Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
The Mullet Bandit . . . sigh. Why does a guy from Ohio who has become known for holding up banks have to wear a mullet? Doesn't he realize that he's only perpetuating the stereotype that we Ohioans are weird and backward?
Jesus Christ, we can't even rob banks without looking totally lame. Just for the record, I've only maybe seen one person here in Columbus that has a mullet. Anyway, happy Memorial Day, and here's a picture for your visual edification.
|How much you wanna bet that a friend had to talk him|
out of wearing scarlet and gray?
Sunday, May 29, 2011
|We're all Sherlock Holmes, some of|
us just suck at it more than others.
I don't really care to discuss Huckabee's bullshit history lessons, but rather the overall competition between perspectives of history. Here's the quote that did it for me: "I'll never trust white men history again."
It's difficult for me to understand why people can't view history objectively. I mean, I know that almost all historical interpretation is fairly subjective, but that doesn't change the facts of what happened. When you take all the perspectives of history and combine them, then you realize that history is objective, you just need all the perspectives to see the objectivity of it.
Here's an example to clarify exactly what the fuck I'm talking about. Let's look at the American Revolution. Now, from an American perspective we were trying to preserve and enhance our democratic way of life. We believed that the taxes imposed on us, which we were unable to oppose because we were barred from representing ourselves in Parliament, were ridiculous and restrictive. We also believed that the crown was wrong to keep us from moving west to settle. Those are all very valid points, and the perspective is correct.
|Joseph Ellis: To some, what he has said about the American|
Revolution is bullshit simply because he's a white male.
Competing perspectives doesn't mean that history is "wrong." History is never wrong, it's merely the people who write about it. History has already happened, it can't be changed, and it's up to us to discover the truth.
The problem today, especially with progressivism, is that people think that only one specific perspective of history is the "correct," version. People don't realize that unless a version of history is completely making up facts or erroneously recounting an event, then it's not wrong simply because it leaves out some facts. Compare the historical perspective of the landed Southern planter class to the slaves perspective. "America sucked ass," we could imagine the slaves recounting. "America was fucking balling out of control," said the planters.
Both perspectives are correct but slanted. Of course the slaves thought America sucked because they were getting their fucking feet cut off and shit, but they're leaving out the fact that America was really good to people who weren't slaves. And of course the planters thought America was awesome because they were rich as hell from all the "free labor," but they leave out the fact that they "owned" human beings and treated them like livestock to be bought, sold, and brutally repressed.
|Richard Hofstadter: White male, therefore also|
So I'm sorry for all of you Marxists, but viewing history as nothing more than the history of class struggle, although meritorious and truthful in some respects, is not a complete view of history. Ignoring historical perspectives doesn't make you anymore knowledgeable or enlightened, in fact it just means that you've sacrificed one brand of tunnel vision for another.
(Fun Fact: my brand of history has always been intellectual history.)
Saturday, May 28, 2011
|This is the best we can do?|
|The pissed off face of an honest man.|
Friday, May 27, 2011
Myself and others have been boned by blogger this past week on the whole comment thing, but I've created a solution. I got the idea from Silverfiddle's blog Western Hero, which is a good blog btw that I highly recommend (especially if you find some of my sentiments too liberal for your personal tastes).
Silver has his comment thing set up so that it comes up as a pop-up window. That has solved the problem. You should now be able to post comments to CFGM under your blogger profile if you were previously unable to do so.
Don't forget to read my actual article for today. It's a doozie =)
|. . . because I'm a sick fuck.|
|Bobby O., the founding father of the|
|60 years ago, that dude on the left in this photo of the|
Ardennes Forest would have been fragged.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
|"My choice IS your choice, assholes!"|
|You're all hypocrites!|
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Apparently they are having a problem with people being able to sign in to post comments. I am one of the afflicted. So please know that I am, indeed, reading all of your comments and wishing that I could respond to them.
I know Harrison, I need to get my own webpage. And to those of you who are visiting/commenting for the first time, thanks for stopping by!
|I know this makes me a giant dork, but it's a good picture.|
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
|As always, we are here.|
Monday, May 23, 2011
Sorry pal, but it's no surprise that you suck.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Anyway, give Political Realities a visit today and check out my piece on why my take on Obama's Israel-Palestinian conflict is so radically different from that of the conservative blogosphere. You can click on this article's title which will lead you directly to my article, or you can click on the Political Realities link if you want to peruse the site. It's a good one =)
Saturday, May 21, 2011
|He had NOTHING to say about politics|
A few weeks ago someone on Crooks and Liars posted an online study in how much U.S. citizens know about American civics. The study posted the group's findings, and it even included a 33 question civics test. I'll say that the test was moderately challenging. It wasn't difficult for me, but I attribute that to the fact that I majored in American history and Political Science in college. I can imagine where it could be difficult for someone who hadn't.
Anyway, I only missed two questions, and they were economics questions that were really ambiguous and poorly worded, and surprisingly many people on C&L did just as well or a little bit worse than me (I can't attest to how many did it entirely off the cuff like me or looked up answers they didn't know). Well, one of the questions asked "Which of the following to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas have in common:" and the correct answer was something along the lines of "all believed that there are certain universal truths that human beings can discover and understand through the power of reason." For me, that question was a no-brainer.
One jackass on C&L, however, stated "I don't know what the hell Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas have to do with American government or why this question would even be on an American civics test."
Story 2: I was out with some friends of mine for all-you-can-eat wings night at Quaker Steak. A mutual "friend," of ours, a bleeding heart liberal, came with us. We'll call him Clay. I was talking politics with another friend of mine, and somewhere in there I mentioned Aristotle. Clay says to me "well Aristotle didn't really have much to do with politics. He was more of a philosopher."
|Natural rights theory? WTF is that???|
The reason I have so much difficulty talking politics with almost everyone on C&L, with jackasses like Clay, and with morons like marie on Capitol Commentary (the author, Harrison, is a stand-up guy and is awesome in political discussions, btw) is because none of these people have a fucking clue, not a shred of knowledge base in political theory.
Why? I don't have a fucking clue. Probably because they think that things like ideas and political theory don't matter. It's no wonder that they're so easily able to contradict themselves and their own ideologies, because they don't even know where the hell they're getting their shit. They probably heard someone on Fox News or CNN say something salient that they accepted as true, and they ran with it.
News flash, morons: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas--among others--laid the groundwork for what we all know to be Natural Rights theory. John Locke didn't just make this shit up out of nowhere. He was well read in the classics, and he understood the same basic principle that these intrepid men did: that there is such a thing as universal truth, and we can know it if we just stop being dumbasses.
John Locke didn't say that humans have the right to choose only a democracy. He said that when the government has infringed on the rights of the people, the people have the obligation to rise up and choose their form of government. Sharia might be shitty, but the people have the right to choose it. We might say that Sharia infringes on people's rights, but it's not for us to forcefully impose our standard of living on another people. They must come to that conclusion as we did. We can tell them how we think on the subject, we can sanction them because we believe they are violating their people's rights, but if the people choose it, who are we to stop them?
|Guess which one represents me in this photo.|
Ideas matter, and because of that it's up to us to educate people about them, not force them to believe us. You simply can't force a way of life on a people: the people have to want it.
If your political theory or philosophy comes from any news network, if it comes from the blogosphere or some op-ed piece you read in the Washington Post or the New York Times, then you've already failed, and you know nothing of politics.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
|They got got.|
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
He’s a fairly fucked up character. It’s odd because he’s supposed to be a hero, since he fights on the side of the Watchmen who generally fight for justice in a perpetually unjust world. He hurts civilians, he blew away some Vietnamese chick he impregnated (while she was pregnant with his child), and he tried to rape the original Silk Spectre (another member of the Watchmen). Why the hell is he considered a hero?
The unintended consequence of liberty is that eventually society becomes so free that even the slightest infringement on liberty is seen as an aggregious affront to freedom. Machiavelli knew that the only way one could avoid civil unrest entirely was to repress the people. The American Dream, the idea that democracy and a sovereign people is realized in a society, means that unrest will eventually foment, even for the stupidest reasons. The freer we are to allow human nature to surface, the uglier it manifests.
The Comedian came to the conclusion that the world is hopeless. How can there be hope when even the heroes are villains, when the saints are sinners? That's a conclusion that I came to myself not too long ago. For a long time I agonized over the state of humanity, and I lamented the fact that I brough two beautiful and innocent children into this evil. It's a pill that not many are willing to swallow, and even fewer are willing to do so with a smile.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
This sort of answers the question of theodicy, that burning question in our hearts of “if God loves us so much then why does he allow us to suffer the evils of the world?” Why does God allow some to die but others to live? Why does God allow good people to suffer in unimaginable ways?
Monday, May 16, 2011
This is about as retarded as banning chocolate milk from schools. Check it: kids eat one meal a day at school, and I'm doubting that it's that one single meal that's making them fat. It's more likely that mommy and daddy don't promote an active lifestyle, and they probably let them eat whatever they want at home.
I saw a fat little girl at the supermarket the other day. She couldn't have been older than about 4, but she was about as wide as she was tall. And what was she doing while walking around? Sucking on a god damned blow-pop.
Two words: Personal Repsonsibility. Parents, don't let your kids get fat. Government, stay the fuck out of my kids' eating habbits.
Sunday, May 15, 2011