Read this article but skip the parts where he supports Bernie. This is exactly the type of religious person modern society (mostly it’s liberals — sorry guys but it’s true) love to mock. Who told you to support Bernie, my man? Your magical friend in the sky? Read a book sometime. Ever heard of science, you fool?
Libs hold up religious people that support them like Republicans hold up minorities. Like they found a fucking unicorn. If this guy didn’t support Bernie he’d be just another religious nut job bringing his mystical beliefs to the public square. And morons put it on Facebook and then lecture Christians about how they’ve misread the Bible. These are the same people who would never tell any other religion they’ve misunderstood their own scripture but always do it to Christians. They are all so fucking full of shit.
We’re still waiting on the judge to rule whether this blogger / mother / foster parent is a well-intentioned moron or a pompous asshat. Since she is a foster parent and mother with a bunch of rugrats she cares for, I’m going to assume she has good intentions. Let me state too that she very likely is a better person than me. Smarter, no. But definitely better.
I would try to paraphrase her blog but I’d rather not be accused of mischaracterizing her argument so I’ll settle for being accused of taking her out of context.
The background is that this lady’s five kids made a ruckus in the checkout line at the grocery store. Pretty harmless and most people behind her in line were patient. However, some jerks behind this lady at the grocery store made some remark about her having too many kids (the foster kids being supported with a little government money) while they had a pro-life sticker on their car.
This is prime TL;DR material, so I’ll just give you the “best of.”
If you encounter a family who is using government assistance to provide nourishing food for a child and your first thought is “Stupid welfare mongrels. My taxes buy that!” I am not sure you are pro-life.
And we got a live one! One thing this lady really likes doing is stating the nickname of a specific political position and taking it literally. If you don’t want your money going into welfare programs, you are not paying for someone’s food and therefore are literally not supporting their lives. You’re not “pro-life.” Get it, you hypocrite? I’ll pause for the infallibility of her position to overwhelm all previous notions you had.
That’s a tough pill to swallow, huh? You may counter with complaints of system abuse, inefficiencies, or the inherent problem with incentivizing people to not provide for their own children, but I’m sure you’ll find those positions obsolete now.
If you hear about the unaccompanied children crossing the border and if you know that their parents were so desperate for them to simply have a chance at life, they urged them to risk death to run for freedom, and your reply is, “Damn, illegals. Let’s build a wall!” I need to ask you, are you really pro-life? Their mothers chose to give them life in the most impossible of situations, and if they do not escape that life, they will almost certainly die. Again, I ask you, are you sure you are pro life?
Much like her previous assertion, this one finds a stark contrast between how the world really works and how she romanticises women she feels sympathy for. The fact is there is a large difference between the type of immigrants she describes and the makeup of the body of illegal immigrants as a whole coming across the southern border. I know she singles out the unaccompanied minors, but she has romanticised them along with the average illegal immigrant.
Even if we allow for her view of what type of immigrant all these people are, her alternate outcome of them facing certain deal is idiotic hyperbole at best. What’s my evidence? When the economy took a downturn and the government was just a little tougher on businesses as far as enforcing existing laws, illegal immigrants left in droves. So I guess it wasn’t so bad whenever they came from, right? At least not certain death. Cause unemployment and illegal status in America is certainly better than death.
And again, we’ll cut her weak argument some slack: even if they didn’t leave and all immigrants were mothers seeking only the safety of the children, how much goodwill can our country afford? Cause they don’t need to immigrate for this lady to support them–she can send her money south right now. But she can’t support all then on her own, right? And that’s my point.
Choosing life is hard for so many women, because they know just how hard raising that life is. It is an overwhelming pressure to want to give an innocent child the world, especially when this world is so ugly and broken. All mothers, even moms with planned pregnancies feel that pressure. Imagine the fear, isolation, and trepidation you would feel if you are pregnant in a situation in which you are totally unprepared for. So, if you are going to tell a mom to choose life, then you also need to be willing to support her in the life that will follow her courageous choice, because life will sometimes, maybe often, be hard. How can you be adamantly pro-life but then be unwilling to do anything to help those lives out?
How many moms do I have to support? So if I think killing a viable fetus is wrong and something that should be outlawed in our society I’m then responsible for all unaborted children because the mom “chose life?” I’m nearly dumbfounded by this one. Again, her emotional female solidarity with pregnant women has eclipsed rational thought. It’s not an incompatible position to be against a woman aborting her child and simultaneously think she shouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place. It’s also not hypocritical, given a child is already born, to support it by not supporting it. That is, requiring the mother and father to care for the child without public assistance. It may be tough but isn’t that the story of the human race?
Lastly, number 4:
The following is the gem she opens with. I didn’t open with it because neither did she. Yes, it was at the front of her article, but it was clear that she had already reached certain conclusions but now had to back-trace some logical premise so her conclusions would appear to simply flow out of her intellectual musings.
In my simplistic thinking it makes sense that if you agree with the view that life begins at conception, you must also agree with the view that life doesn’t end at birth. Therefore, being pro-life shouldn’t be just about supporting a child’s rights during their nine months in-utero but should also be about supporting the children’s (and their mother’s) lives after they are born.
Yes, your view is simplistic. So simplistic it’s idiotic. “[I]t makes sense that if you agree with the view that life begins at conception, you must also agree with the view that life doesn’t end at birth.” What? That doesn’t make sense, darling. In fact, it’s sophistic nonsense that does nothing but trick the reader into thinking that the rest of your blog flows from logical thought. But it doesn’t. Really, it doesn’t.
Now let’s get to the part where I mischaracterize her: a mother with too many young kids in the checkout line to manage alone gets condescending remarks from some WASPy assholes. Mom goes on rant she’s been saving up for some time, letting loose of all that frustration that comes from seeing so many kids with shitty homes or no homes at all. Justifiable feelings, especially considering that this woman appears to be a saint. But feelings like these always work their way into public policy with disastrous consequences and shouldn’t be applauded in that respect. In the words of Mr. McInnes, speaking about women voters, “We love that you have big hearts, but when you take those hearts and point them at the ballot box, you get a dog’s breakfast.”
I have a confession to make: I like every single Vin Diesel movie unironically. I was all-in on the Fast movies before it became a thing to love them (for example, #1 is legitimately my favorite). I’ve seen Chronicles of Riddick (director’s cut only, please) more times than I should admit. Enjoyed The Pacifier, A Man Apart, Babylon A.D., and (if you can believe it) Find Me Guilty. His movies range from “mediocre” to “pretty good” but he is AWESOME in all of them. Fact is, Vin Diesel is so freaking good at being Vin Diesel.
The funny part is I live in Los Angeles and have friends that work in film. They recommend all kinds of highly touted movies to me and I spend my time watching movies like this one above. I appreciate film as an art form and can understand which movies are okay and which are “brilliant” by film people’s standards. But I just don’t care.
I can’t even explain my own film preference. Here are some recent examples:
- Whiplash – didn’t see it, don’t care about it
- Age of Ultron – okay but pretty boring
- Guardians of the Galaxy – kid stuff but still pretty good
- That Awkward Moment – just okay but still saw it 2.5 times
- Birdman – didn’t see it, don’t care
- Coffee Town – pretty funny
- Horrible Bosses – fucking stupid
- The Change-Up – two funny parts but pretty bad
- Both Planet of the Apes – didn’t see but looked fucking stupid
- Edge of Tomorrow – awesome
- Hobbit movies – fucking boring
- John Wick – awesome
- Harry Potter movies – stupid ass kid shit
- Let’s Be Cops – pretty funny
- Newest X-Men movie – didn’t see it / stupid ass kid shit
- Secret Life of Walter Mitty – borderline hippie nonsense but still liked it
- Rush – awesome
- Game of Thrones – fucking stupid
- True Detective Season 1 – fucking awesome; didn’t even start season 2
- Silicon Valley – liked season 1, season 2 ep 1 was funny but quit watching after it
- Veep – watched seasons 1-3 and like it, never tried season 4
- Les Miserables – didn’t see it; looked like shit
- Lone Survivor – pretty good but only for one time
- Theory of Everything – didn’t see it, don’t care
- Gone Girl – didn’t see it, don’t care
An Open Letter to Joy Behar (yes, fucking Joy Behar, one of the bitches on that goddamn awful all-female talkfest The View that no one gives a shit about until one of the harpies screams something that people can self-indulgently write about) **
I guess Joy Behar said something negative about some chick using “nursing” as her talent in the Miss America show.
It doesn’t even matter if I agree with the topic of these open letters anymore, I just want to be fucking done with all of them. How about just call it an “opinion piece” or a “persuasive essay”? In fact, why do these things need to be called anything at all? Why not just write something, give it a title, and call it good? In fact, I’m kind of writing an open letter right now–an open letter to open letter writers–but I’m not such an asshole that I need to title it that way.
I think you call it an “open letter” just so you can be as bitchy as possible. (No, this isn’t another one of my female rants because I equally hate open letters written by men–perhaps more so.) It’s such a narcissistic way to write; that you’re so important and insightful that everyone would be interested to hear your conversation with someone far more famous than you. It’s very lazy writing, too. The whole tone of every open letter I’ve ever read is so fucking self-righteous, sniveling, and crybaby that they reek like those goddamn internet memes that people repost with captions like, “you tell ’em!” or preach!” or “this^^^”.
I’m not sure what Joy Behar said and I don’t really care, but if she said that nursing isn’t a real talent she’s right. It’s a profession and you have job skills. Maybe you’re “talented” at your job skills but that’s kind of hard to distinguish from just being not fire-able. Why don’t all the waitresses in the group walk around with a tray? What an idea. Let’s just showcase what we do for a living, won’t that be fun? The realtors can show a house. The lawyers can write a few briefs. The I-Bankers can suck up to senior management. And the pharma reps can have sex with a doctor.
I said earlier this wasn’t a female rant so let me do that real quick: is there anyone more eager to pat herself on the back for just being competent at a job than your average woman?
P.S. Hypothetical: would you want this chick as your nurse? She’s pretty annoying but she’s also super hot. As a man, you have to know where your talents with women lie how to put yourself in the best situation to succeed. Me being laid up in a hospital bed is not doing me any favors unless I’m there because I jumped in front of a bus for someone (yeah right). And since she’s probably more annoying than hot, I’m going with no, I’d rather not have her as my nurse.
** And no, I didn’t fucking read it. And I also didn’t fucking watch that video I posted.
I take a backroad home from work that winds through a residential area. I’m sure the amount of traffic on this road infuriates the people that live there to no end, buuuut you probably should have thought of that before you bought a house on a cut-through street right next to a major business area.
But that isn’t the point of today’s lesson. This backstreet has a 35 MPH limit and is loaded with 4-way stops with almost no traffic on the cross streets. The problem is the idiots who decide to floor it every chance they get and reach up to 50 MPH between stop signs and then all of a sudden decide to be goddamn Boy Scouts at each stop sign. They stop, count to 3 like they’re in fucking driver’s ed, look both ways… and then fucking floor it to the next stop sign.
Guys, grow up. Either drive fast and roll the stop sign like an adult, or obey all the laws. If you’re too dumb to assess the cross traffic at a 4-way stop without coming to a stop and counting to 3, then you certainly don’t have the reflexes or mental ability to drive over 35 through the residential area without being a hazard to everyone else.
P.S. On a personal level, I have more 10x more respect for the guy that follows the 35 MPH and then rolls the stop sign than the other way around. Listen, you roll a stop sign because you have a brain and can see there are no other cars or pedestrians at the 4-way stop. You keep it at 35 when winding through the neighborhood because there are kids, bikes, double-parked cars, joggers, and other things that could randomly come into your path that you cannot physically avoid once your speed exceeds a certain rate. And speaking for the residents, I much prefer cars going slow and rolling stop signs in my neighborhood than having to deal with the dickheads who drive too fast.
Yes. The answer is yes. But this is not one of the examples.
“Absolutely. Yeah, I do (regret it),” McElwain said Monday. “I’m by no means perfect and I do know our players know how much I care about them. At the end of it, it also was a hug in learning from it.
“Yeah, I definitely did (learn from it). I’m pretty passionate about what we do. There’s no doubt about it. I’m not proud about it and neither is my mother. … 94 years old and I got an earful from her too. Rightfully so.” (Source)
When you’re a grown man and your mom calls you up to let you have it about something, you probably fucked up. Even if deep down you don’t really think it was a fuck up, you say, “Yes Mom” and you get out there and apologize. Even the toughest guy in the world reevaluates his actions when Momma calls.
So even though I’d love to rant about how PC police (read: nerds and women) have ruined sports, I just can’t do it here because Coach McElwain’s mother got involved. Next time, though, I’ll be ready.
Here’s an article I found that I thought was worth responding to.
Ah, the plight of the affluent 20-somethings. The disillusionment that comes from being in their first or second job out of college, with plenty of disposable income, having no real responsibilities (e.g., commitments to anyone but themselves)… but also with no idea what they want to do with their lives. Maybe they have a volunteer activity or a “cause” (ugh) they put time into, or a dog, or an interesting hobby they’re all about. Maybe they like drinking and sports; maybe it’s board games; maybe they’re a television junkie or an outdoorsy type. Odds are they regularly see the same half dozen-ish friends and know they should make some changes in their lives, but can’t work up the motivation since their lives, while being currently unsatisfactory, are rather comfortable.
This should all sound familiar. It’s not a bad life, per se, but if you sat these people down and said, “Are you happy?” few could give a “yes” and be certain.
On its own, the article I referenced above isn’t terribly insightful because the author buys into the same trappings that landed our Gen Y heroes in the mess they’re in. Specifically, that pursuing meaningless things can actually provide meaning in your own life. This is a mistake (and we’ll come back to it later). Not realizing this, the author supposes that the source of happiness comes from the following, made easy with his graphic:
I guess this is kind of a clever thought since I’ve been saying the same thing literally for years. Except in my version “Happiness” is replaced with “Level of Rage During Traffic Jam.” Think about it.
As we go on, though, let me point out that while I called this equation clever, it is “fun to discuss at parties” clever, not “describing the human condition” clever. But the author takes it for the latter and is off to the races. Let me summarize his argument: happiness = reality – expectations; reality is crappier now than it was for your parents; you’ve been raised on sunshine and rainbows and those goddamn participation trophies; your expectations are too high for your own life; everyone else thinks also they’re special and like to brag about that; you see them bragging and become more dismayed; all these things together means you are unhappy; QED.
His solutions? I’ll actually quote him here.
I don’t want to slam this article too much because these solutions are not bad things. In fact, they’re things that every mature person should learn and the sooner he learns them, the better. But the key to happiness they are not.
What is the key then? I’ll answer that by exploring another question. That is, what is our purpose in existing? As a religious man, I could wax on and on about that using mystic phrases, but I’m going to be more concrete instead and think of it in terms of biology and evolution. * Now I admit, I don’t know much about either one of those things, but I do have a few simple truths. Namely, 1) humans are social creatures, 2) along with all other species, our most powerful instinct is to procreate, 3) the family is the most effective way to ensure future generations. Therefore, according to biology, family is the only thing that should matter to you. To the extent that Millennials continue to deny this biological purpose, they will continue to feel unfulfilled. Their bodies and minds know deep down what they need to be doing.
Something that surprises many girls I’ve gone out with is that I don’t give two shits what they do for a living. It sometimes (usually) is a turn-off for them because for many young women their job is very important to them and they are very proud of it. I’m looking for something more from them because NONE OF THAT OTHER STUFF MATTERS! “You are not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You’re not your fucking khakis.”
In short, happiness is found in fulfilling your purpose for existence. In less abstract terms, happiness is in family and faith. I explained family but now for some words on faith. I don’t care what your faith or religion is, but it does matter. While family defines your place in humanity faith defines your place in the universe. It promotes peace of mind through a willingness to accept things you cannot understand or cannot change. It can provide the contentment that comes from living in accordance with a philosophy promoted by a higher and wiser power. Faith is very much a choice and for those of you who choose to not believe in anything I ask you, in the grand scheme of things what does believing hurt? Would life really be so bad if you exercised a little faith in something? By having no faith in anything are you really better off in your personal life? Are you really making the world a better place? Examine the lives of those who do believe and reevaluate your answers.
Now let’s circle back to my beginning complaints about how everyone is wasting their time on stupid stuff and get some closure: You can have hobbies. You can have a dog and a job you like and TV shows you never miss. But never lose track of your primary purpose. “What matters most is what lasts longest.” This can be hard for those of us who currently can’t find “the one” but the prize is worth the fight, however long it may last. Take it from almost anyone living this lifestyle and from thousands of years of human history. In our rush to usher in a new age of gender roles and family redefinitions, we made the error of assuming that there was nothing redeemable in tradition.
Despite its failings, the article we reviewed above is indicative of one important thing: that we’re finally starting to notice how unhappy we all are. Perhaps we’ve known this for some time, but I think we’re starting to understand that our lack of happiness may be coming from the culture in which we were raised, as opposed to a condition that needs medication.
However, there is still a long way to go. The big crux that everyone is missing is that you’re unhappy because your life is being spent in the pursuit of things that cannot ever make you happy. Not only does the article misses this but most of modern society misses this. In fact, it may well be the leading cause conflict in our first-world lives. But that topic will have to be left for another day. A day when I’m not trying to figure out which of my drinking buddies should take care of my dog next month while I backpack through Europe with my new camera trying to learn photography.
* There’s so much more about the evolution of the family that is far beyond the scope of this short post. By way a short (and rather ignorant) overview, men have an instinctive desire to spread their genes as much as possible — hence the male drive to have sex with as many women as possible. (Best chance for posterity given fragile human infants = spread your seed as much as possible.) Conversely, women have a instinctive desire to “nest” in a monogamous relationship. This is mostly because 1) their procreative years are much shorter than men’s, 2) they are the physically weaker sex, and 3) human pregnancy is long and for the most part only involves one child at a time. The most advanced human cultures settled long ago on the monogamous family relationship in which the woman gets her male protector/provider and the man, rather than being unable to care for many children by many women, instead properly cares for fewer children by one women (quality over quantity). This explains why 1) the traditional household is still the best model, 2) it is more socially acceptable for men to sleep around than women (not than they should), and 3) differences in the sexes should be celebrated rather than stifled.
Thank god we won a game. I have a hard enough time living in Dodgers land without getting swept during an inter-league series at a pivotal point in the season. I admit it’s hard to be too upset since Greinke and Kershaw pitched in the two Dodger wins but goddamn having to listen to my Dodger-fan friends gloat.
Well, a W is a W (and I won’t look at the standings until we’ve won a couple more).
WASHINGTON, Pa. (KDKA) — Ask any client at Barbiere in Washington County and he’ll tell you the upscale gentleman’s barbershop offers more than just your typical haircut.
From the rugged décor to the macho atmosphere, it’s a place where guys can unwind with a complimentary cocktail or enjoy a cold beer.
“[I] come here, talk sports, guy talk. A great place to get away after a hard day’s work, get a haircut and have a beer,” said client Robert Craig.
Now, the business is at the center of a heated debate after owner John Interval was fined $750 for refusing to cut a woman’s hair.
She filed an action with the state’s Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs.
That agency imposed the fine for gender discrimination after a state investigator visited the business and interviewed Interval.
Something apparent to everyone who read this article but I’ll still say anyway: this broad went to the barbershop looking for a fight, not a haircut. It wasn’t some innocent, “Oh I just really needed a haircut and just wanted to be helped and they screamed at me, belittled me, and turned me away!” It was more like, “I saw a sign that implied somewhere that men could go without women so I decided to try to ruin it for everyone.”
Here’s an actual video of this woman when she was a child (click the picture).*
This is old but will go down as a classic, too. Bill Burr had something to say about women butting into everything men do on their own.
Once again, everyone proves my point that modern feminism is nothing more than a group of bitter females trying to get validation from a man.
* This makes two blogs in two days where a Simpsons clip completely explains the story. The most clever part of this clip is calling out the feminist activist for being completely phony and trying to crash a party she doesn’t even really care if she attends. Ha. I don’t really think you can beat classic Simpsons.
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) —The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance that will ban smokeless tobacco from stadiums, fields and other sports venues.
“That would include our public parks, our public school facilities, our private school facilities, Dodger Stadium, Staples arena, wherever organized sports are played, smokeless tobacco will not be allowed,” Councilman Jose Huizar said.
The Los Angeles Dodgers issued a statement expressing their support for the ban. “Major League Baseball has long supported a ban of smokeless tobacco at the Major League level and the Los Angeles Dodgers fully support the Los Angeles city tobacco ordinance and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,” the statement said.
“Smokeless tobacco is the agent of a contagious disease,” said former Los Angeles County Health director Dr. Jonathan Fielding. “It is not a mosquito flying around here that’s going to cause a disease. This is done through the eyes, through the eyes of children looking at their heroes.” he said.
Don’t get confused because what’s happening here is this: a bunch of moralists decided chewing tobacco is icky and sends a bad message so they must stop it wherever they can find it. What’s next? Cursing? Who says personal beliefs don’t belong in the public square of legislation? I guess that only applies to people whose personal beliefs come from a religion. Especially if that religion is Christianity. Because then it’s, “GTFO with your phsychobable beliefs from your white bearded man in the clouds! We govern our country with logic and reason, not fairy tales!”
Literal laugh out loud quote from “Dr.” Jonathan Fielding. The disease is done “through the eyes of children.” Hey man, I wasn’t bamboozled as a kid into smoking or chewing or tattoos. It wasn’t until I was a full-grown adult man that I realized that tobacco and tats are cool as fuck. The cruel joke is that as a kid I was too big of pussy to do those things but now as a grown-up, I’m not dumb enough to do them. Not doing more stupid shit as a kid is an everyday regret of mine.
And yeah, ball players in the dugout ruin kids lives. Not the thousands of fans sitting next to the kids who get drunk off their asses every night. No move to ban alcohol? OK then.
Sorry, I should be thanking God we have people like Mr. Fielding and Councilman Jose Huizar to make sure people are eating the right things and presenting the right image to our poor impressionable children.
P.S. As long as we’re banning things at ballparks, can we add Dodger Dogs to the list? For that team to stop dipping but accept those carcinogens is the height of hypocrisy.