of paper to purchase other pieces of paper and thinking it matters at all for anything. See “dogs chasing cars” for related examples.
Definition: Spending much more than ever before but slightly less than you had once thought you might spend which itself was a completely insane amount to spend.
Definition: A Hollywood monster which kills and devours old people simply by showing them a preliminary reasonable plan to grow spending slower than we currently are, while keeping any obligations already made to the elderly.
Definition: An agreement to raise taxes now while tacitly agreeing to waive the corresponding spending cuts later. Usually done in at least a 10:1 ratio as waiving 10x the future cuts is a particularly effective amount of waiving.
Definition: To make something (e.g., government) bigger, more intrusive, less efficient, and more dictatorial.
Definition: We found one old sap from the other party dying for one last shot at relevance who will add his name to our highly partisan effort.
Definition: A verb: to “Dodd-Frank” something is to use the perpetrators of a major crime to fix things for next time. Like taking ex-computer hackers and putting them in charge of your security (this example is not perfect as this might actually work). Used in a sentence: “We really Dodd-Franked that financial reform.”
See also “Searching for the real killers.”
Right Wing Extremist
Definition: Someone objecting in any way to left wing extremism.
Definition: When applied to yourself, conveys an instant halo of goodness that does not have to be justified with actions, logic, or even the slightest examination of what the policies you support have wrought. Works particularly well for rich hypocrites (Wall Street) and rich morons (Hollywood).
Definition: A rebranding of “liberal” post-Dukakis, going back to an older word, that means essentially the same thing, but contains the very positive word “progress” within it, and the always welcome “ive” ending.
Definition: A philosophy held by annoying bastards who happen to be right about nearly everything. Fortunately, due to the frustration that comes with being right about nearly everything, in a world wrong about those same things, there are only 19 of them, and we’re going to find the bastards soon.
The Party of No
Definition: Legislators who are rightly demonized by the press and progressives for being elected to bring down the size of government and then actually trying to do so. Sons of bitches.
Synonyms: Obstructionists, Do-nothing Congress
The Buck Stops There
Definition: Something Barack Obama says about George W. Bush.
Definition: A process where the USA makes amends to the rest of the world for being more successful than them, footing many of their bills, and shedding our blood to keep them safer and freer.
Definition: Something progressives get misty over when Henry Fonda is being denied it on the silver screen and when in power they deliver at the end of an explosive drone after Judge David Axelrod pronounces the target guilty.
Definition: A non-linear chaotic system that is a near-perfect example of something that is very very difficult, even using modern methods, to explain or forecast. This in no way takes away from the possible reasonableness of man-made climate change described below. Though, one might note, we get frustrated by weathermen as they can’t forecast the climate today.
Definition: What we now call “climate change”. Global warming was phased out as it also leads to things being too cold, and sometimes being just right. Mama Bear has been replaced with a highly volatile mix of all three bears.
Definition: The fact that over time the climate, uh, changes.
Man-Made Climate Change
Definition: The entirely reasonable idea that seven billion industrialized humans may be affecting the climate.
Krypton Seven Seconds Before Kal-El Was Launched Into Space
Definition: The stage liberals are certain the Earth is at.
Definition: The amount progressives will spend to combat man-made climate change without any assessment of the costs and benefits of these actions.
The Green Agenda
Definition: The additional use of man-made climate change, even if it’s fully true and it makes economic sense to sacrifice to fight it, to have government and its anointed priests take over much more of our lives. Any questioning of it is absolute proof of evil. Children must be indoctrinated in it in grade school before reading or writing or arithmetic. They must then be sent to spy on and lecture their parents.
Trickle Down Economics
Definition: A brilliant marketing phrase for denigrating the truth: that a freer economy helps everyone. Not to be confused with “trickle up poverty,” socialism.
Definition: An excellent form of government where if you can cobble together 51% of the people, by promising them other people’s stuff, or scaring them that you’ll take away their stuff, you can rule as a dictator. It is decidedly not the form of government originally chosen by the United States of America, which is a constitutional republic with limited government. Thankfully we’ve mostly done away with that nonsense.
Definition: A hate crime if used about an American politician who wants us to be more like Europe. Or, alternatively, a word used by many European politicians to define themselves.
…Unless you’ve been pregnant/handicapped yourself, you have no right to voice your opinion on those matters.
Then to use your logic:
If you’ve never been in combat yourself, you have no right to voice your opinion on Iraq or Afghanistan.
If you’ve never served your country, you have no right to voice your opinion about the military.
Unless you make over $250,000 per year, you have no right to voice your opinion on the rich.
Unless you’ve ever owned and operated a business, you have no right to voice your opinion on creating jobs.
Unless you’ve ever been in law enforcement, you have no right to voice your opinion about the police.
If you’ve never been a thief, you have no right to voice your opinion about Democrats.
Let me tell you a little something about the way you dress, and about your tattoos and your piercings.
People judge you on it. It may not be fair, it may not be accurate—but we all do it. It says something about you, whether you like it or not.
I was driving home from my girlfriend’s house tonight. I had to stop for fuel. I actually go to this station all the time because it’s right near my work, so I know a bunch of the employees. Arabs. Nice guys. Always greet you when you come in (“Hello my friend!”), always thank you when you leave. So, I pull in to fill up, park my car, and head inside to pay for the fuel and get myself a bottle of water.
Outside on the curb were four girls loitering by the entrance. By the look of them, they couldn’t have been any older than 25. One was dressed in a club dress that left very little to the imagination, and a pair of heels that could probably double as a stabbing weapon. Thin, pretty. One was in short shorts and a t-shirt, her thong sticking out from the back of her pants, also leaving little to the imagination, yapping on her cell phone. She could have been really attractive if not for the disgusting technicolor monstrosity running from her clavicle to her elbow. One was somewhat hefty. Fat, by my standards—but not like, disgustingly obese. She was covered in ink and had a bunch of piercings—nose, eyebrow, one sticking out of her chin (somehow), and another that ran along the side of her face next to her eyes (somehow). She was dressed in clothes clearly not designed for her body type. The fourth I didn’t really get a good look at, but I’m going to assume it was along the same lines.
So, my first thought was, “Prostitutes.” Hey, sue me—they looked like hookers. Dress like a whore, and that’s what people are going to think about you. Again, may not be accurate, may not be fair—but that’s life. And, really—why dress like that if that’s NOT what you want people to think about you?
Anyway, I’m walking in and I’m like, “Please don’t talk to me, please don’t talk to me, please don’t talk to me,” and, sure enough, Fatty McFatty jumps up to block my path and says, “Hey, we have a flat tire and we’re stranded, can we get a ride?”
The first thing that went through my head was, “There’s a spare in your trunk. You don’t know how to change a tire?” Probably not. Young people lack those kinds of basic, practical skills these days. Or, maybe, they just didn’t want to get their whore clothes dirty and break their fake nails. Who knows.
The second thing that went through my head was, “You’ve all clearly got cell phones—call a cab, or a tow.” I mean, in this day and age, why would four girls, dressed like that, be sitting at a gas station in Vegas, at one in the morning, trying to bum a ride?
The third thing that went through my head was, “I do NOT want these skanks skanking up my brand new car.” (Yeah, I bought a new car about a month ago. Loving it.)
So, I looked at her and said, “Mm, let me think about that.”
I go inside the convenience store and I’m looking at the manager. I don’t KNOW the guy, but I know him just out of familiarity. So I cock an eyebrow at him with a questioning look on my face and point a thumb at the entrance. He gives me this sarcastic, “Fuck if I know” look. I go grab a bottle of water and slide a couple twenties across the counter to fill up. He says, “They’ve been there for about half an hour.” I reply, “What, are they prostitutes?” He says, “Nah, but they keep coming in to use the restroom.” “Think they’re doing meth?” I say. “I don’t know, probably,” he says, “I’m about 10 minutes away from calling the cops just to get them off my curb.” I give him a nod of understanding and wish him a good night.
So I head back outside. Now there’s six black guys there with these girls. You know, real Trayvon Martin types—dressed like thugs that look like they’re up to no good. (Oh ho! Do you take issue with that? Good. Because that’s the point of this whole story.) Four have singled out one of the girls apiece, and two are hanging out by their car. I smell the stench of marijuana in the air as I walk past them.
I go to my car, fill the fuel tank, and hop in. Fatty McFatty starts wandering toward me and says, “How about that ride?” I give her a dismissive wave with my hand, start the engine, and drive home.
So I’m thinking about this as I’m making the drive. A bunch of “What if’s” and “Maybe I should have’s” start going through my head. Maybe I should have offered to help them with their alleged flat. Maybe I should have given them twenty bucks to call a cab. What if those guys try some stuff with the girls. What if I pick up the newspaper tomorrow and see a story about four young women being raped. Maybe I should have given them a ride. What if those guys really were up to no good. The decent human being in me cried out for a minute in a song of regret for not helping them out. The more dominant cynical voice in me reassured me that I was probably better off just getting in my car and leaving.
Here’s why I did: it just looked wrong. It looked treacherous to me on all fronts. Putting myself in between the guys and the whore-dressed girls felt like a recipe for trouble. Letting the girls into my car felt like a recipe for trouble as well. That “red alert” siren was going off in my brain, so I just took care of my business and got out of there.
What does this have to do with character judgments? Well, it was my snap, instinctive judgments about this cast of characters that that led me to my decision. Fatty McFatty with her metalface just seemed like trouble. Her friends seemed like trouble. The black guys, dressed like thugs, stinking of marijuana, seemed like trouble. They seemed like trouble for no reason other than the way they appeared. The tattoos, the piercings, the slutty clothes, the thug outfits—these all said something very clear about these people: that they’re trouble. Is that fair? Nope. Is that accurate? Who knows. But my point is this: when you dress like that, when you mar your body like that, you are unintentionally (or hell, maybe intentionally) communicating something about yourself to everyone else. And that thing you’re communicating? It’s not good.
So why do it? KNOWING that others are going to judge you negatively because of it, why do it? I mean, it’s your freedom, it’s your right—I’m sure as heck not going to stop you from doing it—but why? What exactly is the rationale there? Why would someone want to communicate that image of themselves to others? This is speculation, but I’m pretty sure I know what was going on in the minds of those guys as they approached those girls. I have to wonder: is that really what these girls want to say about themselves just by their dress and their tattoos? Is that really what they want to attract? And if so, why? Do they not realize that their whorish attire, their tattoos, their weird piercings are saying something about them? I know all the arguments regarding the notion of a chick dressing “like she’s asking for it”—and, fundamentally, they’re bogus—but at the same time, that character judgment IS there. We KNOW it’s there. So, why do it?
It’s 1am on a Friday night on the streets of Vegas. You’re tatted up and dressed like a whore. Exactly what do you want people to think? I mean, really.
The same goes with the guys. In my profession, I know plenty of smart, eduated, well-to-do black people. They’re well dressed and well mannered. They’re good people. These guys dressed like thugs—what exactly are they trying to communicate? Is that really the image they want for themselves? And if so, why? And do they know that average guys like myself look at them and immediately think “trouble” just by the look of them? Do they care?
I always say that appearance is a lot more important than people realize. It says a lot about you, whether you want it to or not. I’m a polo shirt and blue jeans kind of guy. That’s my “casual” attire. Strangely enough, my Izod shirt and my Perry Ellis jeans are probably cheaper than the gear they’re wearing to intentionally scream “whore” or “thug”—so that dispenses with the class-based argument. So what is it? Why go out of your way to create that image for yourself knowing you’re going to be judged on it?
I don’t get that.
In case you’re wondering: ultimately, I split the middle. I dialed 311. I figured it was the best I could do to help without actively involving myself. I described the situation to the non-emergency police dispatcher, gave her my name and phone number, and she told me that an officer in the area would go check it out. I informed her that this was probably about half an hour ago, so there might not be anything to check out—but, she followed her procedures and I left it at that.
I’m kind of hurting right now, but I’m going to exploit his death for a moment to make a very clear point about the difference between leftists and rightists.
A good friend of mine was killed yesterday in a car wreck. He ripped around a curve, jumped the curb, and smashed into a light pole. Killed instantly. It’s no good. He was a good guy, and I liked him (which is not something I can say about a lot of people). I found out early yesterday from his family. Sucks. Being the sort that I am, I wanted to know the details. Namely, I wanted to know if he was drunk. So, I called up a cop-buddy I know and got some “off the record” information. He told me what I already knew, gave me the added information that he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and then stated that he couldn’t talk about an “active investigation.” That’s cop-speak for, “he was under the influence”—they’re just not sure of what (that’s for the coroner to determine). Well, I already know it wasn’t drugs, so I’m guessing he was probably drunk. And I can see it too. He got hammered, jumped into his car, and smashed into a pole. Knowing him, I can see that being the case.
[Now, do me a favor people: save me your insincere sympathies. None of you know me, none of you give a crap about me, none of you knew my friend—so don’t pretend like you’re “sorry for my loss.” You’re not. People die every day, and NONE of you lament it because if you did, you’d be perpetually curled up in the fetal position refusing to leave your beds. So don’t insult my intelligence by pretending that you give a crap about some anonymous internet nobody and the sudden unexpected tragedy in his life. Because that’s not what I want to discuss with this post.]
It’s no secret that I am right-leaning. Contrary to my blog title, I’m neither conservative nor Republican—but many have made it pointedly clear that I am an enemy of both liberalism and of Democrats. Having now got over the initial horror of my friend’s death, you know what I started thinking about? How people react to the sudden death of a loved one.
Emotionally. They react emotionally. It’s an emotional thing. It hits you like a brick to the face, and sometimes it’s so hard that you have to sit down just to digest it. I did. That’s why, when I got the news, it was prefaced by, “You’d better sit down.”
The question then is, what do they do with that knowledge? Here’s the difference between leftists and rightists. My friend died. Died in the prime of his life. He was probably drunk, he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and now he’s dead. You know what I’m NOT doing? I’m not jumping into action and getting on a soapbox to demand that there should be [government] forces in place to prevent this kind of thing. I’m not whining about seatbelt laws, or DUI laws. I’m not whining that there should have been some kind of controls in place to keep my friend from downing a bottle of Jameson (his drink of choice) and getting behind the wheel. I’m not whining that there should be some kind of power to have kept my friend from dying. Because I know that power does not, and never will exist. Not without complete totalitarianism. And if that’s the price for life, then it isn’t worth it.
He was stupid. He was my friend, but he was stupid. He made the choice to (in all likelihood) drink. He made the choice to get in his car. He made the choice to not wear his seatbelt. And those choices cost him his life. They were stupid choices, but they were his to make. I lament his death—but I do not think that others should be deprived of those choices, of the freedom to make stupid choices, simply because I’m emotionally pained by the loss of my friend.
Leftists do. Leftists live in a naive world where they truly believe that every bad thing that can happen in life can be prevented by regulation. They are wrong. There’s no debate to be had about it—leftists, liberals especially, are just plain wrong. About everything they believe. Why? Because the concepts of “personal responsibility” and “self reliance” do not enter into their tiny little pea brains. They cannot fathom the notion that the consequences of one’s actions are natural and that people are personally accountable for them—especially when the accountability happens to be death. My friend made a stupid decision. You know what? It was his to make. His choice cost him his life, but it was his to make.
And you know what? Nevada already has laws against DUI and against not wearing seatbelts. They didn’t help. Do you think my friend cared about the threat of prosecution against the freedom of doing as he pleased? He didn’t. People are going to decide, for themselves, how to live their lives. They may decide poorly, and the consequences of their decisions may be fatal—but that’s the difference between right and left. The left wants to protect people from themselves. The right accepts that you can’t.
The sudden death of my friend did not spur me to take to the streets to pretend like I could ensure that such a thing never happened to anyone else ever again. That’s an idiot leftist mentality. Rightists look at the situation and say, “Yeah, that sucks. I’m going to miss that guy”—and then they reform their own lives so as not to make the same mistakes. But nowhere in our minds does it even occur to us that we should take steps to subjugate people into preventing them from their own stupidity.
That’s a leftist thing. That’s what liberal Democrats do. They’re an emotionally-reactionary pack of whiny, stupid animals who truly believe that the logical principle of cause and effect can be circumvented by law. And for whatever idiotic reason, they seem to think that a deprivation of personal liberty is a worthy thing when it comes with a noble (but asinine) intention. It’s not.
A friend of mine died because he was stupid. It’s a terrible loss, and I’m really hurting because of it. But you know what? I accept that he made his choices in life—poor as they ended up being. That’s the difference between right and left. Right accepts that people have the absolute right to determine the course of their lives—even if it doesn’t quite pan out for them the way they wanted—and that any consequences are their own fault. Left does not. Left believes that people should only made the choices dictated to them by the “benevolent” powers-that-be who arrogantly believe that they what’s best for everyone, and that there’s someone that’s to blame beside the victim for every tragedy that ever occurs.
My friend is dead. He died senselessly and needlessly. But it was no one’s fault but his own. We all make decisions that affect the course of our lives. Sometimes they’re bad decisions. But you know what? They’re MY decisions. And to hell with anyone who thinks they have the right to make them for me.
You have no idea where I get my information—but, to inform you, I get my information from a LOT of sites. Like last night—I was watching the Wisconsin election. Fox News started calling it with 25% of the votes in. That sounded fishy to me. So I flipped over to CNN and MSNBC, to see if they were telling a different tale. At the end of the day, what started as a 20-point lead was actually an 11-point lead.
I did the same thing yesterday when I voted in the Nevada Primaries. I spent about three hours, starting here researching every name on that ballot, including even the most minor of candidates (like State Board of Education). I actually had a hell of a time deciding between Brent Jones and Mari St. Martin for a State Senate seat—because there just wasn’t a lot of information on them. (I ended up calling Brent Jones’ campaign staff to find out his stance on abortion.) There are no “conservative or liberal sites” for stuff like that. You actually have to put the time in, and do your homework, in order to come up with an educated and informed vote. You have to go BEYOND the media mouthpieces to find out exactly what you’re voting for.
Hell, even most of CONGRESS doesn’t bother with that (See: Statistcare), let alone the average voter. Which, frankly, is pathetic.
You know why?
Because our “green jobs” President has single-handedly crushed the “environmentally friendly” political landscape. What do I mean by that?
For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.
■ Evergreen Solar
■ Solyndra (received $535 million)
■ Beacon Power (received $43 million)
■ AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
■ Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
■ SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
■ First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
■ Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
■ Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
■ Amonix (received 5.9 million)
■ The National Renewable Energy Lab
■ Fisker Automotive
■ Abound Solar (received $400 million)
■ Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
■ Solar Trust of America
■ A123 Systems (received $279 million)
■ Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
■ Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
■ Schneider Electric (received $86 million)
That’s 19 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama’s campaign donors.
You get what that means, right? These failures have cost us billions in order to produce nothing but bankruptcy and the destruction of jobs. That’s Obama PROVING TO US that the “green energy” industry is a waste. And EVEN IF IT’S NOT, Obama’s idiocy has seeded enough doubt in these alternative energy industries to set them back for decades.
Once again, a perfect illustration of the road to hell led by good intentions. Barack Idiot has singlehandedly set back the environmentalist movement by decades, by trying to force an industry that can not yet deliver on its promises. As such, he has undermined their credibility and cast a huge shadow of doubt on their future performance.
The abysmal losses of these green failures is more than enough to cause trepidation for future investors. This is a massive blow to the environmentalist lobby, who now cannot possibly stand in favor of President Downgrade, knowing how much he’s degraded the credibility of their cause. In a broad view—you cannot be Pro-Environmentalism and Pro-Obama. The latter is actively working against the former.
I wonder if the envirotards will wise up. Or if they’ll just keep feeding a broken machine—the very thing of which they accuse their detractors.
You want a solid investment in the environmental future? Vote Romney. It might be slower getting there, but it’s on a much more reliable track.
OK, you know what? I’m tired of hearing conservatives whine about comic book staples being retconned into fags, or homosexuality issues being overtly (and unnecessarily) shoved into comic books for no good reason. First it was Northstar’s homo “marriage”, now it’s Green Lantern being turned into a queer. Whatever. Why are conservatives getting upset about this?
My guess is, because they don’t understand comics. They just see American icons suddenly and inexplicably waving rainbow flags, and feel betrayed. Which, OK, that’d be fair if it were… Superman, Batman, Spider-man, Captain America. If it were one of the core characters, that might make sense. That would pretty clearly be the comic editors trying to ram an agenda down our throats (like Superman’s “renouncing” of America was). That’s not cool.
But this gay stuff? With such trivial characters? Much ado about nothing. And here’s why:
First: Northstar. Unless you’re a comics reader, you have no idea who Northstar is. And you don’t care. He wasn’t even named in the X-Men movies, so you have no frame of reference for him at all. On top of that, he’s a shitty superhero and probably the whiniest and most-Canadian of the X-Men. He’s gay. He’s been gay for a long time. Everyone knows, no one cares. Plus, you have to understand the comic. This is essentially what X-Men is all about—and it’s why it’s one of the more annoying comics Marvel produces. X-Men has some cool storylines (“Days of Future Past”) and splinter projects (X-Force!!!), but when you really break it down, the X-Men are a bunch of pissy minorities constantly whining that life isn’t fair. That’s it. That’s X-Men in a nutshell. “We’re different and treated bad. Waah.” So, Northstar getting married, it’s like, “Yeah, OK—that’s par for the course with X-Men.” I mean, it makes sense.
Yet, I hear conservatives pitching a fit because, “OMG, THEY’RE TRYING TO MAINSTREAM GAY MARRIAGE!” OK, you know what? They probably are—but it’s an ineffective tactic. It’s something we’d expect from the X-men, and nobody gives a crap about Northstar. You’re NEVER going to see a solo-title about the guy. EVER. And when you think about it? It’s kind of a stupid thing to devote issues to. I mean, Cyclops and Jean getting married? Storm and Black Panther getting married? Spider-man and Mary Jane getting married? That’s big—because that changes the dynamic of A LOT of characters. But Northstar and whoever his gay lover is (EVEN I don’t know the guy’s name (though, I do believe he’s a non-mutant)—and I know my comics!) who friggin’ cares! It’s BORING. It doesn’t make for basic entertainment. I mean, maybe if the storyline is that they’re having a prissy gay wedding, and suddenly Sentinels tear the roof off and kill Northstar? But outside of that, it’s just boring comics—and, to sate the angry conservative voice on the subject, it’ll probably hurt Marvel more than it helps them. Just by virtue of the fact that it’s boring and comic readers don’t care about Northstar’s relationships. They’re taking away from the action and suspense we crave, in order to give us that. Who wants to read that?
Second: Green Lantern, Alan Scott. OK, first, let me explain how DC works. There are (or were) 52 Earths. On Earth Earth, everyone is as we expect them to be. On… say… Earth-3, all the superheroes are actually violent sadistic supervillains. On Earth-9, Superman’s black. On Earth-43, Batman’s a frickin’ vampire. This is what DC comics does. All the stuff they want to play with, it happens on another Earth in another universe. This was a year ago. Since “Flashpoint,” they’re redoing it again. Now we’ve got (so far) New Earth (ie. Normal Earth); Earth-1 (ie. Modern Storylines Earth); and Earth-2 (ie. Rewriting Storylines Earth). Green Lantern is not gay (and couldn’t ever be! He’s been happily married to a woman for like 50 years!). Earth-2 Green Lantern is. Which is about as canonically important as saying that Earth-10 Superman is a Nazi. Yeah, he’s a Nazi—but not in this universe! Earth-2 does not matter. Hell, they’ll probably destroy it when the next Crisis comes around!
If anything, this should be kind of cheered by the conservatives because, in my opinion, it’s kind of a slap in the face to the homosexuals. Instead of making ACTUAL Alan Scott gay—they made ALTERNATE-EARTH Alan Scott gay. And they did so KNOWING that they can just retcon it, or wipe it out alltogether, at any moment. Nothing’s written in stone when it comes to the alternate Earths in the multiverse. It’s not a real commitment to a major change to a major character.
Plus, what was DC Comics thinking?! OH MY GOD, I cannot tell you how many jokes I have heard ridiculing the making of ALAN SCOTT—of all characters—a gay dude. You know why? Because you know what his weakness is? Wood. That’s right—present Alan Scott with a hard, stiff, rigid piece of wood, and he’s helpless. God help Alan Scott when someone slips him a little wood. Oh man, poor Alan Scott—he’s helpless against someone else’s wood. You see what I’m saying here? Do you get the joke? This is just rife with possibility for ridicule.
So…. conservatives? Shut up. You’ve got bigger fish to fry than Northstar and Green Lantern. The ONLY reason the media is giving ANY attention to this is because the media loooooves placating the gay community, and, of course, because they’re trying to misdirect your focus away from the MORE IMPORTANT STORYLINE that is “Captain Incompetence and the Super Zero Squad.”
You know, the tragic tale of Barack Idiot, and his teammates Harry Reid, Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi and friends—and their four years of ruinous administration that has killed productivity, economy, jobs, hope, and actual living breathing Americans.
Eye on the ball, folks. Eye on the ball.